Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill Standing Committee E

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill Standing Committee E

Tuesday 30 April 2002

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

4.30 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I beg to move,

That—
(1) during proceedings on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill the Standing Committee do meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at Nine o'clock and half-past Two o'clock, except that on Thursday 2nd May the Committee shall not meet and on Tuesday 7th May the Committee shall not meet at half-past Four o'clock;

(2) the proceedings to be taken on a sitting shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown;

(3) the proceedings which under paragraph (2) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table;

(4) paragraph (2) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) on any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (2) if all previous proceedings have already been concluded.

TABLE

Sitting Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings

1st Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 13, Schedule 2 9.55 pm
2nd and 3rd Clauses 14 to 33 11.25 am at 3rd Sitting
4th Clauses 34 to 44 7 pm
5th and 6th Clauses 45 to 59, Schedule 3, Clauses 60 to 78, Schedule 4, Clauses 79 to 90, Schedules 5 and 6 9.55 pm at 6th sitting
7th Clauses 91 to 126, Schedule 7, Clauses 127 to 129 11.25 am
8th New Clauses, New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill 7 pm

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee, Mr. Illsley, and for the first time under your chairmanship. I am sure that we will have a lively and interesting debate.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): On behalf of the official Opposition, may I also say that it is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and your colleague, Mr. Hurst. I am sure that, under your chairmanship, we shall have a smooth and constructive Committee.

I welcome both Ministers. I feel slightly outnumbered, but I am comforted by the reassuring presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker). I welcome other hon. Members to the Committee. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) remarked that it was the fourth time that he had debated an immigration Bill—there have been four major immigration Bills over the past 10 years. He said:

Column Number: 004

''it almost does not matter what we do in terms of legislation, if the Home Office does not get its act together to make decisions within a reasonable time scale.''—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384 c. 387.]

I was impressed by that statement.

The official Opposition will vote against the motion. We do not believe that the programme permits us to do justice to scrutinising and amending the Bill. The Committee has been assembled with almost indecent haste. We should remember that the Bill had its Second Reading only last Wednesday night. Amendments to clauses 1 to 13 had to be tabled with the House authorities not later than the rise of the House on Friday, which effectively gave those who wished to draft amendments approximately a day to do so, especially because it is always difficult to speculate what time the House will rise on Fridays, given that business may fold and the Adjournment Minister may or may not turn up. That does not give the many organisations seeking to contribute constructively to the debate much time to prepare amendments.

Several organisations have taken an interest in the Bill and are undoubtedly lobbying each member of the Committee with their proposed amendments. The Law Society, the Immigration Advisory Service—which I had the honour of founding in 1992—the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Commission for Racial Equality and many others are under the same pressure. The question of time will be especially relevant when we discuss accommodation centres. My colleagues and I believe that we are proceeding with indecent haste within a very tight time scale to discuss accommodation centres that, by any reckoning—the Minister will correct me if am wrong—cannot possibly be up and running for months, or even a year or more from now. That is another reason why we object to the motion.

In a speech to the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill , the then Minister, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said:

''In many ways the Bill represents the most comprehensive and radical reform of immigration law for decades''.

He continued:

''The Bill is good news for genuine asylum seekers in terms of the speed with which it will deliver changes to the asylum process; it is bad news for those who seek to abuse the system.''

Describing the Government's target, he said:

''On average, the initial decision on asylum will be dealt with within two months and appeals within a further four months. We aim to reach that ambitious target by April 2001.''

He went on:

''We must also deal with the removal on which previous Governments have not effectively delivered''.

He concluded:

''We are strengthening the carrier's liability regime.''——[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 30 March 1999; c. 495.]

I mention those matters because it must be plain to hon. Members that the Government failed utterly in the targets set out in that speech. On the matter of speed, it is currently the case that the time between application and decision can be as much as a year or

Column Number: 005

more, and in August last year 43,000 applicants were awaiting an initial decision.
The Bill did not succeed in terms of the carrier's liability regime as the then Minister said that it would: for example, in the case of Roth and others the regime employed to impose penalties on lorry drivers and haulage companies was incompatible with European Community law.

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): I share some of the hon. Gentleman's views about the fact that we did not get things right in 1999. I should be grateful if he would quote some of what was said by his predecessors in 1993 and 1996, when his party introduced proposals that they claimed would solve all the problems.

Mr. Malins: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's expertise on the matter. When the last Conservative Government left office there were about 40,000 asylum applications a year, and a bilateral agreement with France was in force, whereby illegal entrants were sent back within 24 hours.

The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks has real merit, because for many years we have faced difficulties in producing an asylum system that has the twin qualities of humanity, which is essential, and efficiency. During the course of the slimmed-down debates in the next week or two, I hope that we make some progress towards a system that works. I accept the spirit of what he said in respect of successive Governments, although I draw attention to some successes of the last Conservative Government.

The House, and outsiders, should be aware that the Home Secretary himself described the system as ''in chaos'' when he took over from his predecessor. There are tremendous strains and stresses and some unfairnesses in the system. It is unfair to ask the Committee to consider what the Government regard as a flagship Bill in the time available. We shall make our points in Committee as best we can. As hon. Members will know, we did not vote against the Bill the other night. We believe that it has good points, although certain aspects must be improved. When we reach the discussion on accommodation centres, in particular, we shall press very hard for changes, and we shall need time to discuss our proposals.

In addition, the time between application and decision, and decision and conclusion of appeal, is far too long. There are many important reasons for that, but a principal one is that the longer one is allowed to remain in a country, the more likely one is to put down roots. It therefore becomes harder, and in a sense more unfair, to tell someone at the end of the day that they must go. Justice delayed is justice denied. That phrase has often been used before, but it is very relevant to asylum proceedings.

We shall argue our case on accommodation centres, and I hope that the Government will listen. Our view is that the centres should provide a one-stop shop. Applicants should spend a short time in the centre, with the fullest possible legal and medical advice available on the spot. Immigration and Home Office officials should reach decisions within a week or two, and appeals should be concluded within a few weeks.

Column Number: 006

It is nonsensical to have the adjudicators miles away, when by being on site they could provide a one-stop shop. Instead of putting 6,000 asylum applicants through an accommodation centre in a year, they could put the same number through more quickly. I say that just to show that we shall need time to debate the issue.
For all those reasons, I oppose the motion.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I do not think that I have served on a Standing Committee under your chairmanship before, but I look forward to it, and to serving under the chairmanship of your colleague, Mr. Hurst.

I also welcome the Under-Secretary, with whom I have had a few debates since she took over her brief after the general election. As I have said publicly before, I recognise her straightforwardness, which will help the Committee both when she argues her case and, we hope, with regard to her accepting the arguments that are advanced.

I look forward to working with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, and with the Government Whip, who has been very helpful so far and is becoming used to home affairs business and having to deal with Opposition colleagues.

It is an asset to have the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on the Committee. His significant experience of, and commitment to, these issues will be a great advantage to us. A considerable number of colleagues from London who have huge immigration, nationality and asylum case loads are also on the Committee. The hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), among others, will know what I am talking about. Such business constitutes a third of my constituency work and has done for a significant time. The same will be true in other parts of the country, particularly more urban areas, which colleagues here represent.

I am glad to have the support and assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). We have not served together on a Committee before, but he led for the Liberal Democrats on the last such Committee, and the particular relevance of his presence is that he sat through the proceedings on the Labour Government's last Immigration and Asylum Bill—the great Bill that was meant to solve all the problems. He said that some of the measures in that legislation were flawed and advised us to vote against it on Second and Third Reading. The party did so, and he was in many ways proved right. I hope that his experience of that set of debates will be useful to this Committee.

My hon. Friend said to me that the failure of Government—this was not meant in a party political way—is that we often try to sort problems out by legislation rather than administration, and that if we had got the administration right three, six or nine years ago, we might not have had to return to the legislation.

Column Number: 007

We too shall vote against the motion, for reasons that I gave on the Floor of the House and privately yesterday in the Programming Sub-Committee. The timetable is unnecessarily speedy and cannot allow us to do justice to the Bill, or allow those outside with an interest to have a useful input. We have maintained from the beginning that the minimum deadline before which we could consider the Bill under the usual timetable is 23 May—the end of the week before the late spring bank holiday and the recess. Unless there is a need for further delay, we are now committed to finishing a week before, on 16 May.

4.45 pm

Given the restricted timetable, I am grateful for the Government Whip's willingness to accommodate our request that there should be no sitting this Thursday, as there are local elections in England, in which many of us are rightly involved. She also granted our request that there should be no sitting next Tuesday afternoon or evening, as the Police Reform Bill is having its Second Reading, and many of us with an interest in home affairs want and ought to be there. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking and his colleagues for supporting our proposition. In spite of the pressure of the timetable, we now have the advantage that after today's sitting we will have a little time to prepare for the remaining sittings, which will come in a rush in the remaining two weeks.

Like the hon. Member for Woking, I regard the Bill as sufficiently important for there to be no time to waste on any of its aspects, which I do not propose to do. The timetable is tight, and the issues are important. We all need to ensure that our points are dealt with. As part of the general modernisation of our democracy—the obligation lies first with Government—we should try to have a procedure that produces a White Paper, as was done here, and allows people to see the responses to it before Second Reading, unless there is a good reason against that. The Home Secretary accepted that that had not been done in this case. We should then have a draft Bill so that we can get advice from the outside world, followed by a Special Standing Committee. There were four sittings of such a Committee on the last Bill on this subject, which allowed us to do a better job. I do not see why that is not the norm, although there are times when one can argue the case for a deadline. During consideration of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in the autumn, the Government argued that there was an imminent threat and that we had to have a deadline. Although we did not entirely agree, we understood. However, that does not apply to this Bill, as the hon. Member for Woking said. The curtailed procedure is unnecessary.

After the Committee has concluded, I hope that there will be time to reflect on the debates, the advice given to us and the other views expressed. I also hope that there will be time on Report for all three parties to agree, as far as possible, on what is needed. I have no interest in having a row on the Floor of the House for the sake of it. We should be able to agree on many issues, as long as we do not arrive with stubbornly

Column Number: 008

fixed views. That would be in no one's interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam and I intend to listen. If we are persuaded, we will change our view. We are not dogmatic. We need legislation that is clear and has a better chance of working. That will need time after Committee.
Although the amount of time that we will spend on Report and on Third Reading is already provided for, I flag up to the Minister and the Government Whip that we should give ourselves the time between the two stages to try to get it right. The Home Secretary said on Second Reading, and the Minister confirmed yesterday, that the Government intend to introduce amendments to the appeals provisions. Those are complicated already, and it will not be easy to amend them to get the speedier and clearer system that the hon. Member for Woking rightly said that we need. I hope that we will be intelligent in dealing with Government amendments—working out when to deal with them and ensuring that if we need more time, we take it.

I am encouraged by the fact that the contribution that my party makes to these Committees is ever growing. I note that we are only one fewer than the Conservatives, and even if they were at full strength, we would still be half their size. We are aiming to be not only the same as them, but bigger in British politics. However, for the time being we content ourselves with being one of the two Opposition parties. We will be constructive and look forward to the debates, and we hope that we can end up with legislation that is more successful in sorting out the difficult issues than the past three major Acts on this subject have been.

Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): I want to put on record my regret that there is not a Special Standing Committee for this Bill. It was accepted, certainly among Labour Members when the Conservative Government were enacting immigration legislation, that Special Standing Committee procedures were appropriate for dealing with immigration legislation. That was also accepted on the last Bill, on which I served. There was huge value in that system, but we now have a truncated timetable that will not allow us to take evidence as we could in a Special Standing Committee.

Two aspects are worth citing to show how valuable the evidence was. The first is carriers' liability. We spoke to carriers who told us that strict liability would not work, as has proved to be the case. The second concerns the voucher system. We listened to local authorities telling us about their experience of administering vouchers, which again have been shown not to work. I regret that we will not have those lessons with this legislation.

Mr. Malins: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the Special Standing Committee, but does he agree that it would be to the advantage of the House if proposed Bills were given heavy scrutiny by the relevant Select Committees before Second Reading?

Mr. Allan: I agree entirely. If there is no urgency with a subject, Select Committees or Special Standing Committees should be used by default rather than as

Column Number: 009

the exception, and I do not see the urgency with nationality, when we have all had constituents telling us that they have been waiting for years to get responses.
Angela Eagle: I shall take a small amount of time to reply to the debate on the motion before, as I suspect, we vote on it. The arrangements for this Committee were agreed through the usual channels, and I thank hon. Gentlemen for their acknowledgement of the co-operation, even though they do not like the end result. Having served for years in opposition as well as in government, I suspect that it is the nature of the Opposition not to be happy with programming arrangements or anything else. I accept that there is some concern, but we have 32.5 hours of solid debating time during the next few weeks to examine the Bill. I hope that we will be able to do a good job in that time and give it the scrutiny that it deserves.

I listened to the hon. Members for Woking, for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Sheffield, Hallam talking about how there is no particular urgency, but that is not true. Many hon. Members have told the Government on the Floor of the House that they must deal with the channel tunnel and the difficulties with illegal immigration, and I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) would agree that there is no urgency in trying to sort out the problem.

We must realise that we are dealing with difficult issues and that there are no simple solutions. We must focus on the solutions and think of flexible responses to the changing pressures that face us with global migration, including those of illegal migration and people trafficking. If we approach the Bill from the perspective that none of us has the absolute monopoly on wisdom in that area and that we must look flexibly at the best responses, we will end up with better legislation than if we decide that all right is on one side. Although I accept that the hon. Member for Woking thinks that there is no rush to implement the changes in the pilots, there is tension among the Opposition about that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, in the debate on the Floor of the House, urged us to go faster.

Mr. Malins: Does the Minister accept that while I say that there is no extreme urgency for the Bill, there is extreme urgency for administrative action, arising out of the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow? The Bill is not the vital point—it is administrative action by the Home Office.

Angela Eagle: We can do our best to take administrative action in the Home Office. However, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, we need primary legislation to implement some changes. We are being urged to change and we want to pilot change, as the accommodation centres will allow us to do. All in all, we have been given a good amount of time for scrutiny. I hope that hon. Members will support the motion, which gives us 32.5 hours to look closely at the Bill, as is our duty.

Column Number: 010

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.

Division No. 1]

AYES
Buck, Ms Karen Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit Eagle, Angela Gapes, Mike Gerrard, Mr. Neil Lammy, Mr. David
Lazarowicz, Mr. Mark McGuire, Mrs. Anne Prosser, Mr. Gwyn Rooney, Mr. Terry Winterton, Ms Rosie

NOES
Allan, Mr. Richard Barker, Mr. Gregory Hughes, Simon
Malins, Mr. Humfrey Watkinson, Angela

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairman: Before we come to the main body of the Bill, I inform members of the Committee that copies of the financial resolution relating to the Bill are available in the Room and that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments. I also ask hon. Members to turn off completely or turn off the ring tones of any electronic devices.

Clause 1
Naturalisation:
knowledge of language and society
Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (1).

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 15, in page 1, line 7, leave out

'sufficient knowledge about life in the'

and insert—

'a basic knowledge of the history and government of the'.

No. 16, in page 1, line

7, leave out 'sufficient' and insert 'basic'.

No. 45, in page 1, line

7, leave out 'sufficient'.

No. 22, in page 1, line

7, after 'about', insert 'political, civic and multicultural'.

No. 92, in page 1, leave out lines 12 to 14.

No. 46, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'sufficient'.

No. 47, in page 2, line

7, leave out 'sufficiency of'.

Simon Hughes: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 91, 45, 92, 46 and 47, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam and me. Other amendments in the group were tabled by the hon. Members for Woking and for Walthamstow.

The clause immediately takes us into part 1, which deals with nationality, and provides that the Government should be able by regulation to set additional requirements for the granting of British nationality to those who do not already have it and sets out processes for obtaining naturalisation. The crucial proposition is that the person in question should have

''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''.

Column Number: 011

I should be intrigued to know whether there is a precedent for that phrase or whether it has been specially drafted for the Bill.

The amendments explore what sufficient knowledge means. I should like to clarify how many people we are talking about. In 2000, the last full year for which figures are available, 82,000 people were granted British citizenship: 45 per cent. were given citizenship on the basis of their residence; 35 per cent. because of marriage; and nearly 25 per cent. were children. Citizens of countries in Asia and Africa accounted for 45 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively of that total. A graph of the last decade reveals an interesting pattern: the numbers have gone up and down. They went down from 1991–2, then up a bit, down for couple of years, up a little bit and then down again. Then they were higher for the next couple of years and went up again in 2000. The number has always stayed in the tens of thousands.

5 pm

Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 seek to find out whether the phrase

''has sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''

is a concept that can be tested. The proposition is difficult because life in the UK is complex. I am looking at the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda). I know his constituency quite well. I passed my driving test there. Life in Gloucester is somewhat different from life in Bermondsey. Life in Woking is different from life in Wallasey, and life in Stirling is no doubt unique, just as life in Sheffield is unique. Life in the UK has some commonality but varies greatly. Life in Northern Ireland is fundamentally different because of the Irish dimension. Life in the islands of Scotland is fundamentally different, too.

The key issue is whether there is something that can give people who come here an understanding of life in the UK. Some of those who have made representations to us, such as members of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, who deal with these issues every day of the week and who have huge expertise, have reservations about whether we can talk about, teach and assess that. Who will teach and assess it? Of course, it should be done in a way that reflects the variety of the country, but it might be quite difficult to get it done in a way that reflects Gaelic, Welsh and English, Scottish, Northern Irish and all the English regions too.

There is an understandable fear that those criteria will operate as barriers to citizenship for people who want to come here. By definition, they are asking to come. They will be keen to adapt. Those barriers do not apply to our children and grandchildren as they become adults. I exaggerate to make the point, but my experience of recent years is that some of the people who behave least like citizens of this country and understand their responsibilities least are not those who have come here and sought citizenship but those who have been born and brought up here. Many of those who seek to come here and are accepted are

Column Number: 012

extremely respectful of and sympathetic to the cultural environment here.
I made the point on Second Reading that if we go down this road, I hope that we will equally and quickly have a similar process for ensuring that home-grown youngsters as they become adults show the same sufficient knowledge of life in the UK. It would be grossly unfair for someone from Sri Lanka or Uganda to have to pass a test that requires them to have more knowledge and a better command of the English language than someone brought up in Stockport, Surrey or Suffolk, for example.

Mr. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prime motivation for most people who come to this country is not that they are fans of Great Britain who have read about it and want to come here and be citizens? In fact, they invariably, and certainly in the case of asylum seekers, are fleeing persecution or a country that offers them no opportunity or future. The choice of Britain is often a negative rather than a positive one. Asylum seekers and many economic migrants come here not because they are keen to come to Britain but first and foremost because they feel an overwhelming urge to get out of their country of origin, in which they were born, in order to improve their lot and that of their families.

Simon Hughes: I understand that, but there is a big difference between the two categories. Asylum seekers have as their proper motivation escape from a place where they feel they cannot stay. They are generally less bothered about where they go, provided that it is safe. However, we are not discussing that. By definition, when asylum seekers are given that status, they are given not citizenship but a right to be here, which is either limited or unlimited. They are given either refugee status or another status. In this case, we are discussing people who might have come in by that route but who, perhaps having married someone who is British, want five, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years later to become British. The Lord Chancellor recently found that a few people who had been justices of the peace for ages suddenly realised that they were not United Kingdom citizens, even though they had lived here for 30 years and were married to British citizens, and that they would have to lose their job as JPs.

Many people come. We all have constituents—I have many—who at some stage decide to come here and be British. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that we must take the asylum seeker issue out of the debate, as asylum seekers come for other reasons. Many who come for economic reasons are not motivated by a desire to come to Britain. People who ask to be British have made the big decision to be principally based here—like moving house, but usually for life, as people do not change nationality more than once. Many countries do not allow people to hold more than one nationality, and once people give up one, they usually cannot get it back. That raises issues in this context. If someone is deprived of a nationality after having changed it, they might be stateless. There is a real debate about that.

Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 offer an alternative. They would allow the Government to tell us what they regard as sufficient and who will judge sufficiency. It

Column Number: 013

may be better for knowledge of the United Kingdom to be judged objectively at a lower threshold. ''Sufficient'' must be higher than knowledge of the United Kingdom as a whole. Questions also arise about how that can be applied to people in different circumstances with a different language base, for example.
Some of the issues that arise under the clause relate to ensuring that we get right any tests or requirements and that they are applied sensitively. I am conscious that the Bill ensures another round of discussions, as it will involve regulations further down the track. However, unless we get the definition right in clause 1 and decide on a phrase to define how we judge someone, we may encounter difficulties later. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Malins: I want to speak to amendments No. 15, 16 and 22, which are purely probing amendments. I am sure that the Government will give us some answers that will take the debate forward. They are not lead amendments, but even if I were able to, I would not seek a Division on any of them.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill requires the applicant to have

''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''

Amendment No. 16 would insert a lesser standard into the Bill. Amendment No. 22 was suggested by the Immigration Advisory Service. When I referred earlier to the programme motion, I drew attention to several organisations that had contacted me. The Refugee Legal Centre is yet another body that made many constructive suggestions.

I do not know what the phrase

''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''.

means. It cannot be defined. People in many communities throughout the land have many different lifestyles. Life in the United Kingdom is so wide and all-encompassing that if I were an examiner asked to set a GCSE—or, in my case, something slightly easier by way of a test—featuring life in the United Kingdom, I would not be able to do so comprehensibly. This is not the moment to go through all aspects of life in this country, as there are enough of them to keep the Committee and the House going for years. The phrase troubles me because of its width. As the Law Society said, what is meant by ''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''?

Having focused on a phrase that is incapable of definition, what about the word ''sufficient''? Amendment No. 16 probes the Government's thinking in that it would insert ''basic''. I am anxious to find out what standard of knowledge will be required from applicants. To put it bluntly, I am anxious to see that the Government use what the Home Secretary called in the White Paper ''a light touch''. A sensitive approach must be taken to such matters, thereby enabling those who seriously make an effort to acquire knowledge about life in the United Kingdom to achieve their ultimate objective without being faced with too high a hurdle over which they must jump to acquire citizenship.

Column Number: 014

How will the Government enforce the proposal, and how will they monitor it? Will they do so by way of an oral examination, or a written test paper? If they use a written test, what language will it be in, and what sort of standard will be required?

5.15 pm

What about the expense involved? Some people have asked me whether applicants' fees will cover it, and whether there will therefore be a dramatic increase in the cost of application for citizenship. Might not that result in British nationality being available only to wealthier applicants, regardless of eligibility? It is worth pointing out what others have said. The IAS is responsible for the drafting of amendment No. 22, which is a probing amendment that refers to ''political, civic and multicultural'' life in the United Kingdom. The IAS believes that the clause leaves open to wide interpretation the phrase

''life in the United Kingdom'',

and for that reason it finds it unsatisfactory.

The IAS is concerned that the provision could be applied differently and arbitrarily to different applications, and could in some circumstances be discerned to be discriminatory. The provision would be welcome if the Government's intention was that applicants for citizenship should, for their own benefit, have adequate knowledge of their political rights and responsibilities, such as voting, standing for political office, protection against arbitrary arrest, their human rights and their obligations under the law. However, the IAS fears that the requirement could be used in an exclusionary way, and may require a knowledge of customs that are not universal. The IAS is not alone in thinking that in the interest of good domestic race relations and cultural harmony, a knowledge of different cultures should be demonstrated.

Under amendment No. 15, I have suggested that applicants should have

''a basic knowledge of the history and government of the''

United Kingdom. That is a narrower approach than requiring them to know about

''life in the United Kingdom''.

I took a look at what happens when people apply to be naturalised as citizens in the United States and Canada. Interestingly enough, both countries set quite difficult written tests about their geography, history and political make-up.

In Canada, there is an exam with 197 questions, such as:

''What is the name of your Member of Parliament?''

The last time that I was a household name in my constituency, we sent a group to ask 100 people the name of their Member of Parliament. I regret to say that fewer than five had any idea who it was, and they all, no doubt, were British citizens. That just shows how badly known we are. The questions asked in Canada are quite wide-ranging. I shall give some of them, starting with the easier ones:

''Who is Canada's Head of State?''

''Who is the Queen's representative in Canada?''

''What is the name of the Governor General?''

Column Number: 015

''Which province is Canada's leading wheat producer?''

''Which products from southern Ontario are among Canada's key exports?''

''Name three minerals still being mined in the territories today.''

I do not know whether the test in Canada is taken orally or in writing, or how one passes or fails.

I shall not go through the detail of the position in the United States, but the Committee can take it from me that a fair amount of serious questioning occurs.

Mr. Allan: Listening to the list of questions that the hon. Gentleman quoted from the Canadian example—I understand that the United States has a similar test—it struck me that the applicant learns information simply to pass the test. That is rather like the written driving test. After people leave the examining room, they forget everything that they have learned until they must learn it again through real life experiences. I question the value of such tests in producing a good citizen. They have been sold to us by the Government, but I suspect that the person learns information only for the duration of the test, and does little more.

Mr. Malins: Yes, that is a valid point. Many people swot up only for the day in question, and after that the information goes out of their heads.

Simon Hughes: Including Committee members.

Mr. Malins: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman says that members of the Committee may also learn something overnight before it goes out of their heads. The point is that the Committee is trying to do its best. Of course, we all applaud any attempt to tell people who want to become a British citizen that they should have sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom—we will talk about language later. It is important to learn about life because that is the way in which one can play a proper part in society. If one does not have an adequate, basic or sufficient knowledge of life—if that is what the Minister wants to call it—in this country, one is at a great disadvantage in the work place and in the normal social mix that we should all have with others. There is nothing like having something in common to talk about regarding one's country or its standards. Social intercourse is of great importance.

The amendment is probing, and if I were to summarise my views I would say that its thrust is sensible. The principle behind the amendment is sensible and would be supported by Conservative Members. The wording in the Bill that provides that the applicant

''has sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''

could, and should, be improved. I hope that after the Minister takes more advice, she will move a new clause on Report that is better phrased and less wide.

People who apply for British citizenship do a proud thing. It is such a major action that applicants should be encouraged. Although I may return to this subject during the clause stand part debate, I am anxious to ensure that any tests—I hope that we will hear all about them—will be applied sensitively and not

Column Number: 016

harshly, otherwise genuine applicants could find it impossible to succeed.
Angela Eagle: I hope that I will be able to fill in some details, although I will not be able to give the Committee every last detail of how we intend the powers in the clause to be used after we produce the language and citizenship tests. I shall deal with each amendment in detail, although I note that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Woking tabled probing amendments rather than amendments that they wish to press at this stage. I accept that it is legitimate that the Committee should wish to have more of a view about what is in the Government's mind with regard to how these tests will work. Phrases such as,

''sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom''

get put into primary legislation to give appropriate leeway for experts in education and tests to provide an appropriate curriculum for the level that we are seeking. We do not wish the test to be hugely onerous, so that it is seen as a great barrier to naturalisation and the acquiring of citizenship, nor do we wish it to be a perfunctory tick-box test that does not actually mean anything.

I suspect that there will always be individuals who will swot for a test. Whenever people are faced with a test, such as the driving test, they sit down and do the homework for it. That is not a reason for not having a test.

The language requirements in clause 1 are not new: they are in the British Nationality Act 1981. We are not proposing to change them very much, but we want to apply them, as they have not been consistently applied.

People know how citizenship is acquired at present. The process ends up with the swearing of an oath in front of someone—often a solicitor—for a fee, and the delivery of a folded certificate through the post. I do not know whether it is sealed in a plain brown envelope, but it might as well be, for the amount of celebration and public recognition of the acquiring of citizenship that comes with it. In clause 1, the Government are trying to recognise in a much more collective way the acquisition of British citizenship, and we want it to be celebrated publicly in a ceremony, which is provided for in a later clause.

The idea is to have a public and communal recognition of and welcome for newly naturalised citizens that is similar to the practice in countries such as Canada, the United States of America and Australia. For many years, they have understood the value of such public recognition, and we have decided that it is a benefit publicly to recognise the value of acquiring British nationality, rather than merely sending a document through the post in a plain brown envelope.

The tests of knowledge of life in the UK and of the language are not intended to be exclusionary, and I hope to be able to put to rest some of the worries that various non-governmental organisations have expressed about whether those tests will be used to exclude people. It is not intended that the tests will be hugely expensive, so that they will be exclusionary and

Column Number: 017

benefit those who are wealthy, rather than those who are not.
Mr. Malins: It is early days, but has the Minister any idea yet about the sort of fee that might be involved and how it might be paid by the poor?

Angela Eagle: Well, it is early days. Our intention is that the language classes and the knowledge of life in the UK classes should not have a cost, so they should be available. We are in the middle of a mapping exercise to see what courses are currently available in further education colleges, particularly language courses, and to see how they could be augmented to facilitate the final coming into being of the powers in clause 1. It is no good requiring people to undertake tests if we have not made available the courses for them to take.

With regard to some of the questions that were asked about the difference between ''sufficient'' and ''basic'', and what bits of UK life people must have knowledge of, we envisage a fairly general view, rather than one that is restricted to the democratic process and constitution, but it would be wrong of me to stand here and say that we have a curriculum absolutely sorted out. We are putting together a working group of relevant experts from the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office to decide on some of the detail, and it is clear that that will have to be dealt with in secondary legislation. However, as I have said, the idea is to get a balance between a test that is a huge barrier because it is too difficult to pass, and one that is so perfunctory that it becomes meaningless. We should consider the citizenship classes that are being made available in our schools as we speak.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North): Many people who have been in this country for some time, perhaps with leave to remain, participate in their communities while waiting for the opportunity to apply for citizenship. That is true of many of my constituents. As the Under-Secretary is sympathetic in principle, will she at least consider the possibility of such a contribution to the community being considered as a contribution to a citizenship qualification?

5.30 pm

Angela Eagle: We have not closed off options at this stage. People do not necessarily have to have a qualification in English if they already have a relevant expertise in it. The ability to speak and understand English appropriately will need to be taken into account. We do not want to force people to do tests for the sake of it, but we want to ensure a more consistent application of the requirement of sufficient knowledge of English to get by. The extra requirements in the clause about knowledge of life in the UK—

Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: I will be happy to give way, if the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my sentence. I have probably forgotten what I was about to say.

We are in the process of considering the curriculum for the requirement of knowledge of life in the UK. We

Column Number: 018

will be teaching citizenship to our primary school children by September, and there are some crossovers between what we will teach those children and the likely requirements under clause 1. I hope that that will put at rest some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the test for people who wish to be naturalised being different from the test for those who are born here and who can get by with less knowledge of their own country. We hope that the introduction of citizenship classes throughout our schools will put that right.
Mr. Allan: I apologise for butting in. I wanted to pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North while it is still fresh.

I made a slightly facetious, but genuine, comment on the nature of testing. Those in education have recognised that a test in the form of an examination is inappropriate for many people. Will the Under-Secretary clarify whether people can be tested through continuous course work, or whether there will simply be a test barrier? I fear that some people will always find that difficult to get through.

Angela Eagle: I said that the test was not intended to exclude, but that knowledge must be demonstrated. The working party will decide the best method of testing. I accept that some people become frightened if they have to sit formal tests. We will consider how sensibly to facilitate people's involvement in the process, and we will propose more focused suggestions in the regulations, which are not appropriate in primary legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my pledge that we are trying to include, not exclude.

Mr. Barker: My hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned the systems in Canada and the United States. Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether the Government have considered the models of other countries and learned any lessons? The Opposition are slightly keener on foreign ideas in other areas of public policy than the Government.

Angela Eagle: We are considering those models and have found some variation. Some are too perfunctory, while others are too much like a degree. We must achieve a balance between a test that tests appropriately and is not too much of a barrier, and a tick-box exercise that is just a waste of time as it does not facilitate understanding. The idea is genuinely to welcome new citizens through naturalisation, and to put them through a process at not much cost to themselves, and at no cost for the courses, that will enable them to feel much more a part of the community and have a greater demonstrable understanding of society than they have now. That is what we are trying to achieve.

I am glad that the amendments will not be pressed—I hope that that is confirmed. I accept that they are probing amendments, and I hope that my answers explain the Government's thinking on the details of how the tests will be established.

Simon Hughes: As the hon. Member for Woking and I said, the amendments were intended to open the

Column Number: 019

box and see what lay inside, and to try to take the Government on from their position in the White Paper and in the Chamber. It has been helpful, but I want to ask the Minister a couple of further questions.
I hope that we all agree that conventional tests are inappropriate for some people. There are already various prerequisites, at least in theory, to naturalisation, including having sufficient knowledge of one of the three languages—English, Welsh or Gaelic—no relevant, appropriate convictions, or ''good character'' as it is generally defined, and an intention to live here permanently and make the United Kingdom their principal home.

After a parliamentary question tabled by a Conservative Member, I looked at the table that the Government included in their White Paper. Annexe A sets out helpfully, although not conclusively, the different tests that are used in eight other countries. Some countries have a minimum residency of between one and eight years. Some test an applicant's knowledge of society, but others do not. All countries have a language skills test, while three out of the eight have a good character test. There is a criminal record test in seven countries and, it says, ''possibly'' one in the United States of America. My experience of getting into the USA, even for short periods, suggests that it is a strong ''possibly''. Duel citizenship is accepted by four countries, and an oath is used in five countries. Some have language classes, some do not, and others are proposing to introduce them, but even those that have them do not necessarily require people to attend them. There is also the question whether to have citizenship classes separate from language classes.

There are many different systems, but all the countries seem to be trying to ensure that there is a preparedness on the part of the individual and an ability to be included. Like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I am sympathetic to the objective, but two aspects residually worry me. First, we must ensure that we have a similar process for our own citizens. Secondly, we should bear in mind the fact that someone could be a European Union citizen and live here for ever. They could come here aged one and live until they were 99, and there would be no requirement to have any qualification because we are in a common travel area. We must ensure that we do not have a position in which there are no barriers for UK-born citizens—although, if they go to class, they will go through a citizenship education process—or for people from the EU or Ireland within the EU, but barriers for people coming from somewhere else. We must be careful that we have common experience.

Even though the Danes have a tough language requirement—

Angela Eagle: A tough language.

Simon Hughes: Indeed.

Mr. Allan: Not as tough as the Finns.

Column Number: 020

Simon Hughes: When I was working in Brussels at the European Union, I asked a friend to buy a copy of the European Union treaty in Irish. The Minister may not think that it was a great birthday present, but my friend went out and got one in Danish. I did not notice the difference, which was unsatisfactory.

We cannot expect a 75-year-old who comes here with his or her family from a rural community in a less-developed country to be able to adapt in the same way as a 15, 25 or 55-year-old.

We shall come in a moment to the next stage of the process, so I shall not deal with that now, but clearly we need to proceed sensitively. There is a willingness to make progress, but many people are keen to ensure that we make the right progress and that we learn from the best examples.

Before I withdraw the amendment, I have one substantive question for the Minister. Is it possible in theory that there could be no regulations for a period and therefore no sufficiency test? Are the Government thinking about an option that would involve introducing the sufficiency test later? As I read the Bill, it is an option to have that as an add-on, and it would be helpful to know the Minister's thinking on that.

Angela Eagle: EU citizens can live and work in this country without taking any test, but if they wished to change their nationality they would have to take the tests. Anyone who goes through immigration legally and has the right to work here can live and work here without taking the test. It is only if they apply for nationality that tests become relevant, which is fair.

There has been a misunderstanding outside the House, because people have thought that the language test will apply to anyone who wishes to cross the border, but that is not the case. The test is relevant to those who wish to become naturalised; it will not apply to people who wish to work here, although clearly they will probably do a better job if they can speak the language. The tests apply in the naturalisation process when citizenship is conferred, and they apply equally, whatever country the person seeking naturalisation as a British citizen comes from.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about the sufficiency test. With regard to commencement, the issue is how quickly and effectively we can develop the curriculum and ensure that people have access to it. Speaking off the top of my head, I think that we could have the citizenship ceremonies before introducing the tests, but we have had no discussions about the practicalities of which way round we shall do that. The two aspects seem to me to be separate, although in an ideal world they would be linked. If we want to have citizenship ceremonies before we are able to put the tests in place, we may be able to do so.

Simon Hughes: That is very helpful, but there is a practical issue. The number of applications received has dropped in the last couple of years, but we are still talking about 63,000 applications a year. That is a not inconsiderable number of people to put through a process, and obviously the process will involve more

Column Number: 021

than just testing. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 1, line 16, at beginning insert—

'(1AA) No Regulations shall be made under (1)(ba) or (bb) without prior consultation with, and agreement from—
(i) the Commission for Racial Equality,

(ii) the Citizenship Foundation, and

(iii) the Immigration Advisory Service.'.

The amendment is straightforward and follows logically from the last one. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic, although I do not propose to force it to a vote now. The amendment would ensure prior consultation with obvious candidates or organisations. It states:

''No Regulations shall be made . . . without prior consultation with, and agreement from'',

after which I list three organisations with an obvious stake in the matter. I do not pretend that the list is exclusive or perfect, but the organisations were not chosen accidentally. I included the Commission for Racial Equality, which self-evidently has an interest and would like to be involved, the Citizenship Foundation, a body that has made it its business to think through these issues and is keen to be engaged in the debate, and the Immigration Advisory Service, which sees the practicalities of these matters in large volume all the time.

When the CRE briefed us before Second Reading, it pointed out that there had not yet been proper consultation with interested parties about what constitutes citizenship and what defines a British citizen. There are various options. Is it our values? Is it our rights? Is it our way of life? The proposition is that we should have full and frank consultation. I am sure that the Government will be keen to do that; I do not question their good will. However, it is not for the Government to define what makes British life. It should be agreed more widely. We are all entitled to have a voice in that, regardless of our faith, colour or background.

5.45 pm

It is rather paradoxical given where we are, but I took part in 1987–89 in a commission on citizenship set up by Lord Weatherill, the then Speaker, with widespread support. The other two parliamentary colleagues were none other than the current Home Secretary, who was the Labour party nominee and the then Member of Parliament for Mid-Kent, Andrew Rowe, who retired at the last election. Apart from us three, there were extremely eminent people such as John Monks, who was at that stage only the deputy general secretary of the TUC, Ted Wragg, Ben Whittaker, Maurice Stonefrost, John Beishon, Rodney Bickerstaffe and Professor Charles Handy.

The Speaker encouraged us to spend a lot of time considering how citizenship was defined. I do not want us to reinvent the wheel, because it is possible to have endless debates about this. I hope that we can draw on that serious work, in which people invested a lot of time and effort, and which had a slow gestation

Column Number: 022

period, and on the work carried out by the Citizenship Foundation, which is a thoughtful and engaged body. I should like us to end up with an agreement to a consultation process. As a minimum I should like us to agree that there are certain people whom we should regard as allies throughout this process. I am open about who those groups should be, but I am sure that they should be people who can look after the interests of the wider community outside.
Mr. Malins: There is some good thinking behind the amendment. A number of outside bodies will have an awful lot that is really useful to say before the proposed tests are set in concrete. The amendment mentions three, but there are many others including the Refugee Council, the Refugee Legal Centre, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Law Society, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I often wonder whether those bodies are consulted widely before a Bill is drafted. I believe that quite often they are not. Leaving that aside for a moment, there is something to be said for the Government saying that they will consult a variety of outside bodies—not necessarily getting agreement from them, as they may take different lines—before introducing regulations.

Next section