Attorney General Baroness Scotland has been fined £5,000 after being found to have employed an illegal worker as a housekeeper.
The UK Border Agency said she took steps to check Tongan Loloahi Tapui’s right to work but had not kept a copy of documents, as required by law. Baroness Scotland had helped write the legislation on employing illegal workers.
In a statement she said she fully accepted that she had made a “technical breach of the rules” and apologised for “this inadvertent error”.
She 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.”
Downing street to not take further actions, stating:
“The UK Border Agency is satisfied she did not knowingly employ an illegal worker. She examined documents of her status. She paid tax and National Insurance on her earnings. She employed her new cleaner in good faith.
“But regrettably she did not retain copies of the documents proving the right to work she was given. As a result she is paying an administrative penalty.”
The fine given to the government’s chief legal adviser for illegally employing a housekeeper should prompt HR departments to ensure they are making the right recruitment checks, experts have warned.
Related News:
2 Responses to “Baroness Scotland fined for employing illegal worker”
RSS 2.0 feed.- Stress Prevention and Mental Wellbeing Forum
- Employer Branding Summit 2010
- RPO & e-Recruitment Forum 2010
- Talent Management and Leadership Development Summit 2010
- Expatriate Management and Global Mobility Conference 2010
- Employee Wellbeing Forum 2010
- Wake up to Learning Breakfast Briefing
- Equality and Diversity Forum 2010
- Employing & Vetting Non-UK Nationals 2010
- HR in the Public Sector 2010
- Leveraging HR Technology 2010
Click here to read the related news story
Click here to visit our bookshop
- CareersPartnershipUK on What Not to Wear
- CareersPartnershipUK on GCSE students need guidance
- CareersPartnershipUK on GCSE students need guidance
- Wendy Driscoll on Inequality transparent in the Public sector
- Rich DiGirolamo on Low employee morale ‘could harm output’
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (146)
- July 2010 (155)
- June 2010 (144)
- May 2010 (104)
- April 2010 (122)
- March 2010 (118)
- February 2010 (95)
- January 2010 (87)
- December 2009 (76)
- November 2009 (58)
- October 2009 (55)
- September 2009 (57)
- August 2009 (59)
- July 2009 (85)
- June 2009 (81)
- May 2009 (83)
- April 2009 (55)
- March 2009 (55)
- February 2009 (77)
- January 2009 (48)
- December 2008 (57)
- November 2008 (31)
- October 2008 (50)
- September 2008 (56)
- August 2008 (41)
- July 2008 (50)
- June 2008 (49)
- May 2008 (51)
- April 2008 (50)
- March 2008 (44)



September 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
So, what we exactly are we left knowing as a result of this? It seems to me that the real idiots in this are the UK Border Agency for prosecuting someone for failing to keep the papers that prove that they asked the UKBA to do its job in the first place!?
Is it really even newsworthy?
Regards, Graham.
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
One can’t help wondering if the 5000 pound charge would have been much less if employer had simply been able to ask for the papers again and take a copy when the clerical error had come to light. I wonder if the papers actually exist(ed) in the first place … and if the level of fine is more in line with the level that would be applied to someone who hadn’t actually checked their new employee at all …