Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 5:"Page 10, line 4, at end insert—" ““(   )   Before an order can be made under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall consult with employers likely to be affected by the code of practice and shall take account of the results of that consultation.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have tabled this amendment to enable the Minister to meet a commitment which she gave on Report that the Government would provide noble Lords with an updated draft of the code of practice regarding the civil penalty for employers. I am grateful to her office for sending me a copy of the latest draft which was published on 6 February. I understand that there are four main changes which reflect issues that we raised during our debates in Grand Committee. I should be grateful if the Minister could highlight those points for the assistance of other noble Lords, but in particular for those who will read in the future a record of these debates. I should also be grateful if the Minister could address a couple of points raised by the Commission for Racial Equality in a Third Reading briefing that I received from it last week. First, it remains concerned that civil penalties and repeat checks on certain employees subject to immigration control could be divisive and is not in the spirit of race relations legislation; and that civil penalties may make employers less likely to employ legal migrants or anyone, including UK-born ethnic minorities, perceived to have an immigration issue. Those points were raised properly at Second Reading. Reflecting the further briefing received last week, my question is this. What work do the Government intend to carry out as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent to address these concerns and resolve any unintended consequences of the introduction of the civil penalty? For example, do they have plans to set up regular meetings with the CRE to monitor any problems? The second issue it raised refers to the fact that Clause 23 states that the Secretary of State must consult the CRE and consider representations before placing the code of practice before Parliament although the code of practice can be laid before the House with or without modifications to reflect the representations. The CRE points out that it is unclear how the new code will relate to the 2005 CRE statutory code of practice on race equality and employment. What work are the Government now doing to see how the two codes will be reconciled before they place the code of practice before Parliament? I beg to move.