Three years on from the launch of Operation Magnify, UK immigration solicitor Anne Morris discusses the current status of illegal working and immigration compliance for UK construction companies. Operation Magnify was announced by the UK government in 2015 as a Home Office campaign targeting employers suspected of using undocumented migrant
It takes an average of 118 days for court-appointed bailiffs to evict tenants from private landlords properties after bringing a claim to court. Landlords in London are the most likely to have to evict, while those in the South West, North East and West Midlands were least likely to
The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) is urging UK contractors to face up to the significant human rights risks in their supply chains, with the launch of a new report that finds both British and foreign workers at risk of exploitation. Construction and the Modern Slavery Act, tackling exploitation in
The reason that many environmentalists favor looking for alternative forms of energy to oil is not just the disruption that drilling has on the atmosphere but also the danger that it poses for those who work in the oilfield industry every day when they go to work. Due to the
Sheffield based GRI Group has acquired contract manufacturer Expac Ltd. Expac, which focuses on toiletry, beauty, health and household sectors, has now become a subsidiary of GRI Expac. Entrepreneur Graham Royle is the leader of GRI Group, which bought the £5 million turnover household products manufacturing firm as part of
As previously reported, concerns have already been raised as to the division of governmental spending between SME and larger enterprises. And while governmental figures have highlighted a marked increase in the usage of SMEs on key contracts, further woes have been raised as to the skewing of such results where
In a recent report the government has been urged to consider a more considerable approach on the procurement of services from SMEs. The report, which was produced by the National Audit Office, has highlighted growing concerns as to whether the government will be able to hit increased SME spending targets
According to the 2014 Global Slavery Index, 35.8 million men, women and children are trapped globally in various forms of modern slavery, a concept covering slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour and human trafficking. The UK is not immune, with Home Office figures suggesting there are up to 13,000 victims
The Home Office has launched a crackdown to root out illegal working in the construction industry. Operation Magnify will see immigration enforcement officers targeting construction sites and businesses that are employing and exploiting illegal migrant workers. The Home Office said it was too early to issue details about the initial
Specialist contractor Southern Piling has been fined £16,000 after admitting using an auger without a safety guard. The HSE inspector who caught the company out said that “there was simply no excuse for the way the machine was being used. It was in the middle of the site and there
Three years on from the launch of Operation Magnify, UK immigration solicitor Anne Morris discusses the current status of illegal working and immigration compliance for UK construction companies. Operation Magnify was announced by the UK government in 2015 as a Home Office campaign targeting employers suspected of using undocumented migrant workers in three ‘high risk’ sectors, which included the construction industry. Construction was considered high risk for illegal working due in large part to the significant number of foreign workers in the industry. Three years on, migrants continue to play a crucial role in construction, with the supply of domestic workers persistently falling short of the industry’s demand. According to the most recent ONS figures, 7% of construction workers in the UK are EU27 nationals and 3% are non-EU. The number of migrant workers alone in the industry creates immigration compliance risks even for law-abiding construction companies duties who may, through reason of scale, be unwittingly employing undocumented workers. Through Operation Magnify, the government sought to raise awareness and catalyse a sense of urgency among construction businesses as to their legal duties in ensuring their workforce – both employees and contractors – are documented and lawfully employed. More than this, the government also looked to address wider issues of national security, to ensure that all workers – particularly those operating on so-called ‘sensitive sites’ such as government land – had been subject to identification checks. Under the initiative, the Home Office contacted construction businesses, requesting data about their current and previous employees and contractors, and carrying out immigration raids on construction sites throughout the UK. A failure of duty? Construction companies, as with all UK employers, are required by law to perform document checks on their workers, confirming their right to work in the UK. If the Home Office finds the company has failed to perform its right to work document checks correctly, whether knowingly or not, they can issue a civil penalty for illegal employment for up to £20,000 per illegal worker, with no cap on the number of fines that can be issued to any one employer. If deemed to be employing an undocumented worker knowingly, this is a criminal offence punishable with up to two years in prison. In addition, there are the risks of business interruption and reputation damage and business interruption where for example the site is closed to allow immigration enforcement officers conduct their investigations. UK construction & migrant workers Construction faces particular challenges in checking that workers have the right to work due largely to the prolific use of subcontractors and agency workers. In addition, smaller projects can be carried out on a less formal basis, with workers brought in briefly and paid cash-in-hand. Immigration law requires a migrant’s ‘main sponsor’, a company registered as such with the Home Office, to conduct right to work checks. This has created a tendency in the construction industry where companies higher up the supply chain, such as a Main Contractor or the client commissioning the project, do not conduct checks on employees who are on their building site but not employed directly. This tendency is exacerbated by construction being a low profit margin and highly time-pressured business. However, failing to check could lead your business to fall foul of the law. This is because UK immigration rules still require companies to demonstrate that they are satisfied that the workers in their supply chain have the legal right to work. UKVI continues to conduct ‘unspecified visits’ to sites – surprise inspections where immigration officers under warrant can ask to see employers’ records and require workers themselves to provide evidence of their right to work. It is essential, though, that construction companies carry out reasonable checks to ensure that migrants have the right to work. Companies must also be able to show that they conduct such checks. In cases where a worker’s visa has expired, the company must show that it is taking steps to rectify the situation, for example by renewing the visa. So again, good record keeping is a must. Conclusion While the noise around Operation Magnify may have quietened, possibly signifying a downgrade in Home Office priority, construction companies should be mindful thayt the government could very well announce changes to immigration rules on the back of the initiative tomorrow. For the time being, immigration compliance duties on employers remain as they stand, meaning construction companies must ensure all those that they work with have the legal right to work in the UK. It is difficult to say conclusively if lessons have been learned and the industry has improved its position on compliance since Magnify – although Home Office civil penalty figures continue to suggest high numbers of UK employers across all sectors are struggling to meet their duties. With changes to UK immigration rules in respect of EU citizens on the horizon, we expect employer right to work checks to continue to be relied on by government as the first line in ensuring all workers have the correct documentation, keeping employer compliance firmly under the Home Office spotlight. Anne Morris is an immigration lawyer and managing director at UK immigration law firm DavidsonMorris.
It takes an average of 118 days for court-appointed bailiffs to evict tenants from private landlords properties after bringing a claim to court. Landlords in London are the most likely to have to evict, while those in the South West, North East and West Midlands were least likely to have to go all the way to court to secure their evictions. Landlords can see at a glance how their region fares here. New analysis of government figures by Simple Landlords Insurance shows it took an average of 16.9 weeks from claim to bailiff eviction in the first quarter of 2018. A total of 21,429 possession claims were brought to court last year, of which 6,260 ended in eviction by bailiff. It’s the first time that the length of time it takes for private landlords to evict through the court system has been made public – and it’s been broken down by region and population density so landlords – and tenants – can find out exactly what level of risk they face in each area of England and Wales. Tom Cooper, Director of Underwriting at Simple Landlords Insurance, says: “The good news for everyone is that in 2017 only 0.5% of landlords made a possession claim in court. And only a third of those had to go through to the bitter bailiff end. The bad news is that if it does happen to you, it can cost a lot of money – and not just the average £1,700- £2,000 in legal fees. “We wanted to get a more realistic idea of the impact of the process in terms of lost income, inconvenience, and ongoing legal fees in the worst and longest case scenarios. Just looking at lost rent, there are few landlords who can afford to lose up to 6 months’ worth – the time it takes for a tenant to go into arrears, for them to issue a Section 21 notice, and then for them wait 17 weeks to see the court process through.” Key findings The headlines for landlords include: During 2017, private landlords brought 21,439 possession claims to courts in England and Wales. 27% of claims didn’t receive a court order. Many claims are rejected for failing to follow the correct eviction proceedings. The average insurance payment made for eviction support is £4,341.22, which includes legal expenses and lost rent. Landlords in London are more likely to have to evict a tenant, the figures show. Buy-to-let investors in the capital brought 195.3 claims per 100,000 households last year. Landlords in the South West of England were least likely to bring eviction proceedings to court, with 58.9 claims registered per 100,00 households, followed by the North East and West Midlands. It took longer for social housing providers to evict tenants, with an average claim-to-repossession time of 27.9 weeks vs 16.9 for private landlords. The eviction timeline The Ministry of Justice figures revealed it took an average of 6.9 weeks for a private landlord’s claim to result in the issue of an order requiring a tenant to leave the property. For those whose tenants stayed past the date given on the notice, it took an additional 3.2 weeks from the initial order to the granting of a possession warrant, and a further 6.8 weeks for a bailiff to take possession of the home if the claim went to the final stage making the total 16.9 weeks. Rent arrears and legal expenses Landlords can mitigate the risk of lost income, time and property damage if they have to bring possession proceedings to court with legal expenses insurance and rent guarantee insurance. Legal expenses insurance helps landlords navigate the evictions process, including serving an eviction notice correctly, and legal support in court. Simple Landlords Insurance’s product includes 24/7 access to advice from its legal partners and costs £39.50 per year. Rent guarantee insurance compensates landlords for the income they lose over the many months an eviction process can take, as well as the legal fees for pursuing an eviction through the court system, with premiums from £79.99 a year (based on the monthly rental income a landlord wants to cover). Tom Cooper added: “We know that rent arrears are high up on the list of landlord worries. Possession claims by private landlords have risen by 3.5% in the last two years. Over the same period we’ve seen a 61% increase in take-up of rent guarantee insurance in addition to legal expenses cover as landlords feeling the pinch from tax and regulatory changes try to mitigate the risk of repossession.” More detail on the analysis can be found here.
The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) is urging UK contractors to face up to the significant human rights risks in their supply chains, with the launch of a new report that finds both British and foreign workers at risk of exploitation. Construction and the Modern Slavery Act, tackling exploitation in the UK is published as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) and National Crime Agency (NCA) jointly lead a national enforcement campaign involving police forces and other agencies aimed at tackling labour exploitation. NCA analysis has identified construction as one of the most common sectors for labour exploitation in the UK. Criticising the industry’s slow response to the Modern Slavery Act, CIOB’s report highlights the aggressive business models that are creating an environment for unethical procurement and recruitment practices, and the systemic auditing failures that are allowing criminals to infiltrate major projects undetected. Problems are set at the top of supply chains with lowest cost tendering, abuse of the retentions system and late payment pricing out ethical practice. The situation is creating an imbalance of power that leaves all nationalities vulnerable to exploitation. Illegal activities such as blacklisting are also believed to be continuing, despite recent high profile court cases. Major contractors in construction typically have long and fragmented supply chains, with little visibility beyond tiers one or two. They are also heavily reliant on temporary migrant labour, a significant indicator of risk. Nevertheless, the report found examples of complacency and disbelief that major projects were vulnerable to criminal infiltration and human trafficking. This contrasted with incidents of modern slavery being found on major UK infrastructure programmes, PFI hospital projects, power plants, recycling centres, renovation projects, demolition sites and local authority schemes. The report highlights: How industry is conflating immigration checks with modern slavery checks. This is ineffective because many people trapped in modern slavery have a legitimate right to work in the UK. Severe weaknesses in commercial auditing models, with auditors disincentivised to report problems to the police. Poor transparency in supply chain reporting standards, with many eligible companies failing to produce a modern slavery report in the first annual reporting cycle. A significant number of published statements do not follow minimum legal requirements, including being visible on the company homepage and being signed off by a board director. A tendency for companies to water down their modern slavery statements to remove mention of risk, against the spirit of the Modern Slavery Act. Examples of sharp practice, with major players defaulting to legal compliance exercises that push responsibility onto their less well-resourced suppliers. This is also against the spirit of the legislation. Construction and the Modern Slavery Act includes interviews with a number of leaders and influencers, including: Independent anti-slavery commissioner Kevin Hyland OBE The late Paul Broadbent, former chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) Leading barrister Caroline Haughey QC Chief constable for Devon and Cornwall Police and national policing lead for modern slavery Shaun Sawyer Justine Currell, executive director of Unseen and the Modern Slavery Helpline The report explores the legal, investor and social pressures for driving change. It also highlights examples of industry best practice as well as platforms for information sharing, such as the GLAA’s construction forum. Strategies for rehabilitating survivors of slavery are included through the Co-op Group’s Bright Future programme. CIOB is calling for a new industry narrative: asking contractors to acknowledge that every supply chain is at risk and collaborate more widely to combat crime. It is launching a Routemap to Fair Business which sets out steps for raising standards for all workers and suppliers, encouraging a more proactive approach to tackling systemic issues. Chris Blythe OBE, chief executive at the CIOB said: “It’s time to get real about the challenges facing UK construction. Contrary to public perceptions, modern slavery is not confined to small illegal operators. Criminals are attracted to big business because of the greater profits that they can earn. Unscrupulous labour providers, operating in the grey area of the law, are also creating misery for thousands of British and foreign workers. “We need to change the conversation that we have with clients, our peers and the media. Suppliers and labour agencies should be rewarded for finding and reporting problems, contractors need to promote fairer business models and clients need to be more explicit about their ethical expectations. This goes to the heart of professional leadership. We need to empower everyone working in this industry to act, share and collaborate for the greater good.” Independent anti-slavery commissioner Kevin Hyland OBE said: “The construction sector is recognised around the world as one of the highest risk industries for workers to be exploited in forced labour. It is therefore crucial that construction companies take meaningful action to prevent this crime from taking place within their operations and to ensure that anyone working in the sector within the UK or abroad are protected from abuse. “This new report from the CIOB builds on its previous good work highlighting the issue. It provides clear ways for responsible companies to tackle slavery and ensure their labour supply is protected. I hope to see many construction businesses taking up its recommendations and making real changes, so that it can set an example to other high risk sectors.” Roger Bannister, interim chief executive of the GLAA, said: “There are huge profits to be made for those unscrupulous enough to exploit vulnerable workers and the building industry is extremely lucrative for them. We have carried out operations targeting those who traffic migrant workers into the UK and then force them to work on construction sites, often with false IDs. “The protocol we developed in the autumn with the construction industry was a step in the right direction with some big names committing themselves to share information and play their part in tackling exploitation. We’d like to see more companies put their name to it and work with the GLAA in helping eradicate slavery altogether.” Andrew Wallis OBE, CEO of anti-slavery charity Unseen, which operates the Modern
The reason that many environmentalists favor looking for alternative forms of energy to oil is not just the disruption that drilling has on the atmosphere but also the danger that it poses for those who work in the oilfield industry every day when they go to work. Due to the extreme danger of working in the oil fields themselves, it is one of the few industries left where employees are allowed to sue their employers. Not covered by workers’ compensation insurance in the same manner, if you are injured in a gas industry accident, then you and your family are entitled to specific rights that other business workers are not. Those who suffer an injury in an oil field or offshore accident are allowed to sue for personal injury. The compensation that they are entitled to covers both economic damages like medical bills and expenses and lost wages for work. They are also entitled to have non-economic damages, like pain and suffering, covered. There are several different types of offshore and oil-field accidents These are the most common types of accidents that an offshore or oil field employee can be compensated for. Collisions – If a worker is involved in a traffic accident that leads to a job-related death or injury, OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, states that workers are entitled to have their damages paid for. There are a lot of processes in offshore and oilfield operations that require the workers to transport materials that are both hazardous and have to be transported through roads that might not be constructed well. If someone working in the field suffers from an injury, they can sue for their damages, which can be extremely dangerous. Struck by or caught between something – In the offshore industry and oil fields, there are often times when workers operate heavy machinery and equipment. Things that they use are machines like derricks, cranes, forklifts, pipes, catheads, rotating wellhead equipment, high-pressure lines, and cables, which pose high risks to the employee. Fires and explosions – When working in the offshore industry and oil fields, flammable gasses and vapors can easily ignite, leading to burn injuries and explosion deaths. The high-pressure nature of the oilfield lines can easily burst, which can also lead to explosions and fires that endanger everyone on the site. Falls – The nature of the rigs makes it necessary for workers to be elevated frequently, which can predispose them to falls. Many falls that happen in the oilfield and offshore industry are not minor, resulting in serious injury and deaths. Additionally, working with oil makes surfaces slick and slippery, which can predispose workers to slips and fall injuries. Ergonomic dangers – Working in the offshore and oil field industry requires a lot of strength. When pushing, pulling, twisting, and reaching over the boat, workers are exposed to extreme conditions that can put them at increased risk of a severe injury. Why are offshore workers’ injuries different? A worker who is injured in an offshore accident is entitled to be compensated according to Maritime Law. The Jones Act, an act created over a century ago, is still in effect and allows those who work offshore to file a claim using it, instead of going through an employer’s workers’ compensation insurance. Those who are eligible are any “seamen.” This involves not just those who work at sea, but those who work in the drilling and oil industry. Maintenance and cure is a component of Maritime Law that makes those who work in the offshore industry eligible for having their daily bills and living expenses maintained through their employer until they reach the maximum medical advancement possible. For offshore rig workers, the Longshoreman and Harbor Workers Compensation Act applies and provides similar benefits including medical expenses and workers’ lost wages. The Death On The High Seas Act is a law that helps to provide aid to those families who have lost someone in an offshore oil rig accident. It provides death benefits to anyone who was injured within three miles from the shore. The Jones Act also applies to those who are aboard Mobile Offshore Drilling Units and provides compensation for those injuries that happen as a consequence of working on a vessel. The compensation not only includes medical bills but also noneconomic recovery for damages like pain and suffering. Many dangers come from working in the offshore and oilfield industry. If you are injured while on the job, then you do have recourse to recover for your damages, including those which are noneconomic, through the Jones Act. Different from workers’ compensation, it is important that you have personal injury Houston lawyer on your side to navigate the complexity of your injuries so that you are awarded what is rightly yours.
Sheffield based GRI Group has acquired contract manufacturer Expac Ltd. Expac, which focuses on toiletry, beauty, health and household sectors, has now become a subsidiary of GRI Expac. Entrepreneur Graham Royle is the leader of GRI Group, which bought the £5 million turnover household products manufacturing firm as part of its continuing acquisition strategy. Among Expac’s products are talcum powder, shower gel, cleaning sprays and washing up liquid. The acquired firm will carry on operating under its own in-house management team who will make decisions on a day to day basis. During its acquisition of Expac, GRI Group was advised by commercial law firm Nabarro. Corporate partner Ben Hendry led the Nabarro team. He was assisted by corporate associates Richard Lee and Caroline Walker. GRI Group was also advised by BHP Chartered Accountants. Corporate partner at Nabarro, Ben Hendry, commented: “We were thrilled to advise GRI Group on their latest acquisition. Expac is recognised as a highly successful manufacturer with a strong presence in the household products sector. “GRI Group has established itself in developing, manufacturing and the distribution of chemical ingredients for personal care, household care, pharmaceutical and many industrial applications. “The combined business will have many advantages such as a comprehensive range of products and contract manufacturing capability. We look forward to working with them in the future.” Graham Royle, chairman and chief executive of GRI, added: “Expac is a fantastic strategic fit with the rest of our group associate companies. “There is virtually no product overlap and the combined range offers superb synergy across the customer base and global geographical markets that we cover.” Meanwhile, GRI recently unveiled new global sustainability reporting standards. The Global Reporting Initiative has launched a new set of global sustainability reporting standards aimed at giving companies a common language for communicating such information.
As previously reported, concerns have already been raised as to the division of governmental spending between SME and larger enterprises. And while governmental figures have highlighted a marked increase in the usage of SMEs on key contracts, further woes have been raised as to the skewing of such results where subcontractor works are performed on behalf of the larger enterprises. As such, the National Audit Office has highlighted that it could not be certain as to whether there has actually been an increase in direct spending with SMEs, with the previous indirect spending figures being entirely incomparable with earlier statistics. A worrying notion, to be sure, with the NAO stressing the increased importance for more governmental focus on spending within the SME base of the supply chain. With concerns already having been raised as to the continuity of the government’s success in integrating SMEs into the supply chain more appropriately, the notion comes at a time whereby increased questions are being raised as to just how much extra is actually being spent with SMEs, both directly and indirectly. A positive sign can be seen in the increased accessibility of application for governmental works by SME practices as a bare minimum on the progress made thus far, however it is becoming increasingly evident that competing for such works and securing spending from the government may not yet be a great degree easier than has previously been seen. BIFM’s Chair of the Procurement Special Interest Group, Wendy Sutherland, commented: “The ability for SMEs to actively participate in this environment is challenging despite the best intentions of central government, as can be seen when reading the list of the successful suppliers.” Of course, as previously highlighted, the position is one whereby the government has been urged to reassess and identify further ways in which it can both engage with, and sped directly with the SME supplier base else, it is feared that targets for SME spending will not be met.
In a recent report the government has been urged to consider a more considerable approach on the procurement of services from SMEs. The report, which was produced by the National Audit Office, has highlighted growing concerns as to whether the government will be able to hit increased SME spending targets by 2020. Although, as reported by the National Audit Office, the government actually managed to reach its 2010 target of spending 25% of overall spending with smaller firms by 2015, a year earlier than the targeted end date, the report highlights concerns as to how the government will take its next step. The new target, set at 33% of overall spending,has been cited to take circa £3bn into SME businesses for central government spending alone; an ambitious target. One of the key measures which has been noted as a positive step forward is the Crown Commercial Service’s contract finder, allowing SMEs to more easily, and readily access governmental contracts worth more than £10,000. Yet, the report highlights that in certain areas of service, such as facilities management, it may still yet be too challenging for SMEs to compete for contracts against larger enterprises. With the list of successful applicants to the government contracts on the contract finder thus far highlighting a lack of success for SMEs, it is hoped that the government will assist in opening up further contracts and elements of the main contracts for subcontracting where SMEs will be able to enter the fray on a more competitive stage. As such, the National Audit Office has suggested for the Crown Commercial Service to alter its approach to procurement, by working directly with key departments to best assess where SMEs can bring the greatest amount of benefit; not solely for SME benefit, but also for the government as a whole. Additionally, suggestions have been made as to the need for oversight of key contractor to subcontractor relationships.
According to the 2014 Global Slavery Index, 35.8 million men, women and children are trapped globally in various forms of modern slavery, a concept covering slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour and human trafficking. The UK is not immune, with Home Office figures suggesting there are up to 13,000 victims of modern slavery across the UK. For the building and construction sector, modern slavery can be a significant problem, particularly for those operating in environments known for labour exploitation. For the estimated 12,000 organisations caught by the new reporting obligations under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA), the issue of what they are doing to tackle modern slavery in their supply chains will now be a serious compliance challenge. What is the reporting Obligation? The MSA requires organisations (body corporates and partnerships), supplying goods or services, with a minimum global turnover of £36 million (including turnover of subsidiaries) and carrying on business in the UK, to publish an annual “slavery and human trafficking statement” on their website. This is a statement of the steps taken to ensure modern slavery is not taking place in their own business or their supply chains. Organisations without a website must provide a copy of their statement within 30 days to anyone making a written request for one. Importantly, the statement must be approved by the board and signed by a director (or the equivalent for partnerships) to ensure there is top level responsibility for its content. Those with a financial year ending 31 March 2016 are the first required to report, with the Government expecting statements to be published within six months of financial year end. While there is no prescribed content of a statement, the MSA provides examples of what a statement may contain, including information on: the organisation’s structure, its business and its supply chains; its policies in relation to modern slavery; its due diligence processes in relation to modern slavery; the parts of its business and supply chains where there is a risk of modern slavery taking place and steps taken to assess and manage that risk; its effectiveness in ensuring that modern slavery is not taking place in its business or supply chains, measured against key performance indicators; and the training about modern slavery available to staff. The Government’s statutory guidance – Transparency in Supply Chains: A Practical Guide – provides further details on these themes. What steps can I take? A statement should be underpinned by a proportionate and risk-based approach and capable of withstanding scrutiny from key stakeholders, including shareholders and customers. Practical steps an organisation could take include adopting a modern slavery policy and supplier code of conduct; undertaking a risk assessment of existing suppliers and developing risk-based due diligence procedures for new suppliers; reviewing procurement procedures to ensure they are able to respond to labour exploitation; and updating contract terms to ensure suppliers are required to comply with policies on modern slavery and the MSA. What are the consequences for not reporting? Penalties under the MSA for failing to report are limited to a court injunction compelling the organisation to report. The Government intends that consumers, shareholders, civil society and the press will be the primary drivers of compliance. An organisation’s reputation is therefore most at risk from non-compliance, particularly if it operates in a sector, such as construction, already in focus for labour-related issues. By Brett Hartley (Pictured) of Clyde & Co
The Home Office has launched a crackdown to root out illegal working in the construction industry. Operation Magnify will see immigration enforcement officers targeting construction sites and businesses that are employing and exploiting illegal migrant workers. The Home Office said it was too early to issue details about the initial targets for immigration officers, but said more information about swoops would be revealed later. Failure to comply with Right to Work checks can now result in a maximum fine of £20,000 for every illegal worker. And new measures included in the Immigration Bill, currently passing through Parliament, will make it easier to prosecute employers using illegal labour, with a maximum prison sentence of five years and new powers to close down contractors which continue to flout the rules. Those who work illegally will be committing a criminal offence and face the prospect of having their earnings seized, and face deportation if they do not have the right to be in the UK. As part of the drive, Immigration Minister James Brokenshire is hosting a meeting today with construction leaders about his plans to end illegal working. The event involves leaders of several construction companies working across the public and commercial sectors and industry bodies, including the Construction Industry Council, the Chartered Institute of Building, and Build UK. Brokenshire said: “Coming together with key employers and influencers in the construction industry is a chance for us to engage with those who are keen to maintain the integrity of the sector. “Illegal working undermines legitimate employers, harms the reputation of the industry, drives down wages and denies employment to hard-working UK citizens and people who are working in the UK legally. “Employers within the construction industry have a critical role to play in helping to combat this by ensuring they carry out the straightforward ‘Right to Work’ checks on potential employees that prevent illegal working in the UK.” Gillian Econopouly, Head of Policy and Research, from the Construction Industry Training Board, warned: “We have found cases where illegal workers have used fake health and safety documents to get onsite, and we are working with Government to stamp this out in the construction sector.” Right to work checks The Government has already taken action to make ‘Right to Work’ checks much easier for contractors to carry out, including by reducing the frequency of checks and the range of documents needed. Contractors with questions about checking a job applicant’s right to work in the UK can call a dedicated support line for advice on 0300 123 4699.
Specialist contractor Southern Piling has been fined £16,000 after admitting using an auger without a safety guard. The HSE inspector who caught the company out said that “there was simply no excuse for the way the machine was being used. It was in the middle of the site and there was nothing to prevent the guard from being fitted.” Sevenoaks Magistrates’ Court heard how Health & Safety Executive (HSE) inspector Melvyn Stancliffe made an inspection of a site in Maidstone, Kent, in December 2014 and saw how the piling rig was being operated with no safety guard. HSE had previously visited three Southern Piling sites and had raised concerns about the guarding standards on each occasion. After the fourth site visit, the HSE was told that the machine had been in use for more than two weeks without the guard. Southern Piling Limited, of The Pagets, Newick, Lewes, East Sussex, was fined a total of £16,000 and ordered to pay nearly £5,000 in costs after pleading guilty to breaches of Regulation 11(1)(a) of PUWER 1998 and Regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. Speaking after the hearing, Melvyn Stancliffe said: “I dread to think, even at low speed, what might have happened had someone inadvertently fallen on to the unguarded auger. This is incredibly powerful machinery, capable of causing life-changing or even fatal injuries.”
