Mr.
Woolas: That is a wise point. All labour migration
policies have to take into account the real economic impacts, which are
often unintended and unregulated. That is why, for example, the
seasonal agricultural workers scheme absolutely backs up the point that
my right hon. Friend is making. This year, the seasonal agricultural
workers scheme involved around 22,000 people from Romania and Bulgaria.
The history of that scheme shows that the number of absconders from it
is a handful—I think that the figure is less than five in the
past year—and, in any event, they are EU nationals. That is
because it is a regulated scheme. An unregulated scheme for low-paid or
relatively low-paid agricultural workers, such as those introduced in
the past in relation to non-EU countries, led not just to an
undermining of employment regulations and legislation but to
clandestine immigration. I have concerns in relation to the latter
policy, as well as in relation to my right hon. Friend’s
point. The
other consideration that Professor Metcalf has brought to the fore, on
which I have, of course, commented before, is the need to take
decisions in the light of decisions of other member states. There is a
relationship between our labour market and that of the French, Germans,
Dutch and so on, and, of course, that of the Republic of Ireland. That
is a long way of saying,
“Yes.” Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): If the Minister
were to consider reimposing restrictions on the A8 countries and if he
were also looking at abandoning the restrictions on the A2 countries,
what sort of test would he be using to judge whether he wanted to
reimpose or, indeed, cancel
conditions?
Mr.
Woolas: That is a very important point; I am grateful to
the hon. Gentleman for making it. I would be influenced by the
Migration Advisory Committee, particularly by Professor
Metcalf’s letters on the labour market impact of relaxing
restrictions on employment of those from the A2 in the UK. Those
letters, of 17 November 2008 and 20 March 2009, were on the
review of the UK’s transitional measures for nationals of member
states that acceded in 2004—in other words, the A8. I think that
those letters are in the Library with the reports, and if Members want
them, I am, of course, more than happy to make sure that they can get
them. I would advise them not to spend too much time reading them
because they are very technical, but the crux of what they say is that
the restriction should not
be lifted. However, it is acknowledged in the letters that it is a
finely balanced argument in terms of the impact on our labour market
and economy.
Professor
Metcalf points out two important factors. First he
says, “we
do not know the labour market policies which other EU countries will
adopt towards the A2 in their own
reviews.” That
is the important point. He then talks about that in the context of the
A8 and goes on to state that we should look at the specific sectors
within the context of the skills shortages that we have in other areas
of the economy, such as the care sector. The other side of this policy
are our strategies for upskilling in those skill shortage areas. So we
would look at those two criteria, on Professor Metcalf’s
advice.
Tom
Brake: Are there any circumstances in which the Minister
would consider reviewing these matters sooner than 12 months, as he
indicated—if the situation in other countries changes
dramatically, for
instance?
Mr.
Woolas: There is a third factor, in the case of the A8
countries and the A2, which is the currency exchange rate. The relative
value of the zloty and the pound came down from 7:1 a few years ago to
4:1 and has now settled at around 5:1, and the impact on the wage
economy—the supply and demand in Poland—is affected by
that exchange rate. That is difficult to factor in. We are not running
a Soviet tractor factory here—goodness me, no—but it is
important. I
suppose my answer is that if there was dislocation in the economy,
either because of the currency exchange rate or other major factors,
despite what I said before one would look at that, remembering the
types of people that we are talking about in eastern European
migration: they tend to be young and have a strong work ethic and,
frankly, they move on if there is no job
available. Mr.
David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): When Lord Mandelson
and the Minister separately gave evidence to the European Scrutiny
Committee on this subject in March, it is fair to say that the
Committee got into a considerable muddle over the numbers of workers
who have arrived here from the 10 countries that have joined the EU
since 2004. The Minister suggested a figure of 665,000, but that
excluded those in communal accommodation, those here for less than a
year and the self-employed. Does the Minister have a reliable single
estimate? Under questioning, although he may not have shifted his
opinion he started to give estimates from other sources and the
Committee was thoroughly confused. So can he now give us reliable
estimates of the numbers
concerned?
Mr.
Woolas: I am sure that the Committee was thoroughly
confused, because I suggest that it was not listening to what was being
said to it with due attention on that point, which I was quizzed on for
some time. Again, that is an example of how, when one tries to help too
much, one can cause unintended confusion. I am in some difficulty on
the figures because I am subject to Office for National Statistics and
statistical restrictions and since information is coming out tomorrow I
would not want to breach those codes of conduct in any
way—and you would not expect me to do so, Sir Nicholas. So I will
quote the previous figures. I mention that because there will be new
figures in the public domain soon and I do not want the right hon.
Gentleman to confuse the figures that I am providing with those fresh
figures. The
figures show that, between May 2004 and December 2008, 965,000 A8s made
initial applications to register and 926,000 were issued with a worker
registration card and certificate. I should like to clarify, as the
right hon. Gentleman did, that this figure is a measure of the number
of people who have arrived for the purpose of work but not necessarily
the number of those who have stayed. There are, of course, other
sources of data that we can use to obtain a picture of the stocks of
workers here. The labour force survey indicates that the stock of A8
workers in employment in the UK in the last quarter of 2008 was
469,000, although as the right hon. Gentleman says, this number
excludes temporary workers here for less than 12 months and those in
communal
accommodation. The
labour force survey for the first quarter of 2009 indicates 499,000 A8s
in employment in the United
Kingdom.
Mr.
Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister’s answer illustrates
why we got into this muddle. Incidentally, it was not me but the
Chairman of the Committee who got muddled at that time. The Minister at
that time was reduced to saying, “It may help if I give you a
note on this.” That is always a sign that a Minister is in some
difficulty. My
supplementary question is about the public concern over unrestricted
numbers of people from the new accession states arriving here, living
here and working here, especially during a recession. Surely, for there
to be public confidence, there must be real figures about real people.
Is the Minister happy that the estimate he has given excludes large
categories of people? He has mentioned those in communal accommodation
and the self-employed. Does he not think that the Government owe the
debate better estimates of how many people are coming, so that we can
decide how many we need and how many the public
want?
Mr.
Woolas: If only life was that simple. The labour force
statistics in any sector over any period present information as well as
possible. Some definitions are important, such as the definition of
temporary. The definition of applicant as opposed to person is
important. The number of applications is not the same as the number of
people. You
might pull me up on this point because it is slightly beyond our remit,
Sir Nicholas. The migration and population ministerial working group,
which has worked to improve the statistics through evolution for many
years, has been a great success. Finally, tracking the movement of
people in and out of the country provides another source of statistics
alongside the labour force survey. The border control measures that we
have reintroduced, which include the EU, are a great help in getting
more accurate
statistics. If
the question is whether I am confident, the answer is that I am. Our
measures have controlled not the exact numbers, but the overall trends
in a satisfactory way. If the right hon. Gentleman takes on board my
point about dovetailing this with non-EU migration, I think that we
have got it about right.
Mr.
Heathcoat-Amory: I accept that the Minister is doing his
best with the estimates, but does he accept that there is public
concern? There are elections coming up and it has been put to me on the
doorstep that to many people, immigration seems to be out of control.
Nobody knows the numbers, still less controls them. The Minister
referred to controls, but we have no controls. We have no legal right
to limit the number of people coming in from the so-called
A8—the eight states who acceded in 2004. Will he concede that
there is a problem for politicians in communicating with the electorate
because we do not know the numbers and have an imprecise registration
system, under which people can register several times and leave the
country or return to it? Even if we knew the numbers, there would
frankly be nothing we could do about them. Is he happy with that
situation?
Mr.
Woolas: In general, I do not accept that view. Of course
we do not know exact numbers. It is not and never will be possible to
know the exact number of people at any one time unless we all have some
sort of Big Brother tag. However, we now have more accurate figures
from a number of data sources, which the ONS publishes on a regular
basis. There was a high-profile public debate over the last quarterly
figures, which the hon. Members for Ashford and for Eastleigh and I
engaged
in. I
do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point on the figures. I
understand that he is driving towards a policy for the EU. The
Government of the day cannot and should not want to control the number
of UK workers who work elsewhere in the EU. Within those confines, the
reassurances that the public want are there. On a wider point about
migration, our new control and management systems are increasingly
gaining people’s
confidence.
Damian
Green: I am glad that the Minister is confident that he
can now make reasonable estimates. I appreciate that they are not
exact. Can he give us his best current estimate of the number of A8
workers who have returned to their country of origin in the past 12
months? I appreciate that the figures may be one quarter out of date,
and that we will get new figures tomorrow. Secondly, what estimate do
the Government have of the number who came from the A8 and have now
decided to settle in this country
permanently?
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for including
a caveat. He will understand what I am saying in the light of embargoed
information. Let me give the general picture while I get inspirational
figures—I hope. It is widely acknowledged that migration from
the A8 countries is slowing down, but it is not clear yet whether that
is down to a perception of fewer opportunities in the UK or a
perception of more opportunities in the source
countries. For
example, Poland is undergoing a significant programme of
reconstruction, largely funded by the European Union, of its
infrastructure including the national grid, sewerage, roads and so on.
It is providing opportunities in the construction industry to such an
extent that the Polish Government last year ran an advertising campaign
on TV and in other media, encouraging people to bring their families
home and to
take part in the reconstruction. That, combined with the exchange rate,
which I mentioned earlier, has been an important
factor. Let
me again quote the respected think-tank the Institute for Public Policy
Research. I quoted it in the European Scrutiny Committee, but that
obviously did not help the right hon. Member for Wells. It published
research last year that suggested that while economic reasons have
driven A8 migration to the UK, migrants tended to return for family and
cultural reasons. Those least likely to return were those who had set
up businesses here rather than those in
employment.
Mr.
Woolas: I am not allowed to take an
intervention.
The
Chairman: I think that the shadow Minister may wish to
come back with a further
question.
Mr.
Woolas: I hope that I have answered the question. Could
the hon. Gentleman ask it
again?
The
Chairman: We are happy to facilitate
the—
Mr.
Woolas: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I apologise for
that. On
settlement, we cannot at this time authoritatively say how many A8
nationals have settled. However, we know from the labour force survey
that 499,000 A8 nationals are in employment in the United Kingdom, as I
said earlier. That differs from the 469,000 figure that I gave earlier,
which was for a period before the last quarter of 2008. We think that
there is a gap of some 500,000 between those who have settled and those
who have registered. The answer to the question is that we do not yet
have precise figures, but we will of course get that
information.
Damian
Green: I appreciate what the Minister said about the
construction programme in Poland. The last time I was there, about 18
months ago, I asked about Polish plumbers in Warsaw and was told that
all the plumbers in Warsaw were Romanian. There simply were no Polish
plumbers there at the
time. I
have two more questions for which I hope the Minister can at least give
estimates. First, how many people does he think have come from the A8
countries who are outside the worker registration scheme? He has just
given a figure of about 500,000. Is that the Government’s best
guess of how many have come from the A8 who are outside the
scheme? I
appreciate that the answer to my second question may be an even vaguer
estimate, but I am sure that the Committee would find it helpful. What
is the Government’s estimate of the number of people who have
come on false papers from countries further east than the A8 but
purport to come from the A8? He will appreciate that there is public
concern about people from outside the EU using that route to get here
illegally.
Mr.
Woolas: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is asking very
difficult questions that this policy area inevitably raises. The
one-off £90 fee to register with the WRS—this returns to
the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,
Brightside made—might deter some people. They might enter other
types of employment. The total international migration figures,
published by the ONS—these are not Home Office
figures—suggest that, in 2007, the net inflow of A8 nationals to
the UK was 87,000, compared with 210,800 approved WRS applications in
the same year. That suggests that many of those registered subsequently
left. The estimate, therefore, lies somewhere between the difference in
those two figures. Until we have settlement figures, however, we will
not have an accurate picture. As the hon. Gentleman reasonably points
out, that is true in areas of EU labour market
statistics. On
the hon. Gentleman’s second question, no, we do not know how
many illegals there are—tautologically. We do know that the EU
identity schemes have improved hugely. The requirement for registering
and supplying passports, which allows us to check the validity of
identity cards, gives us confidence within the EU. In this area of
policy, the validity and sharing of data is the major test of
countries’ accession rights. The EU is applying these tests to,
for example, Croatia. There is no reason to believe that the A8
countries are subject to more abuse than the 15 countries. I shall not
name them—peut-être—but it could reasonably be
said that some EU countries have a higher level of abuse. However, I am
confident in the quality of those
documents.
| 
