In which case, it's worth highlighting Neather's latest column for the Evening Standard, in which he claims his comments have been exaggerated and misinterpreted. Here's the key point it makes:
"As a ministerial speechwriter in a former career, in 2000 I penned a key speech for the then immigration minister Barbara Roche, which mooted changes to make it easier for skilled workers to come to the UK.That was based on a sensitive report on migration by the Prime Minister's Performance and Innovation Unit.Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when - hard as it is to imagine now - the booming economy was running up against skills shortages.
But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it - boosting diversity and undermining the Right's opposition to multiculturalism.
Strictly speaking, this doesn't necessarily mean that Labour's immigration policy wasn't a politically-motivated ruse. The question which may follow from Neather's claims is whether "subsidiary" goals can distort "primary goals" – or whether he's got the set of goals the wrong way around. But this isn't, by itself, the definitive confirmation which some people have been looking for.