---

Managed Migration

I welcome the measured tone of the previous speech. It is clear from both the speeches of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen that they do not have an alternative policy, and that is probably quite a good thing. The more measured a debate we can have about immigration policy issues, the better it will be both for getting the policy right and for the general tone of public debate and community relations. I greatly welcome reform, but I have some reservations about the proposed system. I do not disagree that what we have at the moment needs to change. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. It makes sense to rationalise the 80 streams of immigration into something simpler, more transparent and more straightforward, with a clearer sense of people’s entitlements. It makes sense to do so with extensive consultation and I welcome the consultation that the Government have undertaken. However, I have some questions on the practicalities of the scheme and on the principle, as well. I am glad that the Minister recognised the challenge ahead of him in translating the system into something fair and practicable. When I asked him which of the skill tiers chefs in south Asian restaurants would fall into he gave the honest and clear answer that they could fall into both, depending on their skill level and, I dare say, demand, remuneration and all the other factors that will have to be judged. Given that one of those tiers carries with it the right of settlement after five years and the other does not, there will be some powerful and natural human pressures, as well as all the tensions, and some risk of abuse in the system, which will have to be addressed before the system can be introduced. I commend greatly the Minister’s commitment to have further discussions with the associations that represent south Asian restaurateurs to put in place a system of sponsorship that enables responsible employers with a record of compliance with immigration and work regulations to employ the workers they need. A lot of care will have to be given to that if we are to have a system in which people have confidence, as well as one that meets the human and economic needs that are in play. I underline the point that has already been made that care will have to be given to ensure that small employers are not disadvantaged, either by their lack of understanding of the system or their inability to deal with the bureaucracy. As Members on both sides of the Chamber are always saying, it is the small employers who generate the jobs in this country. They are the ones who will have to operate the system if it is truly to succeed. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), said that there was a key economic test—a test of the economic contribution that workers could make to this country. When we talk about skills shortages in that respect, we sometimes need to think a bit more carefully about the language that we are using. I am not sure that there is a skills shortage; there is a shortage of labour, in different skills categories, ready to work at the going wage rate in that category. In those terms, it is perfectly plausible that, at some point in the future, there will be labour shortages in lower skilled categories that may be as great—if not greater—as those in some higher skilled categories. That is why, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his statement, I asked him whether different groups would be dealt with on a fair basis in that respect. The answer that we should address skills shortages or labour shortages in different skill categories by training applies equally to all the categories—the higher ones as well as the lower ones. Equally, the argument that we might want to meet needs through immigration can apply to the less skilled categories as well as to the more skilled categories. There are some powerful humanitarian arguments as to why that should be the case. I wonder whether Ministers share my unease about proposing to bring in a system that is institutionalised discrimination against the least skilled and the poorest. I share some of the concerns voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) about what that might mean for the employment rights of those who are working here in the least skilled categories. When someone’s right to remain in the country depends on their employer, they are in a vulnerable situation. If a system such as this is to be introduced, it is important that careful attention is paid to the rights and terms and conditions of the workers who are being employed. I also worry about the extent to which a system such as that proposed will limit the opportunities for significant groups of people to come here from many Commonwealth countries, with which Britain has historical, cultural and family ties. If there were a demonstrable labour shortage in a relatively low skilled area and even those arriving from central and eastern European states were not filling the vacancies, I wonder whether it would not be fairer if some unskilled workers were allowed in without having their rights curtailed to a year’s residence. Another question is what happens to someone who enters under the third tier—relatively unskilled—and, during their time here, demonstrates that they can benefit their employer just as much as someone in a more highly skilled tier. Would they be able to earn a change in their status, which would carry with it the right of settlement? It is that sort of practical and very human question that will arise in the operation of the system. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly praised the enormous contribution made to this country by previous generations of immigrants. We do well to remember that those previous waves of immigration included many people who came here as relatively unskilled workers, but who developed their skills and made a big economic contribution. Their families prospered, as did the society that was pleased to have them. It would be sad if we were to deny that possibility to some workers in the future. I also worry about what the system will mean for poorer countries. If we take only their most skilled workers, and take none of their relatively unskilled workers, an imbalance will be created. There is a danger that we will take too many of the workers that those countries need and deny many poorer communities the stream of remittances that—as has been pointed out—is an important factor in the relief of poverty there. We need to consider all the practicalities of the scheme very carefully. I hope that we might be able to consider, even now, the recruitment of relatively unskilled workers when there is a demonstrable need, so that their settlement rights are not curtailed. Both on human rights grounds and because of the risk of exploitation, there are weaknesses to a system that operates in that way. I hope that there will be further consultation on the system and careful reflection on the points that I have made, so that we end up with a fair and practical system that commands public support because its integrity is beyond reproach.