Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I am told that it is implicit in the code. If the noble Lord cannot find the information, I will be happy to ensure that it is made available in a way with which he is entirely satisfied. Although I may seem slightly frivolous in smiling at the noble Lord, I accept that the point is very important. I am sure that the noble Viscount will also be keen to see that we have covered the point. We want to ensure that the penalty will be proportionate. There will be a maximum figure and, if appropriate, the penalty could be zero, £50, £100 or whatever. That will enable the nature of the business to be recognised. All those questions will be covered. As we are going to ask people to look at the documentation, we think that it is right that there should be a penalty to ensure that people comply. The vast majority of employers will do that well and will already be working with people who are coming from overseas. However, we do not have 100 per cent coverage of good employers, if I may put it as simply as that. On Amendment No. 37, I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of a yellow card. Again, the draft code of practice is set out in a way that allows a graded and lenient approach to first-time transgressors under the civil penalty arrangements—for example, those who have carried out only partial checks on employers and are being co-operative. I do not want to turn that into, ““You get off the first time””, because that would change the nature of our conversation with business. We recognise that people who are deliberately not doing what they should be doing should do so, but employers who do not have the right procedures in place, make mistakes and so on can also be recognised. That goes a long way to addressing the concerns raised by the CBI when I looked at the principle behind what is sought with the yellow card. I shall deal as well with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about someone whose passport is at the Home Office—the 28-day point. It is right that we have to ensure that the employer is able to get hold of the appropriate person. That has led to a review of the way in which the IND helpline will work, because it is obviously important that verification can take place as quickly as possible. It is a point well made and well taken. Those who apply in time for further leave will enjoy the right to work while their case is considered. They will have continuity, which is important in the process. I turn to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about the position of children. All the issues to do with how children are employed come under the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 and, for example, the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. He will know that there are strict controls on what children can do. I understand that the legislative framework around children is suitably covered. He raises an important point about children and I shall come back to him if we feel that, having reflected on it, we need to do anything to ensure that they are captured appropriately. The noble Viscount was worried; he thought that we had only 12 staff. Let me reassure him immediately that those 12 staff will handle litigation and objections, but there will be 1,200 enforcement officers capable of dealing with these matters. To put it in context again—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is very keen for me to provide statistics, so when I have a figure I shall give it to him if I can. In 2004, some 1,600 successful operations were carried out that resulted in over 3,000 illegal workers being arrested. That demonstrates that there is an issue which we need to address effectively.