Clause 40
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
1:45 pm

David Anderson (Blaydon, Labour)

I assure you that I have absolutely no intention of mentioning any amendments, starred or otherwise, Sir Nicholas.

I seek clarity from the Minister on clause 40(2)(e) and the meaning of “continuous employment”, because there is a huge question about the meaning of that phrase. A trade union asked me to ask this specific question: what would happen to people who are working in a workplace who are being harassed, bullied and exploited while they are here on work permits? If they chose to walk away from exploitation rather than remain in that employment, would they rule themselves out of the opportunity to become naturalised citizens?

The concern is that there is only one legal definition of continuous employment. It is spelt out in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which states—very clearly, for the law of this land—that continuous employment means employment with the same employer without a break. Because there is no other definition in law, if people challenge a decision to refuse naturalisation, the reality is that that definition will be used. Is that the case? I understand that the question was raised in the  Lords, and that the Minister there said that in certain circumstances individuals could change employers in occupation periods. If that is the case, will the Minister expand on it?

People are concerned about when such a situation might come about. Some time ago, the case of the cockle pickers in Morecambe bay led to the welcome Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. As recently as yesterday, however, a 10-minute Bill was introduced on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), which would update the 2004 Act to include construction workers, because of the problems that such workers are facing. Many people who come to work in construction in this country from abroad may, in the long term, become eligible for naturalisation. They are the sort of people we need—as we said earlier, they are highly skilled people—and we want to attract them. We need to be clear that they will not be exploited.

There are lots of problems with temporary workers and the agency workers directive, and people are in danger of being exploited in the real world of work. I had some experience of that when I was a Unison trade union official. A group of degree-level Filipino nurses were working over here on a contract and living four to a room. They were being charged transport charges for using a bike to ride to work. They were under pressure because there was a bond on them: if they walked away from their work, not only would they be liable to pay the money back in this country, but they would be liable to pay the money back to contractors back home. My union got them out of that workplace and got them work in the health service, where they were treated properly. If the Bill goes through as it stands, most people would not want to choose the alternative that my union made possible for those nurses. People could be forced to stay in such workplaces if they want to become naturalised citizens. It is a real issue.

Nobody is unaware what is happening in the world now. There is massive uncertainty because of the recession and there are questions about when recovery will start. In the interval between the end of this morning’s Committee’s sitting and the start of this sitting, I spent three hours on the phone trying to deal with a case that has developed in my constituency as a direct result of the closure of Dairy Farmers of Britain. We are trying to stop the closure of a dairy in my constituency. We know what the situation is, but we need to be clear that we are doing everything we can to ensure we do not make life even harder for people—good hard-working people—whom we want to stay here. As a result of circumstances totally outside their control, they might not be able to comply with the continuous employment requirement.

The Conservatives are committed to 10 per cent. cuts in public services. Many of the people we are talking about—skilled migrant workers—will be working in the health service, education and local government. Their jobs will be under threat and they may well fall outside this provision. Will the Minister please clarify what we mean by “continuous employment” and calm my nerves? Let us get this right and get it sorted.

See this speech in context