| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): Will the hon. Lady give way? She asked for it.
Ms Abbott: Not from you, sweetheart.
As my hon. Friends have explained, employers will be faced with the prospect of having to shuffle through documentation in order to recognise any one of 43 documents or fall prey to a fine of £5,000. When faced with two potential employees who are equally well qualified, one of whom has a black or brown skin and a foreign name and one of whom is white and clearly British, which of them will even the most decent and honest employer choose?
The most damaging charge levelled against the clause is the very serious effect that it will have on the employment prospects of black or brown Britons. In amendment No. 51, we are attempting to ameliorate the effect of the clause on small business. It was revealed in Committee that 95 per cent. of businesses employ 20 or fewer people. Major employers such as Marks and Spencer may be able to introduce procedures that will not discriminate between employees. However, small employers will have to discriminate on the basis of skin colour, accent or name, or face the prospect of being burdened with excessive expenditure, paperwork and worry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southall has said, the clause will impact heavily on Asian business people who, under clause 7, are liable to an increased risk of fishing raids by police searching for illegal immigrants. Under this clause, they may fall foul of the law by employing people in good faith.
The Labour party believes that this is a racist Bill, but clause 8 is perhaps the most far-reaching clause and the most damaging to good race relations and to the employment prospects and life chances of black or brown Britons. Even at this late stage, we urge the House to reject this racist and unjust clause in a racist Bill.
Mr. Kirkhope:
That was one of the silliest speeches that I have heard for a long time. It was a total waste of a valuable opportunity to discuss a very important clause. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) would not take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).
At the beginning of the debate we heard yet another rant from that well-known Labour ranter, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who did not contribute anything to the debate. The Committee examined clause 8 and everything to do with it thoroughly; every area was explored fully. Yet on Report Labour Members have repeated the same tired rhetoric that we heard in Committee. That does not help anyone.
Mr. Henderson:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kirkhope:
I am sorry, but I will not. The question is who is and who is not in favour of the measure. The hon. Gentleman trotted out the names of people and their views, but I shall present some different views.
The Forum of Private Business conducted a survey of its members--[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh at organisations that represent the small businesses that are so vital to our economy. In response to that survey, 70 per cent. were in favour of
That clear statement is not untypical of many other statements made by small businesses.
Mr. Henderson:
Will the Minister give way?
The amendment is clearly an attempt to wreck the clause. As everyone knows, 80 per cent. of British businesses have fewer than 10 employees. According to estimates, the approximate annual turnover of staff in such companies is a maximum of 25 per cent.--or two employees a year. The compliance cost assessment shows that the likely cost to an employer of being required to check the status of an employee would be about 39p.
Ms Abbott:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to produce entirely false statistics about cost compliance?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
I did not hear what the hon. Lady said. If she would address the Chair, I could answer her point of order.
Ms Abbott:
Is it in order for the Minister to produce completely false statistics on cost compliance?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
There are statistics, statistics and all sorts of other figures.
Mr. Kirkhope:
I have a copy of the compliance cost assessment of the Home Office of November 1995, which went into great detail, as the hon. Lady will have noted in Committee. It states that, in a typical case, the total cost of making such a check, using a photocopy, would be 39p.
The scare tactics of the Opposition are quite disgraceful. They well know that there is a problem. At least 10,000 illegal workers were detected in 1994--a dramatic increase on previous years. The Opposition talk about young people from ethnic minorities being out of
work. We all know that those young people want to work. Those who are working here illegally are denying opportunities to the very people whom the Opposition claim to support.
The hypocrisy lies with the Opposition and not with the Government. Nothing could have emphasised that more than the disgraceful speeches that we have just heard. Allegations were made against the Government that everybody knows are totally wrong and inaccurate.
Mr. Jacques Arnold:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the clause is extremely welcome in my Sikh community in Gravesend? For far too many years, my law-abiding Sikh constituents who work in the construction trade and in market gardening have been fed up with their wage rates being undercut by illegal immigrants.
Mr. Kirkhope:
My hon. Friend has said it and it is true. The Opposition are not prepared to accept those facts.
I do not like the incredibly patronising attitude of the Labour party to small business men and women, who know how important it is to check the status of anyone whom they employ. That is why the Forum of Private Business and other small business organisations are not worried about the prospect of carrying out the checks that we propose.
Mr. Henderson:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, although he has done so belatedly and with some reluctance. Does he accept that the Federation of Small Businesses is truly representative of the interests of small business in this country?
Mr. Kirkhope:
I acknowledge that there are many small business organisations, but I do not accept that one organisation alone is representative of all small businesses. Eighty per cent. of UK businesses have fewer than 10 employees. Those businesses care about their standards and about their employees. To suggest that 42 documents will have to be inspected is unbelievable. The TUC listed 41 documents, not 42--so the Opposition cannot even count. Most of the documents on that so-called list are the passports of every European country. If arguments are exaggerated to that extent, it is not surprising if they begin to lack credibility. That is true of the arguments deployed by Labour Members.
The requests made of employers are perfectly reasonable. The majority of firms, particularly small businesses, already make such checks because they know that the quality of their employees matters to their business. I am sorry that an attempt has been made to wreck the clause with this misplaced amendment. It will not succeed, because I am not prepared to ask the House to support such nonsense. I am disappointed that the opportunity to debate the issue has been used and abused by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.
We believe in good business and in preventing illegal working that takes jobs from people who are legally entitled to them. To believe otherwise cannot be good for people who do not have jobs, or for the country's economy.
Mr. Henderson:
The Government have been smoked out over a lot of issues in the past four years. This
The Minister cited a survey by the Forum of Private Business, but we were not told of the sample size. It is a strange day for the Conservative party when it will not listen to the Federation of Small Businesses, which has3 million members.
Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's stance shows how out of touch they are with small businesses? They are more concerned with excusing late payment. They want to impose more regulations, burden and compliance costs on small businesses.
"penalising employers who employ illegal workers. This result indicates a substantial majority in favour of controls on the employment of illegal workers and suggests that this policy would have significant support among small business owners."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |