Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working
Announcing a plan to share data with food delivery businesses such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats, specifically around asylum hotel locations, sounds bold on paper. But in reality, it is unlikely to achieve much.
The government wants these companies to flag and cancel accounts repeatedly active in 'high-risk' areas. But this relies on the flawed assumption that such monitoring will deter or even detect illegal workers. It won't. The simple fact is that account sharing is incredibly easy to get around.
More information will be shared with food delivery companies such as Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo
ALAMY
And the reality is that these companies do not have a genuine incentive to stop it. Unlike traditional employers, they are not subject to a penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. So why would they invest in better checks or policing their own systems?
The simple fact is that gig economy companies do not know who is using their apps, and who is engaging with their customers under their brand name, making illegal work easy, effortless and undetectable.
If ministers were serious about tackling this issue, they would demand more — facial recognition or real-time identity verification every time a job is accepted could make a real difference. Illegal workers simply would not be able to operate. But until that's mandated, and until companies face real consequences, nothing will change.
Worryingly, the issue does not end with gig economy firms. There is a troubling lack of understanding among traditional employers about their own compliance risks.
Since 2022, businesses have been allowed to use digital verification services for right to work checks on British and Irish nationals. But many are using the same checks for foreign workers without realising that doing so leaves them legally exposed. Employers are surprised to learn that they are not establishing the all-important statutory excuse for their foreign workers.
Large organisations — including NHS trusts, local authorities, universities and household organisations — are unknowingly putting themselves at risk. They believe using digital verification is enough — but it does not give them the legal protection they think it does. When foreign workers lose their right to work, or even exceed their permitted hours, employers are shocked to be slapped with penalties from the Home Office.
Both the gig economy and traditional employment are riddled with loopholes. And while the government focuses on symbolic gestures such as data sharing, illegal work will continue, unchecked and undetected.
If this crackdown is to mean anything, there needs to be more enforcement, starting with the government holding the platforms and third-party providers accountable.
Emma Brooksbank is a partner at the law firm Freeths
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves won't thank Gordon Brown for his tax advice
When he appeared on the BBC this morning, former prime minister Gordon Brown said he was 'not here to second-guess Rachel Reeves's economic policy', adding: 'I don't want to be a back-seat driver.' If the chancellor was listening, I suspect her response would have been hollow laughter. For someone who didn't want to be a backseat driver, he was giving some pretty detailed directions to a different destination. Brown protested that he was trying to help by 'proposing measures that are within the manifesto and that don't break the fiscal rules', but it was the kind of help offered by a self-righteous relative who gets in the way and breaks things. He advocated raising the tax on online gambling by £3bn a year, which could be a useful contribution to the £30bn-to-£50bn gap that has opened up between annual revenue and spending by the end of this parliament. Except that he was suggesting spending the money on something else – paying benefits to families with three or more children. So his plan would do nothing to help solve the immediate problem in the forthcoming Budget, while highlighting another unmet need, and implying that Reeves is responsible for perpetuating 'a national scandal and a stain on our country's soul'. Of course, he blamed the Conservatives – 'these are austerity's children, the victims of 14 years of Tory rule' – but the sting is in the implied rebuke to a Labour government that fails to do anything about it. In this, he is aligning himself with the so-called soft left in the Parliamentary Labour Party – those MPs who blocked the attempt to restrain the growth in the disability benefits bill at a cost to the Exchequer of £5bn a year. Those MPs also want to lift the two-child limit on benefits. For many of them, their rebellion was driven by something fundamental: they want their government to do 'Labour' things, namely spending more on reducing poverty for children, the disabled and the elderly. Brown's intervention, in effect, tells them that they are right – and implies that the moral case for higher spending outweighs the need for fiscal responsibility. It is worse than that, because he pretended to be fiscally responsible, by saying how the extra spending that he wants could be paid for – but when he was asked how Reeves should fill the gap that she has to fill before she can even start to think about additional spending, he said it is 'not wise to give a running commentary'. And it is worse still, because in his interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Brown suggested that an accounting trick on defence spending would 'create the kind of headroom Rachel Reeves needs'. He proposed issuing bonds for defence spending of one per cent of GDP, and said it 'should be regarded as something extraordinary and exceptional outside the fiscal rules'. Can you imagine what he would have said about such an idea when he was chancellor? You do not have to imagine it: when Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, proposed a bond issue to finance the modernisation of the Underground in 1999, Brown dismissed it, saying: 'People would be worse off, the investment would not take place, and the Underground would be less safe as a result of that.' Defence bonds would be trying to do the same thing, to take extra borrowing 'off the books' and fool the markets into thinking it doesn't count. If Brown wanted to be helpful, he could prepare the ground for the inevitable tax rises in the Budget. He could explain to Labour MPs that Reeves has to start by filling the gap that already exists before she can consider any additional spending, however morally desirable. He could help by explaining that Reeves's new 'black hole' is still a legacy of the fiscal irresponsibility of the Tory years, and still part of the long hangover from the coronavirus lockdowns. She hoped that she wouldn't have to come back for more taxes, but there was always a chance that she would, and that her inheritance would turn out to be more toxic than expected. He could make the case for a big, bold measure to rebalance the public finances fairly, in addition to a number of small tax rises such as on gambling. He could argue – as The Independent has done – for a rise in income tax, and say that Labour's manifesto promises have been overtaken by 'extraordinary and exceptional' circumstances. I don't know if Reeves would have been grateful for that either, but at least it would have made the point to Labour MPs that, admirable though their compassion might be, it has to be paid for. There are no short cuts.
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘My flabber has never been so gasted': Shock as Airbnb host rejects guests because they're Welsh
Two friends were left shocked after being rejected from their Airbnb booking because they are Welsh. Jemma Louise Gough, 38, and Jamie Lee Watkins, 37, from Cwmbran, in southeast Wales, booked a one-night stay in Manchester for a concert at the Co-op Live Arena in November. The pair told the Airbnb host they were traveling from Wales when arranging the stay. But just over an hour later, they saw that their payment had been refunded, and their booking request had been declined. Upon asking the host why the booking had been refused, the host responded: 'Because you're from Wales.' The friends are accusing the owner of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The legislation protects people from prejudice in the workplace and in wider society, including on the grounds of nationality. On social media, Jemma Gough called the comment 'absolutely horrendous.' Speaking to BBC Radio Wales Breakfast, Jemma said 'my flabber had never been so gasted.' 'When I heard that my mouth hit the floor,' she said. The school support officer told BBC Radio Wales that it made her feel like an outsider and not welcome. She said: 'It was pure discrimination just from where we're from. 'I am so proud to be Welsh, I think that's why I decided to speak out. 'I want to challenge these narrow views.' A spokesperson for Airbnb told The Independent: 'Discrimination, including on the basis of nationality, has no place on Airbnb. As soon as this report was brought to our attention, we reached out to the guest to provide our support and suspended the host while we investigate this matter.'
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
How the cut in interest rates might come back and bite us all
That sound you're hearing if you're in the vicinity of the City of London, Canary Wharf, and especially Westminster: it's a collective sigh of relief, one echoed by borrowers nationwide. The Bank of England's decision to cut interest by a quarter point to 4 per cent was widely expected. The smoke signals emanating from Threadneedle Street had suggested it was a done deal. But as it turned out, the vote was on knife edge: for the first time in its history, the nine-person rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) was forced to take a second vote, with just five members backing a 0.25 per cent cut; four called for no change. The first vote went 4-4-1, with external member Alan Taylor – the first Rachel Reeves appointee – calling for a half-point cut. Now, I support the decision to cut to 4 per cent. The economy is struggling. Unemployment is rising. Wage settlements are falling, a point those voting in favour of an interest rate cut took note of. But make no mistake, the decision still represents a big gamble on the part of the MPC. Inflation is running hotter than expected. It came in at 3.6 per cent in June, and will likely show another rise when the July figure is in. The Bank has raised its expectations for the peak to 4 per cent in September. The MPC is fond of reminding us that its 2 per cent target applies 'at all times'. Yet here it is, cutting when inflation is expected to double it. This cut could have the effect of pouring petrol on to an inflationary fire. It has clearly been made with the Bank's secondary objective – supporting the government's economic policy, economic growth and jobs – in mind. You could make the case that it is a secondary objective cut. But the dissenters on the MPC – including chief economist Huw Pill and deputy governor for monetary policy (so interest rates) Clare Lombardelli – fear there's trouble ahead. They worry that what they call the 'disinflationary process' in Britain has slowed, and inflation could once again dig in. I've made the point before: once this dragon finds a lair and gets itself established, it is very hard to get rid of. This helps to explains the sharp divergence of opinion on the MPC. It is particularly interesting to see Bank governor Andrew Bailey among the cutters. Bailey is a cautious man, not given to risk-taking. He has kiboshed the idea of a digital pound when other countries are steaming ahead because of his nerves about the creation of a new type of money. Backing a cut could yet prove to be a defining decision for him. If it works out, and inflation falls as expected from its September peak, and the economy starts to show a little life, we will have a lot to thank him for. But if he's wrong, our living standards will decline as higher prices eat away at them. The Bank may even have to perform a volte face and increase rates down the line. The MPC minutes correctly made note of the surge in food price inflation. It frets that this could 'raise inflation expectations and generate greater inflation persistence' more widely. It hopes this won't happen and things will start to improve in the new year. But food prices are ever volatile, hard to predict, and influenced by a wide range of external factors not least the quality of harvests: in not unconnected news, British farmer experienced the driest spring in 70 years, and parching heatwaves this summer. So, in effect, the MPC's members are basically crossing their fingers in the hopes that it all comes good. This is not a happy place to be because the economy might not co-operate. I wouldn't now expect a further cut for some time. Capital Economics is generally optimistic about the path for rates, and is sticking to its forecast of them declining to 3 per cent in 2026. But it had expected the vote to go 5-2-2, with two members calling for a 0.5 per cent cut. 'We've become a bit less confident in our forecast that the next 25bps rate cut will happen in November,' it said in a research note. No kidding. If there is another reduction to be had this year, I wouldn't expect to see it until December. But the cut is good news for holders of tracker mortgages. Their bills will fall. However, the nature of the vote and what the Bank's minutes say could spell trouble for holders of fixed-rate mortgages, because the price of these isn't directly linked to base rates. It is instead set by the City's interest rate swaps market, which is driven by the longer term outlook for rates. The Bank's minutes would suggest a shallower, slower pathway from hereon out. Nick Mendes, mortgage guru at broker John Charcol, says market momentum had been 'pointing downward, helped by easing swap rates and increased competition among lenders'. However, the response of the swaps market to this decision may see that progress arrested. Still, the Federation of Small Businesses says the cut 'will be warmly welcomed', and could encourage investment if lenders respond by offering its members lower rates. Here's hoping that happens. But you'd rather not be relying on hope.
