tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post1022776010276447252..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: The Trouble With Baroness ScotlandIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-60229533329632271212009-09-19T04:14:42.110+01:002009-09-19T04:14:42.110+01:00Auntie,
It's here:
http://www.england-legisl...Auntie,<br /><br />It's here:<br /><br />http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060013_en.pdf<br /><br />Seems pretty clear to me unless I'm missing something, but I haven't seen the SI bringing it into force.Jimmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01542633492362670045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-3987663169473184942009-09-19T01:15:29.961+01:002009-09-19T01:15:29.961+01:00Jimmy,
Thanks, though I still can't find this...Jimmy,<br /><br />Thanks, though I still can't find this. However I note the BBC News online also states that those who knowingly employ an illegal worker are in breach of the criminal law, not civil law. So the repeal must have been a selective process.<br /><br />I've seem newspaper articles where the Baroness is said to have stated that she was misled. Others, however, suggest that she accepted a marriage certificate as proof of ID and accepted Mrs Tapui's right to work here 'in good faith'. <br /><br />None of that helps her situation of course. If the Baroness engaged an employee who did not have the right to work here without doing the mandatory, statutory checks and keeping the statutory proof of that, she has broken the law and deserves to suffer the statutory consequences.Auntie Flo'noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-39808055124920649902009-09-18T15:30:53.417+01:002009-09-18T15:30:53.417+01:00Auntie,
If you look at the repeals schedule to th...Auntie,<br /><br />If you look at the repeals schedule to the 2006 act you will find section 8 of the 96 act is there.Jimmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01542633492362670045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-27954867804283000462009-09-18T14:47:21.750+01:002009-09-18T14:47:21.750+01:00Roger Thornhill,
Good point. When I last had an i...Roger Thornhill,<br /><br />Good point. When I last had an illegal job applicant to report, both the Home Office and the police told me that they were not responsible for apprehending illegals any longer.<br /><br />Has the law perhaps been changed to allow, say, ACPO Ltd (formerly known as 'the police': Association of Chief Police Officers, turnover £17 million to £19 million a year)to accreditate (sell?) these powers to a subcontract agency?Auntie Flonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-51048514441415009562009-09-18T14:21:19.437+01:002009-09-18T14:21:19.437+01:00Jimmy,
LSE Website:
"Prevention of illegal ...Jimmy,<br /><br />LSE Website:<br /><br />"Prevention of illegal working <br />Sections 15 - 26 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 came into force in February 2008. <br /><br />Under the 2006 Act, employers are liable to payment of a civil penalty for employing persons who are subject to immigration control and who have no permission to work in the United Kingdom. <br /><br />Additionally, it is a **criminal offence** to knowingly employ someone who is not permitted to work in the UK." <br /><br />starring is mineAuntie Flo'noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-61910416693385826592009-09-18T14:19:03.073+01:002009-09-18T14:19:03.073+01:00Jimmy,
Jimmy
I still can't find this repeal....Jimmy,<br /><br />Jimmy<br /><br />I still can't find this repeal.<br />What date was the law repealed? Very recently? That date could presumably be relevent to this case?Auntie Flo'noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-47307928170232403242009-09-18T14:03:20.652+01:002009-09-18T14:03:20.652+01:00Jimmy,
I've checked up to 2008 and can find n...Jimmy,<br /><br />I've checked up to 2008 and can find no mention of the repeal of the criminal offence: could you post a Home Office quote on this?Auntie Flo'noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-91592387889974724322009-09-18T14:01:18.624+01:002009-09-18T14:01:18.624+01:00The Baroness's claim that she was mislead by h...The Baroness's claim that she was mislead by her illegal employee is a smoke and mirrors attempt to shift the blame to the employee. <br /><br />The Baroness was 110% aware that she was requird by law to see and copy the prospective employee's passport, including its visas.<br /><br />The Baroness would have been 110% clear too that if the prospective employee could not produce a valid passport, with visas or stamps giving the employee the right to work in UK, then the Baroness could not employ her even for an hour.<br /><br />Employers who adhere to the law on prevention of illegal working - who see and copy relevant documents from the list of specified by the law - cannot be mislead and will not be prosecuted. <br /><br />Employers who do not both see and copy the relevant documents - or who see these and knowingly ignore, say, that visas in passports expired long ago - have only themselves to blame when they are caught out and prosecuted. These employers are as guilty of breaking the law and of deception as their illegal employees.<br /><br />Employers who knowingly choose to ignore expired visas in the passports of illegal workers are, I believe, guilty of a criminal offence, not a civil oneAuntie Flo'noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-46200667774634428972009-09-18T13:55:40.140+01:002009-09-18T13:55:40.140+01:00"Can you tell me when this change was made,Ji..."Can you tell me when this change was made,Jimmy,"<br /><br />The criminal offence was repealed when the civil penalty was brought in.Jimmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01542633492362670045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-39427043006135279662009-09-18T13:31:58.304+01:002009-09-18T13:31:58.304+01:00@Jimmy,
I think you miss the point I am making. I...@Jimmy,<br /><br />I think you miss the point I am making. I reject the very idea that the current law is rational or reasonable.<br /><br />It would not surprise me that it has become a civil "fine" which is an absurd idea considering the entities concerned. I wonder how long the original law would survive if it remained as a criminal act.Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03591327286533118901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-71608958660355304462009-09-18T12:53:18.772+01:002009-09-18T12:53:18.772+01:00Is it true that the baroness is refusing to state ...Is it true that the baroness is refusing to state which documents she saw which she believed verified her housekeeper's right to work in UK?<br /><br />Is it also true that she has refused to produced copies of these documents - copies which she is legally obliged to keep and, which provide the only possible legal defence against prosecution for employing an illegal worker? <br /><br />The public have the right to know.Auntie Flo'noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-9076641729204615132009-09-18T12:53:09.843+01:002009-09-18T12:53:09.843+01:00Is it true that the baroness is refusing to state ...Is it true that the baroness is refusing to state which documents she saw which she believed verified her housekeeper's right to work in UK?<br /><br />Is it also true that she has refused to produced copies of these documents - copies which she is legally obliged to keep and, which provide the only possible legal defence against prosecution for employing an illegal worker? <br /><br />The public have the right to know.Auntie Flo'noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-24899376821514533912009-09-18T11:27:47.750+01:002009-09-18T11:27:47.750+01:00"This was made a criminal offence under the t..."This was made a criminal offence under the tories in the 1996 act. The present government have decriminalised it and replaced it with a civil penalty." (Jimmy)<br /><br /><br />Can you tell me when this change was made,Jimmy, because I've looked at the government guidance booklets I have up to 2004 and the offence is still a criminal one in these.<br /><br /><br />Home Office 2004 guidance booklet:<br /><br /><br />"Under section 8 of the 1996 Act, it is a criminal offence to employ an individual who was subject to immigration control who has no permission to work in the UK, or his employment is in breach of their conditions of stay in the UK. <br /><br />Any employer in breach of section 8 is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £5,000 per illegal worker. The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 ("the 2004 Act") made this summary offence triable either way and, therefore, any employer prosecuted in respect of this offence could receive an unlimited fine in the Crown Court. <br /><br />However, section 8 of the 1996 Act allows an employer to establish a statutory defence against conviction if, before the employment began, the employer had carried out the required checks of the potential employee's original documentation and he is satisfied the employees have the required immigration permission. <br /><br />Copies of the documentation must be kept for the employer's records. An employer could not rely on the statutory defence if it had made the relevant checks but knew that the individual was not entitled to work in the UK. "Auntie Flo'noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-50954866738176059982009-09-18T01:42:30.878+01:002009-09-18T01:42:30.878+01:00With all the dubious baggage the Scotland woman ca...With all the dubious baggage the Scotland woman carries, it is laughable that she should be nailed by something as trivial as this.<br />In a sane country, an illegal who has been working continuously for five years, paying her taxes and behaving as a good citizen, should be granted a work visa as a matter of course.Dimotonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-19244459310775401382009-09-17T20:59:47.349+01:002009-09-17T20:59:47.349+01:00@Tim Carpenter,
I think you have misunderstood th...@Tim Carpenter,<br /><br />I think you have misunderstood the law (you're far from the only one). This was made a criminal offence under the tories in the 1996 act. The present government have decriminalised it and replaced it with a civil penalty.Jimmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01542633492362670045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-59238645254747435202009-09-17T20:11:05.349+01:002009-09-17T20:11:05.349+01:00'Also, it is said that the woman concerned had...'Also, it is said that the woman concerned had been paying tax and has a National Insurance number. She was originally here on a student visa. Shouldn't there be a system for NI numbers to become invalid once a visa runs out? It's called joined up government.'<br /><br />Yes, perhaps we should spend hundreds of millions of pounds on an IT system that links immigration status to the tax, NI and benefits systems. Sounds like a good idea when the country is practically bust, but just the sort of idiocy that the likes of Accenture are no doubt punting to the Tories as I write this. Please think before suggesting things like this - the next thing you know, they're in the manifesto and our hard-earned cash is lining consultants' pockets. <br /><br />What exactly would it achieve? Would it help the authorities catch illegal immigrants? Would it stop them working? (Ever heard of 'cash in hand' or 'the black economy'?) Given that the chances of stopping them working are in fact zero, one might think that having them contribute to state coffers (especially now) isn't such a bad thing.<br /><br />I'm sure one bit of government that will survive the arrival of the Tories relatively unscathed is the Home Office - UKBA (immigration - so untouchable, even though it's monstrously inefficient, and wasting money on IT schemes that will never work, hand over fist), the police (make UKBA look efficient, and again, regard themselves as untouchable, even though they're generally badly managed, underworked and very lazy - but keep picking on the postmen if you want, even though ACPO and the Police Fed make the CWU look reasonable), and the terrorism lot ('cut our budget if you want to be blamed for a bomb in a big city'). Only the ID card looks dodgy, and I personally don't trust the Tories to pull the plug on that once the consultants have had a word.<br /><br />So, no offence, but you have no idea what you're on about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-5585420878779849612009-09-17T19:12:15.879+01:002009-09-17T19:12:15.879+01:00Having done a quick tour of the blogosphere, the f...Having done a quick tour of the blogosphere, the following may - possibly - be true:<br /><br />Baroness Scotland has broken the law regarding employment of illegal immigrants. This one is 100%.<br /><br />She has sacked her housekeeper on illegal grounds. Evidently, being an illegal immigrant is not grounds for instant dismissal!<br /><br />She has not "blown the whistle" and reported the illegal immigrant to the authorities.<br /><br />I know 1 and 3 to be true, and I am indebted to Ken at the Coffee House for number 2.<br /><br />Admittedly, these are only three reasons why the Baroness could be in trouble, a long way short of the 99 required for a Labour crony, but even so...john millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-4914636320670409772009-09-17T18:53:11.081+01:002009-09-17T18:53:11.081+01:00There was an interview on the PM programme with a ...There was an interview on the PM programme with a lady that acts an agency for domestic servants like this. She described how she checked out everyone and easy it is to do.JMBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13862227988978988383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-64999080403246210072009-09-17T18:44:45.382+01:002009-09-17T18:44:45.382+01:00Oh the irony:
From Hansard 11 Feb 2004 Columns110...Oh the irony:<br /><br />From Hansard 11 Feb 2004 Columns1104/5<br /><br />“Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, we shall shortly be revising the secondary legislation supporting Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. As your Lordships know, that legislation deals with employers and the prevention of illegal working. It will strengthen the kinds of documentation that employers are required to check to comply with Section 8. This will make it easier for the Immigration Service to identify and prosecute non-compliant employers.”<br /><br />WV:outtandBardirecthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12167919762034389133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-20910385121494645792009-09-17T18:23:35.713+01:002009-09-17T18:23:35.713+01:00This looks like yet another case of one criminal o...This looks like yet another case of one criminal offence for the governed and one unfortunate, inadvertant technical breach of the rules for the Labour hierarchy.<br /><br />They get worse by the day. So much for the moral compass.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-86367014091990958242009-09-17T18:17:19.157+01:002009-09-17T18:17:19.157+01:00Ohh, Vienna Woods, I think you'll find this en...Ohh, Vienna Woods, I think you'll find this endemic throughout the EU.<br /><br />You too can pitch up in France - it's only 20 miles away for God's sake - tell them you don't agree with their politics, don't agree with their religion, tell them you won't speak their languange, tell them you will kill all the homosexuals in France, stone all the women adulterers, demand a nice house and a nice car and there you are!<br /><br />Unfortunately, it didn't work for me, but perhaps I was just being rude...john millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-67260148164344473762009-09-17T17:54:16.952+01:002009-09-17T17:54:16.952+01:00So we have a socialist champion of the poor enjoyi...So we have a socialist champion of the poor enjoying the 'perks' and cushy living of the toffs of old?<br /><br />Animal farm was correct then!<br /><br />The socialists just love their time honoured prejudices against their enemies, never mind that when presented with the opportunity to live like the toffs of old they are in like Flint.<br />The toffs of old enjoyed VIP living by earning their own money, the new socialist elite feel able to leach their toff living from the taxpayer.<br />During Scotlands adult life has she ever actually created wealth?<br />Like so many other two faced socialist parasites, they feed off the workers they profess to love, but this is the socialist paradox all over isnt it? You get the Benn/Kinnock dynasties with a bloated sense of family entitlement that would make a Victorian magnate blush.<br />The UK now has a growing new toff elite, showered with privilige and cushy head starts, they enjoy the good life although its often with a tacky and vulgar 'Swiss Toni(all the fine wines and Belgian chocolate yer can eat ducky)vulgarity'.<br />What I find disgusting is that while the old toffs would lord it around with their own cash, the new socialist jetset elite feel able to fund their lifestyles by leaching money from those least able to afford it!<br />Look how his Tonyness is a multi millionaire, how does his 'deep faith in socilist values' square with the fact that many in his old MP constituency live in abject poverty?<br />While Mr Bliar can now enjoy the life of a toff jetsetter the people who slavishly voted for him can barely afford to eat.<br />Just as Prescott feels that by sticking fake wood and turrets to his gaffe it will suddenly turn him into a high born lord of the manor landed gentleman, the new elite feel able to show off their new wealth and power in the most tacky and vulgar ways, shag pile kettle covers and zebra strip wall paper with candlelight suppers and servants included.<br /><br />Meet the new toff, same as the old(only worse).cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06088596240127998878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-40998515057101280772009-09-17T17:51:23.741+01:002009-09-17T17:51:23.741+01:00"Shouldn't there be a system for NI numbe..."Shouldn't there be a system for NI numbers to become invalid once a visa runs out? It's called joined up government."<br /><br />Some sort of compulsory id card perhaps?<br /><br />I wonder why no-one ever thought of it before.Jimmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01542633492362670045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-67545488521137492322009-09-17T17:09:51.112+01:002009-09-17T17:09:51.112+01:00Her boss pledged 'British Jobs for British Wor...Her boss pledged 'British Jobs for British Workers.' Why did she employ a foreigner?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-13065784449829825492009-09-17T17:00:42.252+01:002009-09-17T17:00:42.252+01:00She is Perfect McLabour material!She is Perfect McLabour material!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com