---

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I will not bombard the Minister with any more facts, because I know that under the bluster he is a sensitive flower who dislikes facts that he finds uncomfortable being put forward. However, I shall ask him a question. Unusually, I am happy to accept his assurance that the amendments before us are largely technical. Despite all the evidence, I wish to believe him on this matter. The amendments are clearly designed to remove some of the ambiguities in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could comment on whether he thinks that the amendments are sufficient to cope with public sector employers who fall foul of the Bill. For example, what penalty would fall on an NHS hospital trust that employed a chef who did not have leave to remain? Clearly that will be one of the practical effects of the legislation. We know that the NHS—it is probably the best example—is the biggest employer of immigrant labour in this country. The amendments seem to be designed, and rightly so, to catch private sector employers who are breaking the law. However, there is ambiguity about how the provisions affect the public sector, particularly that part of it which is undifferentiated. Will this be at trust level or at general NHS level? [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister for his desire to intervene.