Mr.
Woolas: I am treading into areas about which I know
nothing. I accept hon. Members’ pronunciation—I was
surprised when I heard the other
pronunciation. Seriously,
however, there is a consensus on this matter. In 2001, when my right
hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr.
Blunkett) and I first made the suggestion, it was met with derision by
the commentating class, but now there is
consensus. The
second requirement on migrants will be to contribute to the economy and
to pay tax, if they are economic migrants. Thirdly, and critically,
there is a requirement to obey the law so that criminal behaviour will
have certain consequences. In that sense, the word
“probation” is
right. The
requirement to undertake active citizenship is also included, and the
ability of the migrant to progress more quickly by meeting those active
citizenship criteria is a sensible change in policy. In my experience,
the vast majority of immigrants to our country want to get on. They
want to learn to speak English. They want to improve circumstances for
their families, and we want to help them to do so. The clause not only
helps the migrant, it helps to reassure the wider population that the
migrant wants to be in our country, wants to make a positive
contribution, wants to obey our laws and wants to learn our language.
In the long run that will change the relationship between the migrant
and the indigenous population in a wholly positive way. That is why I
am grateful for the support of the House for that
principle. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
41 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
42The
qualifying
period
Damian
Green: I beg to move amendment 45, in
clause 42, page 34, line 42, at
end insert ‘; or— (c) has
participated in activities of benefit to the individual applicant, the
host organisation and the wider
community.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 46, in
clause 42, page 34, line 42, at
end insert— ‘(6) The
activity condition can be completed at any point during an
applicant’s arrival in this country or the subsequent
probationary citizenship
stage.”’.
Damian
Green: The Minister has just helpfully mentioned the
activity condition, which is clearly a central new idea that the
Government are introducing. The amendment is designed to probe some of
the details. At the moment there is a large black hole in the Bill as
to what is meant by activity condition. Even those who accept in
principle the argument that the Minister made in our most recent
debate, have a series of legitimate questions about how this activity
condition will be implemented in practice. Yet again, inevitably, the
details are not given and are left to be clarified in secondary
legislation, but as it is such a significant shift in this
country’s attitude to immigration and immigrants, it is worth
the House knowing as much as it is possible to know at this
stage. I
was grateful to receive an e-mail yesterday—I am sure the whole
Committee received it—about the document that had been made
available. I was slightly less thrilled when I discovered that the
document had been sitting in the Vote Office for 48 hours before the
e-mail went out. The Minister looks puzzled, but the document is dated
4
June—
Mr.
Woolas: It is an evolving
document.
Damian
Green: It may be, but one of the amendments before us is
specifically addressed in the document. The document was not publicised
to any members of the Committee until after it was possible to table
amendments in time for them to be debated now. I do not think that was
an organisational triumph. We can deal quickly with amendment 44, which
seeks to say that the activity condition can be completed at any point
during an applicant’s arrival in this country or the subsequent
probationary citizenship stage. On carefully reading the document, I
discovered that is the Government’s thought too. I am pleased
that in that detail the Minister and I are thinking along the same
lines.
The
Chairman: Order. May I try to be helpful? I think the hon.
Gentleman is referring to amendment 45, not 44. We are debating
amendment 45, with which it is possible to discuss amendment
46.
Damian
Green: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I meant to say amendment
46, not amendment 44. I knew that I wanted to refer to the second
amendment in the group. Amendment 46 is covered explicitly in the
document and, either by coincidence or some other happy event, the
Minister and I arrived at the same
conclusion. The
Minister will be aware that in another place, my noble Friend Lady
Hanham questioned Ministers carefully on the detail of the activity
scheme and condition. She was not satisfied that all the voluntary
sector’s concerns had been properly considered, and thought that
the practical application of the scheme was still too vague. The
document addresses some of the practical issues, to which I shall turn
in a minute, because some of the suggestions are dubious and
others—frankly—even
worse. The
underlying problem is that the proposals for earned citizenship will
rapidly create fairly big bureaucracies, and the groups most affected
will be in the voluntary sector, which we all hope to support and we
all know is most vulnerable to bureaucracy. Small charities and
volunteering organisations are the least able to cope with onerous
bureaucracy. That would be extremely unfortunate for the voluntary
sector, which is keen to help and, by and large, wants more volunteers
and
would like to serve many of the purposes for which the Minister argues
under the activity condition and earned citizenship. Nevertheless,
their lives will be a misery if the scheme produces too much
bureaucracy. Many
of the underlying problems are summed up in five questions from
Volunteering England, which is part of the steering group, so I hope
that it is having a significant input to the Government’s
thinking. I would like the Minister to respond to the five
questions.
First, how
does the Minister expect organisations without the financial resources
to reimburse volunteers for travel and other out-of-pocket costs to
participate equally in the active citizenship scheme? That is a
reasonable and practical question. Secondly, many potential applicants
will have caring responsibilities and may not be able to rely on family
members for the care of children and other dependants. How will he
ensure that funds are made available to reimburse participants for
costs such as fees for child minding or respite care incurred while
fulfilling the requirements of the active citizenship scheme?
Thirdly, does
the Minister agree with Volunteering England that every potential
applicant should have an equal opportunity to participate in the active
citizenship scheme, and what does he propose to do to support those
with extra needs linked to disability, or even straightforward lack of
literacy in English? Fourthly, a recent national survey on volunteer
management by the Institute for Volunteering Research shows that nearly
a third of organisations do not have the time or resources to cope with
more volunteers. That puts a gloss on the point I have just made that,
on the whole, the volunteering sector wants more volunteers, but a
third of the organisations cannot cope with more. How will the Minister
encourage organisations in that position to open up to new
opportunities? In particular, how are they supposed to spend time on
the verification arrangements for the active citizenship scheme? I
shall return to the verification arrangements, because they pose a
serious problem that must be
addressed. Other
people have expressed considerable and legitimate fears as to what will
happen. There are those, including organisations such as Liberty, who
object in principle, saying that the scheme is discriminatory and
exploitative. At this stage, it will be useful for the Minister to
address that complaint, which I do not share. I can see how the scheme
might become discriminatory, but I do not think that it will be
discriminatory in principle. Clearly, however, if the Minister wants
overwhelming acceptance of the whole idea of earned citizenship, he
will have to take that argument head-on. The Minister looks slightly
puzzled. I will
explain. 2.15
pm There
are those who say that in principle, any earned citizenship scheme is
discriminatory and exploitative. While I have a small amount of
sympathy—I can see how it might be—I do not see any
reason why in principle it should be. As the Minister argues the case
for the new scheme, he will have to take on that particular
argument. Associated
with that is the general point that whereas some migrants will find it
easy to contribute, and their lifestyle, skills, work and family
position make it fairly easy for them to take on extra voluntary work
for the
number of hours that the Minister proposes, that will not be true of
others. At that point, it is quite hard to argue that it is not
discriminatory. The other point, which I think is valid, was made by
Liberty. It is unclear how the Government intend or expect to regulate
volunteering on that
scale. The
document, which I keep referring to, addresses the regulation. Let me
move on to it, because it gives rise to some of the most difficult
questions that the Minister has to answer if he believes that he will
create a good and practical scheme. The document states that the
Government “place
the onus on the applicant to tell the truth about their ‘active
citizenship’ with their citizenship application, but with a role
for a referee and a process to verify the bona fide status of the
organisation concerned...The referee would sign the
applicant’s form to verify that the details given about their
active citizenship were correct. A referee would be defined as someone
in a supervisory capacity with personal knowledge of the
applicant’s active
citizenship.” So
far, it is a bit bureaucratic, but still acceptable. However, the next
suggestion is ridiculous.
“Whilst
the Design Group felt penalties should fall solely on the applicant the
Government’s position is that there will also be penalties for
referees who act inappropriately as an additional safeguard. Under
Section 46 of the British Nationality Act 1981, someone who makes a
false or reckless statement for the purpose of procuring anything to be
done or not to be done under the Act can be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to £5,000, or
both...Both applicants and referees would be subject to
sanction”. The
Minister will try to persuade voluntary bodies and well-meaning people
all over this country to support the scheme. At the start of it, he
will make it compulsory for people to have referees, but he is also
saying that the referee will be laying themselves open to a fine of
£5,000 and three months’ imprisonment if they themselves
are deceived by an applicant. I suggest gently to the Minister that
that cannot be a sensible way to start off—it will not
work. The
Government Whip is shaking his head at me. I am reading word-for-word
from his own document that the Government placed in the Vote Office. He
can disagree with it, and indeed I hope that he does, because I
disagree with it. That is the burden of what I am saying. That does not
seem to be an extremely good way to design a new scheme. I hope the
Minister will mount an elegant retreat from it fairly
quickly. I
also mentioned the regulatory regime that the Minister is proposing to
set up. The document makes the point that some 90 local authorities
currently operate a nationality checking service on a voluntary basis.
Those services check the details of citizenship applications—for
a fee to the applicant—and pass the applications to the UKBA
caseworkers in a state ready for immediate caseworking. The thinking of
the group is that
“our local
authority partners are uniquely placed to offer an accessible service
to applicants for British
citizenship”. Again
that is arguable, but it seems to be a practical step
forward.
However, the
document goes on to say:
“Whilst
the Design Group’s preferred option was to make use of NCS as a
preferred provider, the Government’s initial thinking is that we
should aspire to go further than this and make its use compulsory. The
Government’s position is that ideally, all applications,
particularly those with an active citizenship element, would be
submitted through NCS enabling providers to use their local knowledge
to assess and verify evidence.”
In other words, wrapped
up in all this wording is yet another duty on local authorities. As one
would expect, there is no suggestion that any extra funding will be
available for this service. The document suggests that local
authorities will have to provide this service compulsorily for
immigrants in their area, or that immigrants who do not have a local
authority that provides this service will not be able to use this
method, or that some other compulsion will be operated.
Of course,
the burden for this service will fall hugely disproportionately on a
small number of local authorities. We do not get an even distribution
across the country of long-term immigrants who wish to apply for
citizenship. Inevitably, many of the local authorities that will be
hardest hit by this extra burden will be those that are not the
wealthiest in the country. So I would advise the Minister that if this
idea is, as it is described, an “aspiration” of the
Government, they might wish to stop aspiring to it very quickly,
because it does not seem to be either a practical or a fair
aspiration.
I do not wish
to read out the whole document, because it is available. However, the
third point that I wish to make is about the activities involved: the
very basic things that people can do to prove that they are an active
citizen—a worthy person to be granted the privilege of British
citizenship. The list of such activities bears some examination and
indeed it should be changed by the Minister. It starts off with things
that I suspect nobody would raise an eyebrow at. They
are: “•
volunteering at the local hospital for example helping at a WRVS
shop •
volunteering at a health related community education
project •
volunteering at a local school for example to raise reading levels of
primary school
children”. Of
course, that last activity raises questions about Criminal Records
Bureau checks, as these people are people who, by definition, have
recently come from other countries and we know that CRB checks are much
more difficult to carry out on people who have recently arrived in this
country, and yet we are actively encouraging them to go to work in
schools. Has the Minister thought through the practicalities of that
suggestion?
Other
activities on the list that are still reasonably good
are: “•
volunteering at a lunch club for the
elderly” and “•
volunteering at a soup kitchen for homeless
people”. However,
I question whether some of the activities lower on the list have been
fully thought through. They include:
“•
volunteering for a faith
organisation”. Does
that mean any “faith organisation”? Bodies can declare
themselves to be a “faith organisation”. Not all
self-styled “faith organisations” are necessarily places
where one would want to say, “I have worked there for 15 hours
and therefore I qualify for a fast track to a British passport”.
I put that suggestion to the Minister; he will know as well as I do the
sort of organisations that I am talking about.
The list also
suggests “trade union activities”. I am not sure that
several hours standing on a picket line should necessarily be a
qualification for a fast track to a British passport.
[Interruption.] I thought that that comment would
be controversial across the House.
| 
