House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Feb 1996 (pt 48)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, in page 5, line 21, at end insert--

21 Feb 1996 : Column 450

'(2A) Nothing in this section applies in relation to an employer who has fewer than 10 employees.'.

Mr. Henderson: The amendments relate to an important part of the Bill. The Government have made much play of their belief that there is considerable illegal immigration in this country and that significant numbers of illegal immigrants are working when they should not. The Government have not yet provided us at any stage in our consideration of the Bill with figures that would stick to the wall on the extent of illegal immigration. Some estimates have been made of the numbers of illegal workers and my view of the estimate of 10,000 is that it was made by throwing coins in the air and seeing which way they fell. I have seen no significant study that has suggested what the precise figures would be.

We can be sure, however, that the Bill will have many major implications for race and community relations. It seems clear to me that when employers are given the responsibility effectively to become immigration policemen, that must have an impact on the community in which those employers operate. People who live in that community will say, "Are there fair-minded employers in our community and is employer X fair-minded?" They will go on to ask whether some sections of their community are discriminated against by employers.

We must consider not only the damage that can be done to communities but the damage that will be done to individual groups.

I believe that black people, Asian people and other ethnic peoples in all parts of our country will not have the opportunity to get a job because employers will guard against their employment. Employers are well aware, however, that, in all probability, 99 per cent. of all potential employees are British citizens, who have every right to work here, and just 1 per cent. may not have leave to work in this country. In the same circumstances, however, employers will say, "We're not going to risk becoming criminalised by Government legislation." They will avoid that by not offering employment to certain people. They will not want to check passports and the 40 other documents required. If there is a possibility, even a remote one, that a person might not be entitled to work here, the employer will say, "He ain't working for my company." The consequences of such action will be extremely damaging to particular sections of the community. For example, 60 per cent. of young black men between the ages of 18 and 25 are unemployed. What will that unemployment level become should employers study the details of the Bill? Such is the likely impact of clause 8.

Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it because a load of evidence has been built up by organisations with all sorts of different backgrounds and representing all sorts of different industries.

We heard in an earlier debate about the importance that people attach to religious freedom in other countries. I have received a communication from the Churches Commission for Racial Justice--representing persons who are responsible for religious policy in this country--written by Rev. David Haslam, who is well known in the ecumenical movement. He writes about clause 8:

"This is sure to lead to many employers being even less willing to employ people from the visible minorities just in case they are here illegally . . . it will damage race relations in the workplace. It is an extremely undesirable development."

21 Feb 1996 : Column 451

That view is repeated by the Commission for Racial Equality, which said in a submission to every hon. Member:

"We have examined carefully the wording of Clause 8 . . . and, having regard also to the expressed experiences of ethnic minorities across the country, we have concluded that these proposals cannot be implemented without damaging race relations and increasing the barriers to employment opportunities for ethnic minorities."

The Food and Drink Federation is significant to the debate because of the employment of persons in small companies, especially in the catering and linked trades, in which many persons who are identified as belonging to ethnic community groups are employed or wish to seek employment. It states:

"We would suggest most strongly that the potential procedures are unlikely to prevent illegal immigrants obtaining employment to any serious degree and that it would be an essential prerequisite for the NI system to be tightened up very considerably."

That federation also notes the damage that could be caused to ethnic communities. I know that federation well because one of the big companies in my constituency, Nestle, is affiliated to it.