Mr. Dave Anderson (Blaydon): I assure you that I have absolutely no intention of mentioning any amendments, starred or otherwise, Sir Nicholas.
I seek clarity from the Minister on clause 40(2)(e) and the meaning of "continuous employment", because there is a huge question about the meaning of that phrase. A trade union asked me to ask this specific question: what would happen to people who are working in a workplace who are being harassed, bullied and exploited while they are here on work permits? If they chose to walk away from exploitation rather than remain in that employment, would they rule themselves out of the opportunity to become naturalised citizens?
The concern is that there is only one legal definition of continuous employment. It is spelt out in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which states - very clearly, for the law of this land - that continuous employment means employment with the same employer without a break. Because there is no other definition in law, if people challenge a decision to refuse naturalisation, the reality is that that definition will be used. Is that the case? I understand that the question was raised in the Lords, and that the Minister there said that in certain circumstances individuals could change employers in occupation periods. If that is the case, will the Minister expand on it?
People are concerned about when such a situation might come about. Some time ago, the case of the cockle pickers in Morecambe bay led to the welcome Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. As recently as yesterday, however, a 10-minute Bill was introduced on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), which would update the 2004 Act to include construction workers, because of the problems that such workers are facing. Many people who come to work in construction in this country from abroad may, in the long term, become eligible for naturalisation. They are the sort of people we need - as we said earlier, they are highly skilled people - and we want to attract them. We need to be clear that they will not be exploited.
There are lots of problems with temporary workers and the agency workers directive, and people are in danger of being exploited in the real world of work. I had some experience of that when I was a Unison trade union official. A group of degree-level Filipino nurses were working over here on a contract and living four to a room. They were being charged transport charges for using a bike to ride to work. They were under pressure because there was a bond on them: if they walked away from their work, not only would they be liable to pay the money back in this country, but they would be liable to pay the money back to contractors back home. My union got them out of that workplace and got them work in the health service, where they were treated properly. If the Bill goes through as it stands, most people would not want to choose the alternative that my union made possible for those nurses. People could be forced to stay in such workplaces if they want to become naturalised citizens. It is a real issue.
Nobody is unaware what is happening in the world now. There is massive uncertainty because of the recession and there are questions about when recovery will start. In the interval between the end of this morning's Committee's sitting and the start of this sitting, I spent three hours on the phone trying to deal with a case that has developed in my constituency as a direct result of the closure of Dairy Farmers of Britain. We are trying to stop the closure of a dairy in my constituency. We know what the situation is, but we need to be clear that we are doing everything we can to ensure we do not make life even harder for people - good hard-working people - whom we want to stay here. As a result of circumstances totally outside their control, they might not be able to comply with the continuous employment requirement.
The Conservatives are committed to 10 per cent. cuts in public services. Many of the people we are talking about - skilled migrant workers - will be working in the health service, education and local government. Their jobs will be under threat and they may well fall outside this provision. Will the Minister please clarify what we mean by "continuous employment" and calm my nerves? Let us get this right and get it sorted.
Phil Woolas, Minister of State, Home Office: Let me calm the nerves of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon. In answer to his question, we have made it clear that to qualify for citizenship, those here on the work routes - in practice, tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system - must show that they have contributed economically and have paid taxes. If they do not meet those two requirements, they will not normally qualify for citizenship and, would therefore be required to leave the UK. However, the majority of people here to work do precisely that. If they cease to be in employment, they have ceased - with the caveats - to meet the key requirement of their route and so should not be allowed to progress to citizenship. I think we all agree that it would be unacceptable if migrants who have come here specifically to work were allowed to qualify for citizenship despite being economically inactive for long periods.
The continuous employment requirement is consistent with and underlines the Government's clear policy that migrants who enter by the work route are here to work and be economically active. However, let me reassure the Committee on several important issues related to that requirement.
The Bill requires those who were granted probationary citizenship for the purposes of taking employment to demonstrate only that they have remained in continuous employment. We agree that the requirement that a migrant on the work route must be in continuous employment should not be interpreted rigidly. That is why there is discretion to waive that requirement where appropriate. Continuous employment does not mean employment with one employer; we are clear that people can meet the requirement in the earned citizenship clauses if they change jobs, or types of jobs, or self-employment during the qualifying period. That will be set out in the guidance we publish on that requirement.
I shall answer the more specific points raised in the other place about domestic workers, even though my hon. Friend spoke more generally. The Government are committed to the requirements set out for naturalisation in the Bill, and the expectation is that migrants on the work route must meet all of those requirements. Discretion should not be regarded as a way to avoid the requirements. It is quite different from removing the requirements for a person who has come here to remain in employment continuously.
The Bill includes a power for the Secretary of State to treat people as meeting the continuous employment requirement even where that is not literally the case. Our view is that we should mirror the time period allowed under the points-based system for migrants to secure alternative employment. In other words, we would consider applying discretion where the total number of days of unemployment for the duration of the probationary citizen period is 60 days or less. In some circumstances, we would consider applications where the total is more than 60.
I do not wish to set out the list of those circumstances under which that discretion should be applied, as I was tempted to do. That would be counter-productive, because providing a fixed definition of discretion would mean that - by the very nature of its being fixed - it would cease to be discretionary. We do not want to exclude scenarios that might arise. We are committed to considering each case individually on its own merits, just as we are committed to upholding that principle within the workings of the existing points-based system. I believe that that provides a more transparent and fair basis on which to use discretion.
The Secretary of State would treat people who lost their jobs for a short period as meeting the continuous employment requirement, even if that were not literally the case. The 60-day period is consistent with the points-based system period. To avoid the exploitation of that loophole - that is not quite the right word - by those who are not well intentioned, we wish to provide a clear framework based on the 60 days, which is taken from our definition. That will provide for discretion to meet the point that has been made. That is exemplified in our response to the situation with domestic workers, where special arrangements are in place to avoid exploitation that could take place in any case, but which is more likely in an economic downturn. The rule is strong, but it is not rigid, precisely because of the arguments that my hon. Friend made.
Back to front page | House of Commons Contents
| Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT |