Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-02-24
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): We will not support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if it is put to a vote. I believe that this is the fifth or sixth such Motion moved by the noble Baroness’s party in respect of a statutory instrument in this Session. There appears to be a difference of view between us on the role of this House—the unelected House—in relation to such Motions on statutory instruments and the very exceptional circumstances in which voting on such a Motion might be justified in this House. I may be wrong, but I believe that we voted on just two such Motions in relation to statutory instruments during the five-year period of the coalition Government The terms of our Motion express regret that the Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2016 was laid following inadequate consultation, and asks the Government to undertake a further consultation before the terms of the order are implemented. This order extends the right-to-rent scheme to the whole of England, and the scheme restricts the access of illegal migrants to privately rented accommodation. The first phase of the scheme has been in operation in certain local authority areas in the West Midlands The Immigration Act 2014 was passed by the then coalition Government. Under it, landlords who failed to undertake the required checks whether prospective tenants had the necessary immigration status were liable to payment of a civil penalty. During the passage of that Bill, the then Government said in respect of the first phase of the scheme that they understood, "the desire of noble Lords to ensure that the landlords scheme is ‘workable’ and that the provisions are tested and carefully evaluated" They said that it was their intention, "to adopt a carefully phased approach to implementation and to ensure that we get the guidance and support services absolutely right before considering wider implementation beyond the first phase".—[Official Report, 3/4/14; col.1089.] The Government also said that, "one of the reasons why the rollout is important is that we need to check to see if there are any adverse implications in this policy".—[Official Report, 12/3/14; col.1800.] The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee commented in its recent report on this statutory instrument that: "The Home Office … needs to clarify the consequential impact on local authorities", and whether the demand for local authority housing would increase as a result. The committee also said that, "it appears to us that the Home Office needs to do more to publicise the checks, in particular to the majority of small landlords who do not belong to a professional association" In the light of just those two observations by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, there must be doubts as to whether the commitment given by the Government during the passage of the Immigration Bill 2014 to ensure that the guidance and support services were absolutely right before considering wider implementation beyond the first phase has been met. Likewise, there must be doubts about whether the commitment given to check if there were any adverse implications of the policy has been met in the light of the committee’s comment that the Home Office needed to be clear about the consequential effects of this legislation on local authorities and whether the demand for local authority housing would increase as a result.