| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'(8) No order shall be made under this section until the expiration a period of three months after the publication by the Secretary of State of the provisions of the order, during which period the Secretary of State shall--
(a) give notice of the terms of the proposed order to organisations appearing to him to be representative of employers;
(b) make all reasonable efforts to publicise the duties on employers proposed in the order; and
(c) establish a telephone enquiry service from which employers may obtain advice on the duties which will be placed upon them.'.
Amendment No. 18, clause 9, in page 6, leave out lines 13 to 15.
Mr. Henderson:
As became obvious to those of us who served on the Standing Committee, the Bill is
Three crucial parts of the Bill are left for the Secretary of State to introduce by order. The Bill empowers him to determine which categories of immigrant are covered by clause 8, to classify which documents may be used to check whether someone is legally able to work and to decide which category is excluded from housing entitlement.
If it were not bad enough that the Government cannot give the House details on those matters--and failed to do so in Committee--when the Government are able to produce the orders, the House will not have an opportunity to discuss them before they come into effect because the Bill--we may return to this matter--adopts the negative resolution procedure.
This is an enabling Bill and none of the people affected by it--whether they are persons seeking asylum, persons assisting those seeking asylum, persons checking the legitimacy of documents or persons providing housing benefit, assistance or child benefit--will know what obligations it will impose on them until the orders are produced. That is unacceptable.
The Opposition oppose clauses 8 and 9 on principle and will deal later with some of the reasoning behind them.It would be more appropriate to leave my comments on that matter until then. I can assure the House, however, that I am opposed to those clauses on principle, first, because they are wrong and secondly, because they will not work. That was one of the principal reasons why,on Second Reading, a Special Standing Committee was proposed--a proposition that was supported by the Opposition parties. That procedure would have made it possible to discuss the detail and enabled those with an axe to grind or with expertise or knowledge of the issue and those who felt that they would be particularly affected to make representations before the House considered them in Committee and before the Secretary of State drew up his proposals on the orders.
As I hope I have explained, the reasoning behind new clause 2 is that something should be done before the Bill, and the orders for which it provides, take effect. The new clause would require the Government to meet a number of obligations before introducing the orders. If the Government had accepted the proposal for a Special Standing Committee, some of those obligations might not have been necessary but, particularly as they rejected that procedure, they clearly are.
The new clause is also important for democracy.Too often in recent years, the authority of the House has been abused by the Government, who have said,"We know better than Parliament. We're going to take ministerial decisions regardless of what Parliament says. We're going to draft legislation to minimise the impact of Parliament and give us the maximum scope to do what we think is right." On occasions, they might be right, but it is an affront to parliamentary democracy when a Government continue relentlessly to abuse their position.
The Bill is a classic example of the Government's deciding to take away the authority of Parliament. They have not been prepared to come up with their views--perhaps because they do not yet have any on some of the matters or, as is more likely, because they think that their views will be unacceptable to the House. Rather than argue about what the obligations of employers or the responsibility of a housing authority should be, or about the procedure that should be adopted to deal with political asylum cases, the Government have produced an enabling Bill and said that they will draw up the guidelines in secret, get them through Parliament in an order and, essentially prevent Parliament from debating them before they come into effect. That is wrong and it is why we have tabled the new clause.
The Government will argue that the Bill has few race relations implications--perhaps they will argue that it has none. I must remind the House that that is not what the Conservative candidate for the South Cambridgeshire European parliamentary constituency said when he was head of the research department at Conservative central office. He wrote in The Observer that the Conservatives played the race card at the European election, that they played the race card at the last general election and that if they played it again it would hurt.
Whatever else one might think of the Conservative candidate for South Cambridgeshire, he understands the implications of Bills such as this. He is not the only one. The Federation of Small Businesses said in its presentation that race relations would be damaged.The Trades Union Congress has said that it is "extremely concerned" about the Bill's impact on race relations. In its representations, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said that race relations are crucial. Amnesty International said that it sees many implications for race relations in the Bill. The Commission for Racial Equality--a Government-appointed body--also said that it sees many implications for race relations in the Bill.
The Confederation of British Industry said--the detail of this was dealt with in Committee--that there are very serious implications for race relations in the Bill. Although the Institute of Directors has withdrawn some of its original objections to the Bill, and to clause 8in particular, it still acknowledges that there are implications for race relations.
What is more important--if we are to have a secure and stable society--is the fact that the black, Asian and other ethnic communities believe that the Bill will have serious implications for their lives and those of their friends and communities.
Many Conservative Members--especially those who represent constituencies with multi-racial and differing ethnic community groups--recognise the serious implications that the Bill will have on the communities that they represent. It is noticeable that a number of them, who I thought would have spoken in this debate,are keeping their heads down and leaving it to Ministers.I believe that, ultimately, they do not support the Government on many provisions in the Bill.
The Labour party has tabled new clause 2 because it believes that paragraphs (3)(a), (b) and (c) will provide a little mitigation against the damage that the Government might do. Before they pursue a particular course of action, the Government have an obligation to investigate and consult various bodies--including the Commission for Racial Equality--on the impact of the Bill.
The Government believe that they have reassured housing authorities on how they will be affected by clause 9. When the Secretary of State for Social Security made a statement on this matter a few weeks ago, he gave the impression that he had managed to reach an understanding, a rapport and an arrangement with housing authorities, but that is not what housing authorities think--in fact, it is not even what Westminster city council thinks. It is not satisfied with the Secretary of State's assurances relating to clause 9. As I understand it, the authority will take action in the courts in the coming weeks to seek guarantees on the impact of the Bill.
The council believes that Westminster council tax payers may have to pick up the tab for what amounts to Tory national propaganda and electioneering. That is a fear of Westminster city council--which is always cast as an ideal council. The Government have spectacularly failed to persuade Westminster city council of the implications of the Bill--never mind the rights or wrongs of it. That is why the Opposition have included paragraph (d), which requires the Government to look at the implications before decisions are made on this issue.
The same applies to social services where, no doubt, the Government will repeat what the Secretary of State for Social Security attempted to say some weeks ago--that local authorities' responsibilities in relation to the care of children have been taken into account and solutions have been found. Many social services departments that I have spoken to, especially those in the London area where many people initially seek political asylum, are not convinced. They fear for the effects on their communities and on their councils' budgets. The Government have not convinced many bodies that may be charged with implementing the proposals what the effect will be.
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate):
The Government have failed to consult and to make matters clear to local authorities' social services departments--and that failure is having a serious impact on people who do not come under the prescriptions of the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |