My Lords, on the draft immigration order for employment of adults subject to immigration control, the Labour Party supports the principle of preventing those with no legal right to reside in the UK undertaking paid employment here and implementing penalties that act as real deterrents for employers who deliberately break the law, so we will support the increasing of the penalties from £15,000 to £45,000 per worker for a first offence. However, given the potential impact on employers, the lack of consultation with businesses, especially small businesses, is disappointing. We would argue that it demonstrates, yet again, the lack of a clear, thought-out strategy towards immigration and tackling illegal work.
The draft order on residential accommodation would increase from £3,000 to £20,000 the maximum penalty for renting a property to someone who does not have the right to rent in the UK. Again, there has been a lack of consultation. I repeat the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German: there are known unintended consequences of right-to-rent checks and penalties for breaches. Landlords are keen to avoid large penalties and might discriminate against British nationals and lawful migrants who have the right to rent but who, perhaps because of their race or nationality, face discrimination and difficulty in getting those rentals. The noble Lord asked how this is monitored: is it done through the Equality Act, which is the remedy for landlords who are discriminating against legal people trying to rent? What are the Government doing to monitor this situation and what levels of enforcement are there against landlords who illegally discriminate against particular groups of people?
6 pm
I also looked at the economic impact assessment paper. On the right to work, it says that there were 530 penalties for illegal working between January and March 2019. That does not sound a huge amount, but I reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, made about whether this is a beneficial policy that is having the impact that the Government desire. I ought to fairly acknowledge that, in the table presented, a lot of those fines were at the top level. There may be an argument for increasing that top level so that there can be a better distribution of fines, given the circumstances. Regarding the right to work, there are about 1,500 prosecutions a year, but the nature of the data presentation was different, so I found it less easy to judge whether there is a reasonable distribution, although we agree with the principle of increasing the maximum penalty. Of course, that is not a target; it just means that there is a greater flexibility for any sentencing court.
As I said in my introduction, we are happy to accept the principles behind these two amending orders. We support the principle of these fines. Nevertheless, there are real concerns about discrimination which I hope the Minister will be able to address.
I will comment briefly on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about whether people are checked for their legal right to work before they receive a national insurance number. I do not know what answer the Minister will give, but if he wants to give a more detailed written answer, I would be very interested to read it. In my experience in magistrates’ courts, there is often no relationship between people who have national insurance numbers and those who have no status to work here. In fact, I have been told—it may well be inaccurate—that they are separate systems, which is the reason the Government are bringing in the extra checks we are talking about in these two orders. Nevertheless, this is just tittle-tattle I have heard in magistrates’ courts, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.