| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 238ZJ:
- Page 71, line 8, after "partnership" insert "(other than a limited partnership)"
The noble Lord said: These clarifying amendments identify when the partners of a partnership can be prosecuted for the employment offence contained in Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Clarifying that matter will assist in the prosecutions of partnerships for that offence. As currently drafted, Clause 128(3) of the Bill makes it clear that where the employment offence is committed by a partnership, each partner shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
In the context of traditional partnerships, where every partner acts on behalf of the partnership and of every other partner when transacting partnership business, we believe that that provision is sensible and reasonable. However, on reflection, we believe that special provision needs to be made for limited partnerships.
Limited partnerships are a less common type of partnership governed by the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, in which the liability of some members is limited to the amount of capital that they advance. Such partners do not take part in the partnership business at all. We have decided that the liability of a partner of a limited partnership for the employment offence should mirror the liability of the director of a company. In other words, such a partner should not be liable unless he consented or connived in the commission of the offence or unless it was committed as a result of his neglect.
In case there is any confusion, it is perhaps best for the record if I make it clear that limited partnerships are of course entirely different, as I am sure most Members of the Committee know, from limited liability partnerships. Limited liability partnerships are a recent form of business vehicle authorised by the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. That Act permits partnerships in which partners are not liable for debts and obligations which go beyond the extent of the firm's own assets.
Clause 128 does not make specific provision for that new vehicle because it is unnecessary to do so. The Limited Liability Partnerships Act provides that such partnerships are bodies corporate, and the existing provisions in Section 8 which deal with corporations will therefore apply to them without any express
amendment being necessary. In other words, like the partner of limited partnerships, the partner or "member" of a limited liability partnership will be liable only if the commission of the offence was a result of his consent, connivance or neglect. However no express wording is required to achieve that result. I beg to move.On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 238ZK:
- Page 71, line 10, at end insert—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 [Registration card]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 238ZL:
The noble Lord said: We are moving into an area that is very different from the important matters of principle that we have been discussing. The amendment proposes the deletion of Clause 129(7). That provision creates new offences in relation to the misuse and alteration of registration cards. Those cards are not created by statute and are currently restricted to asylum seekers simply as proof that they have made an asylum claim.
Subsection (7) leaves it open to the Secretary of State to amend the definition of a registration card. The amendment seeks to probe what the Secretary of State has in mind. As subsection (7) is currently drafted, it could be altered for any purpose whatever. We appreciate that it can be altered only under the affirmative procedure. We should be grateful if the Minister explained why such a power is required. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I shall seek to answer the noble Lord's probing amendment succinctly and, I hope, helpfully.
Clause 129 introduces a number of offences relating to the creation, possession and use of false or altered registration cards, also known as application registration cards, or ARCs. ARCs are currently issued to asylum seekers and their dependants as an acknowledgement of their applications for asylum. The card contains information about the individual asylum seeker—his or her name, address, nationality and date of birth—as well as a photograph and fingerprints which are stored on a computer chip. Although the card has been designed to incorporate a number of security features making it difficult to forge or alter, it is possible that attempts will be made to do so. That is the reason for the forgery offences in Clause 129.
The definition of "registration card" in subsection (1) of the clause refers to a card that is to be issued "in connection with a claim for asylum". That reflects the current practice of issuing cards to asylum seekers to speed up the process of establishing their identity when they report to the Immigration Service or access benefits at a post office. However, it is possible that in the future registration cards will be issued to other classes of person who are subject to immigration control, as provided by subsection (7).
The purpose of this power is to ensure that the offences contained in Clause 129 will apply to the cards issued to non-asylum seekers in the same way as they apply to those issued to asylum seekers. If the power is removed and the IND issues cards to non-asylum seekers, it will be unable to bring prosecutions in relation to false or altered cards.
However, the clause is not concerned with conferring powers to issue cards or imposing requirements to carry them. It contains none of the provisions that would be needed if some form of general entitlement card scheme was to be introduced. If that is the anxiety behind the probing amendment, I am pleased to clarify that this is not a back-door means to some form of general entitlement or identitycard. That is not the intention. The amendment contains none of the provisions that would be needed if some form of general entitlement card were to be introduced.
It therefore follows that if the amendment is accepted, the IND would continue to be able to issue cards to non-asylum seekers, but would not be able to prosecute someone who committed a forgery offence in relation to such a card. That is why we believe that the power in subsection (7), subject to affirmative resolution, is necessary. It will afford Parliament a full opportunity to scrutinise any changes made to the definition of the card, but it is not intended to be a means of introducing general entitlement or identity cards.
Lord Avebury: Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the cards that are already being issued to asylum seekers contain electronically-coded information and, if so, whether it is based on the individual's iris, or what feature of a person's physiognomy is electronically encoded? Will he also say a little more about how it is possible to forge that information? As I understand it, the iris, like fingerprints, is absolutely unique to an individual and could not possibly be substituted by some other person.
Lord Filkin: The answer is that some of the information will be electronically coded by means of a microchip. The biometric data, if that is the correct term, is not the iris but fingerprint information. I am not an expert in forgery—otherwise I probably would not be here—but one would clearly expect that if there is a benefit in a card, people will make serious attempts to forge it. If more technical detail becomes available
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful for the assurance that the intention behind this amendment is not to extend the power in any of the ways to which the noble Lord has referred. On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 133 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I want to ask why the Government consider it necessary to create a power of entry and search into business premises with no warrant. Could that possibly be a cover for fishing expeditions of one kind or another? Surely a justice of the peace could grant such a warrant without notice being given to the affected parties. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say on that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that, in a sense, the noble Lord is asking whether there is a precedent elsewhere in legislation for this provision. Is that what the noble Lord is after?
Lord Hylton: With respect to the noble Lord, I am asking for justification for the power.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord also asked about fishing expeditions. I want to make plain that the power does not concern the authorisation of fishing expeditions. In seeking entry, officials must have a basis for entry. That is the thinking behind the provision. They do not want to experience the delay of obtaining a warrant. If that were to happen, then the purpose of making an entry to secure evidence in order to secure an individual might well be defeated. The purpose of the clause is to enable immigration officers and constables to enter business premises to search for and arrest someone for offences such as illegal entry or over-staying.
It is, of course, regrettable that it is necessary to include such a provision in the Bill. However, while some employers are prepared to co-operate with Immigration Service officials when information indicates that the immigration offender might be working on the premises, it must be said that others are less than co-operative. Increasingly, we are finding that employers who were prepared to assist formerly are now refusing to do so.
Therefore, we are finding that offenders are becoming more sophisticated and using false or altered documents. That makes it difficult to trace them when they take up employment or when they change from one employer to another. Thus, we believe that the
""(6B) Subsection (5) shall have effect in relation to a limited partnership as if—
(a) a reference to a body corporate were a reference to a limited partnership, and
(b) a reference to an officer of the body were a reference to a partner.""
Page 72, leave out lines 19 to 21.
10.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page