I shall speak to the amendments in my name. I hope it will be helpful to the House if I indicate as I go through them which of those amendments I currently intend to press to a Division, so that the Minister will know.
I start with the labour market provisions and say at the outset that we on the Labour Benches support the establishment of a director of labour market enforcement. This will provide strategic leadership, which is much needed and very welcome. The real issues in relation to the director are resources and focus. In Committee we heard evidence from Professor Metcalf, who is chair of the Migration Advisory Committee. He said that he understood the issues of public finances, but he did not think the enforcement bodies had enough resources. He pointed to the fact that on the evidence in the report on low-skilled work, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs could be expected to visit any given premises once every 250 years and that there was the prospect of a prosecution every 1 million years.
I accept that any investigation would be intelligence-led and targeted, but those figures are stark and point to the problem of resourcing. As another example, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority investigations dropped from 134 in 2011 to 68 in 2014. Clearly, we cannot deal with resources here in this debate, but amendment 18 is intended to give a focus to the director, to ensure that the functions of the director are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation and to make this explicit on the face of the Bill. This mirrors the way in which the Modern Slavery Act 2015 dealt with the functions of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner established by that Act.
There is therefore a good precedent for the amendment. It provides clarity and it avoids any misconception or temptation about this role, which is being introduced in an Immigration Bill—namely, that it should be about labour market enforcement, not immigration control. The experience of other countries suggests that this is the right focus for this important role.
Amendment 19 would omit the proposed illegal working offence and maintain the status quo. Time and again in the House and elsewhere the point has been made about the exploitation of the vulnerable. The Migration Advisory Committee reported in 2014 that
“the combination of non-compliance and insufficient enforcement can lead to instances of severe exploitation, particularly of vulnerable groups such as migrants.”
The Committee said in the same report:
“We were struck on our visits around the country by the amount of concern that was expressed by virtually everyone we spoke to about the exploitation of migrants in low-skilled jobs.”
There is a great deal of other evidence to the same effect. What is desperately needed is more resources for inspections, a focus on exploitative employers and a mechanism to encourage employees to have the confidence to come forward. The new provision cuts across that.
Clause 8 is likely to ensure that the most exploited and vulnerable will become even more so; in effect, it will simply strengthen the hand of gangmasters over exploited workers. It also fails the test of necessity. There are already criminal provisions relating to those who have breached immigration rules and there is no need to introduce a new criminal offence for employees. We are talking about the most vulnerable and exploited people, who need the confidence to come forward if the director is to achieve the functions set out in the Bill. My current intention is to push amendment 19 to a vote, although obviously I will listen to what the Minister has to say.
I turn to amendment 20, which also relates to the offence of illegal working. It is a strict or stark offence: an employee who simply does not have the right immigration status commits an offence and has no defence at all. I shall give an example of the injustice likely to be caused. If an employee in good faith relies on his or her employer to sponsor him or her, but something wrong in the process means that as a matter of law, and unbeknown to them, they do not have the right immigration status, they automatically commit an offence and have no “reasonable excuse” defence. That cannot be right for a new criminal offence in this field. With all due respect to the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is not good enough to say that the prosecution must weed out those cases. There needs to be a defence in statute to cover cases of mistake and error that are not the employee’s fault.
I turn to the provisions on landlords and the right to rent. The background is important during this Report debate. The Immigration Act 2014 introduced a civil penalty scheme in relation to the right to rent. That was discussed in the House; there were concerns about the impact it would have in practice and in particular about whether there would be any discriminatory effects. Assurances were given about piloting and properly evaluating the civil penalty scheme before it was rolled out. This Bill, in 2015, proposes to extend the civil penalty scheme by introducing a criminal penalty before there has been a full and meaningful evaluation.
As was mentioned on Second Reading, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants carried out an evaluation showing, alarmingly, that 42% of landlords said that the right to rent provisions made them less likely to consider accommodating someone who did not have a British passport. At that stage, we did not have the advantage of the Home Office evaluation, which was made available in Committee, as the Minister said it would be. That evaluation, however, was small and narrow. The Home Office itself said that it was not sure about the statistical significance of part of the evaluation and that the sample sizes were too small to draw any robust conclusions. We say that the assurance in relation to the civil penalty scheme has not been fulfilled and there is no warrant for extending the scheme to include a criminal sanction.
Amendment 22 deals with the position of landlords who, under the current provisions, would automatically commit a criminal offence the moment they were served notice that they had a tenant without the right to rent. They would be criminalised notwithstanding the period between receipt of that knowledge, normally by a notice, and their best prospect of getting anybody evicted. A reasonable, objective landlord who received a notice and acted on it immediately would still be criminalised during the process. There cannot be any sensible or compelling case for that state of affairs, which causes great concern to landlords and puts them in an impossible position. I understand that the Government may be considering the issue and obviously I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says. On the face of it, however, it is difficult to see that there could ever be a case for such a measure.
Amendments 23, 24, 25 and 26 all relate to the important issue of summary eviction. The Bill introduces a fast-track process—innovative in this field—in which a notice from a landlord stands as a court order, leading to provision for summary eviction. Some 30 or 40 years ago, the House set its face against summary evictions for a very good reason: there were too many examples of locks being changed and families literally being put out on to the street to sleep on the pavements. Everybody agreed that there should be due process before individuals and families, particularly families with children, were evicted. The Bill cuts through that protection for no good reason. In this country in the 21st century no group of individuals should—for whatever reason, and whether renting lawfully or not—be subject to summary eviction proceedings that, as I said, we turned our back on a long time ago.
I move on to immigration detention, which has already been touched on and is a matter of increasing concern to many in this House and beyond. The fact of immigration detention causes real distress and anxiety, particularly among vulnerable groups, and its indefinite nature adds to that. There is strong evidence of the impact on varying groups, particularly women. I think I am right in saying that the UK is the only country in Europe that does not have a time limit of any sort on immigration detention. That has been the subject of inquiry by the all-party groups on refugees and on migration. They concluded:
“We believe that the United Kingdom has a proud tradition of upholding justice and the right to liberty. However, the continued use of indefinite detention puts this proud tradition at risk.”
The reforms suggested by the cross-party joint APPG group were backed by the House of Commons when they were debated in September this year, and a motion supporting them was passed. The issue is one of increasing concern and justifying indefinite immigration detention is increasingly difficult. Amendment 32 is intended to deal with that by introducing a 28-day limit, which many people feel is the right one.
New clause 13 is intended to allow a review by an independently chaired panel to consider the issues and report to Parliament within three months; it is not premised on a fixed period. It is important that there is progress on these issues. Immigration detention is a real cause for concern and this is an opportunity to do something necessary.