| Paragraph No. and text
| Progress report 2004
| Progress report 2005
|
| Paragraph 136: We support the decision to pilot the fast tracking of incoming airline passengers at Harmondsworth. However, it is important that claimants subject to fast-tracking procedures should be treated humanely and receive a fair hearing, with safeguards to ensure that any genuine refugees who have been sifted in error have their rights protected. We hope that HM Chief Inspector of Prisons will continue to monitor conditions at Oakington and Harmondsworth, as well as at other asylum detention centres, and we expect the Home Office to take action where necessary in response to her findings. We are not satisfied that the Government has done enough to ensure that adequate legal advice is available to asylum seekers and repeat the recommendation in our previous report (see paragraph 130 above) that steps should be taken to remedy this.
| HM Chief Inspector of Prisons will continue to monitor the conditions at Oakington and Harmondsworth as part of the rolling programme of announced and unannounced inspections. A further announced inspection of Oakington took place in June 2004 and the report was published on 9 November 2004.
The Government remains concerned to ensure that detainees have access to competent, independent legal advice and representation. IND is facilitating a research project to be conducted jointly by the Office of the Immigration Service Commissioner, the Law Society and the Legal Services Commission to assess the extent of the problem.
Claimants subject to fast track processes are treated humanely and the processes offer them a full and fair opportunity to make out their claims. Claimants have access to a legal representative before their asylum interview. At Harmondsworth this is via the "duty solicitor" scheme administered by the Legal Services Commission. There is also a safety mechanism to ensure that, where new or additional information comes to light which suggests that the claimant is not suitable for fast tracking, he is transferred to the mainstream process. The Fast Track Appeals Procedure Rules which are made by the Lord Chancellor under the authority of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, give the immigration adjudicator who hears a fast track appeal the power to remove an appellant from the jurisdiction of the fast track into the mainstream appellate system
| Accepted. In addition, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 which are made by the Lord Chancellor under the authority of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants Etc.) Act 2004 give the immigration judge who hears a fast track appeal the power to remove an appellant from the jurisdiction of the detained fast track into the mainstream appellate system.
|
| Paragraph 139: Given the delays in opening accommodation centres, and the fall in asylum applications, the Government in its response to this report should clarify how many accommodation centres it intends to establish, with what capacity, on what timetable and at what cost.
| The first centre, near Bicester in Oxfordshire, was granted planning approval by the Deputy Prime Minister in August 2003. Construction of this centre is expected to commence in early 2005 with completion in late 2006.
As asylum intake continues to reduce, accommodation centres will enable us to more effectively manage the asylum process for a larger proportion of the intake. The accommodation centre near Bicester will be an essential part of our network of centres. This includes induction, reporting and removal centres enabling swifter processing, better management of cases and the speedy removal of those who have no right to stay in the country.
Work continues to identify sites for further centres. The costs of establishing accommodation centres remain commercially confidential.
| No longer applicable. Ministers announced in a Written Ministerial Statement in June 2005 that we would not proceed with an accommodation centre at the former MOD site outside Bicester. Nor at any other potential site.
Following detailed consideration, it was decided that accommodation centres could no longer offer good value for money; changes in the asylum landscape no longer justify such centres.
|
| Paragraph 140: There will be some local sensitivities about the siting of both induction centres and accommodation centres. For induction centres, a flexible approach including the use of dispersed accommodation may reduce these concerns.
| The new North West Consortium (East) Induction Service which opened in July 2004 provides a dispersed flexible model. Asylum seekers are accommodated in individual houses, flats or bedsits with processes conducted in a series of locations.
| Accepted. The consultation process with local stakeholders has been reviewed and strengthened to respond to past concerns.
|
| Paragraph 141: We recommend that the Government should move as quickly as possible towards a situation in which all asylum seekers are processed either through an induction centre, accommodation centre or a fast-tracking facility. The investment necessary to expand the IND estate must be made available as a matter of priority.
| We continue to work to establish a national network of induction centres. A new induction service opened in the North West in July 2004 and a one day induction centre came on line in Brixton in September 2004.
| Accepted. A national network of induction centres - now known as Initial Accommodation is now up and running. The final sites in Croydon and Hounslow went live in August and September respectively.
|
| Paragraph 142: We support the extension of the language analysis scheme as part of the asylum screening process and believe that this should be developed as quickly as possible.
| Negotiations are underway with our Dutch, Irish & Spanish counterparts regarding the setting up of a joint language bureau. European ARGO funding is being sought for this project.
| Accepted. We are further investigating the use of language analysis and the concept of language analysis over the phone with a quicker turn around time for the results.
|
| Paragraph 146: We recommend that the Government should publish details of the Treasury Solicitors' assessment of the quality of IND decision making on asylum applications. We further recommend that the Home Office should commission an independent review of the quality of that decision-making, and publish its results. We also recommend that the Public Service Agreement targets for future years should be more challenging. A reduction on the current relatively high proportion of successful appeals should be formally included as part of the target. The system of decision-making should be subject to constant assessment and review.
| There has been a considerable extension of the independent external element in quality assessment of initial decisions over the summer. Sampling by the Treasury Solicitor has been doubled from 25 cases to 50 cases a month. A pilot project began in August 2004 - UNHCR sample 50 decisions each month, which they select at random. UNHCR assessors provide written and oral feedback to the caseworkers concerned. This demonstrates the Government's firm commitment to ongoing independent assessment and review.
| Accepted. UNHCR have continued to sample 50 decisions selected at random and to provide feedback to the caseworkers concerned, demonstrating the Government's firm commitment to ongoing independent assessment and review and to building quality firmly into the processes.
|
| Paragraph 148: Finally, it is essential that the system of processing asylum applications should be properly resourced.
| The asylum backlog has been reduced from a peak of 120,000 cases in January 2001 to 10,300 at end of September 2004, demonstrating our commitment to properly resourcing the asylum system. The asylum intake has fallen significantly over the last 18 months - new applications stood at 8,605 in the 3rd quarter of 2004, a decrease of over 60% on 2002 when intake was at its peak. We will retain the capacity to continue to further reduce the number of outstanding asylum applications to "frictional levels" ie all cases will be ongoing work.
| Accepted. The asylum intake has fallen significantly over the last two years. New applications stood at 40,625 in 2004, a decrease of over 60% on 2002 when intake was at its peak. We will retain the capacity to continue to further reduce the number of outstanding asylum applications to "frictional levels" ie all cases will be ongoing work.
|
| Paragraph 162: As the system for applications is tightened, we can expect a rise in illegal migration and illegal working, whether by failed asylum seekers or by those who do not make an asylum application. It is important that the Government should devote as much attention to this problem as it has done to the level of asylum applications.
| The Government is devoting close attention to the problem of illegal migrant working. Our strategy includes increasing enforcement activity, developing joint working across Government, and working with business to promote compliant behaviour and to prevent the use of illegal labour. The Immigration Service has carried out nearly 700 operations against illegal working during financial year 2002/03, and is also increasing prosecution activity against employers who negligently or deliberately use illegal workers. We have announced our intention to pilot a joint enforcement team in the West Midlands in 2005, which will draw together officers from different departments responsible for enforcing workplace regulations, and build on existing joint working initiatives. The team will explore the scope for even closer co-operation between departments in sharing and using intelligence to disrupt rogue businesses.
| Accepted. The Government is devoting close attention to the problem of illegal migrant working. Our strategy includes increasing enforcement activity, developing joint working across Government, and working with business to promote compliant behaviour and to prevent the use of illegal labour. The Immigration Service carried out 1,600 operations against illegal working during 2004, and has also increased prosecution activity against employers who negligently or deliberately use illegal workers. We are currently piloting a joint enforcement team in the West Midlands. This draws together officers from different departments responsible for enforcing workplace regulations and builds on existing joint working initiatives. The team will explore the scope for even closer co-operation between departments in sharing and using intelligence to disrupt rogue businesses.
The current Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill contains measures to strengthen the legislative framework on the prevention of illegal working and will make the controls easier to enforce.
|
| Paragraph 181: We recognise that the Government is in the early stages of implementing the recommendations of the independent review. In order that we can subject to proper scrutiny the Government's progress in tackling the problems of NASS, we recommend (a) that the full text, including recommendations, of the independent review should be published; and (b) that the Director-General of IND should submit to us by the end of 2004 a progress report on the work of his steering group on NASS reform, with a view to our taking further oral evidence on this subject from him in early 2005.
| The full text of the independent review of NASS was published on 25 March 2004.
The Director-General of IND will be happy to submit a report to the Home Affairs Committee by the end of 2004 on the progress that has been made by NASS as a result of the reforms that he is leading.
| Accepted. The Director-General submitted a report to the Committee on 21 December 2004 setting out developments in NASS since the publication of the review. Further progress has been made in addressing key findings in the review.
|
| Paragraph 186: The danger that restoration of the concession to work after six months may act as a 'pull' factor is a real one. We recommend that the ban on working should remain in place while the applications process is being streamlined, to avoid re-creating a work incentive; but that the Government should make a commitment to eventually restoring the concession. In the long run, the inability to work is not advantageous to asylum seekers themselves (who may sometimes be, for example, engineers or doctors whose skills are in demand) or to wider society.
| Current UK policy is to restrict access to the labour market, but exceptionally to permit it on a case-by-case basis by Ministerial discretion. The Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (the Reception Conditions Directive) allows Member States to restrict access to the labour market for applicants for up to one year. If an initial application is still outstanding after one year, Member States are to determine conditions of access to the labour market, if the delay is not attributable to the applicant.
The Directive must be implemented by 5 February 2005 and the UK will continue to restrict access to the labour market. We will provide for applicants to access the labour market if they have an initial decision outstanding after one year. We envisage this will affect very few applicants.
The Government does not consider that it would be right to routinely allow asylum seekers access to the job market. Their stay in the UK is temporary until such time as their application for asylum is decided. Those whose claims are successful must be given every opportunity to obtain work. Those whose claims are unsuccessful must return home. It would be wrong to give any expectation that they will be allowed to remain simply because they are in employment. By opening up ways for people to come and work here legally we also help tackle illegal working and abuse of the asylum system. Managed migration is not an alternative to developing the skills and employment opportunities of our existing population but is a complement to our ongoing work to achieve that.
| Accepted. The Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (the Reception Conditions Directive) allows Member States to restrict access to the labour market for applicants for up to one year. If an initial application is still outstanding after one year, Member States are to determine conditions of access to the labour market, if the delay is not attributable to the applicant.
From 5 February 2005 specific provision is made in the Immigration Rules for asylum seekers who have been waiting for 12 months for an initial decision to apply for permission to take up employment, provided the delay cannot be attributed to the applicant.
|
| Paragraph 220: We welcome the Minister's evident commitment to improving the treatment of children in detention. We repeat our comment in our earlier report:
"Under current practice, children should only be detained prior to removal when the planned period of detention is very short or where there are reasonable grounds to suppose that the family is likely to abscond."
We note that the Government has accepted this in principle, and trust that the Minister's package of proposals will be implemented in accordance with this principle.
| The detention of families is taken on a case by case basis, with each case being considered very carefully on its individual merits. A family's history of absconding or failing to comply with any reporting restrictions would be taken into account before detention is authorised.
A senior IND official has been appointed to oversee detained family cases. In addition there are now enhanced detention review arrangements for family cases.
In the vast majority of cases families with children are detained for very few days and in most cases this will be prior to removal. There is a system of Ministerial authorisation in the exceptional event that a child's detention reaches 28 days.
It remains our intention to put in place a system of welfare assessments for any child who has been detained for 21 days. The principal focus of this work will be at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre, which will begin to hold families with children at the end of the year.
| Accepted. Systems for the welfare assessment of any child who has been detained for 21 days are now in place.
|
| Paragraph 221: We also note the Chief Inspector of Prisons' criticisms of the regime at Harmondsworth. These reinforce some of the comments in our report on asylum removals, for instance in regard to the inadequacy of legal advice for detainees. We expect the Home Office to take these criticisms seriously and look forward to its formal response to the Chief Inspector's report.
| The Home Office responded to the Chief Inspector's report at the end of January 2004. The majority of the recommendations were accepted, a number as a reflection of current practice. A number of changes had been made in and to the Centre following a programme of major refurbishment. Following a disturbance in July 2004 Harmondsworth has once again undergone repair work. There were no detainees at the centre from mid-July until late October.
| Accepted. Asylum claimants subject to detained fast track processes have access to a legal representative before their asylum interview. At Harmondsworth and Yarl's Wood this is via a duty solicitor scheme administered by the Legal Services Commission.
|
| Paragraph 230: We repeat our previous recommendation that—subject to proper evaluation and costing—embarkation controls should be reinstated at UK borders, so that credible estimates can be made of the number of failed asylum seekers who remain in the country. We believe that the Government has by now had ample opportunity to carry out such evaluation and costing. The Government should include details of this work in its formal response to our report.
| Project Semaphore, the first stage of the e-Borders programme, will be underway by the end of this year. This pilot scheme will use online technology and advance passenger information provided by airlines to screen and record individuals as they enter and leave the UK. The e-Borders programme will provide a modern, high-tech replacement for the outdated paper embarkation controls, which were removed in 1994 and 1998.
| Accepted. Since 15 September the Immigration Service has been operating intelligence-led targeted embarkation control at major ports and this situation will continue in the medium term. The controls contribute to identifying immigration offenders, those committing identity fraud and to the national security effort.
Under the e-Borders programme we aim to collect passenger data from carriers on services operating into and departing from the UK. The provision of this audit trail of passenger movements and the linking of the inbound record to the outbound record will support compliance measurement.
Provision of departure information will enable a check to be made to ensure that someone whose leave to remain has expired has departed. The reliability of such a check will be influenced by:
(i) the extent of coverage of e-Borders which is a major programme of change subject to phased implementation until 2013/2014.
(ii) whether information captured on departure can be matched accurately against the identity in which the passenger was granted leave; and
(iii) the accuracy of the data collected by carriers.
Project Semaphore, a pilot scheme intended to inform the design of and de-risk the main e-Borders Programme, commenced in December 2004. Under this project, which is providing targeted operational benefit on routes of interest to the participating agencies, advance passenger information (passport sourced data) is currently being collected on 28 routes operated by 13 carriers.
|
| Paragraph 231: We also reaffirm the potential importance of voluntary resettlement, and urge the Government to make greater efforts to draw the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme to the attention of asylum seekers at all stages of the process. We recommend that the Home Office should work with the International Organisation for Migration to make this service more pro-active—for example, by contacting failed asylum seekers at the time of notification of the failure of their application in order to offer advice and assistance. We also recommend that the Government should consider whether a relatively modest increase in the level of assistance provided, financial and otherwise, might lead to a greater take-up of the scheme and a net saving to public funds arising from a reduction in expenditure on enforced removals.
| The Government is continuing to promote voluntary returns through a number of different avenues. In particular, we are looking at a range of options for raising the profile of voluntary returns throughout the asylum process and with asylum seeker communities.
The Government continues to provide assistance to voluntary returnees mainly through VARRP. Since 1999 International Organisation for Migration (IOM) have been the preferred supplier. As the programme is launched on a yearly basis it does not mean that IOM will automatically continue to be the preferred supplier. In the VARRP 2004 programme IOM use their judgement and experience to assess what is the most appropriate form of in-country support for those who seek it. We are looking again at the use of incentives to encourage the uptake of voluntary returns.
| Accepted. The Government is continuing to promote voluntary returns through a number of different avenues. Refusal decision letters have included an information sheet which refers to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) for some time. Asylum Screening Units have been provided with literature to put up in their public areas and hand out if requested. Reporting Centres have also received this information and literature, as have all the Local Enforcement Offices (LEOs), National Asylum Support Service (NASS) regional offices and Detention Centres. We are also raising awareness amongst the Asylum Casework teams including the New Asylum Model.
IND is already committed to ensuring that the case owners, who will have charge of individual claims handled under the New Asylum Model, ensure that claimants are aware of opportunities such as voluntary departure.
Both IOM and the Government are also pursuing a number of ideas for promoting voluntary returns through means other than through the asylum system, including ethnic media, voluntary sector advisers, and other advertising campaigns.
Asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers receive up to £1000 worth of reintegration support in their country of origin, which can include business start-up costs. It is the Government's view that in-kind assistance provides the most sustainable source of support for both returnees and the country of origin.
|
| Paragraph 236: We believe that this option [that of requiring people who are about to receive their asylum appeal decision to attend at a special location in person to receive that decision] should be pursued much more vigorously by Government. On the basis of the evidence we have taken, in this and our previous inquiry, we are far from convinced that every effort is being made to ensure that failed asylum seekers can take an informed decision on the options open to them. Requiring asylum seekers to attend in person to receive their appeal decision, with their dependants, would make it possible for them, if necessary, to be detained immediately with a view to speedy removal. This measure would increase the rate of removals and reduce the likelihood of failed applicants remaining in the UK in a state of destitution. We urge the Government to bring forward new pilots at the earliest possible opportunity.
| The draft Asylum and Immigration Procedure Rules which DCA have produced to underpin the provisions of section 26 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 provide for the determinations of the new Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to be served by IND on the appellants. This will enable determinations to be served personally in appropriate cases so addressing the concerns identified by the committee. The Procedure Rules are subject to public consultation. In addition the Civil Procedure Rules Committee will consider whether the Civil Procedure Rules can be amended to enable those appeal determinations which are made by the Courts can also be served by IND. It is anticipated that the new appeal structures will be in place by April 2005.
| Accepted. The close case management of the New Asylum Model should ensure that contact with claimants is sustained throughout the end-to-end casework process, with the result that those refused asylum are available for removal at the appropriate (appeal rights exhausted) stage.
In April 2005 Procedure Rules for the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) and for the courts were introduced to enable determinations of appeals relating to an asylum claim to be served by IND. Since then processes have been established to serve determinations in person at all Reporting Centres on those who are subject to reporting restrictions and due to report within time limits for service. Up to 11 November 2005, 75% of determinations suitable for service in person have been so served. Applicants have their options explained to them at the time of service. Removal action is however frequently not an option due to onward appeal rights.
|
| Paragraph 237: We also recommend that they should review urgently the whole system by which failed asylum seekers are advised on their options.
| The Government is continuing to look at how information provision about voluntary returns can be improved so that we can ensure that failed asylum seekers are aware of the options open to them. This includes ensuring that information about returns is made available to asylum seekers at every stage in the asylum process, from initial application to refusal, and through to contact management of failed asylum seekers. The delivery of advice and support is through IND's own processes and through the advice given by its implementing partners, the IOM.
| Accepted. IND is already committed to ensuring that the case owners, who will have charge of individual claims handled under the New Asylum Model, ensure that claimants are aware of opportunities such as voluntary departure.
|
| Paragraph 271: We believe that there is an urgent need to gather objective evidence on the extent to which EU countries vary in their approach to asylum. We recommend that the UK Government should take steps to secure the agreement of its EU partners to the establishment of a body with appropriate powers and expertise at EU level to monitor and report regularly on the practical operation (rather than the theory of operation) of the asylum system in each EU member state.
| The Hague Programme calls on the Member States to establish structures to facilitate co-operation between Member States. We secured references making clear that this should be practical and collaborative co-operation of the type envisaged by the Committee.
| Accepted. The Hague Programme calls on the Member States to establish structures to facilitate co-operation between Member States. The references are clear that this should be practical and collaborative co-operation of the type envisaged by the Committee. The Commission is due to publish a Communication outlining detailed proposals for how to take this work forward. This is likely to be issued in January 2006.
The continuing success of G-DISC (which brings together Director Generals of Immigration from across Europe) has already improved the levels of practical co-operation and information sharing between EU Member States. The Commission envisage that G-DISC will be able to take forward projects under the umbrella of practical co-operation.
|
| Paragraph 321: We believe that Mrs Hughes's scheme is premised upon a degree of pan-European harmonisation in the field of asylum which is not likely to be achieved for many years. In the short to medium term, we consider that a more realistically achievable option for the British Government to pursue would be the establishment of a central European body to monitor and report on the practical implementation of individual member states' policies, as we recommend in paragraph 271 above.
| As above.
| Accepted. As above.
|
| Paragraph 161: This is an inescapable consequence of the border-control and other measures which the Government have taken in order to crack down on abuse. We do not criticise the Government for taking such measures, but we do believe that their full implications for potential genuine asylum seekers must be recognised. The Government should acknowledge that, as genuine claims become harder to make, more needs to be done to fulfil the UK's humanitarian obligations to the world's refugees by alternative means. There is a moral obligation on the Government to provide alternative legitimate routes by which refugees can gain access to this country, to assist refugees closer to their country of origin, and to tackle the roots of enforced migration.
Paragraph 287: We have argued above that if the effect of the British Government's policy is to make it more difficult for genuine refugees to gain access to the UK to claim asylum, then it is essential for the Government to be pro-active in seeking to assist refugees in or near to their countries of origin, as well as to develop a clearer policy for assisting refugees through UNHCR. We believe that this argument holds good on an EU-wide scale as well, and recommend that the Government should seek the implementation of concerted, pan-European policies of active assistance to refugees in or near the countries of origin and co-operation with UNHCR in accepting quotas of refugees.
| Tighter border controls do not prevent refugees from obtaining protection. Protection is accessible for the vast majority of refugees within their region, and those who, for example, make it to France should apply there rather than in the UK. We are also working hard to deal with the wider picture of illegal immigration and facilitation in conjunction with the other agencies both in the UK and overseas. We are not required to facilitate the entry of asylum seekers into the UK, particularly when the vast majority could have claimed asylum somewhere else.
The UK has developed the Gateway Protection Programme to provide a legal route to the UK for up to 500 of the world's most vulnerable refugees a year. The refugees are referred by UNHCR, and they are interviewed and their cases assessed by IND caseworkers. They are also security screened and given a health check. The first arrivals under the programme landed in the UK in March 2004. The UK is proud to have become a resettlement country and we look forward to many years of working with UNHCR to provide a new life for refugees who have suffered torture and other traumatic experiences in their countries of origin.
We believe it is in the UK's interest to strengthen protection in the region to reduce secondary movements and the associated incentives to migrants to cross continents, often supported by organised crime. We are looking to develop Migration Partnerships with countries in asylum generating regions. We see these arrangements as modern partnerships, based on equality, where the two parties recognise that their migration issues are of common concern and need to be tackled together. The partnerships are intended to be flexible addressing a range of migration issues. They are also based on the belief that issues such as secondary movement can be effectively addressed in the regions of origin. We have welcomed the Commission's proposals, put forward in their Communication of June 2004, in which they aim to enhance protection capacities in the regions of origin. We are now looking forward to the Commission's plan of action, which will inform the development of a future pilot Regional Protection Programme.
| Accepted. The UK's Gateway Protection Programme provides a legal route to the UK for up to 500 of the world's most vulnerable refugees a year. We have made a commitment to expand this programme in our Five Year Strategy published in February 2005.
Strengthening regional protection capacity of third countries in or near regions of new or protracted refugee situations is a priority for the UK. We see that by investing in this, people fleeing persecution and conflict can be ensured access to effective protection more quickly and closer to their homes.
To this end we are fully supporting the EU Commissions proposals for Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs). These are part of the international effort to contribute to the global refugee protection regime, by improving the protection capacity of regions to the benefit of refugees there and the communities hosting them. The concept is being taken forward through the initiation of two pilot programmes.
|
| Paragraph 246: Illegal working can have a particularly pernicious effect on community relations and an unfair impact on the legally employed workforce. It is important that the Government should be seen to be vigorously tackling the problem. This will help to create confidence in the operation of the asylum system. The extremely low level of prosecutions for employment of illegal workers under Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is a cause for concern. We appreciate that there are difficulties in enforcing Section 8 in its current form. We therefore recommend that the Government shortly bring before Parliament legislative proposals to make it easier to proceed against employers of illegal workers.
| We have introduced secondary legislation pursuant to section 147 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to strengthen the document checks under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 that employers must carry out to ensure new employees are entitled to work in the UK. The changes create a firmer legislative basis on which to prosecute employers who profit from illegal labour. The changes, which came into force on 1 May 2004, have been supported by detailed guidance distributed to 1.4 million employers.
We used the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 to increase the upper penalty for employing an illegal worker, by making the previously summary only offence also triable in the Crown Courts.
We continue to increase enforcement action against employers committing the offence of employing illegal workers. However, there is no direct correlation between successful enforcement and prosecutions under section 8. Where a more serious offence is committed this will be pursued ahead of the section 8 offence.
| Accepted. In the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill, we are taking these reforms further by introducing civil penalties for employers of illegal workers who fail to carry out proper document checks. The penalty will be up to £2,000 for each illegal worker detected, and will enable immigration officers to encourage compliance and enforce controls far more effectively. The Bill also creates a new, more serious criminal offence of knowingly employing illegal workers, punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment following conviction on indictment.
We continue to increase enforcement action against employers committing the offence of employing illegal workers. However, there is no direct correlation between successful enforcement and prosecutions under section 8. Where a more serious offence is committed this will be pursued ahead of the section 8 offence.
|
| Paragraph 247: We believe that a significant factor in the problem of illegal working is the deliberate decision by some employers to break the law. We recommend that the Government should target such employers, who are not only easier to identify than those they employ but arguably more culpable. We refer below to the Government's commitment to use the Proceeds of Crime Act as a weapon against people traffickers. We recommend that the Act should also be used to seize profits made from the employment of illegal labour. The Home Office should be pro-active within Government in seeking to ensure that other departments take action against illegal working—for instance, by means of a concerted attempt to prosecute employers of illegal labour for other related breaches of employment legislation ( e.g. failure to pay the minimum wage or to observe health and safety regulations). We note the comments by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the collusion of employers with illegal rural labour through the gangmaster system, and support their view that the Government should treat this problem with greater seriousness.
| Recently introduced secondary legislation strengthening section 8 and the provision in the recent Asylum and Immigration Act increasing the maximum penalty for employing an illegal worker will ensure that employers are targeted and convicted in proportion to the offence.
We fully supported the Gangmaster (Licensing) Act 2004 and will work closely with the new Licensing Authority to drive illegal labour provision out of the agricultural sector. We also continue to explore ways of working more effectively across Government departments to combat deliberate use of illegal workers.
On 10 November 2004, the Home Secretary announced the establishment of a pilot team, drawn from departments responsible for enforcing workplace regulations, to tackle the use and exploitation of illegal migrant labour. The pilot, to commence in the West Midlands next year, will test the ability of departments to work more closely together, and identify any opportunities for and barriers to joint working.
The terms of reference of Ministerial Committee on Social and Economic Aspects of Migration (MISC 20) have been amended to include an explicit reference to the co-ordination of the Government's response to the problems of gangmasters and illegal migrant labour.
We continue to work to encourage compliant behaviour through discussion with employers and their representatives; the development of sector based codes of practice and the wide distribution of guidance on the changes to section 8. We are actively considering the issue of using Proceeds of Crime Act powers to confiscate the profits of exploiting illegal labour.
| Accepted. In September 2005, we established a pilot team, drawn from departments responsible for enforcing workplace regulations, to tackle the use and exploitation of illegal migrant labour. The pilot in the West Midlands will test the ability of departments to work more closely together, and identify any opportunities for and barriers to joint working.
We continue to work to encourage compliant behaviour through discussion with employers and their representatives. The police are already able to use Proceeds of Crime Act powers to confiscate the profits of exploiting illegal labour, and we are considering whether this facility should be extended to UKIS.
|
