Immigration Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

50: Clause 15, page 15, line 10, at end insert “subject to the provisions set out in section (Pilot of residential housing provisions)”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 50, I will speak also to the other amendments in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Stevenson and the noble Lord, Lord Best, and our clause stand part debate.

It is already the case that local authority housing associations cannot let to illegal migrants. We agree with the principle of making it more difficult for illegal migrants to rent property but we have very serious concerns about the workability, effectiveness and possible unintended consequences of this clause. We want legislation that works. We do not want legislation that is ineffective and puts unnecessary, onerous and disproportionate restrictions and obligations on UK citizens but does not impact on the real issue.

We have tabled a number of amendments. As I said, the first is a clause stand part debate on Clause 15 to ensure a general discussion on all these parts of the Bill. Amendments 50 and 51 would put in legislation the principle of a pilot for these provisions. Amendment 56C would require the Government to make landlords aware of the code of practice. Amendments 55T and 56A would implement the recommendations of the DPRC to require that the code of practice be made by order, and Amendment 56E would question the dehybridisation provision.

We have a number of other groups—I think it is three—on the housing issue. It might be helpful if I address the principal points in this debate and comment only briefly on the other groups. My noble friend Lord Stevenson has already addressed concerns about how these proposals will impact on students. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I speak a little longer on this group of amendments, but I do not intend to speak on the other groups of amendments, other than perhaps a very brief sentence or comment. So I will speak slightly longer than I would normally.

I have found it difficult to find anybody who is in favour of this clause who thinks that it will work in practice. The evidence sessions in the other place should have given the Government cause to pause and reconsider, given the views expressed. Opposition to these measures comes from a whole range of organisations that have to deal with the consequences, from Crisis and Shelter, which deal with housing for some of the most vulnerable in society, to the organisations that represent landlords.

The Residential Landlords Association survey identified opposition from 82% of its members. Carolyn Uphill, chairman of the National Landlords Association, said in her evidence to the House of Commons committee:

“It is going to impose an administrative burden on landlords who are not experts in immigration … The principle of checking identity is not so much the worry as the logistics of how that is done and understanding the documentation”.

In the same evidence session, Richard Jones, policy director of the Residential Landlords Association, said that,

“we think that the Bill and its provisions are not workable and will not be effective in achieving the objectives set out”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 29/10/13; col. 43.]

They are not questioning the principle, just whether the provisions are workable for those who have to implement them. I am still unclear whether the Government have fully assessed all the implications of this clause, including the unintended consequences.

In its most recent report on the work of the UK Border Agency, this time last year, the Home Affairs Select Committee said:

“The proposed new housing measures in the Immigration Bill must not produce a bonanza for unscrupulous landlords who already operate outside the law”.

The landlords’ organisations are not complaining about the principle of letting only to those who are legally in the country but about the workability of the measure, whether it places unfair and unreasonable demands on landlords to enforce it and whether it will also cause significant problems and hardship to many others seeking to rent a home.

I understand the concerns that have been raised by landlords because in effect this clause outsources immigration responsibilities to others, including landlords. The Government’s code of practice for landlords—I am grateful to the Minister for supplying it so we could look at it—is supposed to provide safeguards and reassurances when it comes to implementation. I wish it had done so but I am not reassured. I have read through the guidance in the code of practice and it seems to raise as many questions as it seeks to address—the issues have already been raised. It states that landlords should make checks on,

“person(s) with whom you are entering into a contractual agreement … and any adult persons who will occupy the premises under that agreement”.

Can the Minister be precise about exactly who is included in this? The code states that,

“the tenant who is sub-letting will be the responsible landlord for the purposes of this scheme”.

But how will they be made aware of this? Will there not be a loophole for unscrupulous landlords who collect rent via one tenant, thereby evading their responsibilities should there be further sublets? What about the tenant who allows guests to stay, even long term? Will they or will the landlord be responsible? It is not difficult to imagine how those who are not here legally could stay with or even rent from friends without the landlord ever knowing.

The draft code of practice also lists a number of documents which are acceptable—if the Minister reads the list, he will find that there is a mistake in at least one. This includes a passport or a birth certificate, but also a letter from the police confirming that the person has had their documents stolen. Even a UK firearms licence would be acceptable proof to a landlord that a person can rent. A number of documents are listed, many of which will not be familiar to most landlords. How will landlords be able to familiarise themselves with, and understand and recognise, all those documents, including how genuine they are? I think that the Government are trying to be helpful in broadening the number of documents, but what they have done in effect is cause even greater potential for confusion.

One of the Government’s retorts to these concerns has been to say that under employment rules businesses already check a person’s status and do so without difficulty. It is misleading to suggest that businesses, even very small businesses, which are required to undertake employment checks operate on a scale that is comparable to private landlords, some of whom may let only one property—it might even be just a room in a property. Seventy-eight per cent of landlords in the private rented sector own just one property that they rent out.

As we know, employers can make mistakes when acting with the best of intentions. The noble Lord’s former ministerial colleague, Mark Harper, made such a mistake when he found that he was employing a domestic cleaner who was an illegal migrant. He has made it clear that he did his best to undertake the appropriate checks required. He thought that he had done so, but he had made mistakes. Mark Harper was very clear: he had checked his cleaner’s passport; he had checked the documentation—the letter from the Home Office; and he copied them at the time. But more than six years later, when he was taking this Bill through the other place and quite reasonably and responsibly wanted to double-check the information that he had been given, he could not find it, and his cleaner was unable to provide her copies. It was only then, after checking with immigration officials through his private office, that he found that the information that he had been given but could not find was incorrect.

How many landlords can be confident that if they make a similar mistake, they will be believed and not face the penalties and fine? The danger is that some landlords will understandably play safe and ask everyone for their passport, thereby disadvantaging all those without a passport or without immediate access to it. In Mark Harper’s case, the passport and the letter from the Home Office were fake or perhaps belonged to someone else. How many landlords are going to worry about making a mistake and, in some cases, not rent out their room or property at all?

I am also unclear about enforcement. How will it be established that a landlord has acted in breach of their duty and how will the fine be collected? What provisions will be made for landlords who repeatedly and deliberately break the law but pay the fine each time—those unscrupulous landlords whom we want to discourage while encouraging responsible ones? What will be considered sufficient checks, as referred to in the legislation? If we look at what excuses landlords are allowed to use to avoid action being taken against them, we see that they include notifying the Home Office of the contravention as soon as possible, but could this lead to landlords using notification as a shield and then the Home Office being overwhelmed by the number of inquiries that they might receive? Another excuse is based on the premise of landlords understanding the period for which the immigration document is valid or for how long a person has been granted leave, but that is not always straightforward and it can be very difficult to understand that documentation. Under Clause 27, the code of practice, which should set out all the detail about this, is to be laid before Parliament. We have seen the draft and, given that many questions remain, we and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee think that that is insufficient and that the code should benefit from parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we have tabled Amendment 55T to give effect to that.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a complex issue. I have spoken at some length, but a lot of points have been raised. I have rather taken a leaf out of the book of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in that I want to see the clauses in this part of the Bill dealt with to some degree by the way in which we have been able to debate this issue. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. The Minister has indeed spoken at some length, and I would like to read Hansard and reflect on some of the comments that he has made.

I have a couple of observations. I think that the Minister said previously, in relation to Clauses 32 and 33 regarding the health surcharges, that, and I paraphrase, he did not want to make nurses and doctors into immigration agents, yet that is what the Government are doing to landlords in this clause. I must admit that he has not reassured me on the effectiveness of the measures in tackling the problems of illegal immigration, which is the process, but neither has he reassured me that it does not place disproportionate and unnecessary restraints and obligations on British citizens and overseas visitors who have a right to be here. I am not convinced that the balance is right or that this measure achieves its objectives.

I think that there is widespread support for a pilot. I will read what the Minister has said, and I know that he has tried to reassure noble Lords that his phased rollouts are the same as or better than a pilot, but they are still a commitment to proceed. The thing about a pilot is that it has to come back to your Lordships’ House to be re-evaluated and looked at. He says that decisions on a phased rollout will be taken in the next Parliament but in fact decisions will be taken in the Bill. As I understood it, he said that a decision would be taken in the next Parliament if there were concerns. I am not convinced that I am satisfied that that fully addresses the point that I was raising about a step-by-step process to see if this works and, if it does not, whether to proceed. The point made by noble Lords around the House today is that they are not convinced about the workability—which is a word—of these measures, and that they would want to be reassured before the measures went ahead. An individual pilot would do that. I shall look at exactly what he said and reflect on it.

The Minister has made clear the Government’s view on the issue of unlawful discrimination, but whether the measures proposed fully address it has yet to be proved. I think that the Government are right to reflect on the detail of the higher education further exemptions and look at bringing forward a better amendment.

I return to the issue that was not really addressed to my satisfaction: victims of domestic violence who may not have the appropriate documents. The Minister skated over that. We are talking about people who may have left their home in a hurry and do not have the available documents but are legal citizens and have the right to be here. I still think that they are placed in the most difficult positions if they are not able to rent.

My noble friend Lady Lister made a point about lodgers. She gave the example of the bedroom tax, where the Government have advised people to take lodgers. Those people will be subject to the provisions of this Bill and could find themselves facing a fine because they have not complied with it, even though they were told by the Government to take in lodgers and now much more onerous conditions have been put on that.

I ask the Minister to reflect on the conditions here. I notice that item 10f in list A of acceptable documents in the draft code of practice for landlords is simply a full stop. I am sure that that is not a document that the Government require. Obviously the documentation has some work to be done.

I am not entirely satisfied. I appreciate that the Minister has made an effort and taken a great deal of time to try to address all the points. I will read what he said in Hansard and reflect on the comments that he has made. For now, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 50 withdrawn.