Damian
Green: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I
would like to flag up one other area of concern: the ability of new
residents in this country to access the benefits system. That causes
considerable concern. Has he considered the point about the ability to
demonstrate habitual residence? I was struck by the statement on page
83 of the bundle that to demonstrate habitual residence usually
requires an individual to have lived in the UK for between one and
three months. Given that holiday and business visitor visas are often
for six months, this seems an extraordinarily short period in which to
demonstrate habitual residence. Has he considered extending that
period?
Mr.
Woolas: Again, the hon. Gentleman is asking exactly the
right questions. Some fringe parties deliberately put about
misconceptions and misunderstandings with regard to access to benefits
for EU nationals. The controls on the A8s and A2s restrict accession
workers’ access to benefits in a particular way. The controls
restrict access to out-of-work benefits—tax-funded,
income-related benefits, such as jobseeker’s
allowance—but not to in-work benefits, such as tax credits.
Accession workers enjoy the same degree of access to some benefits as
UK nationals. In other words, if they have worked and contributed, they
are allowed access to some benefits, but not to others. There is, of
course, access to child benefit, and we have statistics on
that.
Let me assure
the hon. Gentleman on the habitual residence test. To establish a right
of residence for the purpose of benefits, someone must have been
working here for at least 12 months. In that sense, the answer to his
question is yes, because, in practical terms, the period is longer than
three months.
Our experience
is—this is anecdotal because, again, the statistics are yet to
be subject to quality assurance—that A8 workers who lose their
jobs tend to move on because they are motivated and often have skills.
Like me, the hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in
Poland.
Tom
Brake: I want to ask the Minister a couple of linked
questions about the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to get a
better understanding of the extent of its flexibility. First, something
that depends on the seasons can, by definition, fluctuate quite
dramatically, so is there any ability to vary the figures? Secondly,
given that the number of people who will be able to come here under
this arrangement has increased, have the Government had any discussions
with local councils about the local impact on facilities and
services?
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
questions. As I explained in my opening remarks, our policy on the
scheme—I think that it was supported across the House—was
good for the UK because it allowed us to have quotas for the new EU
countries. Of course, we are committed to looking at the
scheme’s future in terms of what the restrictions that flow from
the A2 countries by 2013 at the latest should be.
There was a
good Westminster Hall debate in the run-up to the decisions on SAWS,
which was led by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh
Robertson). It was informed by the National Farmers Union and a number
of borough councils. We decided—perhaps
counter-intuitively—to increase the quota under the scheme on
the advice of Members from across the House and the NFU, and following
conversations with local councils, particularly in the east of
England.
The scheme is
annual, and we have to change the quota by 1 January 2010. As the name
suggests, this is a seasonal scheme, and it runs out after the harvest.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, particularly in
areas of eastern England, is yes. Of course, we have two other
stakeholder consultations on the issue. One is the Migration Impacts
Forum, which is led by the Department for Communities and Local
Government and the Home Office. The forum involves local stakeholders
from health authorities, the police, local authorities, the private
sector and so on. The other is the Local Government Association
itself.
On the whole,
although not in all cases, the scheme was introduced sensitively and
with all-party support, and it achieved a consensus among local
councils; indeed, councils in many areas were lobbying hard to increase
the quotas because of the beneficial effects on the agricultural sector
and the jobs in the sector that depend on the pickers and harvesters
taken on by local people. There is a strange dynamic in the economy in
that respect. I said that we did not want Soviet planning, and that is
perhaps a good example of planning—not Soviet
planning—that did work.
5.19
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 5.32
pm On
resuming—
The
Chairman: If Members do not wish to put more questions to
the Minister, we will proceed to the debate on the
motion.
Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 16162/08,
Commission Communication on The impact of free movement of workers in
the context of EU enlargement, and, in particular, the
Commission’s request that Member States consider whether they
need to continue to apply restrictions in the light of the situation of
their labour markets; and notes that the Government’s decisions
in respect of Accession workers’ access to the UK’s
labour market, including the decision to continue to maintain
restrictions on nationals of Bulgaria and Romania’s access to
the labour market and to maintain beyond May 2009 the Worker
Registration Scheme for nationals of those countries acceding to the EU
in May 2004, have taken full and proper account of prevailing labour
market conditions in the UK. [7th Report of Session 2008-09, HC
19-vi, Chapter 2 and 14th Report of Session 2008-09, HC
324].—(Mr.
Woolas.) 5.32
pm
Mr.
Woolas: It is important in this area of policy to get the
balance right. As I said in my opening statement, it is important that
labour migration from the rest of the EU complements rather than
displaces the resident work force. We encourage migration where there
is a need for skills and labour.
We should
also recall that the UK benefits as an exporter from the free movement
of services and workers, which is what the communication and
explanatory memorandum are about—it is a European document, not
just a UK document. The UK exports workers to the rest of the EU:
around 580,000 UK-born people live in other member states and UK
companies have posted 47,000 UK workers to other member states to carry
out work under contracts with clients in those
countries. It
is equally essential that we ensure that resident workers are in a
position to apply for the newly created jobs. The Government are also
therefore taking action to ensure that people in Britain have the
necessary skills to compete for those jobs. Migration policy should
complement those objectives. The recent decisions to continue
transitional measures in respect of accession workers have been made
within that policy and on the basis of expert advice. I believe that
the Government’s policy on such matters has been consistently
proportionate and that it is in the UK’s best interests. On that
basis, I commend the motion to the
Committee.
5.34
pm
Damian
Green: The Conservatives believe in the principle of the
free movement of workers inside the EU and accept that that is one of
the benefits of our membership. We also accept that in times of
significant dislocation and change, it is necessary to use the
transitional arrangements that are written into the accession treaties
as the EU expands. That is why we argued in 2004 that the Government
should have used the transitional arrangements. One reason why the
Government got their predictions and projections so disastrously wrong
is that they did not use those transitional arrangements as almost all
the other big economies of western Europe
did.
5.35
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the House.
5.45
pm On
resuming—
Damian
Green: I was making the point that the 2004
decision was disastrously wrong. Five years later, it still remains a
mystery to me why the Government were caught so unaware of what the
other big western European economies were going to do. We also argued
that the transitional arrangements should be used when the A2 countries
joined. We welcomed the fact that the Government chose to do so, and I
understand why the Government are choosing to continue with them for
the next year at least. Apart from the Commission report, we have a key
document before us in last month’s MAC report. The argument is
whether the workers registration scheme, which the Government brought
in as a sort of fig leaf to cover their embarrassment over the 2005
decision, is of any value at
all.
Mr.
Blunkett: I am sorry to hold up the Committee, but
I cannot take this. We had our eyes wide open on 1 May 2004 when we
introduced the workers registration scheme. The scheme was used to
ensure not only that workers registered, but that a fee was paid. It
meant that people could show an employer that they were legally
entitled to work and that they would pay tax and national insurance,
and it worked. I am on my feet because we introduced the scheme at a
time when our unemployment rate was half that of France and Germany and
our major European partners and competitors, and when our labour market
required people of the calibre that we have had from places such as
Poland to be able to do the jobs that motored our economy at the
time.
Damian
Green: We could discuss the merits and demerits of the
2004 decision at some length—potentially, we have more than an
hour left of this Committee—but even the former Home Secretary
who was responsible for it will admit that the numbers that came were
not quite what he and his advisers were predicting at the time. The key
issue now is whether the Government are right to continue with the
decision. They pray in aid this MAC report, which is very weak in its
recommendations. There are a number of points in which it is clear that
the MAC believes that it will make very little difference at all. On
page 74, it
says: “Examination
of the potential labour market impacts and review of the evidence
available suggests that removing the WRS would not result in
substantial increases in flows of A8
immigrants.” On
page 106 of the bundle, it says that it
is “very
unlikely that removing the WRS would result in any substantial change
in A8 immigrant
inflows.” Therefore,
the Government’s persistence with this bureaucratic mechanism,
which the report itself admits is an interference to the way in which
businesses go about their work, is being done for no substantial
purpose. If it worked, why did the Government not introduce the same
system for the A2 countries two years later? They are now persisting
with two different systems at a time when the economy has changed
radically from the unsustainable boom that we were going through in
2004 to the bust of the past couple of years. We have two incompatible
and incoherent systems for two groups of workers. Clearly, it would be
more sensible for the Government to be consistent. They should have
used the same transitional mechanism for both expansions. We recommend
that the country use the transitional mechanism for any future
expansions of the EU. I am afraid that what these papers in front of us
reveal is yet another failure in a long line of immigration policy
failures from this Government.
5.49
pm Tom
Brake: I rise to speak very briefly to say that the
Liberal Democrats are very much in favour of the principle of extending
freedom of
movement—
The
Chairman: Order. May I help the hon. Gentleman. Looking at
the monitor, it does not appear that there will be another Division
straight away. I am very happy for the hon. Gentleman to say what he
wanted to say originally and not feel that he has to speed through a
few
comments.
Tom
Brake: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for that helpful
intervention. I now feel obliged to extend my very brief comments to at
least 7 o’clock. However, Members will be pleased to hear that I
do not intend to do that. I simply say that we, as a party, are in
favour of the principle of extending freedom of movement for employment
to all EU states, including Romania and Bulgaria, and we voted in
favour of that at our last federal party conference in September 2008.
I understand why the Government, particularly with their experience of
overestimating the number of people who will come to the UK, might seek
to maintain the current restrictions. It is clear that the numbers are
not in my favour today—I face the serried ranks of well-fed
Labour Members who could easily outnumber me should I choose to push
the matter to a vote later, so I will not do
so. 5.51
pm
Mr.
Woolas: This has been a good debate. I am grateful for the
support I have received and to my right hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Brightside for putting the policy in context for us. I
disagree, of course, with the hon. Member for Ashford: I think that the
experience shows immigration policy as a success, rather than a
failure. In particular, it shows that the Government are increasingly
able to manage migration for the benefit of our economy while, on the
other side of the coin, balancing the social impact, and the evidence
in the report shows that. It is particularly pertinent that the
Commission itself heeds caution in that area, in the light of the
current circumstances, and that will change the debate in the
future. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 16162/08,
Commission Communication on The impact of free movement of workers in
the context of EU enlargement, and, in particular, the
Commission’s request that Member States consider whether they
need to continue to apply restrictions in the light of the situation of
their labour markets; and notes that the Government’s decisions
in respect of Accession workers’ access to the UK’s
labour market, including the decision to continue to maintain
restrictions on nationals of Bulgaria and Romania’s access to
the labour market and to maintain beyond May 2009 the Worker
Registration Scheme for nationals of those countries acceding to the EU
in May 2004, have taken full and proper account of prevailing labour
market conditions in the UK. [7th Report of Session 2008-09, HC
19-vi, Chapter 2 and 14th Report of Session 2008-09, HC
324]. 5.52
pm Committee
rose.
| 
