And this is the fundamental problem: it allows us to dodge a broader long-term industrial strategy, precisely because the short-term labour fix is so easy.
Ministers may be right in assuming that nothing like the full complement of those entitled to settle do so. But what if they’re wrong?
Last year, the ONS predicted that the population would rise by another three million over the next decade. But home building lags behind.
The most serious risk of all is the clear possibility that the new regime will lead to a massive increase of immigration.
Others would say that the appointment of a profoundly business-friendly Home Secretary was bound to lead to a weakening of immigration policy.
The description is misleading, and will deter young people from entering the sector. Ultimately, it will constrain the labour supply needed to build more houses.
The UK should be willing to consider some flexibility in return for a trade deal – with Australia, with India, with Brazil and, yes, with the EU.
Any exceptions for those with job offers would simply be flimsy camouflage for a wholesale retreat and for the abandonment of a major pledge to the British public.
Without a firm, stated base, we are vulnerable to being pushed around by the Commission. Ministers might find it uncomfortable to talk numbers, but they must.
It’s remarkable that the official public body that advises the Government on such issues seems not to have published a report on this topic since 2011.
We should not allow ourselves, in the next phase of negotiations, to be drawn into further migration concessions in exchange for trade concessions.
Countries with which we strike future trade deals – the top priority for Party members according to our survey – should be treated more favourably than those with which we don’t.
At the last election 81 per cent of voters believed that a Conservative victory would mean fewer migrants. The party’s manifesto explicitly promised that “there will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down.”