UK Parliament / Open data

Undocumented Workers

Written question asked by Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws (Labour) on Thursday, 28 January 2016, in the House of Lords. It was due for an answer on Wednesday, 3 February 2016. It was answered by Lord Bates (Conservative) on Thursday, 28 January 2016 on behalf of the Home Office.

Question

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter by Lord Bates to Lord Rosser on 8 January (DEP2016–0028) and the remarks by Lords Bates on 18 January (HL Deb, col 624), how they arrived at their assessment that in-country seizure could double with the use of the extended powers enabled by the new illegal working offence.

Answer

The Government arrived at this assessment based on the impact of the court’s judgement in the case of Nuro on the ability of Home Office Immigration Enforcement to use Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) cash seizure powers which were conferred on immigration officers by section 24 of the UK Border Act 2007. The courts have held (Nuro v Home Office [2014]) that as it is not a criminal offence for an illegal immigrant who is not subject to immigration conditions to be self employed in the UK, there is insufficient causation between the offence of illegal entry to the UK and obtaining the earnings to apply POCA powers. The creation of the offence of illegal working will address this judgment and provide a broader basis for cash seizure.

Type
Written question
Reference
HL5291
Session
2015-16
Immigration Bill
Monday, 18 January 2016
Proceeding contributions
House of Lords
Back to top