Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, I am sorry but we are on Third Reading. I am not going to play Committee at this stage. I was of course going to address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I will do it precisely now, and try to guess what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, might have been saying to me. But I will try to stick to the rules, because we want to get through the rest of the groups of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had two questions. One was about the English language skills. There will be an expectation that an appropriate level of English will be spoken. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, there are issues over earnings. I am referred by my officials to paragraph 95 of the Command Paper, which makes clear that we will amend requirements to enable these categories to enter. We will not expect ministers of religion to meet the usual minimum salary requirements under tier 2, for exactly the reasons that the right reverend Prelate would expect. The skills advisory body will be able to draw on the Skills for Business Network, and would ensure that bodies representing the ethnic cuisine sector should be engaged with their relevant sector skills councils. We want to ensure—it is a theme throughout the Bill—that those involved in small businesses, whether in the provision of the wonderful food that I love to eat or in any other small business, have opportunities to talk about the skill sector shortages within their area appropriately. We take that seriously. We also recognise, thinking about chefs in particular—again, a theme running through the Bill—that some skilled workers do not have paper qualifications. There is a trade-off within tier 2 against salary. I have already identified that, within salary, we would also take into account benefits and qualifications. In general—and this generality is not specifically relevant to the particular sector in question—a higher salary tends to suggest that someone is at an appropriate level of skill for tier 2. That will not always be the case, partly because of extra benefits and partly because of the area. As a generality, however, it is true. On lower skilled workers under tier 3, we obviously expect a lot of our requirements to be met either within the UK or the EU, but tier 3 schemes will be set up if it is clear that there is insufficient labour to meet demand. They would be quota-based, operator-led, time-limited, subject to review and from countries where we have a returns policy. Waiters, kitchen porters and others will fall into tier 3 only if the scheme that encompasses them is established. In general, we expect domestic and EU labour to be sufficient for these positions, but we will of course keep this under review to ensure that—again, in conversation with the skills sector council—we have clarity over what might be required. On the question of chefs and managers with three years’ experience and whether they fall within tier 2, the precise model is not finally determined; that is partly because there are still conversations to be had, particularly with small business and those involved in particular sectors. We are hoping to end up with a system where, in the round, people who fail to have points in one area—because they do not have paper qualifications, for example—will get points in another area—because, for example, their salary level is higher—so that we end up with a balance. We have more work to do, working with our stakeholders, on getting that balance right. The Command Paper makes it clear that we would seek to do that. But that is basically how we would seek to do it, not least because it gives us a clear, transparent system where people can identify for themselves that they have got the right number of points before they apply. That is particularly relevant to the education sector, though not exclusively. One of the issues I hope will be addressed by the new system is that people will know that they have got the right number of points, and will therefore apply. It may cut out those who wish to exploit the system, an issue that we are concerned about for some countries. It also ensures that we increasingly get successful applicants, because they know in advance that they are able to apply. That would be of great value. We cannot make the required changes under rules only, because we need primary legislation first. I seem to remember answering that question a couple of times before. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will feel that I have addressed it. I think I have addressed Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 35 and 36, so it is time for me to sit down. I hope on that basis that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.