Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 46:"Page 10, line 11, at end insert—" ““(   )   The factors to be considered by the Secretary of State shall include the extent to which the employer has afforded the migrant worker treatment not less favourable than that which applies to national workers, by virtue of legislative or administrative provisions, collective labour agreement or custom, in respect of payment of earnings, deductions from earnings for the purposes of taxation and national insurance contributions, and the right to join, and organise in the workplace as part of, a trade union.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 46 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 75 in the same group. When I spoke at Second Reading, I said that I wanted to concentrate on the employment issues in the Bill, and that is what this amendment is all about. It is fairly common knowledge that many migrant workers are exploited by unscrupulous employers, and I know that the Government are attempting to deal with this by imposing penalties on employers using illegal workers. We discussed the point earlier today. However, this approach may not have entirely the desired effect. My amendment seeks to set out the employment rights to which a migrant worker is entitled: the minimum wage, any provisions in collective agreements and the right to join a trade union; in other words, the right not to be treated as cheap labour. Incidentally, I also believe that there should be a system whereby an illegal worker can become a legal and documented worker. That does not form part of the amendment but can perhaps be discussed somewhere else in the context of the Bill. I have received a letter from my noble friend at the Dispatch Box, for which I thank her, in which she has told me that this issue is not on the Government’s agenda at the moment. She referred to the experience of other countries in running such programmes, which has not been entirely favourable. On the other hand, it would be a good idea if the Government were to pay more attention to the whole matter. The use of migrant workers as cheap labour is unacceptable for a number of reasons. I was rather angered when I heard the chief executive of the CBI welcoming immigration on the ground that it dealt with what he referred to as ““wage inflation””; in other words, desperate people willing to work hard for low pay to keep the level of wages down. It hardly needs saying that that kind of approach does little for race relations, although I am glad to say that most trade unions have decided that the answer is to recruit migrant workers and actively seek to improve their wages and conditions. My amendment therefore includes a reference to the right to join and organise in the workplace. I hope that that will be acceptable to the Government. I know that there is concern about the possibility of vulnerable people being exploited. There was an immediate outcry over the tragedy at Morecambe Bay. The Government took immediate action and supported the Private Member’s Bill about gangmasters, which I am very glad is now on the statute book. I therefore hope that there will be a sympathetic response from the Government to my amendment. If accepted, it is likely to ensure that exploitive employers deliberately defrauding the system face higher fines and bigger penalties. We have to ensure that rights in relation to not being regarded as cheap labour should be included in the Bill. Amendment No. 75 deals with the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, which came into effect on 1 July 2003. It has since been ratified by 33 states, but not so far by EU member states, despite some pressure from the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee. This issue was considered recently by the House of Lords committee on economic migration to the EU. The Government apparently feel that ratification would undermine the UK’s system of frontier controls and is also likely to cost too much because of extending access to public funds and services to migrant workers and their families on a non-discriminatory basis as compared with British citizens. The committee, however, did not find those arguments convincing and has recommended research into the likely costs. It also thinks that the Government should seek to develop a political consensus towards the convention, both within the UK and across the EU. The UK is already a party to ILO Convention No. 97 concerning migration for employment, which covers important rights for migrant workers in remuneration, trade union membership and social security. In the circumstances, therefore, there seems little reason to oppose the UN convention and a case for trying to ensure its application on an EU-wide basis. It could be that our new equality law, proposed by the Government, may cover those issues, although the problem may then be that the onus will be put on individual workers to take action to secure their rights. Many migrant workers will be too scared or too vulnerable to take such action. I await with interest the Minister’s response. I beg to move.