Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill Standing Committee E

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill Standing Committee E

Tuesday 30 April 2002

Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith): I suspect that it would be a mistake to single out bodies that should be consulted, as it may simply offend bodies that are not mentioned. The principle of wide consultation with interested groups is excellent and I am sure that the Minister will be able to support it in broad terms. It will be particularly important to ensure that there is consultation with organisations in Scotland about citizenship, because—regrettably—citizenship will not form part of the curriculum there as it will in England and Wales. Several hon. Members would be happy to make political capital of any exclusion to what they see as the Scottish interest. I hope that the Minister recognises that when we talk about citizenship we cannot make a generalisation and say that the citizenship classes in England and Wales will apply to Scotland and, no doubt, Northern Ireland. Will she tell us about her intention to consult widely on the provisions and, especially, how she intends to reflect Scottish interests on citizenship?

Angela Eagle: I agree with the thrust, although not the detail, of the amendment—that will not surprise the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It suggests consultation with three particular bodies, and we have heard the row that that would cause among those that are not mentioned. He was honest enough to refer to that while speaking to the amendment.

The amendment contains the words ''and agreement from''. That implies that the bodies would have a veto on secondary legislation. We could never agree to that in those terms.

Simon Hughes: You could if you wanted to.

Angela Eagle: We could, but Parliament would be rather upset if we gave outside bodies a veto on statutory instruments, which it is the right and proper job of elected Members of Parliament to consider

Column Number: 023

rather than that of the very interested and enthusiastic but unelected members of NGOs. They have great experience but they do not have the accountability of Members of Parliament.
Although I agree absolutely with the principle that we should try to get broad agreement on the detail of regulations, and that we should consult as much as possible while getting on with making decisions to introduce regulations that are as effective as possible, I do not want to accept the amendment. The list of NGOs that it mentions is too narrow—we have heard several bids to include others. Also, it implies that specific NGOs would have a veto on secondary legislation, which could not be right. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by our view that, in principle, we should consult and listen to the best expert advice. We should also strengthen the debate in the country on citizenship, which we all want, because the more that happens the better. I agree with that, but I do not agree with the amendment, and I hope that he will not press it to a vote.

Simon Hughes: I was just testing the Government's collective partnership. We have crime and disorder partnerships and local strategic partnerships, and I was testing whether the Government are willing to share decision-making power, or whether a body could be a partner only if it does not have a final casting vote.

I was reminded of that by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North who was, like me, a long-serving member of the Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill. During that exercise, we tried to provide for real devolution of power, but we discovered that the Government held on to many reserved powers. The Bill often provided that the Mayor of London could be given a power provided that the Secretary of State agreed. Since then, the Secretary of State has often not agreed, as tube users have discovered.

The amendment was not intended to be mischievous but to make a point, which the Minister understands. Regulations should be agreed widely, and the amendment would have provided that others should agree to them, rather than the Government imposing regulations.

I understand the Government's first position. Although I have not yet been given red boxes, which carry a larger salary with them, I have been lucky enough to see notes from civil servants to Ministers that say, ''This is the first line of argument.'' When one turns over the page, it says, ''Resist this'' and then, ''If you really have to concede, concede this.'' I judge that we could have some movement on the issue, although conceding that other people should have the right to veto may be at the bottom of the list of concessions that the Minister is encouraged to accept.

I look forward to hearing more detail soon. The sooner we see drafts of regulations the better, and the sooner people are consulted the better. The reality is that we are buying a pig in a poke under clause 1 in the

Column Number: 024

sense that we are buying a proposition without knowing what is behind the glass. The sooner we know what is going on, the better. In the interests of co-operation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—

'(ea) make provision for the Secretary of State to make payment to provide specified courses and to make payment for travel and childcare costs for those attending'.

The amendment deals with the provision of classes. The Minister has already referred to the Government's mapping exercise and their wanting to augment what already exists. The amendment would help such a process and ensure that sufficient provision is made to encourage and help people to attend classes. One general worry about the clause is that we should not create barriers to stop people becoming British citizens and naturalised. We should not be sending out messages that make people reluctant to enter into such a process, nor should we send out a message that people who want to acquire British citizenship are not interested in learning the language or knowing about living in the UK. We must create opportunities for people to be able to attend courses and classes when necessary to ensure—if there is to be a test—that they can pass it. I assume that there will be exemptions and that some people will not need to pass such a test.

Everyone agrees that knowledge of the language is important. Economic opportunities are denied to people if they do not have knowledge of English. We sometimes have to deal with complicated problems in our surgeries through a 10-year-old child, perhaps, whose knowledge of the language is greater than that of the parents. Those of us who have had such an experience realise how difficult it is for such people to deal with many organisations on a daily basis.

The White Paper was clear about wanting to encourage greater development of courses. It emphasised that many English courses for speakers of other languages are free of charge, and as the Minister said, we do not want to discourage people by charging for them. In some parts of the country, there are worries about the availability of courses. I do not think that there is great reluctance among refugee or ethnic minority communities to learn English. Sometimes, the complaint is the other way round. People want to learn English but find that there are not sufficient classes.

For several years, the adult education service, in particular, in parts of the UK has suffered many problems. It is not available on anything like the scale that it used to be. We should examine how we can ensure that courses are accessible and map what is available. Perhaps we should also consider how to reach people who may be difficult to reach. In some communities, for example, it may be difficult to persuade and help women who are reluctant to attend classes. Some schemes have been successful because outreach workers have taught people English within their homes. Once those people have passed through that initial barrier, they must be persuaded to

Column Number: 025

develop their knowledge. We should also consider what techniques we can use, and how we can help people to get to places where courses and classes are available. The amendment suggests making

''payment for travel and childcare costs''.

Our approach must be positive.

Some debate on the subject has focused on citizenship to the exclusion of other issues. We should remember that people cannot apply for citizenship unless they have been in the country for a few years. The process should not get to a point where someone can make an application for citizenship before we start to encourage them to take some of the opportunities that I hope we will make available. Those opportunities should include the greater availability of English classes and courses on how our institutions and systems work in the UK, if that is appropriate as part of the tests proposed.

There has been a welcome White Paper, the first ever to talk about an integration strategy for refugees. The sooner we start that integration process the better. We should not start to think about that only when someone considers applying for citizenship after five—or perhaps many more—years in this country.

The amendment makes a simple point: if we want people to become British citizens, and to acquire language skills and knowledge about the UK as part of that process, it is up to us to make available the courses needed. Rather than putting up barriers, we should make it easier for people to get into those courses and encourage them to do that, so that the process is thought of as positive.

6 pm

Mr. Allan: I support this helpful and positive amendment. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, it is important to offer courses, and there are a several reasons why. It is important to make a statement not only about what acquiring nationality means in the context of the Bill, but what it means to be an immigrant into the UK. In the vast majority of cases, it means making a contribution to UK society.

We should offer a package of measures to assist people who, if they become citizens, will make a huge contribution economically when they become able to work and contribute through the taxation system. There is a perception that immigrants are taking things out of the system, but the reality is that they are contributing hugely. We need to tackle that, and we should be clear that the Government set nationality tests and put hurdles in front of people not to prevent a problem but to encourage something good—letting well-educated, contributing immigrants into the UK. That has been the case for many years. It is important that the Government accept their responsibility by paying for the package of education required, and by assisting with the associated costs.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow made an important point about geographical spread. There is plenty of evidence in reports by bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality to suggest that there is nothing worse in this country than being an immigrant somewhere where there is no large

Column Number: 026

immigrant population, and where one stands out. My former party leader, Paddy Ashdown, had a few experiences of that with people living in his constituency, which is out in Somerset, where life can be very tough for immigrants.
The last thing we want is to create an additional incentive for people to leave areas where there is a small minority population and head for centres of population with large immigrant communities. My fear is that if we do not provide appropriate coursework, someone who is trying to pass the nationality test may think that their only opportunity to gain access to the courses that they need is to move to—or go back to—a city. It would be a real shame for the country if, through the Bill, we created greater concentrations of immigrants. Instead, we should ensure that someone who comes to the country as an immigrant and wishes to apply for nationality feels confident that they can live in any part of the country and access the services that they need for their application.

I hope that the Minister will also consider the use of informal networks. In Sheffield, for example, we have some good teams of people whose job is specifically to support refugees but who have a wider input into the community and teach English as part of their voluntary support work. At times they feel frustrated that the Government do not support them sufficiently and that they are left to fill the gaps. I think that the amendment is designed to plug some of those gaps, but as well as obvious providers such as further education colleges, there is a pool of good will, and talented people out there may want to help. The Government might find a better network, in some rural areas, perhaps, where there is no suitable FE provider to provide English as a second language courses, in other solutions such as using schools and other trained people with teaching skills to provide courses.

The hon. Gentleman made another relevant point about timing. Much criticism in the popular press—which at times borders on the extremely offensive—of current circumstances relates to when there is an influx of asylum seekers into an area. The criticism is that the people cannot integrate and are not learning the language. However, under the legislation, they are barred from access to language classes because of their status. Frequently, in the early stage of immigration, whether as an asylum seeker—which I accept is in most cases different—or in other immigration routes, people are barred from any recourse to publicly funded services. That might be a mistake for someone who eventually applies for nationality if they cannot access services such as language learning until later. I hope that the Minister will consider the point about timing and language learning. It does not happen only further down the track.

Angela Eagle: I recognise the importance of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow raises. He is right to point out that the clause is not intended to send the message that people who are interested in British citizenship are not interested in the language or knowledge of the country and just want to have access now. I accept that there are gaps, which is why we are doing the

Column Number: 027

mapping exercise to find out where we may need to strengthen provision in order for the clause to come fully into effect.
I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by my earlier comments about the Government's intention to ensure that the courses are provided at no cost to the applicant. The amendment refers to child care costs and travel. We shall consider such issues sympathetically. Many FE colleges already have child care facilities. We need to check in more detail as we develop the policy how to accommodate people with children who want to attend classes.

My hon. Friend also made a point that was similar to that made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam about informal networks doing extremely good work at the moment in language teaching. I came across an extremely good example—the Communication Workers Union, which is using trade union learning accounts to go into areas in the north-west with large ethnic minority communities to teach Asian women and provide access to language teaching that for cultural reasons they might not be able to access in a formal college environment. Some extremely good work is being done.

Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester): I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate, especially as someone with Asian parents, who fails Norman Tebbit's cricket test and supports a football team from the north-west, grew up in west London and is proud to represent Gloucester.

On the point about trade unions, when my mother first came to this country, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Unison—the National Union of Public Employees, as it was then known—made a huge contribution, as it still does, in training people, ensuring that she learned the language and could subsequently become a shop steward.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned other institutions in constituencies throughout the land. In my own patch, Gloucestershire Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers already offers English language courses and works with FE colleges. It is important to continue to tap into the resources available.

Angela Eagle: We certainly want to do that, and we recognise that such informal networks, or trade union networks, can be extremely important with regard to reaching places that the more formal parts of the education system cannot currently reach. To ensure that this is as inclusive as possible, I am anxious for us to support those networks.

With suppliers, the only issue is quality: so long as the quality is there, there is no reason why we cannot have a proliferation of suppliers. Everything does not have to be entirely organised by the local further education college, although it might accredit other suppliers. We are not yet at the stage where we are making detailed decisions on that, but I hope that Committee members realise that we have an open mind on the matter.

Column Number: 028

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made some points about people whom he called asylum seekers. We will address asylum when we discuss later parts of the Bill, but there is a distinction between asylum seekers and those who already have refugee status, as he knows. Refugees who have indefinite leave to remain can already undertake the ESOL courses without having to pay, but we do not think that it is appropriate that we should begin to integrate asylum seekers prior to the making of a decision on their status. It is important that we make such decisions as quickly as possible, but we must not mix up what is available in relation to integration for refugees—and I hope that that will be much more effectively organised in the future—and what we intend to make available for asylum seekers who have, perhaps, failed to gain further status. We will debate such matters later, so I do not intend to get into them further now.

If the hon. Gentleman has ever visited the detention centre at Harmondsworth, he will be aware that it offers language teaching. Even as people are about to be deported, we are still making available to them training and education chances that will—we hope—be of use to them, wherever they end up.

Mr. Allan: I have a worry about that point. As we all recognise, under the current system, there are individuals who stay in a community for a long time—well in excess of a year, perhaps—while waiting for a determination of their status, and sometimes there is resentment in that local community that those individuals are not learning languages. There is a perception that they have access to courses but cannot be bothered to take them, whereas the reality is that they do not necessarily have legal access to them. Clarification on that would be helpful for community relations, because sometimes one comes across the worst kind of reporting in the press, claiming that such people are not bothering to learn, when the reality is that they do not have access to learning.

Angela Eagle: I accept the point that we need to differentiate in that way. If I believed everything that I read in the newspapers—much less in scurrilous documents by campaigning organisations that do not have the nation's best interests at heart—I would not be as sophisticated as I think I am.

We are sympathetic to the amendment, but we do not want it in the Bill in this form. My hon. Friend might be surprised to learn that. I assure him that the principle of trying to facilitate no-cost access for people is at the core of what we are trying to organise, but we must be careful about how widely we cast the net with regard to no cost. The amendment refers to travel costs as well as child care costs, and although we are sympathetic to that, I do not want to include it in the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Gerrard: I appreciate the Minister's positive tone, and I am glad that the Government want to facilitate. I am also glad that there will not, in general, be fees for people who undertake courses. That also displays a positive attitude. However, I hope that the Government will consider giving direct support to those organisations and institutions that might be involved in the provision of classes and courses that are relevant to people who are trying to acquire

Column Number: 029

citizenship. I know that she referred several times to FE colleges. I am in favour of giving FE colleges things to do. I worked in further education for a long time, and appreciate its value. However, some adults may find them uncomfortable places to attend. We should consider what can be done through adult education, which is the responsibility of local authorities, and through direct help to networks and individual organisations.

6.15 pm

We should provide more training and education for asylum seekers. On a visit to Kosovo a couple of years ago, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I spoke to people who had been asylum seekers in the UK, but who had returned. The clear message was that many of them would have had a better chance on return to their country of origin if they had been able to acquire more skills as asylum seekers. We should not refrain from helping people on the basis that we may be encouraging false integration. However, I accept the Minister's positive points and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 10, at end insert:

'(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for age and other exemptions in respect of the provisions referred to in subsection (3).'

As we said, the clause straightforwardly states the requirement for someone applying for naturalisation to have sufficient knowledge of life in the UK. The amendment merely probes whether there will be any exemptions and exceptions to the provisions. I may have missed something. Will the Under-Secretary clarify whether there are exemptions to the language test under existing legislation, and whether there will be similar exemptions and exceptions to the new requirements? Some who are disabled one way or another may find the Government's test too daunting a proposition, but may nevertheless be outstanding candidates for British citizenship. A sensitive approach is needed, especially for the elderly. Many people come to this country in the afternoon of their lives. As with all examinations, there should be a way of achieving the objective without having to sit the test.

On language, under subsection (2)(ba), I was asked whether the Government have taken note of sign language. We must ensure that those who communicate in sign language are not excluded from the benefits of naturalisation. They should be able to communicate with others in the UK using the common form of English sign language.

We shall no doubt discuss spouses in relation to the language test during the stand part debate on the next clause, as Committee members want to raise one or two related issues. The amendment is designed simply to float the thought that there are those who might merit some form of exemption from the procedures. We do not know what the procedures are, but we know that there may be vulnerable people who need help.

Mr. Allan: I am sympathetic to the amendment, and I want to refer briefly to the position of the older

Column Number: 030

relative. As Members of Parliament, we will all have seen people in our surgeries who want to bring in a parent from another country who needs to be looked after in their afternoon years. That is absolutely legitimate. The immigration rules sensibly make provision for those individuals to come over, because it is incredibly heart-rending for someone to have to choose between their career and country of choice and looking after a parent. If we can combine the two, that is excellent.
Such parents are frequently here for a period that allows them to acquire British nationality under the current rules, and there are significant advantages to that, particularly with regard to further travel. For example, the family may want to travel back to the home country to visit various relatives, and if the parent is left with a different nationality, it can be difficult for them to travel. They may not be able to apply for their visas as a group. The parent may have to get theirs on another passport, and the family will not be able to travel together. I would not like rigorous standards for the tests that an elderly person has to pass to apply in those circumstances.

Such people will spend years here, in most cases until they pass on. During that time, it may be that because they are not economically active their personal requirement for integration is not so great. They are here principally to spend time with their families. One can see the logic that says that if the individual will not be particularly active in the community, they do not need the British nationality, but the benefits to the family of their having British nationality are sufficiently high while the harm of allowing them British nationality seems negligible or non-existent.

I hope that some recognition of that is permissible in the rules, so that we will not be telling a 75 or 80-year-old that they must overcome the same hurdles as a 20-year-old who will be spending 40 or 50 economically active years in the UK.

Angela Eagle: Of course we will not be saying that. It is not our intention to force people who are infirm, elderly, mentally ill or have other relevant disabilities to take the tests just for the sake of it. A provision in the British Nationality Act 1981 already allows the Secretary of State to waive the requirement to pass a language test in certain circumstances.

The essence of this amendment, and amendments Nos. 98 to 100 to clause 2, is to probe us about whether the same right to waiver will exist for the test on knowledge of the UK. Having examined the Bill, I am not completely satisfied that the provision is drafted appropriately. That right should be in the Bill in the same way as the language test requirement waiver. We will deal with the other amendments when we come to them, but if amendment No. 17 is withdrawn, I hope that we can introduce amendments that will place the Secretary of State's ability to waive the test requirements in certain circumstances—the ones that I just mentioned—in the Bill. That will reassure people that there is no intention to waive the language test but not the knowledge of the UK test: it is simply a lacuna that occurred in drafting.

Column Number: 031

Mr. Malins: That has been a most helpful exchange, and I thank the Minister.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Before we embark on this debate, as we have spent a considerable time debating the clause, I ask hon. Members to be as brief as possible.

Simon Hughes: I just want to make one point. As it is now almost two hours since we started and we are just about to finish clause 1, I am mindful of our difficulty. I should like to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow about the importance of processes that ensure that when people are here, whatever their status, their time is used to best effect. He mentioned that he and I, together with Sir Peter Lloyd, the former Home Office Minister, went to Kosovo with the director of the Refugee Council. The key lesson that we learned was that whether people come to stay permanently or temporarily, whether they are asylum seekers or economic migrants, there is no point in their hanging around doing nothing. It did not help community relations. It was not good for them. It was not good for the community to which they might return or for the community here.

This may have more to do with administration than legislation, but I hope that systems are in place to give people opportunities. In those cases, we came to the view that three things were necessary: language improvement, the ability to become more technologically competent—a skill from which most people could benefit—and business skills, especially for those who are economically active. There is an hotel at the Elephant and Castle that is used for immigrants and asylum seekers. There are about 750 people there. It is galling for everyone—the residents, the management and the community—that they must simply pass the time with nothing to do. I am sure that there is no difference between us. We must ensure that when people are within our communities, in this case between arrival and seeking nationality, we use their time to best effect. I did not want to lose that point, which is clearly felt outside by native born Britons and by people who come here wanting to stay and to become British citizens.

Mr. Malins: I will take your strictures to heart, Mr. Illsley, and speak briefly. It is as well to stress that we support the clause in principle. We have pointed out that there are difficulties with the phrase:

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

and we hope that the Government will think again about that. Getting matters into perspective, the current language test is administered with a very light touch. It is often carried out over the telephone. Sometimes it is assessed in the provinces by police officers who potter along to see an applicant and have a chat. Provided that they can converse reasonably, that is the end of it. Sometimes it is done by the immigration service. I understand that in 1996—I do not have up-to-date figures—only 27 applicants were

Column Number: 032

refused on grounds of language as opposed to the 17,600 who were accepted.
It is a small-scale problem. We have highlighted one or two issues such as the need not just for more clarity of language and purpose but to approach the matter with sensitivity. It is not in the Bill, but is there, or should there be, a mechanism whereby anyone who is utterly aggrieved about a decision made by the Secretary of State about a naturalisation application can appeal either to a court or elsewhere for a second opinion? I do not suppose that it will happen often, but does such an appeal mechanism exist or will it exist in future? Broadly, we wish the clause well.

Angela Eagle: Clause 1 introduces new provisions into the British Nationality Act 1981. As hon. Members have pointed out, paragraph 1(1)(c) of schedule 1 to that Act already requires someone applying for naturalisation as a British citizen to be able to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic. The clause will ensure that that requirement is applied more consistently and that evidence of a particular standard of achievement is produced.

The examples given by the hon. Member for Woking show how lackadaisical the 1981 test has become. It is in all our interests to ensure that it is more consistently and more meaningfully applied. At the same time, we must get right the balance that I mentioned in previous exchanges. The test must not be too onerous, but must be as inclusive and as useful as possible.

With regard to an appeal mechanism, I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that I would run in horror from the thought of creating new appeal rights for examination results. Judicial review is available to challenge nationality decisions, but there are very few challenges a year on the grant of citizenship, and I would not want to open a wide new avenue of judicial activity.

Simon Hughes: I can think of one challenge.

6.30 pm

Angela Eagle: I can think of one, too, but we will not mention who it concerns. I have described what is currently available, and that is probably how it should stay.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
Naturalisation: spouse of citizen
Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 2, line 12, after 'paragraphs' insert '2'.

The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 99, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'spouse of citizen'.

No. 100, in page 2, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) In paragraph 2(e) for 'the requirement specified in paragraph 1(1)(c)' substitute 'the requirements specified in paragraph 1(1)(c) and (1)(ca)'.

Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. It took us an hour and a half to deal with only four groups of

Column Number: 033

amendments under clause 1, so we are clearly beginning to get into difficulties and I shall press on.
Anyone reading the amendments would not understand them, but they all address a simple point. The idea was not mine; it came from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. The amendments make a point to which I think the Minister may be sympathetic. Clause 2(1) extends the existing language requirement to include those who are applying for naturalisation as the spouses of a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen. Under the Bill, spouses will also have to comply with the knowledge of the UK requirement.

It will continue to be possible for the Secretary of State to waive the language requirement on grounds of age or physical or mental condition, but there is as yet no provision to allow the Secretary of State to waive the knowledge of the UK requirement in such circumstances. The argument is that it should be possible to waive that requirement for those who come and apply on residence grounds and for those who come on marriage grounds.

The logic of that is clear. Some people, perfectly reasonably and lawfully, meet someone and decide to marry them. It may not take them six years to make a decision. In fact, it may not even take six months; some people in this country get married perfectly properly after six days, three weeks or whatever. We cannot expect people suddenly to fit in to those arrangements the learning of the language and so on. The person from this country may might speak the other language, or a couple may not have a language in common. Sometimes that does not prevent people from deciding that they love each other and want to get married. We must be sensible about this issue.

What is the minimum residency requirement, if any, that the Government have in mind before any residence in Britain by virtue of marriage can be turned into a citizenship entitlement? When people apply as spouses, they usually get a conditional right to be here. The period has traditionally been a year, but the Government have talked about it being two years. Would that apply in the context that we are discussing? If someone married a UK citizen and wanted to be naturalised, would it be assumed that there would have to be a minimum of two years before they could put in their application? The clause would be more sensible if it were amended in that way. I am grateful for the fact that such matters were brought to our attention, and that the Minister may be sympathetic towards the amendment.

Angela Eagle: I am glad to have said in advance that we consider that amendment No. 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Woking should be made to the Bill. Our original intention was to deal with appropriate parts under secondary legislation, but the fact that the waiver for the language test is contained in primary legislation makes it sensible for the waiver in respect of the knowledge test, which we are inserting into the British Nationality Act, to be included in the Bill. It is a tidying up exercise and I am grateful to those who brought it to our attention.

Column Number: 034

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about minimum residency requirements for spouses. No period of marriage is required. The three years' residence can be before or after marriage. Residency rather than marriage is the determining factor.

Mr. Hughes: I wish to check what the Minister said. Let us suppose that a person had been here for only a year, and that he was a spouse. Would he have to wait a little longer before applying for naturalised status?

Angela Eagle: Yes.

Simon Hughes: If we could proceed as we have done so far for the remaining clauses, I am sure that you, Mr. Ilsley, and everyone else will be pleased. I look forward to the revised and no doubt hugely improved version of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—

'(1A) These requirements shall not apply to a person married to a British citizen and who is settled and has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom continuously for three years immediately preceding the application for naturalisation'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 48, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—

'(3) These requirements shall only apply to a person married to a British citizen and who is settled and has been ordinarily resident in the UK continuously for the three years immediately preceding the application for naturalisation.'.

Mr. Malins: We are on similar territory to that dealt with by the previous amendments. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I am grateful to the Immigration Advisory Service for its help with the amendment. We shall not press it to a Division. Current nationality law allows a spouse to apply for naturalisation after having lived legally in the United Kingdom for three years. The amendment would allow a spouse who has been in the United Kingdom for three years exemption from the language test—as at present—on the basis that, after such a time, it is expected that a spouse would be sufficiently integrated into the community of the spouse, who is a British citizen. My question concerns the evidence to show that spouses of British citizens have not integrated. The amendment is a somewhat convoluted way of keeping the status quo for spouses.

Angela Eagle: I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The run of good luck that started under clause 2 has come to an abrupt end. We cannot accept the amendment, because it would disapply the clause that requires the inclusion of spouses in the English test and the test of knowledge of life in the United Kingdom. Thus, it would disapply the provision for some spouses of British citizens, but not others. It would be divisive, and some spouses of British citizens would be subject to the requirement while others would not. It would also be anomalous, because it would leave spouses applying for naturalisation as British overseas territory citizens subject to the language requirement, but not those who were married to British citizens.

Column Number: 035

We do not consider that there is a justification for continuing to exclude the spouses of British citizens from the knowledge of English requirement or from making them subject to the knowledge of the United Kingdom society requirement, which will apply to non-spouses. The clause is a genuine attempt to be helpful, not to say that spouses of British citizens have not integrated or that there is a problem with them. It is intended simply to give them the same opportunities as everyone else has to do the courses intended for their benefit. That is the principle behind the changes in the clause, which for the first time covers spouses. It is not one from which I or the Government want to walk away, but one to which we are committed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the Government's position and withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: My point is prompted by the European Union-non-European Union anomaly. I accept the Minister's point and understand the argument, but something strikes me as slightly odd. Let us imagine that the EU is widened to include the applicant countries, and that someone from Romania to take an example at random where the culture has a different tradition, marries someone from this country. They would not have to go through the process because they would have freedom of movement, whereas someone from Australia, Canada or New Zealand, which might be regarded as the places in the world that are the most similar to here, would. Have the Government reflected on the differences that will arise as a result of our European Union obligations?

Angela Eagle: I make the same point as I made before. If the Romanian party to the marriage wanted to naturalise, they would have to take the tests. They are, like others who do not have to pass the tests, in some circumstances subject to our immigration controls and would be allowed to live and work here. However, the key point is that the tests come into play when people apply for naturalisation. It is not our intention to force people who live and work here to apply for naturalisation. Therefore there is an equivalence, despite the European Union obligations. Everyone has to pass the tests when applying for naturalisation.

Mr. Malins: As I said, it is a probing amendment. I have heard the Government's response, and in the circumstances, I do not propose to press it to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: Have the Government thought through their policy on non-married long-relationship partners, whether heterosexual or same sex? I ask only because the Government have changed their policy on immigration, which is welcome, and have recognised people who have been together for a long time as constituting a couple. What is the policy on nationality? It is obviously illogical that someone who has been married for two minutes and who has

Column Number: 036

known the other person for a week can qualify for British nationality, subject to the tests, whereas someone who has been living with someone for 30 years cannot enter on that basis.
Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have considerable sympathy with his point. However, the Bill does not amend, combine or modernise our nationality and immigration processes. I am afraid that we did not have time for such consolidation. Therefore, it is not complete in removing the anomalies that some of us would like removed. There is still a point of policy about when and whether in immigration terms we should equalise unmarried partnerships and give them the same recognition in the rules as is currently given to marriage. The Bill does not deal with that issue, which we shall have to continue to make representations about, consider and discuss.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that answer. It was not intended to be a trick question. I wanted to find out whether the Government had applied their general desire to modernise and bring things up to date in this area. I accept the Minister's point. My noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has introduced a Civil Partnerships Bill in the House of Lords. I hope that in due course people will apply logic throughout Government policy, and I look forward to progress in that area.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
Citizenship ceremony, oath and pledge
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

6.45 pm

Simon Hughes: I think that the main debate will take place when we discuss schedule 1, because that opens the matter up. The issue here is whether the Government are right to think that there ought to be citizenship ceremonies, or whether there should be nationality ceremonies. We may have opportunities to address that later.

There is a much more intellectually high-powered argument. The Government have got into a bit of a muddle about whether we are deciding what a person should do to become a citizen, or whether we are talking about what one should need to do to become naturalised as a British national. I wonder whether the Government have thought this through, and whether they have got the language right. Have they talked to all of the relevant experts who think that they might have got the phraseology wrong with regard to international law? It is important to get that right, if we are to get the Bill as a whole right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Before I call the amendment to schedule 1, I think that it will be of benefit to the Committee if I indicate that I will seek to suspend for

Column Number: 037

dinner at or around 7 o'clock, and that the suspension will last until 8.30 pm.
Schedule 1
Citizenship ceremony, oath and pledge
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 69, line 6, leave out second 'and' and insert 'or'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 28, in page 69, line 9, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 29, in page 69, line 13, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 30, in page 69, line 17, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 31, in page 69, line 20, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 25, in page 70, leave out lines 28 to 37 and insert—

'Oath and Pledge
''I, [name], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its constitution, rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.''.'.

Mr. Malins: We may have a long debate on whether schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill, but I this is no more and no less than a probing amendment. It substitutes the word ''or'' for ''and''. Schedule 1 refers to the relevant citizenship and pledge, and my amendment would change that to read ''citizenship, oath or pledge''. I do not press the amendment in the slightest way: I simply think that it is a useful vehicle to discuss why the Government feel that there is a need for an oath and a separate pledge.

Having said that, I and my party support the concepts behind the oath and the pledge, and I am grateful that the proposed oath is not the same as that which must be taken in the United States of America before one becomes a citizen, which states:

''I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.''

That is the oath of allegiance that must be taken before the USA will grant citizenship. A simple comparison with what is in the Bill shows that our proposed oath is much more straightforward and much simpler and, in my respectful view, much more acceptable, and therefore much less likely to raise objections across the country.

I know that hon. Members who represent the Liberal Democrats—and in particular the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—may have something to say about the wording with regard to citizenship and nationality. My amendments

Column Number: 038

provide a vehicle for discussion and probe the Government's reasoning behind their request for a pledge and a separate oath.

Simon Hughes: Colleagues will see from the amendment paper that my hon. Friend and I support amendments Nos. 27 to 31. We are also sympathetic to the hon. Member for Woking's probing amendment No. 25.

I am no expert on oaths legislation, but I understand that there is always the option to affirm rather than to take an oath. It is important that everyone understands that. I have never taken an oath in court, for reasons of faith rather than for any other reason. People have all sorts of reasons for declining to take an oath, and it is important that they are not pushed into taking oaths if they do not want to. The hon. Member for Woking touched on those areas, and it is important that we consult as widely as possible and get them as right as we can.

I have no problem with the concept that those who seek to come to this country must make the same affirmation or take the same oath as others take for other purposes, such as becoming a judge, magistrate or Member of Parliament. I have made it clear that we need to change the nature of the oath for such occasions, but I accept that this is not the place to do it. I also accept that people take an oath to be faithful and bear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen as the Head of State. As it happens, I am a constitutional monarchist. On balance, I prefer a monarchy to a republic, so I do not have a problem with that. It would be disrespectful and disloyal to be too critical of the monarchy today of all days, when Her Majesty addressed us in Westminster Hall. I am happy that we have allegiance to the state as represented by the monarch, but as soon as possible we must accommodate the fact that some people are republicans. Most people around the world come from republics and will be republicans.

Interestingly, the pledge is more complicated than the more controversial oath. It states:

''I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.''

It was put to me that the pledge to fulfil the duties and obligations of a British citizen can be meaningful only if those duties and obligations are known. There is currently no codification of them, and the Bill does not tell us what they are. However, it is important that people understand what they are. I have long made the point that young people should understand the obligations of adulthood: the right to vote and the need to exercise it; jury service and the obligation to perform it; and the right to be a magistrate. Another topical obligation is the requirement to give evidence if called to do so.

I should be grateful to know how far the Government have thought through those duties and obligations. More work needs to be done. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that there will be plenty of lead-in time to the introduction of the pledge? I am signed up to the idea of a process rather than a brown envelope and a form, which does nothing for anyone

Column Number: 039

except undervalue them. I am not against some of the things done in Canada and other countries. I talked to people from the Canadian high commission and a Canadian Under-Secretary of State, and I understand that Canada has a system that is devised by a commission that stands away from the Government and that changes and moulds the system. That is a good model.
There are good models. It is a good idea to have a process and a moment at which a person crosses a line to be recognised, welcomed and accepted. There should be reciprocity with a person saying, ''I make my commitment to the United Kingdom'' and the country saying, ''We make a mutual commitment to look after you.'' I hope that we proceed carefully in order to get maximum agreement about what we do.

Angela Eagle: I shall deal quickly with the issues. I am glad that the amendments are probing because they would remove the oath of allegiance to the Crown and give people the option of taking the pledge or the oath—I am sure that the hon. Member for Woking did not intend that. I thought that that was an odd thing to appear on the amendment paper on this day of all days marking the Queen's 50th jubilee.

Mr. Malins rose—

Angela Eagle: Before the hon. Member for Woking gets too panicked, let me explain that there is a common-law oath of allegiance that we all owe to our sovereign. Consequently, from his point of view, the amendment was not quite as bad as he thought.

Mr. Malins: The Minister is hanging me out to dry at the moment, but she knows that I am wholly in favour of an oath of allegiance to the Crown on this of all days. However, sometimes we need an amendment that is drafted by people outside this place to act as a peg on which to hang a constructive discussion.

Angela Eagle: I absolutely agree. I have been in opposition, and replacing ''and'' with ''or'' is usually a meaningless and harmless way to allow a debate on a topic. However, the wording of this amendment was slightly more drastic and I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will not press it.

Our historic oath of allegiance is unchanged and goes back a long way in legislation. We have coupled it with a modern citizenship pledge with wording that enhances the significance of becoming a British citizen. Although there is an oath of allegiance to the monarch, there is also a pledge to the country. I hope that it is less cumbersome than the onerous oath that the USA uses. That attempts to list everything that is implied by the pledge, which is what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants. I prefer to have shorter pledges with guidance notes elsewhere, rather than setting out the entire content of the pledge in a list within the pledge.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants to begin to write a written constitution by using the pledge. We should debate whether we should have a written constitution and whether British citizens' duties and obligations should

Column Number: 040

be listed, but they should not be included in the pledge's wording. I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will withdraw the amendment.
Section 42(7) of the British Nationality Act 1981 confirms that people can affirm for whatever reason; they do not have to swear the oath to God.

Simon Hughes: I have a technical question. The schedule contains the name of the present monarch. I assume that that will not survive the drafting process, because I assume that we do not introduce new legislation to change existing legislation every time the monarch changes. Will the Minister confirm that the schedule will refer to the fact of a monarch rather than the name of a monarch? That should apply despite the length of time that the Queen indicates that she wishes to go on and however long she does go on—I wish her good health and a long reign.

Angela Eagle: I am flying by the seat of my pants, but I think that the schedule refers to the monarch and her successors. The Interpretation Act 1978 deals with changes of monarchs so the hon. Gentleman's point is taken on board.

Mr. Malins: We have had a useful and short debate, which I wish I had not instigated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.59 pm

Sitting suspended.

8.30 pm

On resuming—

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]
The Chairman: Hon. Members who wish to table amendments for next Tuesday's sitting might like to know that they must table them by the rise of the House on Thursday.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 69, line 6, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 51, in page 69, line 9, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 53, in page 69, line 13, leave out first 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 54, in page 69, line 13, leave out second 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 55, in page 69, line 17, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 56, in page 69, line 20, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 57, in page 69, line 24, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 58, in page 69, line 30, leave out first 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 59, in page 69, line 30, leave out second 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 60, in page 69, line 31, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

Column Number: 041

No. 61, in page 70, line 8, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 62, in page 70, line 15, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 63, in page 70, line 20, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 64, in page 70, line 25, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 65, in page 70, line 26, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 66, in page 70, line 38, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 67, in page 71, line 11, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 68, in page 71, line 18, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 70, in page 71, line 28, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 69, in page 71, line 29, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 71, in page 71, line 30, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 72, in page 71, line 32, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 73, in page 71, line 33, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 74, in page 71, line 36, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 75, in page 71, line 41, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 76, in page 71, line 44, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 77, in page 72, line 5, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 78, in page 72, line 6, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 79, in page 72, line 9, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

Next section