Ed Miliband’s speech on immigration on Friday was an important one – not because it contained an apology for Labour’s record.  In fact Ed was specific in expressing regret for the decision not to impose transitional controls at the time of accession of ‘new’ EU countries in 2004 rather than for the whole of the last Labour government’s immigration record.

I have argued before that Labour introduced enormously important and largely successful immigration reform.  Firstly through the points based system we put in place a policy and delivery infrastructure which can flex in line with the skills needs of the country.  The fact that the Tories want to focus on a crude net migration cap which they are failing to deliver is a problem of their ‘dog whistle’ politics, not the system Labour implemented.  Secondly, we improved security and control of the border using technology to better understand the numbers coming into and out of the country and investing in staff to enforce controls where necessary.  Tory cuts in border staffing are causing the airport queues and the failures in, for example, removing foreign prisoners.  Incidentally, why are the papers who were so keen to hound Charles Clarke so quiet on this Tory failure?

But Ed rightly focussed on two areas which are, in some ways, much more difficult to get right and are at the heart of the real concern that exists in many communities about immigration.  In my former constituency it was the sudden influx of people from the EU i.e. those who weren’t subject to the points based system which was most noticeable with the opening of the Polish speaking shops in the town centre and the new eastern European workers in the Worcestershire factories and fields.  Whether rightly or wrongly many people told me they were worried about their job prospects and the impact on local services.

I think British people are naturally welcoming of others, but they want a fair deal and a fair opportunity for everybody in work.  Ed is right to focus on how we can ensure that European immigration is not used by the unscrupulous to undercut the pay and conditions of immigrant or existing workers.  One of my first speeches on immigration as home secretary was to the TUC where I argued for more government/trade union work on precisely this issue.  That’d be a better use of the GMB’s time than campaigning against Progress wouldn’t it?

I hope that he’ll go even further in recognising that whilst immigration brings immense social and cultural benefits, the transitional impact of an influx of new people also needs to be managed.  In government, Hazel Blears and I introduced the migration impact fund.  A levy on immigration application fees which was then allocated to projects in communities to help overcome the transitional impact of new migration to an area.  We also set up a migration impact forum to gather the evidence rather than the anecdote about the effect of migration on communities.  We should re-instate the fund and use it to mitigate any negative impacts that the forum identifies.

Immigration has changed this country immeasurably for the better, but it is naive to recognise the benefits of change from immigration without also recognising the insecurity that this change can bring.  The Tory approach is to try impotently to resist the change.  The job of progressive politics should be to identify the benefits of change, but also to support people and communities in dealing with the broader impacts.  I think Ed made an important start last Friday.

—————————————————————————————

Jacqui Smith is former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @smithjj62