Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 42, page 34, line 42, at end insert ‘; or—

(c) has participated in activities of benefit to the individual applicant, the host organisation and the wider community.’.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 46, in clause 42, page 34, line 42, at end insert—

‘(6) The activity condition can be completed at any point during an applicant’s arrival in this country or the subsequent probationary citizenship stage.”’.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

The Minister has just helpfully mentioned the activity condition, which is clearly a central new idea that the Government are introducing. The amendment is designed to probe some of the details. At the moment there is a large black hole in the Bill as to what is meant by activity condition. Even those who accept in principle the argument that the Minister made in our most recent debate, have a series of legitimate questions about how this activity condition will be implemented in practice. Yet again, inevitably, the details are not given and are left to be clarified in secondary legislation, but as it is such a significant shift in this country’s attitude to immigration and immigrants, it is worth the House knowing as much as it is possible to know at this stage.

I was grateful to receive an e-mail yesterday—I am sure the whole Committee received it—about the document that had been made available. I was slightly less thrilled when I discovered that the document had been sitting in the Vote Office for 48 hours before the e-mail went out. The Minister looks puzzled, but the document is dated 4 June—

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

It is an evolving document.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

It may be, but one of the amendments before us is specifically addressed in the document. The document was not publicised to any members of the Committee until after it was possible to table amendments in time for them to be debated now. I do not think that was an organisational triumph. We can deal quickly with amendment 44, which seeks to say that the activity condition can be completed at any point during an applicant’s arrival in this country or the subsequent probationary citizenship stage. On carefully reading the document, I discovered that is the Government’s thought too. I am pleased that in that detail the Minister and I are thinking along the same lines.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Order. May I try to be helpful? I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to amendment 45, not 44. We are debating amendment 45, with which it is possible to discuss amendment 46.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I meant to say amendment 46, not amendment 44. I knew that I wanted to refer to the second amendment in the group. Amendment 46 is covered explicitly in the document and, either by coincidence or some other happy event, the Minister and I arrived at the same conclusion.

The Minister will be aware that in another place, my noble Friend Lady Hanham questioned Ministers carefully on the detail of the activity scheme and condition. She was not satisfied that all the voluntary sector’s concerns had been properly considered, and thought that the practical application of the scheme was still too vague. The document addresses some of the practical issues, to which I shall turn in a minute, because some of the suggestions are dubious and others—frankly—even worse.

The underlying problem is that the proposals for earned citizenship will rapidly create fairly big bureaucracies, and the groups most affected will be in the voluntary sector, which we all hope to support and we all know is most vulnerable to bureaucracy. Small charities and volunteering organisations are the least able to cope with onerous bureaucracy. That would be extremely unfortunate for the voluntary sector, which is keen to help and, by and large, wants more volunteers and  would like to serve many of the purposes for which the Minister argues under the activity condition and earned citizenship. Nevertheless, their lives will be a misery if the scheme produces too much bureaucracy.

Many of the underlying problems are summed up in five questions from Volunteering England, which is part of the steering group, so I hope that it is having a significant input to the Government’s thinking. I would like the Minister to respond to the five questions.

First, how does the Minister expect organisations without the financial resources to reimburse volunteers for travel and other out-of-pocket costs to participate equally in the active citizenship scheme? That is a reasonable and practical question. Secondly, many potential applicants will have caring responsibilities and may not be able to rely on family members for the care of children and other dependants. How will he ensure that funds are made available to reimburse participants for costs such as fees for child minding or respite care incurred while fulfilling the requirements of the active citizenship scheme?

Thirdly, does the Minister agree with Volunteering England that every potential applicant should have an equal opportunity to participate in the active citizenship scheme, and what does he propose to do to support those with extra needs linked to disability, or even straightforward lack of literacy in English? Fourthly, a recent national survey on volunteer management by the Institute for Volunteering Research shows that nearly a third of organisations do not have the time or resources to cope with more volunteers. That puts a gloss on the point I have just made that, on the whole, the volunteering sector wants more volunteers, but a third of the organisations cannot cope with more. How will the Minister encourage organisations in that position to open up to new opportunities? In particular, how are they supposed to spend time on the verification arrangements for the active citizenship scheme? I shall return to the verification arrangements, because they pose a serious problem that must be addressed.

Other people have expressed considerable and legitimate fears as to what will happen. There are those, including organisations such as Liberty, who object in principle, saying that the scheme is discriminatory and exploitative. At this stage, it will be useful for the Minister to address that complaint, which I do not share. I can see how the scheme might become discriminatory, but I do not think that it will be discriminatory in principle. Clearly, however, if the Minister wants overwhelming acceptance of the whole idea of earned citizenship, he will have to take that argument head-on. The Minister looks slightly puzzled. I will explain.

There are those who say that in principle, any earned citizenship scheme is discriminatory and exploitative. While I have a small amount of sympathy—I can see how it might be—I do not see any reason why in principle it should be. As the Minister argues the case for the new scheme, he will have to take on that particular argument.

Associated with that is the general point that whereas some migrants will find it easy to contribute, and their lifestyle, skills, work and family position make it fairly easy for them to take on extra voluntary work for the  number of hours that the Minister proposes, that will not be true of others. At that point, it is quite hard to argue that it is not discriminatory. The other point, which I think is valid, was made by Liberty. It is unclear how the Government intend or expect to regulate volunteering on that scale.

The document, which I keep referring to, addresses the regulation. Let me move on to it, because it gives rise to some of the most difficult questions that the Minister has to answer if he believes that he will create a good and practical scheme. The document states that the Government

“place the onus on the applicant to tell the truth about their ‘active citizenship’ with their citizenship application, but with a role for a referee and a process to verify the bona fide status of the organisation concerned...The referee would sign the applicant’s form to verify that the details given about their active citizenship were correct. A referee would be defined as someone in a supervisory capacity with personal knowledge of the applicant’s active citizenship.”

So far, it is a bit bureaucratic, but still acceptable. However, the next suggestion is ridiculous.

“Whilst the Design Group felt penalties should fall solely on the applicant the Government’s position is that there will also be penalties for referees who act inappropriately as an additional safeguard. Under Section 46 of the British Nationality Act 1981, someone who makes a false or reckless statement for the purpose of procuring anything to be done or not to be done under the Act can be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to £5,000, or both...Both applicants and referees would be subject to sanction”.

The Minister will try to persuade voluntary bodies and well-meaning people all over this country to support the scheme. At the start of it, he will make it compulsory for people to have referees, but he is also saying that the referee will be laying themselves open to a fine of £5,000 and three months’ imprisonment if they themselves are deceived by an applicant. I suggest gently to the Minister that that cannot be a sensible way to start off—it will not work.

The Government Whip is shaking his head at me. I am reading word-for-word from his own document that the Government placed in the Vote Office. He can disagree with it, and indeed I hope that he does, because I disagree with it. That is the burden of what I am saying. That does not seem to be an extremely good way to design a new scheme. I hope the Minister will mount an elegant retreat from it fairly quickly.

I also mentioned the regulatory regime that the Minister is proposing to set up. The document makes the point that some 90 local authorities currently operate a nationality checking service on a voluntary basis. Those services check the details of citizenship applications—for a fee to the applicant—and pass the applications to the UKBA caseworkers in a state ready for immediate caseworking. The thinking of the group is that

“our local authority partners are uniquely placed to offer an accessible service to applicants for British citizenship”.

Again that is arguable, but it seems to be a practical step forward.

However, the document goes on to say:

“Whilst the Design Group’s preferred option was to make use of NCS as a preferred provider, the Government’s initial thinking is that we should aspire to go further than this and make its use compulsory. The Government’s position is that ideally, all applications, particularly those with an active citizenship element, would be submitted through NCS enabling providers to use their local knowledge to assess and verify evidence.”

In other words, wrapped up in all this wording is yet another duty on local authorities. As one would expect, there is no suggestion that any extra funding will be available for this service. The document suggests that local authorities will have to provide this service compulsorily for immigrants in their area, or that immigrants who do not have a local authority that provides this service will not be able to use this method, or that some other compulsion will be operated.

Of course, the burden for this service will fall hugely disproportionately on a small number of local authorities. We do not get an even distribution across the country of long-term immigrants who wish to apply for citizenship. Inevitably, many of the local authorities that will be hardest hit by this extra burden will be those that are not the wealthiest in the country. So I would advise the Minister that if this idea is, as it is described, an “aspiration” of the Government, they might wish to stop aspiring to it very quickly, because it does not seem to be either a practical or a fair aspiration.

I do not wish to read out the whole document, because it is available. However, the third point that I wish to make is about the activities involved: the very basic things that people can do to prove that they are an active citizen—a worthy person to be granted the privilege of British citizenship. The list of such activities bears some examination and indeed it should be changed by the Minister. It starts off with things that I suspect nobody would raise an eyebrow at. They are:

“• volunteering at the local hospital for example helping at a WRVS shop

• volunteering at a health related community education project

• volunteering at a local school for example to raise reading levels of primary school children”.

Of course, that last activity raises questions about Criminal Records Bureau checks, as these people are people who, by definition, have recently come from other countries and we know that CRB checks are much more difficult to carry out on people who have recently arrived in this country, and yet we are actively encouraging them to go to work in schools. Has the Minister thought through the practicalities of that suggestion?

Other activities on the list that are still reasonably good are:

“• volunteering at a lunch club for the elderly”

and

“• volunteering at a soup kitchen for homeless people”.

However, I question whether some of the activities lower on the list have been fully thought through. They include:

“• volunteering for a faith organisation”.

Does that mean any “faith organisation”? Bodies can declare themselves to be a “faith organisation”. Not all self-styled “faith organisations” are necessarily places where one would want to say, “I have worked there for 15 hours and therefore I qualify for a fast track to a British passport”. I put that suggestion to the Minister; he will know as well as I do the sort of organisations that I am talking about.

The list also suggests “trade union activities”. I am not sure that several hours standing on a picket line should necessarily be a qualification for a fast track to a British passport. [Interruption.] I thought that that comment would be controversial across the House.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Read the next one.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

No, I shall read the one before, which is:

“• canvassing for a political party”.

I am happy to say that we do not find it difficult at the moment to find people to canvass for our party. I am conscious that, on the Government Benches, it may be more difficult to find such people than it has been before. However, the idea that people who, by definition, cannot have a vote because they are not citizens yet should be specifically encouraged to engage in some political activity for a party as a way of proving their “active citizenship” gives rise to some quite significant questions about how hard this list has been thought through. The Minister is making a face that makes me think he considers that all kinds of political activity in all circumstances are good.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman has prompted me to rise to my feet, to ask him whether he thinks that delivering “Focus” constitutes an active citizenship activity.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

It is so long since I have found anyone delivering “Focus” that I cannot really comment. Seriously, though, when people who have newly arrived in this country ask, “What should I do to get myself a British passport to become a citizen?” should we be telling them, “We are the local political party, why don’t you deliver our leaflets?” This measure has not been thought through.

David Hamilton (Midlothian, Labour)

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not encouraging people to get employment and then not join a trade union that would protect their rights? Would he bring that in if he were elected?

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman gives rise to another interesting point, in that this activity will only count if it is unpaid. From the viewpoint of a strong trade unionist, which I guess the hon. Gentleman is, it seems slightly perverse that a person is allowed to work for a trade union, which will qualify them, but then they must not get paid for it. Imagine the perversity of the situation: jobs that could be done by people who are being paid are, instead, being done by people who are unpaid, and the jobs are being done for trade unions. My understanding of trade unions is that that is the thing they hate most of all—people doing unpaid labour displacing people who would otherwise be doing paid labour. This Labour Government are suggesting precisely that as a qualification. There is a significant lack of coherence at the heart of this bit of the proposal.

I am not clear what consultation has been had with the trade union movement about this. I am perhaps less in tune with the motives and motivations of the trade union movement than Labour Members, but even I feel that this measure is a little perverse. A person can help the trade union as long as they do not get paid. The moment that they are paid for their work, it does not count as voluntary activity and does not count as a qualifying activity for the purpose of active citizenship. I hope that the Minister will fully explain the thinking that lies behind the proposal.

Finally, I should like to note the extraordinary power that is to be provided to the Secretary of State by the insertion of the proposed new subsection, which will  allow the Secretary of State by regulation to amend the length of the qualifying periods for citizenship. We had a long discussion earlier today about the problems of quasi-retrospection—of changing things in ways that might be challenged by the courts, as they have been under the highly skilled migrant programme. A huge power has been slipped in here by which the Secretary of State can change the length of time of the regulations. I am genuinely not sure whether that has been slipped in in the hope that no one would notice. However, we have noticed, and it seems to be quite a big power given the importance that the Minister is placing on not just the length of time people have to go through to qualify for citizenship but the fact that they can do certain things that reduce that time. He is making it pretty easy for the current or any future Secretary of State to change the conditions under which the length of time can be set.

I hope the Minister can address that wide range of important issues, including the type of activities that would count, the potential burden on the voluntary sector—specifically the fines for referees and the amount of form-filling—and the extra burden on local authorities regarding the nationality checking service and the funding. It is suggested that the migration impact fund would be used to fund some of that activity. Up to now, Ministers have said that that fund is available to local authorities that have been hard hit by unexpected arrivals of immigrants. There is also the potential burden on employers, because many of these people who will be doing this voluntary work will be doing full-time work as well, particularly in the current economic climate. What is suggested here is that employers will be happy to give them time off to do their voluntary work. Clearly, that will be easier for some employers than for others; it will be easier for large employers than for small employers.

The basic point that I am making—I think the Minister will have got it by now—is that even if one accepts the argument for encouraging people to integrate, making them feel that they have to contribute something to the community and giving them a huge incentive for those worthy activities in the form of two years off the period for which they have to be here before becoming a British citizen, it is absolutely a matter in which the devil is in the detail. So far, the detail released suggests that the scheme has not been fully thought through before being introduced into public policy. All experience tells us that schemes introduced in that way and at that speed often end up doing more harm than good. I hope that considerable thought is given to the scheme before it translates into anything in the real world.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I want to echo many of the queries raised in relation to the amendments, and I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. There are a couple of other queries that I would like to put to him that I believe are pertinent to the amendments, and I hope he can answer them as well.

I agree entirely with the point about voluntary organisations. What greater disincentive can there be to voluntary organisations than to know that they will be subject to penalties, and possibly a term of imprisonment, if they fail to account correctly for the volunteering activities of people who join their organisation?

The issue of CRB checks was raised. If the Government are going to push people down that route, additional resources will clearly be needed in that area. Like many other Members, I suspect, I regularly receive complaints about the speed with which CRB checks are done. People are actively prevented from securing employment because they are waiting for their CRB check to come through. If we are going to be creating many more requests for CRB checks, additional resources will be needed.

Can the Minister provide us with an estimate of the number of volunteers that he thinks will seek voluntary activities each year after the Bill has been passed? Has Volunteering England identified what demand for volunteers it will be able to satisfy and what support those volunteers will need in order to be able to volunteer? Also, has he heard any representations about the difficulties, already highlighted in the other place, of satisfying demand for places for volunteers, particularly in rural areas? It is much easier in an urban area; there are probably many more voluntary organisations, or at least many more that are easily accessible, than in a rural area.

Instead of raising the issue in a clause stand part debate, I will ask the Minister one final question on volunteering for young people. I had an amendment that I did not table in time and to which I therefore cannot possibly refer, Sir Nicholas, but I understand that it would not have achieved what we wanted it to even if I had. It would have sought clarification from the Minister on whether children would be required to undertake volunteering activities for their citizenship, and whether that would place an undue burden on, for instance, children whose first language is not English and who might be trying to combine studying English with learning in their own language. They might, therefore, have less time available to undertake active citizenship activities. I hope the Minister will respond to those very specific queries.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

We have put forward the document on the work of the design group, to whom we are very grateful indeed. The background to this is that in July 2008 we published a document entitled “A Path to Citizenship: next steps in reforming the immigration system”. I always like documents that say what is actually inside them—it is much better.

We set out our proposals in our response, to create the new path to citizenship. The design group’s document contains the work that it has done so far. We set the group up last summer. It has representatives from the voluntary sector, including Volunteering England, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Local government is represented as well. The group’s remit was to advise on the most effective way to operate the active citizenship process in practice. We have now agreed a proposed model for accrediting and verifying active citizenship, but I emphasise—and I do not think it is a weakness—that we are embarking on a very significant policy change. We are evolving and consulting on it extensively. This is not on the face of the Bill and one would not expect it to be—to put it there would render it inflexible.

We would be the last to say we are perfect, but let me try and answer some of the specific points that have been raised so far. The idea of active citizenship has  been around for some time. Its definition takes us into difficult areas. I challenge anyone to put forward a set of proposals that would get unanimity, perhaps even consensus—certainly at first stab. I hope the Committee recognises the common sense of what I am saying.

At its core, I ask the Committee to consider the point that active citizenship and what we are discussing here is a way in which probationary citizens can speed up the time period for becoming a citizen. For migrants who have come to the UK as a worker or a refugee and European nationals, the default qualifying period for application for citizenship will be eight years. For migrants who have come to the UK as the family member of a UK citizen or someone with permanent residence here, the default qualifying period will be five years. So none of these are requirements for citizenship; they are a way of incentivising and speeding up citizenship, and from the wider community’s point of view are a way of benefiting from that application.

Let me turn to the specific answers to the questions. On the question about children asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, an application under section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 can only be made by a person of full age. It is not envisaged that a child would be able to do this programme. He asked about the number of volunteers. Volunteering England has looked at that as well. We have, on advice from the design group, assumed that there will be a 5 per cent. increase in volunteering among the migrant population who are eligible for the probationary citizenship each year. It is assumed that 4,000 migrants per year will undertake volunteering. I confess to the Committee that that is a finger in the air. One has to make working assumptions and have the ability to revise them as policies roll out. That is why it is sensible not to put things in the Bill. That is the best advice that we have.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Presumably the Minister is not saying that 5 per cent. of people seeking citizenship will opt for active citizenship to minimise the length of time before they are awarded citizenship.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

This is the assumption that we have been working on. It is the advice that we have. First, it is an increase in volunteering; there is a substantial amount already. It is based on an assumption of the number of applications, of course. Therefore, it is assumed that 4,000 migrants a year, in addition to those who already do, will undertake volunteering. The range of assumptions runs up to 10 per cent. but that is per year, so as time rolls on there will be more people. I give that as information to the hon. Gentleman; I am not suggesting that it is exact or a science. I refer him to the impact assessment, which contains further analysis of those figures.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

The Minister has the exact guess, as it were, of 4,000. What proportion of each cohort are the Government assuming will participate? Intuitively one feels it will be a very high figure. Has that figure been assessed?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Yes it has, but I do not know what it is. I am being frank with the hon. Gentleman. The previous impact assessment made reference to it.

I shall answer questions in random order. The hon. Gentleman asked about resources for volunteering organisations. This was looked at. We recognise that  people and groups have expressed concern about this and the design group looked at it for us. It worked with the voluntary sector and had voluntary sector representation on the committee. There are opportunities for funding to address any cost impact. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the migration impact fund. There is no policy decision on that; it is a suggestion from the design group. There is also the European integration fund, which may be able to assist. There is a concern that national bodies will receive a lot of requests for funding, so clearly there is work to be done in this area. I am not signalling that the migration impact fund will be used for other than the purpose it has been set up for. The hon. Gentleman picked me up on that point, as do the local authorities, for understandable reasons.

On applicants with special needs, there is the flexibility in the system to take into account special needs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned disabled people and raised the important point about carers. It is not policy that there should be any financial compensation for taking part—or remuneration, as he said on his trade union point. It therefore is incumbent on the system, in fairness, to take into account the fact that people have caring responsibilities. Without being too rigid it is incumbent on me to point that out. We do not believe there are any equality and human rights implications. We have looked at that point, of course, not least because this is voluntary, not compulsory.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the minimum time requirement. We considered that point. Migrants will be able to demonstrate active citizenship at any point of the route. That will allow them to plan activities in line with work and family commitments. We are also looking at what the time commitment should be for active citizenship. Again, does one want a rigid number of hours a week or an average over a period of time? I do not envisage people clocking in and clocking off in relation to this.

The hon. Member for Ashford made an important point, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, about the critical passage at the beginning of the document about whether there should be financial penalties. The hon. Member for Ashford expressed amazement at that. I sometimes think he lives in a different world from the one in which I live. It is, undoubtedly, sadly the case that individuals will attempt to exploit any new system. Not all voluntary organisations are what they appear. Therefore, the challenge is to ensure that we get genuine organisations to participate but that we do not create a cottage industry of abuse and fraud, which could well happen.

Recently, there have been newspaper reports about exposed bogus colleges, which I am proud to have brought to the public’s attention and clamped down on. I confess that that should have been done years ago by Governments of both parties. That illustrates the type of problem with which I am dealing. The fine, or the punishment, can only exist where the person has intentionally and knowingly falsified. In relation to the example that the hon. Gentleman gave, if the applicant misleads the sponsor and the sponsor is inadvertently misled, of course, that would be covered. He is right  about that. I have very helpfully been handed something with the word “recklessly” on it—knowingly, intentionally or recklessly are the criteria.

A key strength of the points-based system and this new system is that it puts an obligation on the sponsor in the case of the points-based system. That is a very effective tool in controlling visa overstayers. In this case, an obligation will be put upon the referee to ensure that the information is valid, so that we can avoid the circumstance whereby some cowboy might sign a document in which he says, “Yes, this person has been volunteering in my community welfare advice centre,” when no such centre exists.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I take the Minister’s point. Of course, he is right: any opportunity such as this will be an opportunity for fraud. We have seen such things happen a lot in the past. However, in these circumstances, I am not sure that I accept his point that one can read across from sponsors, who gain a direct benefit from sponsoring an immigrant, to referees. Although he might deter fraudulent referees with these draconian penalties, they will also deter genuine potential referees, particularly in relation to small charities or rural areas—as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned—where there are lots of small charities. There is an unpleasant combination of extra bureaucracy and extra risk that will put off small charities. Members on the Government Benches are looking shocked by that.

The most important conversation I have had about the voluntary sector was with the Connexions service in Kent, which said that many small charities find it difficult to fill in its forms and as a result do not get enough money, and that it had therefore set up an officer to teach them how to fill in forms. As a prime example of how not to do anything, that is ideal. In five years’ time, I do not want Government bodies setting up and paying new officers so that they can train small charities in how they can become effective referees for people trying to earn citizenship. That is what I fear will happen.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I give way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington on the same point.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Voluntary organisations might want some reassurance that the legal terminology of intentionally, recklessly and so on that is used will ensure that they will not be put in a position where perhaps the quality of the active participation—the volunteering activity—is being challenged. I can think of examples—I am sure other Members can, too—when work experience students have come to us and, a couple of months later, we have received a request to fill in a form saying that they did the job properly and always turned up. Sometimes it is difficult to recall who they were and whether they did, in fact, play an important role. Is that sort of thing ever likely to be challenged?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

The hon. Gentlemen are raising a perpetual point of public policy that all local and national authorities face—the balance between ensuring due probity in the voluntary sector and not stifling it with burdensome bureaucracy. Getting that balance right is the challenge; that is what the Office of the Third Sector and the covenant address themselves to. In my constituency one  of my welfare groups complained that it was overcome with burdensome forms; we released the burdens upon them and the organiser ran off with the money. We have to get the balance right.

To be fair to the design group, which we all want to be, the point about the penalties refers to section 46 of the British Nationality Act 1981. This is not a new principle being applied; it is an old one in new circumstances. I take the point that is being made; this is why it is right to scrutinise these things in detail.

Moving on to the duty on local authorities, the hon. Member for Ashford was speaking against a potential new burden being placed on them. Around 80 local authorities have signed up to the nationality checking service. There is an opportunity for local authorities: I would not over-egg it, but this is a potential source of income. We envisage that some local authorities will develop an expertise and may act on behalf of areas in their proximity. We do not want to make it compulsory; we think that would backfire. The local authorities are keen members of the design group and there is no duty on them.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I want to check that the Minister said he did not want to make it compulsory. That contradicts what is in the document.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Which?

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I will read it out:

“the Government's initial thinking is that we should aspire to go further than this and make its use compulsory.”

Does he want it to be compulsory or not?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is picking up on point 3 of the document, I think. It should be compulsory for the applicant to register through the nationality checking service, but not for the local authority to provide that service. That is the question we are looking at. I have raised further doubt in the hon. Gentleman’s mind; he should read the paragraph at the bottom.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Let me move quickly on. The proposals on local authorities are being discussed. The views of the Committee are important to that consideration, of course.

Hon. Members asked a number of other questions. The document lays out our thinking on those. We are creating this structure so that active citizenship can become real and meaningful in the United Kingdom. We have laid out some of our ideas in the document. I think that trade union activity is a legitimate part of active citizenship. Of course, the trade unions are dependent on voluntary activity—full-time officials are paid for their work, but voluntary activity from the shop floor is essential. I was interested in the debate about whether party political activity should be considered a legitimate part of active citizenship; a dividing line opened up on that issue. My view, which will not count in the long run, is that we should encourage political parties. We should encourage the idea that politics is part of citizenship. Excluding it from the regulations would send the wrong message; it would imply that participating in a political party does not contribute to civic society. I would argue that my party helps immensely and the hon. Gentleman’s does damage, but I suppose he would argue the opposite.

Crispin Blunt (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Reigate, Conservative)

Is there not a possibility of some degree of exploitation? Immigration provides a substantial amount of any Member’s case load. People will come to us on their route to citizenship to seek our assistance when things have gone wrong in the handling of their case by the Home Office. As with applications to get children into faith schools, people will try to create circumstances to advance their case for citizenship. One obvious way to do that is for them to get their Member of Parliament to assist with their immigration case and, at the same time, provide voluntary assistance to that Member of Parliament’s political party. I am afraid that the opportunity for exploitation is all too obvious.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Were such a Member of Parliament to knowingly and intentionally, or recklessly, to sign a certificate, they would be imprisoned under—

Crispin Blunt (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Reigate, Conservative)

That is not the point at all. How are Members of Parliament meant to differentiate between those coming before them seeking help, and those enthusiastically endorsing their political party and all that they stand for and wanting to rush out and deliver leaflets? That could be “Focus”, if that happens to be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, “In Touch”, if it happens to be in Reigate, or whatever passes for Labour propaganda today.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I take the point. Such activity, whether it be for a political party or one of the other bodies that have been referred to—or others referred to in the future—would have to be recognised as part of the scheme and be certified by the accrediting body. It would not be a simple matter of self-certification. This is the challenge that active citizenship puts before us. The hon. Member for Ashford made a point about faith organisations. Defining a genuine faith organisation is a challenge that the Charity Commission, local authorities and others face all the time. Again, the proper superstructure would have to be in place to ensure that things were working.

Damian Greenrose—

Tom Brakerose—

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I will give way once more, but I am conscious that we are talking about the design group’s work, not the clause.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I am interested in the important point that the Minister just made about a superstructure for checking. That sounds like another licensing authority to decide what is an appropriate body to provide the imprimatur of proper active citizenship. We all agree that the opportunities for exploitation, fraud and unpleasant things happening are considerable. The Minister is right that if we go down this route, there will need to be a checking body. What will that body be? Will it be the local authority, national Government or another new regulatory body? Has any thinking evolved around that yet?

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Yes, indeed it has. The document from the design group mentions the national checking service that I was talking about, for which 80 local authorities have volunteered. Clearly one needs local input. There  cannot be a national top-heavy superstructure. It has to be based on local knowledge, and that is how we envisage the scheme.

I sense impatience in the Committee. I have spoken at length to try to answer questions, but have not talked about clause 42 and the amendments. I hope that I have covered the points that have been raised and justified the desirability of the clause. I resist the amendments and support the clause.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I can assure the Minister that there was no impatience on this side of the Committee. Conservative Members think that this is a hugely important part of the Bill—in some ways it is the most radical. One reason why there were so many interventions and questions was because the process is clearly imperfect. We are at a relatively advanced stage of the Bill’s proceedings. The Bill has already gone through another place. It is in Committee here, yet we are still groping for details of how the system will operate. The document from the design group that we have been discussing is full of caveats. I do not blame the group at all; it is trying to get to grips with an entirely new system. It is perfectly clear to anyone who reads the document that it is not very far down that road.

I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but I hope that the debate has sent up a warning flare to the Minister that an awful lot of additional work needs to be done on the clause before it is put into effect. It is possible that the unintended consequences of what is not an ignoble idea could cause severe damage. He sat down thinking that he had talked for too long, but I disagree with him on that—[Interruption.] I do not want him to take that as a precedent.

The Minister’s speech was so long and there were so many interventions precisely because the more one thinks about the details, the more problems—and, frankly, ambiguities—emerge. He responded to my point about the checking arrangements for bodies with the nationality checking service, but I understand that that service is to check whether individuals are doing the appropriate thing. I am talking about the bodies with which the individuals will volunteer. The Minister is quite right to say that some of those will be big, established charities while others will be small charities that we would all recognise as such. At the margin, however, there will be some bodies that are not recognised as charities or as volunteering bodies. Beyond the margin, there will be organisations set up specifically for getting people involved, but that are basically scams whereby they can fulfil their requirements and get citizenship two years early or, even worse, organisations that are actively of unpleasant intent and see a new source of potentially vulnerable, and perhaps slightly ignorant, recruits to exploit.

The regulatory regime for bodies is therefore hugely important, but I detect no sign, from either what the Minister said or the document, that that regulatory regime will be in place, or that how it will operate has been thought through. Although this might be a good idea that could go forward, it is also potentially a hugely dangerous idea, and I hope that Ministers will take that on board in the remaining stages of the Bill’s passage.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the one question that the Minister must be able to answer is how someone anywhere in the country will be able to check whether a voluntary organisation is a legitimate organisation that can provide a genuine active citizenship opportunity? If that cannot be answered, I am not sure where the scheme is going.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. There are clearly bodies that could do that, such as the charity commissioners, which register charities. However, the activity is so important, and almost open-ended as new people arrive, that whoever does it will find themselves having to devote considerable resources to it. It will therefore be costly in terms of money, time and staffing. That point is not remotely trivial.

The more we think about it, the more we agree we need proper regulation, but then the more difficult, expensive and time-consuming that regulation will become. Ministers should have thought through what that might entail, not least in terms of possible public expenditure. I detect very little sign that that work has been done, which, frankly, is slightly worrying.

I hope that on Report, and perhaps when the Bill goes back to another place, Ministers will have something much more concrete with which to reassure us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I am not quivering. I rise briefly to answer the points that have been made. I give reassurance by referring to clause 42(5), which states that regulations, whether alone or with other provision,

“may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford that the regulations and what I have described as the superstructure are evolving. I am aware of his caution. There has been a lot of work, but I accept that these are the emerging thoughts of the design group. The issue is extremely important, which is one of the reasons why the proposed commencement date is what it is.