Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

The draft code is available to the noble Lord because that is the document which we hope to turn into a succinct and clear final version. I am always keen to make sure that anything employers receive is as short as possible. There will be other issues and amendments to be made to it. I undertake to make sure that the next draft of the code, including proportionality within it, is available to the Committee as soon as I have sight of it. I was not sure whether the noble Lord was implying that I would have a very thick document. I hope not—for all the reasons indicated by the noble Viscount on making sure that employers are provided with useful, to the point and succinct documents. The answer to the question on convictions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is that there were 17 convictions between 1997 and 2004 under Section 8 of the 1996 Act. I have already indicated that one of the issues of that Act is that it is weighty legislation. I hope that we now have a much broader and more flexible way of approaching those issues. If Members of the Committee are willing, I shall turn to Amendment No. 38. I completely understand the objectives behind the amendment. I confirm that we will issue guidance to employers, but we do not think that the amendment is necessary. The penalty notice will set out why the Secretary of State thinks that the employer is liable to a civil penalty, so that there is absolute clarity about the obligations that are needed to prevent illegal working that the Secretary of State thinks they have failed to meet. Part of the enforcement officers’ responsibility will be to offer information and guidance to employers on illegal working legislation when they undertake visits. The draft code will direct immigration officers to do just that each time they serve a caution or a penalty. We will also have comprehensive guidance for employers, the Home Office website and a helpline service. We do not think it necessary to include all of that in the penalty notice, but we think we have a robust system that will give employers the information to enable them to make sure that they are compliant in the future and that we have provided the necessary links to make that happen in a simple and easy manner, which, again, I appreciate is part of what the noble Viscount seeks to achieve. Amendment No. 39 applies to the issue of employers having to continuously or continually look at the status of people working for them. As my honourable friend Mr McNulty said in another place, our current ambition is that about every 12 months employers will consider the status of those people who do not have indefinite leave to remain or who may have temporary status. I was asked this morning how that would operate. We want to work with employers to see what works best for them. In some industries, it might be that it would be more effective if on a specific day everyone brought their documents in—for example, 1 April—because that would suit those employers. Others may choose to do it differently. But we do not suggest that employers are required to look more often than that. Even if an employer takes on someone who has the ability to work for six months, we do not expect the employer to remember and go back after six months saying, ““Hang on, where are you in this?””. Much as I might like that, I recognise that for many employers it might be quite impracticable. We acknowledge that this will not be done once in a lifetime, but on a basis that we think is reasonable, about once a year. Employees who have the status will have their documents looked at. On that basis, we do not think that we are putting an unnecessary burden on employers. How employers go about this is for them; they may do things differently for their own reasons. It may be that there is an obvious method, but we say that a check made around once a year would be appropriate. That is how this provision will be taken forward and we will pursue our discussions on that basis. I hope that I have been able to address the concerns expressed by giving an assurance that we will have a simple process; that employers will know precisely what we are asking them to do; that we will work with them to support them, using the officers concerned to give advice, information and support; that we recognise that mistakes can be made; that we have in mind the necessary flexibility and proportionality to ensure that this civil process will work effectively; that we will ask employers to look again at the information, but on a basis that is proportionate, reasonable and not burdensome; and that with employers as our colleagues we will be able to address the particular concern we all share—that of ensuring that we do not have illegal working this country. On that basis, I hope the noble Viscount will feel that I have responded to his concerns.