Implicit in the code is exactly that expectation of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord will have a copy of the code in his hand. If he turns to page 5, he will see the framework for issuing penalties. It shows that the amount can be varied up to the maximum £2,000. The code also outlines the kinds of circumstances and issues that might arise, not least when employers put their hands up and say, ““We’ve got this wrong. We didn’t do it properly, but we’re co-operating””. It is right and proper that there should be the ability to vary. Reasonableness is important; it is implicit in the code. Perhaps the noble Lord will get back to me if, having looked at the code, he is still not satisfied. I can also refer him to the ground for objection under Clause 16(1)(c) and the ground for appeal under Clause 17(1)(c).
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005-06.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c121-2GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:37:30 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290340
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290340
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290340