Mr.
Woolas: Read the next one.
Damian
Green: No, I shall read the one before, which
is: “•
canvassing for a political party”.
I am happy to say that
we do not find it difficult at the moment to find people to canvass for
our party. I am conscious that, on the Government Benches, it may be
more difficult to find such people than it has been before. However,
the idea that people who, by definition, cannot have a vote because
they are not citizens yet should be specifically encouraged to engage
in some political activity for a party as a way of proving their
“active citizenship” gives rise to some quite significant
questions about how hard this list has been thought through. The
Minister is making a face that makes me think he considers that all
kinds of political activity in all circumstances are
good.
Tom
Brake: The hon. Gentleman has prompted me to rise to my
feet, to ask him whether he thinks that delivering
“Focus” constitutes an active citizenship
activity.
Damian
Green: It is so long since I have found anyone delivering
“Focus” that I cannot really comment. Seriously,
though, when people who have newly arrived in this country ask,
“What should I do to get myself a British passport to become a
citizen?” should we be telling them, “We are the local
political party, why don’t you deliver our leaflets?”
This measure has not been thought
through.
Mr.
David Hamilton: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not
encouraging people to get employment and then not join a trade union
that would protect their rights? Would he bring that in if he were
elected?
Damian
Green: The hon. Gentleman gives rise to another
interesting point, in that this activity will only count if it is
unpaid. From the viewpoint of a strong trade unionist, which I guess
the hon. Gentleman is, it seems slightly perverse that a person is
allowed to work for a trade union, which will qualify them, but then
they must not get paid for it. Imagine the perversity of the situation:
jobs that could be done by people who are being paid are, instead,
being done by people who are unpaid, and the jobs are being done for
trade unions. My understanding of trade unions is that that is the
thing they hate most of all—people doing unpaid labour
displacing people who would otherwise be doing paid labour. This Labour
Government are suggesting precisely that as a qualification. There is a
significant lack of coherence at the heart of this bit of the
proposal.
I am not
clear what consultation has been had with the trade union movement
about this. I am perhaps less in tune with the motives and motivations
of the trade union movement than Labour Members, but even I feel that
this measure is a little perverse. A person can help the trade union as
long as they do not get paid. The moment that they are paid for their
work, it does not count as voluntary activity and does not count as a
qualifying activity for the purpose of active citizenship. I hope that
the Minister will fully explain the thinking that lies behind the
proposal.
Finally, I
should like to note the extraordinary power that is to be provided to
the Secretary of State by the insertion of the proposed new subsection,
which will
allow the Secretary of State by regulation to amend the length of the
qualifying periods for citizenship. We had a long discussion earlier
today about the problems of quasi-retrospection—of changing
things in ways that might be challenged by the courts, as they have
been under the highly skilled migrant programme. A huge power has been
slipped in here by which the Secretary of State can change the length
of time of the regulations. I am genuinely not sure whether that has
been slipped in in the hope that no one would notice. However, we have
noticed, and it seems to be quite a big power given the importance that
the Minister is placing on not just the length of time people have to
go through to qualify for citizenship but the fact that they can do
certain things that reduce that time. He is making it pretty easy for
the current or any future Secretary of State to change the conditions
under which the length of time can be set. I hope the
Minister can address that wide range of important issues, including the
type of activities that would count, the potential burden on the
voluntary sector—specifically the fines for referees and the
amount of form-filling—and the extra burden on local authorities
regarding the nationality checking service and the funding. It is
suggested that the migration impact fund would be used to fund some of
that activity. Up to now, Ministers have said that that fund is
available to local authorities that have been hard hit by unexpected
arrivals of immigrants. There is also the potential burden on
employers, because many of these people who will be doing this
voluntary work will be doing full-time work as well, particularly in
the current economic climate. What is suggested here is that employers
will be happy to give them time off to do their voluntary work.
Clearly, that will be easier for some employers than for others; it
will be easier for large employers than for small
employers.
2.30
pm The
basic point that I am making—I think the Minister will have got
it by now—is that even if one accepts the argument for
encouraging people to integrate, making them feel that they have to
contribute something to the community and giving them a huge incentive
for those worthy activities in the form of two years off the period for
which they have to be here before becoming a British citizen, it is
absolutely a matter in which the devil is in the detail. So far, the
detail released suggests that the scheme has not been fully thought
through before being introduced into public policy. All experience
tells us that schemes introduced in that way and at that speed often
end up doing more harm than good. I hope that considerable thought is
given to the scheme before it translates into anything in the real
world.
Tom
Brake: I want to echo many of the queries raised in
relation to the amendments, and I will listen carefully to the
Minister’s response. There are a couple of other queries that I
would like to put to him that I believe are pertinent to the
amendments, and I hope he can answer them as well.
I agree
entirely with the point about voluntary organisations. What greater
disincentive can there be to voluntary organisations than to know that
they will be subject to penalties, and possibly a term of imprisonment,
if they fail to account correctly for the volunteering activities of
people who join their organisation?
The issue of
CRB checks was raised. If the Government are going to push people down
that route, additional resources will clearly be needed in that area.
Like many other Members, I suspect, I regularly receive complaints
about the speed with which CRB checks are done. People are actively
prevented from securing employment because they are waiting for their
CRB check to come through. If we are going to be creating many more
requests for CRB checks, additional resources will be
needed. Can
the Minister provide us with an estimate of the number of volunteers
that he thinks will seek voluntary activities each year after the Bill
has been passed? Has Volunteering England identified what demand for
volunteers it will be able to satisfy and what support those volunteers
will need in order to be able to volunteer? Also, has he heard any
representations about the difficulties, already highlighted in the
other place, of satisfying demand for places for volunteers,
particularly in rural areas? It is much easier in an urban area; there
are probably many more voluntary organisations, or at least many more
that are easily accessible, than in a rural area.
Instead of
raising the issue in a clause stand part debate, I will ask the
Minister one final question on volunteering for young people. I had an
amendment that I did not table in time and to which I therefore cannot
possibly refer, Sir Nicholas, but I understand that it would not have
achieved what we wanted it to even if I had. It would have sought
clarification from the Minister on whether children would be required
to undertake volunteering activities for their citizenship, and whether
that would place an undue burden on, for instance, children whose first
language is not English and who might be trying to combine studying
English with learning in their own language. They might, therefore,
have less time available to undertake active citizenship activities. I
hope the Minister will respond to those very specific
queries.
Mr.
Woolas: We have put forward the document on the work of
the design group, to whom we are very grateful indeed. The background
to this is that in July 2008 we published a document entitled “A
Path to Citizenship: next steps in reforming the immigration
system”. I always like documents that say what is actually
inside them—it is much better.
We set out
our proposals in our response, to create the new path to citizenship.
The design group’s document contains the work that it has done
so far. We set the group up last summer. It has representatives from
the voluntary sector, including Volunteering England, which was
referred to by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Local
government is represented as well. The group’s remit was to
advise on the most effective way to operate the active citizenship
process in practice. We have now agreed a proposed model for
accrediting and verifying active citizenship, but I
emphasise—and I do not think it is a weakness—that we are
embarking on a very significant policy change. We are evolving and
consulting on it extensively. This is not on the face of the Bill and
one would not expect it to be—to put it there would render it
inflexible.
We would be
the last to say we are perfect, but let me try and answer some of the
specific points that have been raised so far. The idea of active
citizenship has
been around for some time. Its definition takes us into difficult areas.
I challenge anyone to put forward a set of proposals that would get
unanimity, perhaps even consensus—certainly at first stab. I
hope the Committee recognises the common sense of what I am
saying. At its core,
I ask the Committee to consider the point that active citizenship and
what we are discussing here is a way in which probationary citizens can
speed up the time period for becoming a citizen. For migrants who have
come to the UK as a worker or a refugee and European nationals, the
default qualifying period for application for citizenship will be eight
years. For migrants who have come to the UK as the family member of a
UK citizen or someone with permanent residence here, the default
qualifying period will be five years. So none of these are requirements
for citizenship; they are a way of incentivising and speeding up
citizenship, and from the wider community’s point of view are a
way of benefiting from that
application. Let
me turn to the specific answers to the questions. On the question about
children asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, an
application under section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 can
only be made by a person of full age. It is not envisaged that a child
would be able to do this programme. He asked about the number of
volunteers. Volunteering England has looked at that as well. We have,
on advice from the design group, assumed that there will be a
5 per cent. increase in volunteering among the migrant
population who are eligible for the probationary citizenship each year.
It is assumed that 4,000 migrants per year will undertake volunteering.
I confess to the Committee that that is a finger in the air. One has to
make working assumptions and have the ability to revise them as
policies roll out. That is why it is sensible not to put things in the
Bill. That is the best advice that we have.
Tom
Brake: Presumably the Minister is not saying that 5 per
cent. of people seeking citizenship will opt for active citizenship to
minimise the length of time before they are awarded
citizenship.
Mr.
Woolas: This is the assumption that we have been working
on. It is the advice that we have. First, it is an increase in
volunteering; there is a substantial amount already. It is based on an
assumption of the number of applications, of course. Therefore, it is
assumed that 4,000 migrants a year, in addition to those who already
do, will undertake volunteering. The range of assumptions runs up to 10
per cent. but that is per year, so as time rolls on there will be more
people. I give that as information to the hon. Gentleman; I am not
suggesting that it is exact or a science. I refer him to the impact
assessment, which contains further analysis of those
figures.
Damian
Green: The Minister has the exact guess, as it were, of
4,000. What proportion of each cohort are the Government assuming will
participate? Intuitively one feels it will be a very high figure. Has
that figure been
assessed?
Mr.
Woolas: Yes it has, but I do not know what it is. I am
being frank with the hon. Gentleman. The previous impact assessment
made reference to it.
I shall
answer questions in random order. The hon. Gentleman asked about
resources for volunteering organisations. This was looked at. We
recognise that
people and groups have expressed concern about this and the design group
looked at it for us. It worked with the voluntary sector and had
voluntary sector representation on the committee. There are
opportunities for funding to address any cost impact. The hon.
Gentleman mentioned the migration impact fund. There is no policy
decision on that; it is a suggestion from the design group. There is
also the European integration fund, which may be able to assist. There
is a concern that national bodies will receive a lot of requests for
funding, so clearly there is work to be done in this area. I am not
signalling that the migration impact fund will be used for other than
the purpose it has been set up for. The hon. Gentleman picked me up on
that point, as do the local authorities, for understandable
reasons. On
applicants with special needs, there is the flexibility in the system
to take into account special needs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned
disabled people and raised the important point about carers. It is not
policy that there should be any financial compensation for taking
part—or remuneration, as he said on his trade union point. It
therefore is incumbent on the system, in fairness, to take into account
the fact that people have caring responsibilities. Without being too
rigid it is incumbent on me to point that out. We do not believe there
are any equality and human rights implications. We have looked at that
point, of course, not least because this is voluntary, not
compulsory. The
hon. Gentleman asked about the minimum time requirement. We considered
that point. Migrants will be able to demonstrate active citizenship at
any point of the route. That will allow them to plan activities in line
with work and family commitments. We are also looking at what the time
commitment should be for active citizenship. Again, does one want a
rigid number of hours a week or an average over a period of time? I do
not envisage people clocking in and clocking off in relation to
this.
2.45
pm The
hon. Member for Ashford made an important point, as did the hon. Member
for Carshalton and Wallington, about the critical passage at the
beginning of the document about whether there should be financial
penalties. The hon. Member for Ashford expressed amazement at that. I
sometimes think he lives in a different world from the one in which I
live. It is, undoubtedly, sadly the case that individuals will attempt
to exploit any new system. Not all voluntary organisations are what
they appear. Therefore, the challenge is to ensure that we get genuine
organisations to participate but that we do not create a cottage
industry of abuse and fraud, which could well
happen. Recently,
there have been newspaper reports about exposed bogus colleges, which I
am proud to have brought to the public’s attention and clamped
down on. I confess that that should have been done years ago by
Governments of both parties. That illustrates the type of problem with
which I am dealing. The fine, or the punishment, can only exist where
the person has intentionally and knowingly falsified. In relation to
the example that the hon. Gentleman gave, if the applicant misleads the
sponsor and the sponsor is inadvertently misled, of course, that would
be covered. He is right
about that. I have very helpfully been handed something with the word
“recklessly” on it—knowingly, intentionally or
recklessly are the criteria. A key
strength of the points-based system and this new system is that it puts
an obligation on the sponsor in the case of the points-based system.
That is a very effective tool in controlling visa overstayers. In this
case, an obligation will be put upon the referee to ensure that the
information is valid, so that we can avoid the circumstance whereby
some cowboy might sign a document in which he says, “Yes, this
person has been volunteering in my community welfare advice
centre,” when no such centre
exists.
| 
