| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
It seems to us that far more should have been done in the past to check the bona fides of applicants for marriage or partnership visas. To wait for three years to see whether the relationship has continued, as we will do under the Bill, is entirely the wrong approach. The resources intended to be used to check that partners are still together at the end of the three years would be far better deployed in improving checks on sponsors in the first place.
In their response to the Select Committee, the Government increased the age at which someone can sponsor or be sponsored as a spouse from 18 to 21. They agreed to improve their current system for investigating allegations of abuse of the marriage route and to ensure that information and advice is available to sponsors, including awareness of the Forced Marriage Unit, by December 2008, and they promised to set out their approach to selective interviewing of sponsors. Can the Minister give us an update on those developments and tell us whether they have made any difference to the 40,000 marriage visas awarded in 2007? It is probably a bit early, but if he can tell us the number of marriage visas awarded in 2008, that will be interesting. What difference do the Government expect the new conditions to make at the end of the three years to the number who will apply for citizenship?
On Amendment 63, the definition of relevant family association appears not to include dependent relatives. Are they to be covered under the Section 41 regulations? If so, why were they not mentioned in the Explanatory Notes, which lift the curtain only a little by giving the example of a partner? Will the Minister say why the dependent relative, having put in an appearance in Clause 31 of the draft partial Bill, has now disappeared without trace? Amendment 63 ensures that the migrants whose UK partners have a right of abode in the UK or have acquired a permanent entitlement to reside in the UK under European law can apply for citizenship on the same basis as if the UK partner was a British citizen or had permanent residence.
We need to ask the Minister about the Government’s intentions regarding the right of abode, which the partial Bill proposed to remove altogether. I recognise
2 Mar 2009 : Column 547
Lord Brett: The noble Lord asked a series of questions about marriage visas and so on, about which, frankly, I do not have the information in my brief, so, yet again, I have to fall back on the proposal that I write to the noble Lord and let him have the information. I offer the list that comprises the relevant family associations that count. I have to say that the exact content of the regulations is yet to be determined, but we are considering whether to include the following groups: unmarried and same-sex partnerships of British citizens and permanent residents; bereaved spouses and civil partners; unmarried and same-sex partners of British citizens and permanent residents; victims of domestic violence of British citizens and permanent residents; dependent relatives of British citizens and permanent residents; and persons exercising access to rights to a child’s residency in the UK.
The regulations are likely to include other conditions recognising unmarried partners if they have been in a relationship for two years, which is the normal term—we do not intend to change it. When the regulations are presented they will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We are clear that forced marriage is an abhorrent crime and that the Government will do everything we can to stamp it out and support victims. Guidance on the whole immigration system is being prepared for publication as a result of the public consultation next year.
The principles behind the Bill’s proposals are to provide three separate routes and therefore we require people to pass through these stages as I have indicated. These are the key principles that underline it. We have said that migrants who come here have to work, but we also want to take care of the exceptions in those circumstances we expect in terms of discretion. I regret to say that I have to fall back again on writing to the noble Lord. As I have said, the consultation continues on what will be the guidance subject to the negative procedures.
Lord Avebury: I suppose that one has to be content with small mercies. I have to thank the Minister for correcting me on the subject of regulations made under Section 41 of the British Nationality Act 1981. At least they are subject to negative resolution and we will have an opportunity to discuss them on the Floor of the House, which is better than I was thinking in the first instance: that it was being left to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
The Government have been giving serious consideration to further measures following the sixth report of the Select Committee in another place on forced marriages. We are grateful for what it has done so far and I was glad to hear what the noble Lord said about the seriousness with which the Government take the question of forced marriages. It would be useful, however, to
2 Mar 2009 : Column 548
5.45 pm
I was flabbergasted to learn that because of the number of visa applications—they amounted to 40,000 in 2007—no regular interviewing of sponsors was carried out to find out whether they were genuine and intending to marry the person concerned. There has been considerable abuse of this route and there have been repeated assurances by Secretaries of State going back to Mr David Blunkett some years ago that there was to be a clampdown and all measures that could be taken to avoid forced marriages had been accomplished, yet every time we have a new Bill, fresh measures are announced.
This is an important issue to which we probably have to return on Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
60: Clause 38, page 29, line 19, leave out from “application” to “and” in line 22 and insert “—
(i) A has probationary citizenship leave, or permanent residence leave, based on A’s having the relevant family association referred to in section 6(2), or
(ii) A has a qualifying CTA entitlement or a Commonwealth right of abode;”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen): I understand that Amendment No. 61A has not been withdrawn.
Lord Hylton: I think that this has already been discussed, so I do not intend to move it now.
Amendments 61B to 63 not moved.
2 Mar 2009 : Column 549
64: Clause 38, page 30, line 1, leave out from “leave” to end of line 3 and insert “—
(a) the requirement specified in sub-paragraph (2)(c)(i) is fulfilled only if A was that person’s partner for the whole of the qualifying period, and
(b) for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c)(ii), A can rely upon having a qualifying immigration status falling within paragraph 4A(1)(a), (b) or (c) only if that partnership is the relevant family association upon which the leave to which the status relates is based.”
65: Clause 38, page 30, line 9, at end insert—
“(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5), the relationship by reference to which A and the other person are partners need not be of the same description for the whole of the qualifying period.””
66: Clause 38, page 30, leave out lines 21 to 25 and insert—
“( ) treat A as fulfilling the requirement specified in paragraph 3(2)(c)(i) (including where it can be fulfilled only as set out in paragraph 3(5)) where a relevant family association of A’s has ceased to exist;”
71: Clause 38, page 31, line 5, leave out “; or” and insert “based on a relevant family association;”
72: Clause 38, page 31, line 6, at end insert “based on a relevant family association;
( ) a qualifying CTA entitlement; or
( ) a Commonwealth right of abode.”
73: Clause 38, page 31, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
“( ) For the purposes of paragraph 3 and this paragraph, the leave mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) is based on a relevant family association if it was granted on the basis of the person having a relevant family association.”
76: Clause 38, page 31, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
“( ) Where, by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(a), a person relies upon having more than one qualifying immigration status falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c)—
(a) subject to paragraph 3(5), it is not necessary that the leave to which each status relates is based on the same relevant family association, and
2 Mar 2009 : Column 550
(b) in a case where paragraph 3(5) applies, the relationship by reference to which the persons referred to in paragraph 3(5) are partners need not be of the same description in respect of each grant of leave.””
Clause 38, as amended, agreed.
Clause 39 : The qualifying period
77: Clause 39, page 31, line 28, leave out from “period” to end of line 29 and insert “is—
(a) 6 years in a case within paragraph 1;
(b) 3 years in a case within paragraph 3.”
Baroness Hanham: I am moving the amendment to try to find out what the Government mean when they include the activity section in Clause 39. May I at the outset declare my interest as chair of the England Volunteering Development Council, which is part of Volunteering England? I have been briefed by Volunteering England and also by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.
There are considerable concerns about the requirement, some of which have been expressed in the House this afternoon. Volunteering England is a member of the design group. We are not going to do anything about the design group this afternoon, but it is apparently drawing up the regulations which will govern this aspect. We do not have the regulations before us and therefore we have no idea how the design group is designing what it means by “activity”. I know that Volunteering England has taken a major part in this, but it has also put forward some of its concerns to the meetings. However, the legislation is here and now and we need to deal with some of the anxieties that have been raised, otherwise opportunities to do so will fade away.
Volunteering is by definition an undertaking that individuals want to do: they want to do it to help others. It is not usual—in fact, I think it is probably unheard of—for it to be a statutory requirement, or one that affects people's future, but that is what it would be under Clause 39. It is there to expedite the route to citizenship. It is blackmail, to some extent, in that by undertaking a voluntary activity you get citizenship somewhat quicker. However, to do that, individuals will have to undertake either community or voluntary work. It begs a number of questions that might have been answered if the design group had completed its work; but it has not.
In 2007, according to Home Office figures, there were 160,980 applications for British citizenship. There were 164,635 grants of British citizenship in that year. If we extrapolate those figures, we can presume that even if the regulations for citizenship are tightened up, there will be about 160,000 people wandering around trying to do voluntary work. There are 190,000 registered charities and probably just as many small unregistered ones which may or may not have to be licensed to undertake or help with this voluntary activity.
2 Mar 2009 : Column 551
People coming into this country and wanting citizenship all have a very firm view of why they want to be here. But how many of them will know or understand about voluntary service? How many of them will know or understand what they should be doing? How many of them will know or understand how to go about it? And how will they then find those volunteering opportunities? Aspiring citizens may not have any idea where to look for volunteering opportunities in an area.
What will be the mechanism by which they are guided or advised on how to undertake this requirement? How much leeway will be given in the amount of time they have to do this work when they are working to keep themselves in this country? They are actually working. They may have a family to support and manage, and they may well have very limited hours to spend outside their home. Many are already working all the hours God gave them to ensure that they meet other citizenship requirements.
What is the time commitment they will have to give to this activity requirement in order to qualify for and justify their expedited citizenship? What about those who simply cannot undertake it, such as those working for a very substantial part of the day and those with families? Will there be an exemption for certain categories? If so, who will give it?
Who will monitor the voluntary work that is carried out, and how will it be assessed and proved? I understand that part of the system which the design group is working out is that there will be a referee to complete the applicant’s paperwork. But who is that to be, and how can there be confidence that such a referee will have proper and regular direct contact with a volunteer to be able to judge whether they have in fact carried out the activity to the proper, required level? Where will the referees come from, and will they have to have a certain seniority level? These questions will continue. They should have been answered before we started on this legislation.
We have reason to believe that a nationality checking service will play a role in signing off the volunteer and sending those signed-off papers to the UK Border Agency. But where does this come from? It is not in the legislation—we do not know anything about it. Perhaps we could be told at some stage what it is. Have the Government made any attempt to assess what extra burdens carrying out the responsibility for these migrants will place on the voluntary sector and on local authorities, which I understand are also to be involved in supporting the nationality checking service?
Can the Minister give any assurances about the stage at which this activity is likely to be undertaken during the citizenship process? Can it be at any time? Does it have to be part of the probationary period? Can it be undertaken for a short time, or a long time? For how many hours should it be undertaken? What is the expectation? Will childcare be paid for? What about travel and all the other costs associated with volunteering requirements, and will that be funded by the UK Border Agency? Given that employees are statutorily entitled to a minimum of 24 days a year, how can the Government be sure that that requirement
2 Mar 2009 : Column 552
These questions are only the tip of the iceberg—there are many more. Presumably the design group will try to answer them. We can brief the Minister on any other aspect he wishes. This enormous proposal is dealt with in just two short lines of legislation, with nothing to back it up.
The Minister must understand that this would be the first national scheme in which the state directly rewarded people for volunteering. The design group is clearly important in ensuring that all the problems which I have outlined are overcome. However, when will we have sight of its work? I am advised that it might not be until the summer, but by then this legislation will be on the books and it will be way past Parliament's ability to deal with it. Ideally, we should be able to see what the design group is doing before Report so that we can consider it. This is another area where a letter might be almost too little to explain all that is going on. I hope the Minister can make a good fist of trying to explain it. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: In speaking to this group of amendments I wish to raise many of the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has raised. I spent the past two Sundays taking part in voluntary activities: delivering leaflets for the Liberal Democrats in Huddersfield on the first Sunday and delivering leaflets for the Liberal Democrats in Streatham on the second Sunday. I am not sure whether that is the sort of voluntary activity that counts under this provision. I can assure noble Lords that we are a non-profit organisation; we are usually loss-making. I raise the point simply to illustrate the problem of defining voluntary activities.
The provision raises a huge number of issues. I have been involved in other discussions, for example on whether we can resolve the issue of students overstaying in Britain by licensing educational institutions so that we have a clearer sense of where students applying to study in Britain are going. We have consistently been told that it is far too complicated to license educational institutions, so controls on each student have to be imposed. We are talking now about licensing a huge number of charities, with full CRB checks on people on a truly vast scale. I am a trustee of two charities and, as both deal with teaching music to children, CRB checks are a major preoccupation for both. Despite the fact that as a trustee I do not usually meet the children, I had to be CRB-checked as well.
This provision has a huge number of implications. We on these Benches have some sympathy with the government citizenship agenda, although we are not sure we would go all the way down the road as far as Jack Straw’s rights and responsibilities agenda. We recognise this is all part of that. We are highly doubtful, however, whether it is right to introduce one bit of this in one Bill before we have seen the entire discussion. The citizenship agenda needs active discussion across the parties on how we are going to re-define British
2 Mar 2009 : Column 553
Citizenship is something we want people to engage in. References and recommendations are part of it. I have been to citizenship ceremonies. I recognise the importance of encouraging people to have a sense of identification with the United Kingdom. The danger is that a highly bureaucratic process in which compulsory volunteering, so to speak, is built in, all checked by the central state, will be a very complicated road to go down. We need to see much more than we have yet seen about how it might be implemented, how much it might cost, and how many difficulties and costs it will impose upon voluntary organisations and charities which will be engaged in this before we are happy with the direction in which it is going.
6 pm
Baroness Butler-Sloss: I understand and sympathise with the spirit that lies behind the Government’s proposal for activities, but I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that it is impossible to know at the moment, with no definition and no interpretation clause, what is meant by “activities”. UNISON, in its briefing, understandably asks whether trade union activities are part of voluntary activities. I would expect this Government to say yes, but it is interesting that UNISON feels that it needs to ask that question.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |