Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-74)
MR LIAM
BYRNE MP, MR
CHRISTOPHE PRINCE
AND MS
HELEN EARNER
7 DECEMBER 2006
Q60 Michael Connarty: I would like
to turn to the question of duration of this decision. We have
had a letter tabled from Daniela Andreescu, the Secretary of State
for the Bulgarian Department of Labor Abroad, and also a paper
from the Embassy of Romania and in both of these submissions there
are questions about duration. There is, in fact, in the Romanian
Embassy submission a question of whether what we are doing is
challengeable, but they do stress that it appears not in an official
agreement but in the statements of the Government that there would
be a review after one year. Could you make it quite clear when
the Government will revisit these restrictions and how long does
the Home Office anticipate they will last?
Mr Byrne: The regulations that
we are tabling this afternoon are for a total period of five years
and this reflects the fact that after two years we are required
to notify the Commission if we are to maintain the restrictions
and we are then allowed under Community rules to maintain them
for a further three years. Although the regulations that we are
proposing this afternoon are for a total of five years, Chairman,
Mr Connarty is absolutely right to say when we made the announcement
in the written ministerial statement earlier this year, we did
commit to reviewing the arrangements within 12 months in case
the regime that we were proposing was too conservative and our
economy needed more migrant labour from Bulgaria and Romania to
help this country grow. We have made that commitment and I am
happy to reaffirm it this afternoon. I would add that we do see,
potentially, a role for the Migration Advisory Committee in helping
us understand this question and getting the decision right, but
that is contingent on whether or not we get a positive response
to the consultation paper that we put out—another plug for
that—but personally I think it could help a lot.
Q61 Michael Connarty: Perish the
thought that this Government should be more conservative! The
written ministerial statement also stated that: "before we
take further steps, our plans for immigration reform should be
further advanced", I was intrigued by that phrase. Could
you explain why the Government's plans for immigration reform
should be "further advanced" before restrictions are
eased and what exactly is meant by this?
Mr Byrne: I suppose it is a bit
of a personal interest of mine. We do think that it is right for
the Government to take a little bit more time to understand the
transitional impacts on public services before we open the door
more quickly. However, as Immigration Minister, I do have a personal
interest in using that extra time to make sure that the enforcement
regime we have in place to police the immigration rules is more
robust than it is today. John Reid, the Home Secretary, my Rt
Hon friend, has been very clear about what he thinks are the strengths
and weaknesses of the immigration service and I think the one
field in particular that needs to be strengthened is the field
of enforcement and removal. That is exactly why in the IND review
before the summer we said we want to double the resources for
enforcement and removal. In the new year we will publish plans
of how we are going to do that and also plans of how we are going
to use ID cards and biometric identification to tackle illegal
immigration and, again, before doors are widened any further I
have a personal obligation to use that time to make sure the regime
we have in place for tackling illegal immigration is as robust
as possible and that is what that sentence alludes to.
Q62 Michael Connarty: I was concerned
that there seemed to be a lack of evidence-based policy rather
than just political-based policy. Could you tell us what criteria
will be used to decide to loosen or end the restrictions, in other
words what are the targets that you have set against which we
will judge them? What is the template or do you not have one?
Mr Byrne: My own personal view
is that template is something which should be developed by the
Migration Advisory Committee because these are very complicated
questions and, as Mr Clappison said, there are heated views on
different sides of this argument. How you measure and quantify
the impact on public services is enormously difficult and it is
perhaps easier to understand the impact on economic growth. Rather
than prescribe an answer today, what the Home Office has done
has been very open and said, "Well, look, this is a difficult
question. Do people think that a Migration Advisory Committee
could answer this question more effectively than the Home Office
and Liam Byrne on his own and, if the Migration Advisory Committee
can play a role in answering this question, should it try and
construct a methodology for taking these different things into
account?" That is partly why I have an interest in getting
the Migration Advisory Committee up and running before we get
to this review which we committed to after 12 months. You are
absolutely right, evidence in this field is difficult to document,
that was one of the conclusions that the strategy came to when
it looked at this question of impact over the summer and I think
we need to take steps to strengthen the evidence base so we can
have proper evidence-based policy-making. I nearly said "policy-based
evidence-making" there, I caught myself just in time.
Q63 Chairman: One of the developments
that seems to have taken ministers a little by surprise was the
number of A8 migrants who have been able to claim child tax benefits
on behalf of children who are not resident in this country. To
what extent would the number of similar benefit claims being made
by Bulgarian and Romanian migrants be a factor in deciding the
case on which we open our borders?
Mr Byrne: We posed the question
in our consultation on the Migration Advisory Committee about
whether or not wider impacts should be taken into account and,
I think it is in paragraph 1.7, we pose a sort of shortlist of
what some of those impacts should be, such as fiscal impacts and
impacts on public services. I think it is important that when
respondents are answering the question, "Should there be
a methodology for taking into account wider impacts?" that
views like that are posed. Today I do not have a view on the precise
nature of the wider impacts that should be taken into account,
but I think it is important for Government to ask the question.
It is a difficult question to answer, there will be different
views. Getting a consensus on it I am sure will be quite difficult,
so I can only confess to having taken the first step.
Q64 Mr Clappison: The Migration Advisory
Committee can only advise the Government within the ambit of our
treaty commitments with the European Union. As you have said today,
there are limits to what the Government can do to restrict access
to the United Kingdom from the accession countries and for how
long those can last. In the interest of having policy made well
in advance on immigration, is the Government giving any thought
to the immigration consequences of future accession to the European
Union? I am thinking particularly of the case of Turkey because
the UK is a supporter of Turkey becoming a full member, as I understand
it, Turkey is a candidate country; other countries have different
views and different emphases, we understand on this, Turkey is
a country of 70 million people with low incomes. Is the Government
thinking about the migration consequences of Turkey's admission
to the UK when it is making policy?
Mr Byrne: Of course. The Home
Office is never shy about coming forward with its views about
immigration consequences of any decision that the Government makes
so, yes, as conversations across government take place over the
next, it must be, five or six years, I suppose, about further
accession, the Home Office will be making sure that immigration
issues are part of that debate.
Q65 Mr Clappison: As I understand
it, the Government's policy is already in favour of Turkish membership
and we are favourable to Turkey, so if you are having conversations,
can you tell us, have you any view on migration from Turkey or
if it is likely to take place?
Mr Byrne: Sorry?
Q66 Mr Clappison: Do you think there
will be migration from Turkey in the event of Turkish accession
to the European Union?
Mr Byrne: I think any accession
by new Member States brings different patterns of migration but
this is not a short-term decision, it is not a decision that we
are really locking down now, it is a decision that is subject
to an enormous amount of discussion across Europe. As you say,
different Member States have got lots of different views and as
those debates proceed the Home Office will be making sure that
immigration issues are part of those discussions. Mr Clappison,
you will be delighted to hear that we will not be alone in making
those contributions, I think a lot of other Member States will
have concerns which are more acute.
Q67 Mr Clappison: Our position is
different from that of other countries and we have been an advocate.
What I am asking you is if you have a view on how much migration
there might be from Turkey in the event of Turkish accession?
Have you got a view on that? How much might there be?
Mr Byrne: I have already said
that I think it would be very unwise to predict future patterns
of migration from even A2 accession states. I am even less tempted
to speculate on patterns of migration from Turkey if and when
Turkey joins the EU in 2012 or 2013.
Q68 Mr Clappison: Is it not difficult
for you to have any input on the Government's policy-making on
this when you do not know whether there will be any migration
or not and you have not taken any steps to find out if there is
going to be any?
Mr Byrne: I think the Home Secretary's
voice is always given due consideration when he contributes to
these debates so, no, I do not think it will be difficult for
the Home Office to argue its case.
Q69 Chairman: Mr Clappison, I think
the horse may not be dead, but it is very well flogged. I think
you made the point and the Minister has had his chance to give
the answer. Can I wrap up a couple of migration related questions.
BBC Panorama recently reported in a show that it would
be very easy for a non-EU national to gain access to the UK by
obtaining documents posing as a citizen of a new EU Member State.
At the same time the European Commission has expressed concerns
about the quality of border controls in Romania and Bulgaria.
With the accession coming into place next month, what is your
assessment of the level of risk of non-EU nationals now being
able to enter the EU, and in particular the UK, as a result of
the change?
Mr Byrne: My assessment is that
there is a risk there which is still to be managed. As with all
EU nationals, Romanians and Bulgarians will have to present a
valid passport or ID card to gain entry to the UK. We promised
and committed in the IND Review, which we published before the
summer, to strengthen border control operations with a particular
focus on increased detection of forged and counterfeit travel
documentations. An important part of our preparations for accession
has been the work that we have undertaken together with Bulgaria
and Romania to strengthen the ability of their agencies to detect
forged documents and the work, not just in our own country but
also in our EU partners, includes work to analyse statistics on
A2 document abuse so that we can build up a much fuller picture
to inform the mitigating action that we take. The honest answer
is that we think there is a risk still to be managed. We have
recently agreed that Romanian border police will come to work
with us in the UK to identify and train our own staff in what
they know about forged documents, so it has been an important
part of our preparations.
Q70 Martin Salter: Minister, given
the impacts on public services, the economy, wage rates and community
cohesion, there are clearly sound reasons for your decision to
restrict entry from Romania and Bulgaria. However, there was an
awful lot of bigoted garbage written in sections of Her Majesty's
press which sought to demonise people from these two countries
as disease-ridden criminals. You will have read the response,
and if you have not I suggest you do, from the Romanian Embassy
which highlights the fact that some tabloid journalists were attempting
to bribe prostitutes from Romania to fly into Britain on 1 January
2007 so that they could run stories about this sex trade tidal
wave that was about to sweep the nation. I have got two questions.
Are any journalists likely to face prosecution for attempted people
trafficking? If not, why not? Secondly, what is the true picture
of organised crime in Bulgaria and Romania and did it have an
impact on the decision that you made?
Mr Byrne: I am very grateful for
that because I had not picked that up in the press. Of course
we will look at what evidence we can collate.
Q71 Martin Salter: Minister, I will
help you, it is the response to the joint inquiry by the Home
Affairs and European Scrutiny Select Committees on migration issues
relating to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU.
Mr Byrne: We will look at that
evidence with some interest. On the question of organised crime,
the decision which that informed was the lobbying work that we
did with the European Commission in order to press for benchmarks
in reform of justice and home affairs areas in Bulgaria and Romania.
In particular, we wanted to see progress on tackling organised
crime and its influence in public life and in particular its impact
on corruption. Understanding any pattern of crime is difficult
to pin down but our assessment is that there are risks from organised
crime in Bulgaria and Romania. My colleague, Vernon Coaker, at
the Home Office has been helping chair a crime task force together
with Metropolitan Police and others in order to make sure that
the work which we have done with police agencies in Bulgaria and
Romania is as robust as it can be. We are particularly grateful
to SOCA for the work that it has done in Bulgaria and Romania
making sure that there are preparations in place. I would echo
again, I am very grateful to the Bulgarian and Romanian Governments
for the depth and strength of co-operation that they have offered
with SOCA and our other police agencies in helping make sure that
we have got a robust enough picture of threat assessment and responses
in place for organised crime.
Q72 Mr Steen: I am most grateful,
Chairman. As the Minister probably knows, there is going to be
a major debate in the House next Wednesday on the human trafficking
issue and Romania and Bulgaria will no doubt be mentioned. The
only way to halt trafficking, would you agree, is to snuff out
demand not just for sexual exploitation, domestic slavery, begging
and stealing, but to halt demand from those living in the UK already.
We are always looking at what might be happening coming in from
Bulgaria and Romania and other EU countries but it is all demand
driven and it is demand driven by UK nationals. I am wondering
what the minister feels should be done, which is not being done
at the moment, to ensure that when Romania and Bulgaria enter
the EU they do not satisfy the demand even further and that we
enforce new ways of stopping people coming into Britain to satisfy
demand from the British.
Mr Byrne: I think that is a good
point. This is an area that my colleague, Vernon Coaker, leads
on at the Home Office. I take your point about tackling demand
and that is obviously an issue which is going to be of concern
to the police, but in the context of this debate this morning
what I would say to the Committee is that an important part of
our preparation has been the joint work that SOCA has been able
to do with Bulgaria and Romania in order to make sure that we
are sharing intelligence about the picture of organised crime
so that we can tackle interventions effectively. We have an operation
called Operation Reflex in particular which has brought together
a number of agencies here in the UK, including the immigration
service as well as the police and others, in order to target people
trafficking because it is a significant issue.
Q73 Mr Steen: I would just like to
corroborate what the Minister is saying. Having spent a morning
with the Chief of Police in Romania, I would like to pay tribute
to the arrangements between the Home Office and the Romanian police,
they are very impressive indeed, and the way in which you are
going to be sharing profiling, fingerprinting, DNA testing and
firearms profiling with the Romanians is marvellous, but a similar
arrangement is not going on with the Bulgarians or with any of
the other 10 EU countries that have already entered. Whilst we
are rightly concerned about Bulgaria and Romania and, having also
spent an afternoon in a high-security prison in Romania meeting
some of the criminals who have been apprehended, it seems the
problem is that when we are looking at those two countries and
forgetting the existing countries, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and others where we do not
have this excellent arrangement which we have set up with Romania,
because of the press interest in that, that is where the other
problems are emanating from and so long as the demand goes on
in this country it will be pulled in from the other countries.
Mr Byrne: The preparations that
the police and SOCA have made are not driven by the intensity
of press interest, they are driven by a threat assessment, and
so where you see us put our chips on the board it is not based
on what we see on the telly, but it is based on the threat assessment.
Those threat assessments were the first bit of work that we asked
colleagues to do before the summer. This point about EU-wide co-operation
I think is absolutely vital and there are EU-wide proposals on
sharing DNA information and other data which I think will go forward
in the new year. I have certainly been very impressed, I suppose,
with the common ground which I think there now is, particularly
across the major EU countries, that this issue of better information-sharing
is absolutely fundamental to very practical co-operation, and
the position of the British Government in these discussions has
always been how do we get practical co-operation. We are much
more interested in driving through practical operations rather
than any kind of esoteric new steps at the policy level. What
we will see under the German Presidency is some renewed vigour
behind the practical delivery of some of the ideas that we posited
under the British Presidency and the global approach to migration.
I very much hope data-sharing and particularly sharing information
on DNA is an important part of that.
Q74 Chairman: Minister, you bring
us nicely to a whole set of issues that are right at the centre
of the Home Affairs Select Committee's current inquiry into the
EU's role in relation to all of these criminal justice and migration
matters, and Mr Steen's question has shown how many complex issues
are lying behind the decision that the Government has taken about
the Bulgarian and Romanian accession. Could I thank you on behalf
of both Committees for the time you have spent us with this morning
and the way in which you have answered our questions and been
willing to respond.
Mr Byrne: Chairman, thank you.
| 
