Illegal working
453. The employment of illegal workers should
be one of the main targets for action against illegal migrants
who are already living illegally in the UK. There is a growing
recognition that the Immigration Service cannot do this alone.
It is leading the Joint Workplace Enforcement pilot (JWEP), which
is "exploring the scope for closer co-ordinated working,
including intelligence sharing, between Government workplace enforcement
departments to tackle both the use and exploitation of illegal
migrant workers". The pilot group consists of enforcement
and intelligence officials from across Government (the Immigration
Service, HM Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions,
the Department for Trade and Industry, the Health and Safety Executive
and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority), "to share information
and co-ordinate operations against employers, employment agencies,
labour providers and any type of business who are involved in
the deliberate use or supply of illegal migrant workers".
So far the JWEP has agreed protocols with all the Departments
working with it, and its work has led to one prosecution.[445]
We are told that an initial evaluation of the pilot will be taking
place "shortly".[446]
454. When we asked the Chairman of the Association
of Labour Providers, Mark Boleat, where he would place a hypothetical
100 extra staff to prevent illegal working, he replied "entirely
on tax".[447]
He argued that employers of illegal labour avoided paying tax,
thus cutting costs by 40%, and suggested that the tax authorities
should target customers of labour providers, such as large food
plants, who were able to undercut competitors by employing illegal
labour.[448] In his
written evidence he was very critical of the lack of enforcement
activity by the tax authorities "even where there is blatant
tax evasion which is reported to them", suggesting that they
were ineffective at tackling those who were operating entirely
outside the tax system.[449]
HM Revenue and Customs has been making some efforts to tackle
income tax fraud in the informal economy: a new offence of evading
Income Tax was introduced from 1 January 2001 (codified in Section
144 of the Finance Act 2000) and in addition, "forty
two new fraud investigators were recruited in 2001 to investigate
cases involving the new offence."[450]
However, the results of these appear to be limited.[451]
455. Tackling tax and national insurance evasion
should become a central feature of the drive against the employment
of illegal labour, and the tax authorities must make much greater
efforts to tackle these in the informal economy. Enforcement work
on tax and national insurance should take place in conjunction
with all the other legal measures available to tackle abuse in
the informal labour market. As well as ensuring that employers
complied with their legal obligations, it would reduce the financial
advantages of employing illegal workers.
456. The ease with which employers can take on people
who do not have the right to work in the UK, particularly where
sub-contractors are involved, was demonstrated in May this year,
when five Nigerians were detained after turning up to work as
agency cleaners at the IND. They did not have the right to work,
but all of them had apparently worked there before.[452]
457. We were told that there is a large number of
Zimbabweans in the UK who are forced into supporting themselves
through working illegally. Dr JoAnn McGregor of the University
of Reading suggested that the key problems in the care industry,
where many Zimbabweans work both legally and illegally, are unscrupulous
employers and the "cascading sub-contracting chains"
which make it very difficult to say who is the employer.[453]
Christine Lee, a solicitor who represents many Chinese employers
in the UK, told us that because of the shortage of properly-trained
Chinese chefs in the UK, a number of employers turn a blind eye
to illegal working.[454]
458. One of the problems is that there is no easy
way for employers to verify whether or not a person has the right
to work in the UK. National Insurance numbers (NINos), for example,
are not proof of the right to work in the UK, partly because they
are not withdrawn if a person loses the right to work in the UK
or when their leave expires.
459. Certain documents or combinations of documents
are considered sufficient to fulfil employers' duties (under section
8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996) to check that
potential employees are allowed to work in the UK. Passports (with
an appropriate endorsement if necessary) are enough on their own;
a NINo needs to be accompanied by another document such as a full
UK birth certificate. But even these cannot be conclusive proof:
for instance employers cannot be expected to recognise forgeries.
And the requirements are not well understood, applied or enforced
despite the Home Office guidance to employers (available in both
summary and comprehensive form), and the Employers' Helpline which
advises on the legislation.[455]
460. NINos appear to cause particular
problems. Jonathan Portes, Chief Economist at the Department for
Work and Pensions (DWP), explained to us the purpose of NINo and
how they are issued:
The important point for us is that NINos (national
insurance numbers) are an internal reference number that lets
us link an individual with their social security, or their child
support, or their tax or their contribution record. It is not
proof of identity, and it is not supposed to be proof that you
are entitled to work. The interviewing process that we go through
is basically about identity fraud. It is to ensure you are who
you say you are. It is not supposed to provide a rigorous check
on immigration status. There can be quite legitimate reasons why
you might require a NINo even if you are not entitled to work
in this country. If we do become, or if Jobcentre Plus, who do
the NINo allocation process, do become aware of right to work
or immigration irregularities - if it becomes obvious that
somebody is not entitled to work where there is good grounds for
them believing they are not entitled to work and it is pretty
clear that the purpose of their applying for NINo is because they
are going to work - then we do report that to the appropriate
authorities; but it is important to recognise that NINos are not
just about the right to work and that is not what they are there
for.[456]
461. A NINo is needed in order to claim most social
security benefits and tax credits.[457]
Because of the complicated position of couples with mixed immigration
status there have been situations where even a person who is not
allowed to have recourse to public funds was required to get a
NINo, but the guidance on this has recently been changed.[458]
462. Since we took evidence from Mr Portes, it has
emerged that National Insurance numbers (NINos) are issued without
any check on immigration status or right to work or to benefits.
We were very concerned by the Times report that DWP guidance
from July 2005 (still in force) instructs Jobcentre staff to issue
NINos even when there is evidence that immigration status has
been falsified. The guidance says:
Where DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) is
satisfied as to the individual's identity, a NI number would be
issued in this situation even if we have suspicions around his
immigration status ... Any prosecution action in respect of the
falsified immigration documentation would be the responsibility
of IND - NOT DWP.[459]
463. The total number of NINo registrations to overseas
nationals in 2004/05 was 440,000, an increase of 69,000 (19%)
on 2003/04.[460] The
Home Office told us that Jobcentre Plus colleagues can themselves
check the immigration status of applicants, under a National Partnership
Agreement for data sharing, and that there is a network of contacts
in both departments to facilitate data-sharing at a local level.[461]
We have also been told the theory of what happens when the IND
is alerted to a possible immigration offence:
Where IND receives intelligence that an immigration
offence has been committed, they are centrally recorded, considered
and disseminated for IND intelligence units to act upon at the
earliest possible opportunity. Intelligence officers will decide
whether to refer cases for action through their local Tasking
and Co-ordinating Groups whose priorities are set by a control
framework at the Senior Managers Tactical and Tasking Group. Even
where no action is taken, the information is added to the IND
intelligence database, Mycroft. This is helping to increase the
body of knowledge that IND has about all areas of abuse of the
system and may, where appropriate, be used at a later date.[462]
We have not been told how often any of this happens
in practice.
464. According to DWP figures, approximately 3,300
cases were referred to IND during 2005-2006. This figure is made
up of 2,500 relating to apparent immigration offenders (overstayers,
or no right to employment) where NINos were issued and IND notified;
and approximately 800 cases where it appeared that false documentation
was used as a result of which NINos were refused and details of
the immigration offence were passed to the IND. The IND has been
unable to tell us about the action they took to follow up this
information.[463]
465. Ministers have decided to introduce a new "right
to work" requirement for NINo applications:
"From July 2006 the Department for Work
and Pensions will introduce a "right to work" condition
into Jobcentre Plus's National Insurance Numbers (NINOs) allocation
and decision making process for employment related applications...
Any individual applying for a NINO in connection with employment
who does not have the right to work here legally will be refused
one. This change follows a review conducted by the Department
into the existing legislation governing the allocation of NINOs."[464]
466. It is not clear how individuals will prove to
the DWP that they have the right to work in the UK, nor whether
those who fail to prove it will be reported to the IND for investigation
and possible enforcement action. The DWP will continue to issue
NINos in some circumstances to people who are not entitled to
claim public funds, partly because they will sometimes have the
right to work in the UK. And NINos will not be removed from people
when they no longer have the right to live or work in the country.[465]
467. We welcome the proposed "right to work"
condition for people applying for National Insurance numbers (NINos).
We recommend that the Government also consider withdrawing NINos
from people who no longer have the right to work in the UK.
468. The difficulty of proving immigration status
also causes problems the other way round, according to evidence
from ILPA: "DWP offices have been treating people who cannot
provide up to date IND acknowledgment of their application for
leave to remain as overstayers and thus wrongly refusing them
benefits". [466]
469. The Government has said it will in the future
require all those in the country for more than three months to
carry residence permits which will act as identity cards. In its
Five Year Plan for immigration and asylum it said that "These
will provide a simple and secure means of verifying identity,
helping us tackle illegal working, organised crime, terrorist
activity, identity theft, and fraudulent access to public services."[467]
The Identity Cards Act 2006 provides for a National Identity
Register for everyone resident in the UK for three months or more,
which would contain information on a person's immigration status.
470. There should be a single database which clearly
shows a person's immigration status and right to work and claim
benefits. We note that the Government's National Identity Register
is intended to fulfil this function. Employment and access to
services could be made conditional on a satisfactory check against
such a database.
A regularisation scheme?
471. Even if removal efforts are stepped up, it is
hard to see that all illegal migrants will be removed. It was
suggested to us that in the care sector in particular it could
cause grave problems and upset to have employees removed in immigration
raids.[468] Many commentators,
trade unionists, NGOs and academics have suggested that the only
way to deal with illegal migrants already living in the UK is
to regularise their status. Jack Dromey, Deputy General Secretary
of the TGWU, is reported as saying:
Yes it is true that there are probably half a
million here without documents. The question is what we do about
that? They live in fear of a knock on the door and they are exploited
by too many employers. What we need therefore is a sensible approach
which does not criminalise those good men and women. You can't
deport half a million workers. Who would clean? Who would cook?
Who would pick in our fields? The time has come for a debate around
an amnesty for those workers.[469]
472. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)
suggests that regularising these people and bringing them into
the tax system could bring the Treasury around £1 billion
a year, whereas deporting them all could cost around £4.7
billion. Its director, Nick Pearce, said,
Nobody likes illegal immigration. And the subject
is a deeply difficult one for politicians to tackle. But the bare
truth is that we are not going to deport hundreds of thousands
of people from the UK. Our economy would shrink and we would notice
it straight away in uncleaned offices, dirty streets and unstaffed
pubs and clubs. So we have a choice: make people live in the shadows,
exploited and fearful for the future; or bring them into the mainstream,
to pay taxes and live and honest life.[470]
473. In its evidence to us, the IPPR suggests that
"simply getting tough is unlikely to be effective in tackling
irregular migration
Regularisation and the implementation
of formal channels for low-skilled migration is a more realistic
approach than denying the need for low-skilled migrants or being
overconfident about the ability to control them".[471]
474. As Dr Khalid Koser of the Global Commission
for International Migration pointed out to us, "The grave
argument against regularisation
is the question of whether
this is a magnet". If I live in Kosovo and I know that you
are going to have a regularisation next year then I am going to
come in time to have it.[472]
David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, was reported as saying
that it would be impossible to have an amnesty without identity
cards and a clean data base.[473]
The pressure group MigrationWatch UK is opposed to any amnesty.[474]
475. Many countries have had or are considering widespread
regularisation programmes. In the USA, President Bush's Fair
and Secure Immigration Reform will allow those currently living
irregularly in the US to apply for three-year work permits that
are renewable for a further three years. On allowing long-term
illegal immigrants a "path to citizenship", Mr Bush
said this was not an amnesty but a "rational middle ground
between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal
immigrant and a programme of mass deportation".[475]
476. Spain has just completed its fifth regularisation
programme. The novel approach of this latest effort, as part of
a much broader programme including reforms to border controls,
workplace inspections and removals, has received considerable
praise.[476]
477. An analysis of the concept, history and outcomes
of regularisation programmes is given in a Global Commission on
International Migration paper. It has mixed conclusions about
such programmes: "The possibility of obtaining legal status
is a necessary condition to combat irregular migration, but it
is not sufficient. Regularization needs to be combined with tighter
border controls, employer sanctions and law enforcement"
and also removal possibilities for those who do not qualify for
regularisation. It concludes that "occasional regularization
programmes do not bring sustainable results in terms of minimizing
irregular migrant populations or preventing further irregular
arrivals" but that ongoing regularisation programmes "seem
to be a more effective policy option". Long-term permits
in its view support upward mobility, taxing and family reunion:
the paper suggests three years in the first instance. [477]
478. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and
Nationality, Liam Byrne MP, did not rule out the possibility of
an amnesty when he appeared before us on 13 June,[478]
but the Prime Minister's official spokesman said the next day
that there were "no plans" for an amnesty.[479]
479. We have two concerns about the current discussions
of a possible amnesty. The first is that any amnesty which is
introduced before the enforcement of immigration controls is working
satisfactorily would be likely to encourage further illegal immigration
and achieve little lasting benefit. The experience of other countries
lends some support to this. The second concern is that by encouraging
the view that breaches of the immigration rules may in some way
be rewarded, confidence in the immigration system may be diminished.
Having considered the arguments for and against, we do not
consider that an amnesty would be appropriate or helpful in the
current situation.
393 Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures
and Commerce Back
394
Q 123, 10 January 2006, raising the example of the US/Mexico border
and the German Gastarbeiter scheme. Back
395
Q 96, 10 January 2006 Back
396
Q 360, 24 January 2006 Back
397
Ev 393, para 4, HC 775-III Back
398
Home Office, Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom
2004, Cm 6690, Table 6.2 Back
399
Q 810, 16 May 2006 Back
400
Home Office, Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom
2004, Cm 6690, Table 4.1 Back
401
Home Office, Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom
2004, Cm 6690, Table 7.1 Back
402
Comptroller and Auditor General's Report, Returning failed asylum
applicants, HC (2005-06) 76, para. 2.5; Committee of Public Accounts,
Thirty-fourth Report of Session 2005-06, Returning failed asylum
applicants,HC 620, para. 1 Back
403
Q 812, 16 May 2006 Back
404
Qq 917-21, 23 May 2006 Back
405
Home Office Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity
in Modern Britain (Cm 5387) (2001) Back
406
Home Affairs Committee Minutes of Evidence for Wednesday 18
September 2002 2001-02 HC 1186 Q86, Q88; see also Home
Affairs Committee Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, Asylum
Removals, HC 654-I, especially pp. 13-14 Back
407
Frank Düvell and Bill Jordan, 'Immigration control and the
management of economic migration in the United Kingdom: organisational
culture, implementation, enforcement and identity processes in
public services', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies vol.
29 no. 2, March 2003, 299 at 316 Back
408
Qq 813 and 844, 16 May 2006 Back
409
Ev 279, para 1, HC 775-III Back
410
Ev 392, para. 2.5, HC 775-III Back
411
Ev 263, HC 775-III Back
412
''Victory for islanders as Thai avoids deportation", Telegraph,
8 July 2006 Back
413
Ev 331, HC 775-III Back
414
Ev 390, HC 775-III Back
415
Home Office, Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom
2004, Cm 6690, Table 4.1 Back
416
Home Office, Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom
2004, Cm 6690, Table 7.1 Back
417
Home Office, Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom
2004, Cm 6690, Table 6.2 Back
418
The IND told us that this is a feature of the New Asylum Model,
which at the moment applies to about 10% of new asylum claims
but by March 2007 will apply to all new non-detained asylum cases:
Ev 405, para 2, HC 775-III Back
419
Home Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, Asylum
Applications (HC 218-I), para 236 Back
420
Government Reply to Second Report of the Home Affairs Committee,
Session 2003-04 (Cm 6166),p 28 Back
421
Home Office Immigration Directorates' Instructions Ch. 20 s. 1
para. 3.3 Back
422
Ev 51, para 63, HC 775-II Back
423
p. 3 Back
424
Ev 391-2, HC 775-III Back
425
HC Deb 13 March 2006 cols 88-90WS Back
426
Q 115, 10 January 2006 Back
427
Q 360, 24 January 2006 Back
428
Immigration Rules (HC 395 of Session 1993-94, as amended)
para 320(11) and (12) Back
429
Home Office response to Freedom of Information request, 5 December
2005 Back
430
See Q 212, 17 January 2006 Back
431
Q 408, 7 March 2006 Back
432
Ev 377, HC 775-III Back
433
Ev 393, HC 775-III Back
434
HC Deb 16 March 1998 col 506-7W Back
435
Home Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2002-03, Asylum
Removals, HC 654, para 27, and Second Report of Session 2003-04,
Asylum Applications, HC 218-I, para 230 Back
436
For example Q 160, 10 January 2006 and Q 211, 17 January 2006
Back
437
Q 447, 7 March 2006 Back
438
Ev 62, HC 775-II Back
439
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 s. 24 check Back
440
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ss. 129-138 Back
441
Immigration Act 1971 s. 28, as amended by s. 131 of the Immigration
and Asylum Act 1999 Back
442
Ev 62, paras 162-4, HC 775-II Back
443
Ev 253, HC 775-III Back
444
Home Office, A Points-Based System: Making Migration Work for
Britain, Cm 6741, March 2006, p. 19 ff. Back
445
Ev 393, para 5, HC 775-III Back
446
Ev 279 para 3, HC 775-III Back
447
Q 757, 16 May 2006 Back
448
Qq 751-752, 16 May 2006 Back
449
Ev 2372, para 29, HC 775-III Back
450
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Tackling fraud
against the Inland Revenue, 28 February 2003 HC 429 of Session
2002-2003 p 26.The report provides a checklist of the recommendations
made in the Grabiner Report (HM Treasury, The informal economy:
a report by Lord Grabiner QC, March 2000) and the Government's
response in each case. Back
451
Public Accounts Committee, First report of Session 2003-04,
Tackling fraud against the Inland Revenue, HC 62, p. 4 Back
452
'Illegals arrested at Home Office', BBC news online, 19
May 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4995764.stm Channel
4 News on Friday 19 May reported that each of the five individuals
has worked at the IND on a number of occasions, one of them for
about three years.The company that supplied the cleaners, Techclean,
also told Channel 4 News that four had had their passports and
National Insurance cards checked and had visa entry details.The
fifth man apparently had a letter from the immigration service
confirming his right to work in the UK: 'Reid "misled public
over illegal immigrants"', Independent, 22 May 2006 Back
453
Q 551 and Qq 555-6, 28 March 2006 Back
454
Q 606, 28 March 2006 Back
455
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/lawandpolicy/preventingillegalworking/
.The concerns of Chinese employers were described to us by Christine
Lee, a solicitor representing the Chinese community: Qq 567-9
and Q 578, 28 March 2006 Back
456
Q801, 16 May 2006 Back
457
Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 - see House
of Commons Library Research Paper 96/107 Back
458
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Wilson CH/3801/04.See
DWP DMG Letter 17/05, issued on 20 December 2005: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/dmg/memletrs/l-17-05.pdf Back
459
'Your documents are forged
but you will still get a number',
Times 1 June 2006 Back
460
Department for Work and Pensions, National Insurance Number Allocations
to Overseas Nationals Entering the UK, 2005 Back
461
Ev 384, HC 775-III Back
462
Ev 384, HC 775-III Back
463
Ev 408, HC 775-III Back
464
HC Deb 5 June 2006 cc12-13WS Back
465
Ev 404, HC 775-III Back
466
Ev 72, HC 775-II Back
467
Home Office, Controlling our borders: Making migration work for
Britain - Five year strategy for asylum and immigration, Cm 6472,
February 2005, para. 63 Back
468
Q 557, 28 March 2006 Back
469
'Amnesty call over illegal workers', BBC news online,
20 May 2006 Back
470
IPPR press release, 'Legal work for illegal workers could raise
£1 billion', 31 March 2006 Back
471
Ev 79, HC 775-II Back
472
Q 116, 10 January 2006 Back
473
The Independent, 15 June 2006, p33 Back
474
Migration Watch UK, Ten MigrationWatch Achievements 7 May 2006
and An Amnesty of Illegal Immigrants? 21 May 2006.See also Q 164,
10 January 2006 Back
475
'Bush unveils immigration reforms', BBC news online,16
May 2006 Back
476
Arango J and Jachimowicz M, 'Regularising Immigrants in Spain:
A New Approach', Migration Information Source, 2005.See
'Irregular migration in the UK: an ippr FactFile, April 2006,
pp. 19-20 Back
477
Aspasia Papadopoulou, 'Regularization programmes: an effective
instrument of migration policy?', Global Migration Perspectives
No. 33, May 2005 Back
478
Q 1225, 13 June 2006 Back
479
www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page9675.asp Back