Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his comments, particularly on the way these provisions fit not only with European human rights legislation but also, as he pointed out, with natural justice. I am glad that he pointed that out to the Committee because it is important. The noble Viscount has rightly raised issues on which I suspect he seeks absolute clarity and reassurance on the way we will approach this. I hope that I shall be able to provide that clarity and reassurance in the appropriate manner. I agree with the noble Viscount that we are concerned that an employer should not be driven out of business for making an honest mistake in checking an employee’s entitlement to work. It is implicit in this part of the Bill that the Secretary of State can consider the impact of a penalty on the business if it forms part of the employer’s objections, which surely it would. Furthermore, Clauses 16 and 17 provide that an employer may object at appeal on the grounds that the penalty is too high. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was kind enough to point out, the draft code of practice specifies that the Secretary of State must consider evidence provided of an employer’s financial means in determining the objection. We believe that that is the appropriate way to deal with an important issue, one that we recognise and have sought to address fully. I hope that when the noble Viscount comes to reflect on the position, he will feel that we have achieved what is set out in his amendment. I turn to the question of the timetable. Again we want to achieve this through administrative practice rather than through legislative provision. This should be more a dialogue between representatives of the Secretary of State and the recipients rather than a process taken through the courts. The court is the final recourse, and as the Minister responsible for mediation I am keen to resolve these matters away from the court. In appropriate circumstances, we have made it clear that we would enable payments to be made over a period of 12 months. That recognises the financial issues that would form part of the case. However, we are always mindful of ensuring that the deterrent effect we want to see is in place. I also understand the point about the Secretary of State being able to raise the level of a fine if it were appropriate to do so. I want to make it absolutely clear that that would not be done just because someone disputed the fine. They should not feel that such an objection would have any bearing on an increase in the penalty. We have modelled much of this provision on the scheme provided for road hauliers, which seems to be working extremely well. Only seven appeals have been brought forward out of 1,000 cases. That is a very low proportion. We want to retain the provision so that if the circumstances warranted it, the Secretary of State could say that the penalty was too lenient. But the decision would be made only on that basis; it would not be linked in any way to someone bringing forward an objection. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I can also confirm that we already intend to ensure that the Secretary of State’s decision on an employer’s objection would be given to the employer in question, along with the reason. However, again we do not feel that it is necessary to make it a legal requirement because it is a part of what we are proposing to do.