Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 40:"Page 8, line 29, at end insert ““, or" (   )   the amount of the penalty would threaten the future viability of the employer’s business”” The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 40 I shall deal with the probing amendments in this group that address Clauses 16 and 17; namely, the process of objection and appeal with regard to the civil penalties we have just discussed in relation to Clause 15. The civil penalties under Clause 15 will impose huge burdens on businesses, particularly small and medium sized enterprises. The CBI and ILPA have argued that they cannot and should not be the watchdogs for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The Minister has admitted that there is a likelihood that mistakes may be made. Does she not agree that the imposition of a penalty on businesses—although I noted her sympathetic remarks about the yellow card scheme—could potentially threaten the viability of those businesses? We have tabled Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 to ensure that a timetable is set out for payment after consultation with the employer in Clause 16(5), and that it is one which will take into account the viability of the employer’s business in Clause 16(1). Similarly, Amendment No. 45 to Clause 17(2) would allow a timetable to be set up for the payment of the penalty, should an appeal be allowed. The Minister in another place expressed sympathy for the amendments and their sentiments, and he stated that HMG can and will consider whether it is appropriate in some cases for an employer who has been served with a penalty to pay in instalments over a certain period. Can the Minister clarify how and in what circumstances the Government will do this? Who will consider whether it is appropriate and what criteria will they use? Is it possible to see a copy of those criteria? Amendment No. 42 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to increase the penalty once he has considered an objection to one he has already served. I argue that it is hard to justify what seems to be an additional penalty on what could be a legitimate objection when the employer will have to pay the original fine should that objection not be upheld. Enforcing the letter of the law, as suggested by the Minister in Standing Committee in another place at col. 161 on 20 October, does not mean that the fine needs to be increased just because you disagree with the objection. Amendment No. 43 aims to ensure that the Secretary of State must give reasons to an objecting employer for why the appeal has been declined. Surely this is a reasonable request, particularly as we are continually being reassured that there will be clear procedures in the code of practice and guidelines under which the Secretary of State can assess the objection and give his response. This will promote the transparency, good governance and accountability that the Government are keen to implement both here and internationally. While these are probing amendments, I do not doubt that the Minister will refer us to guidance that the Government intend to produce on this matter. The problem is that, as I understand it, the guidance will not be produced until after a detailed public consultation on the proposed requirements to be placed on employers after the Bill has received Royal Assent. So we cannot see a draft of the government proposals and we have no guarantee that they will in fact take account of the concerns expressed in our probing amendments. Increasingly the Government are asking us to rubber stamp skeleton, or as they call it, enabling legislation the details of which we have little control over. The same argument applies to the costs that the final point may incur. As ever, the devil is in the detail. I beg to move.