I thank Members of the Committee for that contribution. I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As I said, we are changing the way that migrants progress to citizenship. We are creating a clearer journey towards becoming a British citizen by putting in place three clear routes to citizenship, with clear requirements for progression on each route. To qualify for citizenship, those here on work routes must show that they are still working and paying taxes. If they do not meet that requirement they will not qualify for citizenship and will be required to leave the United Kingdom. This is wholly appropriate: those here on the "work routes" are here to do exactly that. If they cease to be in employment, they have ceased to meet the key requirement of their route and therefore should not be allowed to progress to citizenship. If these amendments were to be made, migrants who have come here to work would be allowed to qualify for citizenship despite being completely economically inactive for, in some cases, long periods. That is wholly unacceptable.
Furthermore, the amendment specifically proposes a requirement that the applicant has not breached conditions. However, under the existing proposals this is already achieved by virtue of the good character requirement. Under this requirement a breach of condition will normally lead to the refusal of a naturalisation application. As such, in practice, this part of the amendment is unnecessary.
At the same time, however, we recognise that there may be circumstances, especially in the current economic climate, where economically productive migrants cease to be in employment for short periods and through no fault of their own. That is why Clause 37(7) gives us the discretion to waive this requirement in compelling circumstances. However, this is quite different from removing the requirement for a person who has come here to work to remain in employment continuously, which this amendment would allow and which would be completely inappropriate. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel sufficiently convinced not to press the amendments.
Individuals can change employer. This condition is intended to ensure that an individual continually contributes to the United Kingdom economy while they are here, not that they have to be in the continuous employment of one employer. Domestic servants are not required to stay with the same employer but I take the point about references not being given. I also take the point that there are abusive employers of domestic servants. I am happy to take on board the point and, at the appropriate stage, at least explain in greater detail how this area will be dealt with. In principle, however, we do not consider that the Bill requires these amendments.
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Brett
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 March 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c526 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:40:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533009
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533009
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533009