| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course we honour what the Refugee Council has said in the past. We take its recommendations and statements very seriously. On this occasion we are concentrating not on refugees but on legal migrants who are members of the eight accession countries. They have the right to come to this country and visit without restriction. I remind the House that migrant workers are able to come to all EU countries if they are self-employed. There is no restriction on any EU national travelling to any EU country and working there on a self-employed basis. That is good for industry and good for the economy. It will be welcomed by all EU countries.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, are the proposed measures based on an evidence-based forecast, as opposed to reaction to press coverage?
Last year all parties were happy that this country would not take advantage of transitional measures. Is it not likely that the public will be confused by this
schizophrenic reaction? On one hand, the Government speak about the welcome statistics of the benefits of migration, and employ lofty rhetoric to explain how enlargement would be welcomed; and yet the reality is that we are imposing restrictions and treating nationals of the new member states as second-class people. That was not what we promised them 15 years ago when we talked about accession to the EU.The Government have mentioned the problem of hysteria. Are they aware that on the "Today" programme this morning there was an item on the rate of HIV infection in the new accession countries being the highest in the world? It turned out to be about Russia and the Ukraine, which are not accession countries.
The Minister talked openly about the worker registration scheme being part of the move towards a national ID scheme. Will that apply to all British nationals as well as foreigners? Does she think that the British public would welcome the worker registration scheme if they knew that it was a move towards a national ID scheme?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall deal with the last point first. Noble Lords will remember that, when we set out our incremental proposals for ID registration, we made it clear that there would be an opportunity to consider whether they should be implemented more broadly. We discussed the biometric information that will go into a number of materials—passports, driving licences and so on. We have been absolutely open on where those issues are going. The report is not confused. We are not retracting or retrenching from what we said at the beginning.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was at the forefront of those who proposed enlargement. That was backed up by the statements made very openly and cogently by my right honourable friend Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, on 10 December 2002. Nothing has changed. We are not making the nationals from the new accession countries second-class citizens. We are opening our markets in a bold and proper way so that we can reap the benefits that we said would come from accession.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say that those who come here and are unable to support themselves will lose their right to remain? If that is the case, what powers will the Government have to remove them in those circumstances? What reason is there to think that, in practice, they would be removed, given the Government's signal failure to remove immigrants at the present time?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord. Our level of removal has never been higher. We are getting better and better at removals.
Those who come to this country and work will be able to stay. Those who do not work will not be able to claim benefits. They may either be self-employed or support themselves. If they try to claim benefits improperly, that will be dealt with. It will be possible to remove those who behave improperly and seek to do that. However, those
who come here and work and behave in a way that is conducive to increasing wealth for both themselves and ourselves will be able to continue to work here openly.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Baroness answered my specific question. What powers will be used by the Government to remove those who come here and are unable to support themselves?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, they will not be entitled to any benefit. If they infringe the new rules that we are about to bring in, we will be able to remove them. Your Lordships will know that in the case of EEA nationals who are no longer trying to get work, or no longer able to get work, we have appropriate rules that will make it possible for us to remove them. There will be similar rules in relation to this category.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about legal, managed migration. However, will she confirm that registered migrant workers will be entitled to minimum wages without illegal deductions? That will be particularly important in catering, horticulture, cockle picking and other miscellaneous employment.
The noble Baroness went on to say that such registered workers would have to support themselves for two years. Is that not far too long? Would not six months be more appropriate? Hard cases are almost certain to emerge, involving, for example, people who suffer industrial accidents or people whose employers suddenly go bankrupt and lay them off. Will there be some kind of compassionate arrangement for dealing with such situations, given what the noble Baroness said about the tax surplus arising from migrant workers?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord's concerns about the minimum wage are already covered. In order for a worker to show that he is entitled to be registered, he must have evidence of a job, such as a letter from an employer or a contract of employment including details of the work. There must be evidence that he is being paid the minimum wage or more, along with a photograph, passport or ID card.
The two-year period to which I referred is the period from accession. The individual worker will have to demonstrate that he is in continuous employment for one year. If he loses his job during that year, he will not be entitled to benefit. However, he can apply for new registration when he gets another job. The important thing is that such people must work continuously for a year, before they would be entitled to claim any benefit. Work-related benefits may be available to them, but not if they are not working. Everything flows from work. Someone who is in work will get certain benefits; someone who is not in work is not entitled to claim any benefit at all.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Home Secretary. In particular, I am grateful for the economic and social context in which she valued enlargement.
There are two specific details of the Statement that I want to raise. I notice that there is no reference in the Statement to access to National Health Service treatment. Will my noble friend give me an indication of what is intended?
I hope that my noble friend can also reassure me on my doubts about access to social housing. On the basis of what she said, is it not a fact that an EU citizen in these circumstances could be in a worse relative position with regard to access to social housing than a non-EU migrant—legal or illegal—who presents himself or herself to the local authority for housing? Such a disparity between the EU migrant and the non-EU migrant, particularly if the non-EU migrant were illegal, would be hard to justify in equity or logic.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that workers from the accession countries will, if they are in work and paying tax and national insurance, be entitled to derive benefits from the National Health Service. We have tried to differentiate between those who are working and those who are not here for work. Either the individual can support himself without access to benefit or he is here working properly and openly and is able to get access to some assistance. That is the distinction that we have made, and we believe that it is a proper one.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we have read a good deal recently about benefit tourism. Can the Minister quote to us any year in the past 10 for which the Eurostat figures put our benefit levels above the third quartile? Until she can, will she agree that the phrase "benefit tourism" is grossly mistaken?
Am I right in believing that the central basis of EU law on migrant workers is that the right to benefits depends on someone actively seeking work, a principle well known to British law? The Minister now proposes to base it on success in obtaining work, which is not under the applicant's control. What thought has she given to the consequences for the applicant of that loss of entitlement to benefits? Will her department, in particular, examine the report published on 5 February by the Department for Work and Pensions on loss of benefit for breach of a community service order? It shows that, in return for a measly 1.8 per cent increase in compliance, there has been an increase in severe hardship and an increase in crime. Is not the attempt to ask people to live without benefit for two years likely to benefit no one but the gang masters of Morecambe Bay?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page