Immigration Bill (Sixth sitting)

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; she is always fantastic on detail. My answer is yes, but I am not a lawyer, so I would like the Minister to lay out, in language that a former charity worker can understand, the protections for people who are exploited. To be honest, I am unclear. A number of our witnesses said they were unclear, although I recall that clarification was sought on this point.

I will give the hypothetical example of a woman who paid a criminal gang for her passage here and came expecting a job. She was given a job, but then told that she had to pay additional costs, which took away all of her income, effectively making her a slave without legal protection under our current system. She could be beholden to that employer for an indefinite period and be too terrified to speak out, because I can guarantee that the employer would use the fact that she would be reported and become a criminal if she did.

I do not see how clause 8 helps that person in any way. I would like clarification from the Minister about how that person could have the confidence to come forward when their employer is telling them that they will be criminalised if they do so. Surely the best approach is to stick with clause 9, under which the employer becomes liable for the actions and will be criminalised for those actions.

We know where the employers are. They will be registered at Companies House and they will be filing their taxes. It will be a lot easier to follow that trail to get the prosecutions, particularly with limited resources, rather than spending an indefinite period trying to track down illegal workers when we do not know who they are, where they are working or their status, just on the off chance that we might catch and criminalise them so that we send out the right message. Surely it is better to go for the employers.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I wonder whether there is a misunderstanding, or at least an underestimation, of how vulnerable some of these workers are. Does the Minister realise the extent of their vulnerability? If he does, will he change his mind about criminalising those who work illegally?

I will cite an example of not a young vulnerable woman trafficked here as a sex slave, but someone whom hon. Members might use as an example of why we need to criminalise. On my travels a few years ago, I spent time with a man called Mehdi, who was fit and healthy in his mid-thirties. He was married to Rezi, who was pregnant with their first child. They sought asylum in the UK—I met him some years after all this happened—and ended up in Glasgow where, despite their best efforts, they were refused asylum because they could not prove they were in danger. She had a miscarriage and they were made destitute. They were told they would be deported and they embarked on a terrible downward spiral. They removed themselves from all support mechanisms, so frightened were they of being found and deported to certain danger, but they could not survive here, so Mehdi found a job. He knew he was not allowed to do that, as did his employers, who took advantage of that knowledge and made him work extremely long hours for £3 an hour.

Mehdi was abused, exploited and occasionally beaten. He was worked until he would regularly collapse with exhaustion, but he had no choice. Some Government Members might argue that he did have a choice because he could have gone back to his home country. However, he was not working not just to feed himself and get by in life in Glasgow, but to save money to buy false passports so that the couple could get out of the UK and away from the danger of deportation to his home country. Who among us would not do whatever it took to protect our loved ones and our own lives if we had to?

If the Bill had been in force when Mehdi was doing all that, what might the outcome have been for this loving and protective husband? This kindly but damaged man could very well have ended up in jail, followed by being deported to the country that he was so afraid of returning to. For him, the worst part would have been leaving his wife—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I ask Anne McLaughlin to continue her speech, I thought it might be advisable to take discussion of the clause with the amendment and not have a stand part debate. If anyone wants to make a contribution on the clause, please feel free to do so now.

[Anne McLaughlin]

It has come to my attention that some Conservative Members did not listen to absolutely every word, so I wondered whether they would like me to recap from the start, or just to summarise where I was.

I was speaking about someone I met on my travels who had sought asylum in the UK and ended up in Glasgow. Mehdi, with his wife Rezi, were refused asylum, were destitute and were threatened with deportation. They were terrified of being returned to their country of origin because of what would happen to them. Mehdi ended up working illegally for £3 an hour, being completely exploited, and he did that because he did not have a choice. The point I was making was that he did not do that just to get by and to be able to buy food and clothes. He was doing it because they were saving up to be smuggled out of the country, not back to their country of origin, but to another country that they would enter illegally because they were so afraid of being sent back to their home country.

I was making the point that if this Bill had been in place then, Mehdi would have faced the additional risk of going to prison. I spent some time with him and he was most certainly not someone who—

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

What situation would the family have been in had this legislation been in place then?

[Anne McLaughlin]

It would depend on whether he had been caught working. He would be prosecuted and could have been imprisoned. Thankfully for Mehdi and Rezi, that did not happen, but there are many other people like them. She was extremely vulnerable. Had the Bill been around and they had been imprisoned, she would have been left destitute, facing deportation without him by her side. With him by her side, she was terrified enough. He would have gone to prison and then, undoubtedly, he would have been deported separately from her.

A fit, healthy married man in his 30s who is working illegally is not someone we typically highlight when trying to attract compassion from those who wish to control illegal working and are also concerned about vulnerable people, but who among us could not feel compassion for Mehdi and Rezi? We should remember that even those who are not the archetypal exploitable worker often have truly heart-breaking stories and are often left with no choices. The Bill would make it even riskier for them. If it is riskier, they will become ever more dependent on their abusive, exploitative employers. They deserve our compassion and support to get out of those situations. They do not deserve the threat of a prison sentence hanging over them.

[Paul Blomfield]

On amendment 68, I welcome the observations the Minister made in his latter comments. The Bill creates an unreasonable anomaly between the caveats it provides for employers and the absence of any for employees. As I understand it, under clause 9, employers are only guilty of the offence of employing an illegal worker if they do so “knowing” or

“having reasonable cause to believe”

that the person is an illegal worker.

We are saying to employers that there is a test of reasonableness before they are criminalised for the act of wrongful employment. The problem with clause 8 is that there is no such test of reasonableness. With the amendment, we seek to bring some equivalence between the way we approach employers and the way we approach employees by enabling them to be able to demonstrate “reasonable excuse” for the predicament in which they find themselves. Although I have reservations about the entire clause, were the Government successful in retaining it, I hope they would look generously on the amendment, which could provide that equivalence.

I have concerns about clause 8 more generally, as it criminalises the act of illegal working. I take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the shadow Minister that we might disagree on this matter across the House. However, I do not think we need to. A number of us have said that we are at one on the objectives of the Bill, as we were with the Modern Slavery Act. In seeking to ensure that clause 8 does not stand part of the Bill, we are at one with the Government’s policy objectives of achieving effective labour market enforcement and, indeed, of combating modern slavery. Less than two years ago, in November 2013, the Home Secretary made combating modern slavery a priority. I do not have the experience that Conservative Members and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham have of serving on that Bill Committee but I commend those who were involved on that legislation, just as I commend the Home Secretary on the priority that she placed on combating modern slavery. That aim won wide support, found expression in the Modern Slavery Act, and took us in the right direction. The problem with clause 8 of this Bill is that it risks undoing some of the good of the Modern Slavery Act.

I am sure that the Government do not intend to undermine their own legislation so soon after it has become law so I hope that the Minister will give serious regard to the points that we are raising in suggesting that clause 8 should not stand part of the Bill. I hope he recognises that if it does, slavery is more likely to thrive. I notice that he is shaking his head and I look forward to his response.

I put this to the Minister: what do we know? What is all the evidence clear about? I am happy for him to intervene if he disagrees, but all the evidence is clear on one thing. The more vulnerable workers are, the stronger the hand of the gangmasters or the unscrupulous employers who seek to exploit them. I am sure that the Minister agrees, as I notice he does not wish to intervene. Vulnerability plays into the hands of those who seek to exploit, such as unscrupulous employers. The more vulnerable workers feel, the less likely they are to come forward to report their abusers. Clause 8 increases that vulnerability and strengthens the hands of the gangmasters. I note that the Minister is again shaking his head. I would be happy for him to intervene if he can provide any evidence to suggest that that is not the case. When we took evidence from witnesses, we heard from many experts who said that this was the case; none said that it was not.

The clause, by threatening exploited workers with 12 months in prison if they are deemed to have committed the offence of illegal working, gives another crucial card to the suit of cards that gangmasters can play. It does not only affect those who have committed the offence of illegal working; it changes the psychology and relationship even between the employer and the employees who have not committed an offence. According to the National Crime Agency, in cases that it has taken up, 78% of those who have been exploited for their labour in the UK actually have the right to work here as EEA nationals. Rights awareness among those workers is low and their options are limited, which allows unscrupulous employers to hold the threat of removal over them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I am pleased to know that I am following in sound footsteps, Chair, but I will take your advice.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only the exploitative employer who can continue to exploit the person who is working illegally? Undocumented workers face threats from all sorts of people. I spoke to somebody who had worked illegally for different reasons to the previous person I talked about. They were not only ruthlessly exploited by the employer, but were blackmailed by colleagues who themselves were working legally, but were aware or at least suspected that this person was working illegally. He faced blackmail, threats and intimidation. Although he said, “Actually, you don’t know what my status is”, the point that the blackmailers made was, “Are you willing to take that risk?” Of course, such workers are not. The exploitation comes from all around, not just from one employer.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Lady adds another dimension to my argument that the clause makes those who are already in a precarious situation more vulnerable and open to exploitation. In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned the evidence given by Caroline Robinson from Focus on Labour Exploitation, which works directly with victims of trafficking for labour exploitation and of which I am the trustee along with some Members from other parties.

FLEX has identified three drivers of labour exploitation. The first is the feeling among migrant workers that they deserve less or have fewer rights than UK citizens. The second is a lack of checks on labour standards in the workplace, including everything from health and safety to minimum wage enforcement. The third is a fear of officials, especially of immigration officials. The Bill makes each of those drivers worse, and clause 8 has a particular effect on the first and third factors.

First, on the rights of migrant workers, the clause puts the focus on immigration status as a condition of asserting labour rights. By criminalising the exploited worker, whether they are committing the offence of illegal working or not, they can be treated and threatened by a gangmaster as if they are. On the second driver, we have talked at length about a number of aspects of labour market enforcement. The Bill seems to reflect the Government’s desire to move further towards an intelligence-based approach to enforcement. Essential to that intelligence is whistleblowing. We need to ensure that we do nothing in the Bill to discourage exploited workers from coming forward and thereby give gangmasters another card to play. Sadly, the clause risks doing exactly that.

On the third driver of labour exploitation, the problem that we identified earlier—the overlap between labour market enforcement and immigration enforcement—is at the heart of the Bill. The clause gives undocumented workers another reason to be worried. The consequence is that labour exploitation is not rooted out and continues to be a pull factor for migration, which is against the Government’s policy objectives.

Mr Bone, I will take your advice. I will not ask the Minister to intervene, but I press him to share evidence from anywhere in the world that shows that the approach of criminalising workers, unlike many other aspects of the Bill with which we agree, assists in the policy objective that he outlined and we share.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The Bill is doing both. It is taking steps in relation to employers and to employees, including with the overall enforcement approach. That is why I put things in that broader context. I will respond later to some of the specific questions on purpose, intent and how things fit in the overall deportation strategy. It is important to contextualise that so that the Committee understands the intent of the Government.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The argument I was making was not that we should allow people who are not permitted to work in this country to work in this country; my point was that those people are often the most vulnerable. A man who is fit and healthy and in his mid-30s might not appear to be that vulnerable on the face of it, but imprisoning him would not make him less likely to commit the offence—he was left with no choice—nor would it change his situation. My argument was not that it is in some way acceptable for people to lose their jobs because others are working illegally; I was arguing that the imprisonment aspect, the criminalisation, is not necessary and will make no difference.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear the point that the hon. Lady is making, although I do not want to get into the specifics of the case, as I am not entirely familiar with it, so it would not be appropriate or fair, for her or myself, for me to do so. In many cases, however, there is that choice of leaving the country. She might want to make a broader point about assisted voluntary returns and other means of appropriate removal, but that is the context for my arguments about the purpose of the clause and how it fits with other measures in the Bill to support the approach of discouraging people from coming to this country and to deal with some of the broader impacts of illegal working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Is the Minister not concerned that making it easier to bring about prosecutions and prove negligence will mean that employers are much more fearful of employing someone who, to them, does not sound, look or seem British? My fear is that people who genuinely intend to do the right thing will steer clear of employing anyone who does not appear to be British because they will be frightened of being prosecuted. They will be taking a big risk.

[James Brokenshire]

That is why I made the point about negligence and how that is dealt with under the civil penalty regime but not the criminal provisions that I explained earlier. That feeds back into the debate we have had in respect of the bar that needs to be set for bringing prosecutions. That is why I made the comments I did in the previous debate about discrimination. The most serious cases involving the exploitation of illegal labour will continue to be dealt with under legislation that prohibits facilitation and trafficking. It is important to make that point in the broader context of the provision.

Subsection (1) amends section 21(1) of the 2006 Act by inserting, after “knowing”,

“or having reasonable cause to believe”.

That is the test. It is not negligence. The effect is to amend what is known as the mens rea, the knowledge or intention needed to make out the offence, in order to make the test more objective and the offence easier to prove, but still with that safeguard.