Comments for en-gb 30 Sun 01 Feb 2015 06:49:39 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at curranc To me, The UK Border Agency seems to be the problem!it should be the responsibility of the Inland Revenue/HMCRto flag that any UK resident should not (no longer) be working.Anything else seems bureaucratic nonsense. Wed 23 Sep 2009 16:49:37 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn This post has been Removed Wed 23 Sep 2009 15:58:42 GMT+1 U14138029 T8-eh-T8(39) - I'm afraid what you have written is totally misleading. It quite clearly states on that site that: "This guidance describes circumstances in which the front cover of the British Passport may be reproduced"(the emphasis is mine).I know of no rule which states that the details within the passport can not be copied. Indeed within the piece that you refer to at Para8 there is stong advice to record the information contained within the passport. Wed 23 Sep 2009 15:39:54 GMT+1 Fearless Fred T8-eh-T8, Interesting, particularly as you are often advised to take photocopies of your passport as well as the original if you are travelling, as it makes it easier for the local consulate/embassy to issue a replacement... Wed 23 Sep 2009 15:35:43 GMT+1 amoeba2 Fifi #41 It's not just "posturing", as you put it. This woman is at the top of the legal tree, for goodness' sake! If she breaks a law - moreover, one she helped to steer through Parliament - then to resign would be the honourable, and appropriate thing to do. Instead we get nothing but "front" and flippancy. Her judgement is more than suspect. She should go.P.S. I'm not a Tory or LibDem out to "get" her - just an "ordinary" person who is sick and tired of the shenanigans and shameless audacity of many modern politicians. Wed 23 Sep 2009 15:34:26 GMT+1 Fifi Appy (37) : Thanks for summing up the facts so neatly. It makes a change from all the posturing and opinionation going on, completely obscuring what actually happened.Next thing you know, people will be saying Chas and Dave have 'split up' when all that's happened is Dave is giving up touring for a while after his wife just died... Wed 23 Sep 2009 15:16:18 GMT+1 SirStarryKnight I do not share the current calls for Patricia Scotland to resign. Rather, let us accept that she made an innocent error, and extend that same sympathetic interpretation to other employers picking their way through difficult legislation.But I feel that all this hoo-ha masks deeper questions: Why was an illegal immigrant permitted to remain in the UK for so long, how many other illegals are currently in our midst, and what is being done to remove them? Wed 23 Sep 2009 15:09:31 GMT+1 T8-eh-T8 From this site: Passport is subject to Crown copyright protection under section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This means that it may not lawfully be reproduced without the prior permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), an official who as Queen’s Printer and Queen’s Printer for Scotland manages Crown copyright on behalf of Her Majesty under the terms of Letters Patent. HMSO’s Information Policy Division administers Crown copyright on behalf of the ControllerSo a legal requirement to photocopy Johnny Foreigners passport but illegal to do the same to a British passport?See what happens when we allow lawyers to run the country. Shambles. Wed 23 Sep 2009 00:26:53 GMT+1 Aperitif Tee hee: by "entotled" I meant "entitled" clearly... Tue 22 Sep 2009 22:28:02 GMT+1 Aperitif As I understand it the woman Patricia Scotland employed has admitted using forged documents to get the job -- this is why the Borders Agency accept that Scotland did not know the employee was illegally resident and not entotled to work here. However, she did not keep copies of the documents produced as evidence of eligibilty to work in the UK. Keeping copies is also a legal requirement. Hence, for this failure, Scotland was fined £5000. Tue 22 Sep 2009 22:26:59 GMT+1 amoeba2 If she had followed Gordon Brown's dictum of "British jobs for British workers",Baroness Scotland would not be in the fix she's in. And I think she should resign because her credibility as Attorney-General is now non-existent - surely? Tue 22 Sep 2009 19:16:22 GMT+1 akhodson The point raised earlier about NI numbers is worrying.I agree with the previous contributor that the Govt. taking tax and NI payments should be a copper bottomed indication of elligibility. If we cannot trust the voracity of the NI system, what about the proposed ID cards? Not that they are necessary; just give everone an NI number at birth or day of legal entitlement to be in this country and use this one number to replace the current plethora of Government reference numbers - tax, health, ID etc etc Tue 22 Sep 2009 18:53:22 GMT+1 JohnDavidButcher HA Ha !! that triumphalist ? Oh, please do allow a smiggin of smuggery.I sold my music business in 2003 because my company had to get a whole lot bigger to afford a compliance department or a whole lot smaller to come under the radar. So I sold out to a big corporation.The problem is that there are too many lawyers at the heart of government who are well intention but who have no idea whatsoever how much time it takes to stay within the law. The French are having a debate on the quality of life measured by happiness not GDP. I suggest that we could start such an analysis by measuring quality life spent with the family.Baroness Scotland has fallen on the double-edged sword of 'hoisted' and 'petard'.Along with the expences scandal, when will our legislators get 'real'. Tue 22 Sep 2009 18:13:55 GMT+1 U14146942 And according to PF, nay TIH, nee RJD its 20 posts auto-moderated and only then instant access Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:51:31 GMT+1 doontbelieve Has Baroness Scotland really got people's backs up - so many "coments awaiting moderation" ? Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:47:45 GMT+1 U14146942 30Wish they would. Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:42:34 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn Over an hour now and still no pre-mod done! I thought they were going to improve it. Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:20:41 GMT+1 Snafu_labour Can't be bothered with this blog, the moderators are too thick to understand valid argument. Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:18:20 GMT+1 tiredMiddling I hope to be always friendly and polite but the government response to the illegal immigrant doing a job and doing no harm depresses me beyond words.A good immigration policy would bne as hard as can be on criminal immigrants, either the people-traffickers behind the immigration individuals comitting crimes of dishonesty or violence. Unlike Sir Andrew Green, I see no hurt in people who work, behave, and just, unforgivabley live here. We have errected administrative criminality an an absolute offence for breaking a regulation. That is responded to by Ministers as if it were rape or arson. Lets remember that one illegal immigrant denied work as a doctor, his qualification, and endlessly abused by youths on a Scottish housing estate, committed suicide. We can take lots of honest people in this country.As for criminals look out for the rael one but don't invent laws which confer criminality by statute made for administrative convenience. Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:14:23 GMT+1 lordBeddGelert It has been a while since I had a cleaning lady. She popped in for a couple of hours a week and I left her some cash on the table when I could remember. I only knew her first name, didn't know where she lived and the only 'paperwork' she was interested in was emptying the waste paper basket.Just because the Government cannot be bothered with the expense of border controls is absolutely no reason to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut with this ridiculously draconian legislation. Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:04:38 GMT+1 Happyhomeworker 19 harry-rightWhat amazed me about the "legal expert" was that he was unable to give a clear line about who is employed and who isn't. Yes, there are some grey areas in the law on this one, but they are rarely encountered by an average person on a day to day basis. I don't consider an average person has a gardener!If you pay someone to do a regular job for you, then you should ensure you have a contract with them which spells out their employment status - that's just sensible. Often you contract with a company for e.g Gardening or Cleaning Services which will usually mean you are not the employer. For one-off jobs there is usually no question of being an employer, so Nick Clegg's nonsense about checking the immigration status of a plumber can be discounted.But if you contract with a specific individual (not a company) for them to provide specific services under your direction on a regular basis, then you are likely to be the employer. That's what I learned in my law degree, anyway. It seems the lawyer you had on the programme didn't. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:58:21 GMT+1 Snafu_labour Lucky she acted in 'good faith' eh ? If she'd been one of us little people she would have been held to her own principle of 'strict libility'. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:56:24 GMT+1 Peejagee While fully understanding that Lady Scotland did wrong in employing an illegal immigrant, I somehow feel that the response of the authorities would not have been so understanding of her position had she been a member of the general public. Also much more would have been made of the matter had she been a member of HM Opposition. She made the rules and should in all decency resign. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:54:41 GMT+1 sociallyconcerened I am confused. What about the Data Protection Act? I have been involved with training on government funded programmes and we have to check passports and visas and we write down the passport and visa number but not photocpying people's passports and have sought advice and have received notice that we don't photocpy. Can all departments please sing to the same hymn sheet please? What does the Data Controller say about this? Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:53:41 GMT+1 Snafu_labour SO WHAT if the UK Border Agency say that they are 'satisfied that Baroness Scotland "did not knowingly" employ an illegal immigrant.WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PRINCIPLE OF 'STRICT LIABILITY' which she and Harman demand be applied in these laws? Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:51:40 GMT+1 newlach I don't think English voters will forget this. It is important that the Government cracks down on illegal gardeners who often undercut the going rate and do shoddy work. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:50:44 GMT+1 invincibleoldandwise happyhomeworker @3 I agree. Checking the status of job applicants is not that difficult and if you've any doubts, then you just don't employ.I suspect some employers are too eager to get staff at very low wages.My daughter (British) is changing jobs at the moment and has been obliged to produce numerous documents to prove her status. That's just the way it is. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:48:19 GMT+1 Henry Gordon The UK Border Agency say that they are satisfied that Baroness Scotland "did not knowingly" employ an illegal immigrant. If she kept no copies of the documentation, what is their evidence for saying this? Do they publish their reports? PM seems to have made up its mind on this question and come down on her side- the whole item consisted of a load of excuses for her behaviour, including an employment law 'expert' whose mind appeared to have been overwhelmed by the complexity of the subject. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:43:14 GMT+1 DanielleRussell As a business manager and employer of a vast quantity of seasonal and permanent employees over the last ten or so years, I welcomed the legislation in 2006 when it came about. I am fed up hearing now that individuals and companies are unaware of their obligations as employers. All legitimate business are audited. There is a clear duty of care to recruit staff legally, and to protect staff under all the other legislation accordingly. There is a massive loop hole in the UK. There is a shortage of expert lawyers in this field, with only two law firms in England that deal with immigration law. NI numbers, contributions and taxes are not being scrutinized thoroughly enough it seems, it's a good thing that this whole issue has come to light. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:39:42 GMT+1 kozz1315 This post has been Removed Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:35:34 GMT+1 nickhorslen THE REAL ISSUE: Attorney General Baroness Scotland has shown "THE LAW IS AN ASS" has to be Attorney General Baroness Scotland been learning from the process!!!! Lets hope she does!!If its so easy for an intelligent well informed honest person to break this law or any law then the law needs to be changed, surely?!Thinking this through, as one of the informed expert said, there are too many laws and too many technicalities, Attorney General Baroness Scotland needs to think this through and bring about change, that would be penance, better than any fine for her, showing she has learnt and listened.On another note relating to this lapse, surely if illegal immigrants cant work how will most survive? Crime!? God help them!!The real crime hear is that the govt doesn't know, let alone employers (honest or otherwise)know, if people are here illegal or otherwise. I feel for those people in here illegally because they want to be here but are now criminals whatever they do. Something must be done by sensible people before the less well intended cease this agenda. Are the lunatics running the asylum? Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:33:57 GMT+1 kozz1315 This post has been Removed Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:33:35 GMT+1 bigbuzzard After hearing your interview, I searched for 'List A' and 'List B'They're here, on an NHS website about employment:http://j,mp/ListA B also says "This page lists the documents employers must check when employing staff after 29 February 2008 to able to confirm that an applicant has the legal right to work in the UK.Only use this list if the individual cannot provide documents from List A."This law must apply to everybody in employment in the UK. List A includes: "A passport showing that the holder, or a person named in the passport as the child of the holder, is a British citizen or a citizen of the UK and Colonies having the right of abode in the UK." and "A full birth certificate issued in the UK which includes the name(s) of at least one of the holder's parents, when produced in combination with an official document, issued by a Government agency or a previous employer, giving the person's permanent National Insurance Number and their name."So that means that anyone being employed should expect to produce one of these two things (everything else on the list, apart from the adoption equivalents of these, is only relevant to immigrants).Now it's a long time since I looked at my full birth certificate, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't include a National Insurance number (I was born in 1967). So that means that it's now a legal requirement to possess a passport? It still wasn't clear from your interview whether this also applies when you take on a self-employed person. I'm a self-employed musician. Nobody engaging me has ever asked me to prove that I'm allowed to work in the UK, let alone make a copy of my passport. Are they all breaking the law? Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:31:42 GMT+1 kozz1315 This post has been Removed Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:30:49 GMT+1 doontbelieve Sorry, Lady Scotland, or is it Baroness Scotland ? this failure to comply with our law, which you yourself drafted, cannot be excused by dismissing it as an "Administrative Breach". Surely the fact that you forgot to take a copy of this woman's passport, when you yourself had drafted this law, leads one to wonder whether in fact you bothered to check that she had one, as if she had in fact produced a passport, satisfying the law, then she would not be here illegally !! So the question to ask is not why didn't Baroness Scotland have the passport copied but how could she, when illegals do not possess passports? What a jumble - you've let so many illegals into our country that you have no idea the numbers and this has come back and smacked you in the eye. My, how these politicians back each other up and wriggle their way out of keeping their own laws with what to them is a little slap on the wrist, (£5,000.) Then expect us to "respect" them when they continue in their very high prestige well paid jobs, oh dear, what is her job again? Don't ask !!! Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:29:03 GMT+1 tumblingcrocodiles This post has been Removed Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:28:13 GMT+1 amoeba2 This post has been Removed Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:25:31 GMT+1 kozz1315 This post has been Removed Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:25:24 GMT+1 kozz1315 This post has been Removed Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:24:36 GMT+1 pdread If Baroness Scotland was employing this person, and as I have just heard on PM, paying National Insurance and Income Tax, then this would surely mean that the employee had a National Insurance Number, which should only be issued to those entitled to work here. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:23:46 GMT+1 Snafu_labour Can someone from Nu-Labour please now confirm that anyone falling foul of a Harman/Scotland law which relies on the principle of 'Strict Liability' can get off 'Scot'-free by claiming that they acted 'in good faith'? Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:21:56 GMT+1 Dr_Bob_PhD If I'm a worker and I have to hand my passport over for photocopying when I take a casual job with someone, don't I run a risk of identity theft? Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:20:35 GMT+1 Dr_Bob_PhD Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:19:18 GMT+1 Happyhomeworker I used to be a HR manager and I have actually checked immigration status. It's not too hard, all you have to do is to follow the guidance. If there is any doubt, you simply don't employ the person. My job was to ensure that my company was kept on the right side of the law - if I had failed to do that, the least I would expect would be to be subject to disciplinary action, but I could have lost my job.How can the person who actually took this legislation through parliament still be in her job? She's a QC, for goodness sake! Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:16:11 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn If photocopying is a central part of this law that could have changed the outcome of this sage by finding out the status of this employee, then it is much more than a technical oversight of a legal nicety. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:15:28 GMT+1 funnyJoedunn This post has been Removed Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:11:46 GMT+1