Proceeding contribution from Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
My Lords, if the Minister has not already done so, I suggest that she also meets Bangladeshi restaurateurs. She has met Chinese restaurateurs on two occasions. Bangladeshi restaurateurs and the Bangladeshi food industry probably comprise at least as big a contributor to our economy and to gastronomic excellence as the Chinese food industry. I hope that the Minister agrees that both of them deserve to be heard. During the consultations, various representations were made. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, gave us details of three proposals made by a leader of a Chinese community association. I hope that the Minister can publish the results of the consultation that she has held with both sectors before Third Reading, as it would be enormously helpful to your Lordships to know that at least we are moving in the right direction in accommodating the special needs of those industries. I believe that that would satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. With respect to the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, it occurred to me while she was speaking that if one merely provided that the treatment of migrant workers was not less favourable than that which applies to national workers, one would miss something, because most of these people are employed in a sector where there are no nationals. As we have constantly heard during our discussions with both the Chinese and the Bangladeshis, the natives of this country do not know how to do Chinese or Bangladeshi cooking. That is the reason why people come in from abroad to carry on those operations. Therefore, there is no exact equivalent with which to compare them. If one were to make provision for these workers, as is suggested by the noble Baroness, it would have to be applied to national workers in equivalent occupations. Then I think that the issue would be properly taken care of. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that. The measure is a good idea in principle. As regards the employers who will go on the register, one of the factors that ought to be considered—even if it is not formally put into the statute—is how they treat existing migrant workers. They should not get on to the list of approved employers for the points scheme unless the noble Baroness and the Government were satisfied that they treated migrant workers as favourably as local workers.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 678 c559
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Disclosure of information Contracts Data protection Codes of practice Appeals Bail Asylum Detainees Applications Deportation British nationality Aircraft Employment Finance Families Human rights Enforcement Fixed penalties Eligibility Immigration controls Immigration Undocumented migrants Human trafficking Hong Kong Legal representation Entry clearances Legal opinion Immigration officers Private sector Pilot schemes National security Protection Monitoring Passengers Registration Terrorism Treaties Training Refugees Small businesses Right of search Temporary accommodation Students Detention centres British overseas citizenship
- Legislation
- Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:25:19 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298444
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298444
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298444