Further thoughts on Baroness Scotland

This case gets more peculiar the more one thinks about it.

The BBC report that Baroness Scotland

"told BBC News: "I have been given an administrative penalty. This is not a case of a criminal act, this is the case of failing to photocopy a document which I absolutely accept was wrong and I have apologised for that wholeheartedly.

"This was a woman who was working locally, she was married to a solicitor. I believed the documents that I saw on their face value.

She added: "I did believe the woman that I employed was honest, and honourable and entitled to be here. That was a flaw and I have therefore absolutely accepted that for this technical breach, administrative breach I should be penalised."

Hold on is that right? Was she really penalised for not photocopying a document? Surely she was fined for employing an illegal immigrant because she did not carry out the proper checks. As I pointed out earlier

"Baroness Scotland's cleaner was apparently originally here on a student visa and then apparently overstayed the length of her visa. This would mean, I assume, that on the relevant page of her passport would be the student visa stamp stating clearly she wasn’t able to work.

As I understand the case, Baroness Scotland is saying that this was a "technical breach" because

"I did check absolutely everything. The critical thing is having checked, each employer is asked to take photocopies. I didn't take photocopies. I absolutely believe she was bona fide"

So Baroness did check all the relevant documents but neglected to take photocopies? If that is her defence then surely it means that one of the following is true:
1) that Baroness Scotland looked at the passport and either didn't spot that it was a student visa and that the visa had expired, which would make her incompetent (after all immigration related employment law was her area when she was at the Home Office)
2) that she did not look at the relevant page on the passport and has therefore lied to the UK Borders Authority
3) she did look at the page and it had been altered"

Oddly Baroness Scotland refers to "this document" but there is no single document that would have proved eligibility to work in the UK. The Home Office Guidelines (all 80 pages of them) go into seemingly endless detail about what steps need to be followed in order to prevent one from employing illegal immigrants. Could the government's chief legal adviser not follow the rules? Did the government's chief legal adviser not have the time to follow the complicated procedure? If the government's chief legal adviser cannot follow them or finds them to onerous then what about the rest of us who do not have the government's chief legal adviser's finely tuned legal brain?

The aforementioned Home Office document has a section entitled "HOW TO CHECK THAT SOMEONE IS ENTITLED TO WORK IN THE UK." Let's take a look at part of that section:

"Step 2
You must take all reasonable steps to check that the document is valid and satisfy yourself that your prospective employee or current employee is the person named in the document, and check that the documents allow them to do the work in question.

For each document presented, you should:
check any photographs are consistent with the appearance of the employee (this means you must see them in person); and check any dates of birth listed are consistent across documents and that you are satisfied that these correspond with the appearance of the employee; and check that the expiry dates of any limited leave to
enter or remain in the UK have not passed; and check any UK Government endorsements (stamps, visas, etc.) to see if your prospective or current employee is able to do the type of work you are offering; and satisfy yourself that the documents are valid and genuine, have not been tampered with and belong to the holder; and if your employee gives you two documents which have different names, ask them for a further
document to explain the reason for this. The further document could be a marriage certificate, a divorce decree, a deed poll or statutory declaration.

Step 3
You must make a copy of the relevant page or pages of the document, in a format which cannot be subsequently altered, for example, a photocopy or scan.
In the case of a passport or other travel document, the following parts must be photocopied or scanned: the document’s front cover and any page containing
the holder’s personal details. In particular, you should copy any page that provides details of nationality, his or her photograph, date of birth, signature, date of expiry or biometric details; and any page containing UK Government endorsements indicating that the holder has an entitlement to be in the UK and is entitled to
undertake the work in question.
Other documents should be copied in their entirety.
You should then keep a record of every document you have copied.8 The copies of the documents should be kept securely for the duration of the person’s employment and for a further two years after they stop working for you. By doing this, the Border and Immigration Agency will be able to check whether you have complied with the law or are liable to pay a civil penalty if they detect anyone working illegally for you."

I am confused Baroness Scotland is claiming that her only infraction was not to photocopy the documents, something that is covered in Step 3. But surely Loloahi Tapui was not entitled to be working in the first place. If that is the case then the omission to photocopy is irrelevant, the problem is with Baroness Scotland not checking the documentation.

Let's take a look at Step 2 more closely and in bits:

"You must take all reasonable steps to check that the document is valid and satisfy yourself that your prospective employee or current employee is the person named in the document, and check that the documents allow them to do the work in question."

Did Baroness Scotland check the validity of the documents? If she did not then she failed to "take all reasonable steps". If she did then how did she not spot that the visa had a) expired and b) was a student visa?

"For each document presented, you should:
... check that the expiry dates of any limited leave to enter or remain in the UK have not passed; and check any UK Government endorsements (stamps, visas, etc.) to see if your prospective or current employee is able to do the type of work you are offering; "

Again did Baroness Scotland carry out these checks? If she had she would have seen that the visa had a) expired and b) was a student visa?

As I said previously she has not claimed that the documents had been altered so did Baroness Scotland look at the passport and either not spot that it was a student visa and that the visa had expired, which would make her incompetent, or did she not look at the relevant page on the passport and has therefore lied to the UK Borders Authority?


The Home Office document states that:

"Under section 21 of the 2006 Act, an employer may commit a criminal offence if he or she knowingly employs an illegal migrant. On summary conviction, the maximum penalty an employer may be given will be a fine of no more than the statutory maximum for each person employed illegally, and/
or imprisonment for up to 6 months. Following conviction on indictment, there is no upper limit to the level of fine that can be imposed, and the employer may also be subject to imprisonment for up to two years."

If Baroness Scotland did examine the passport as she claims then surely is she guilty under this section?


The BBC, as usual, is accepting flimsy assurances from Baroness Scotland and is not asking the hard questions.

Baroness Scotland helped push this onerous legislation through Parliament and so should understand it. Why should she not be held to the same standards as the rest of the UK's businesses and population?


One further question, when did Loloahi Tapui start working for Baroness Scotland? If is was before 29 February 2008 then Baroness Scotland's case should be under the 1996 Act.