David Hanson MP, Labour’s Shadow Immigration Minister, said:
“The Government are hopelessly split and increasingly acrimonious on their approach to the end of transitional controls for Bulgaria and Romania. Rather than come up with practical measures in a calm and measured way they have descended into name calling and panic. Once again the rhetoric fails to match the reality with this Government on immigration.
"The Government should be dealing with the real issues of concern including the impact of low skilled migration on the labour market. There must be effective enforcement of the minimum wage, gang-master legislation must be extended to new areas, and recruitment agencies should be prevented from recruiting only from abroad. So far the Government have refused to take action in any of these areas.
"The IPPR report published today also makes clear the Government’s mixed messages and empty rhetoric have done nothing to ease people’s concern or achieve effective action.
"The report is right to recognise the important contribution the last Labour Government’s Migration Impacts Fund had on areas effected by rapid immigration. Unfortunately this Government has consistently chosen the empty rhetoric of immigration vans and go home texts over strong effective action, so I hope Ministers consider this report and change their divided and increasingly shrill approach to this important issue.”
Imminent lifting of transitional controls has prompted much public anxiety about potential additional pressures that could be caused by new arrivals from Romania and Bulgaria, stoked by media headlines forecasting large numbers of new arrivals. Large proportions of the public would like to ‘defy’ Europe and unilaterally extend transitional controls on A2 migrants, even though this is contrary to our European legal obligations. The government shows no sign of going down this route. It has postponed discussions about the Immigration Bill into January 2014 to avoid a vote on the issue. But it has otherwise sent very mixed messages. While it has sensibly refrained from estimating how many people may come and tried to downplay the most sensationalist predictions, it has also rushed through a series of measures to reduce migrant access to welfare benefits and ramped up anti-EU rhetoric in recent months. It is little wonder the public feel so ill-informed and anxious about what may happen next year, given this inconsistent messaging and the flurry of last minute policymaking.
Although very difficult to predict the numbers, it is unlikely that we will see the same levels of migration as we did after the A8 states joined the EU in 2004 – Romanians and Bulgarians have already been able to live and work in the UK since 2007 and the statistics show that significant numbers have done so – many of those who want to come may already be here. Other EU states are opening their labour markets at the same time, this time around. However, we cannot be complacent and brush off legitimate public concerns. Lesson from A8 migration is that while UK economy is flexible enough to absorb large numbers of migrants, rapid and unexpected inflows do create specific pressures in some places – e.g. additional demand for housing, school places and health services. Instances of antisocial behaviour and community tension can also be caused by the arrival of people who may be unaware of UK laws and customs. Particularly relevant to migration of Roma people (from Romania, Bulgaria and elsewhere).
Government focus on restricting benefits responds to public concerns, and there is nothing wrong with this policy in principle, but it will do little to affect the scale of new flows – EU migrants as a rule are more likely to be paying taxes and less likely to be claiming benefits than Brits and other migrants, and the majority come to work or look for work rather than to live off welfare. A more practical and measured approach is needed that speaks to public fears and also addresses the real issues.
In the short to medium term, there are some measures which could help address the impacts of any unexpected rapid new inflows from the A2 states. We propose:
Setting up a new Cabinet-level Committee on the Impacts of EU Migration. Given the number of policy areas that are affected by migration and the high profile of the issue, this should be led by a senior cabinet minister and include representatives from the DCLG, DWP, the Home Office and the Treasury. This committee should hold regular meetings in London and other parts of the country that have experienced high levels of EU migration, and be quickly responsive to concerns about impacts raised by MPs, local authority representatives and service providers (such as hospitals and schools).
Requesting the Migration Advisory Committee to produce an annual assessment of the labour market, social and public service impacts of EU migration in the UK, in order to create a stronger evidence base for policymaking in this area.
Immediately making available a ‘contingency fund’ for the first six months of 2014 that can address any specific local pressures caused by A2 migration – supporting the kinds of projects funded by the Labour government’s former Migration Impacts Fund
In parallel, conducting a review of how effective the MIF was, with a view to reinstating something similar to help address practical impacts of migration in local areas that see an increase in numbers – both from Romania and Bulgaria but also from other European and non-European migration (funded through combination of visa fees for non-EU migrants and European Social Fund money) – on their own, these small injections of money will not address wider problems around housing supply and welfare reform – that are exacerbated by but not caused solely by migration. But they can smooth the path of integration for migrants and the communities that receive them, and help deal with some of the smaller issues that worry people.
Free movement is a vital driver of growth and prosperity in Europe and benefits all member states, including the UK. That is not to say that it works perfectly at all times. This system was designed when the EU was smaller and more economically contiguous, and it is legitimate to look for reforms that will ensure that its benefits are shared more equally. However, changes and reforms need to be discussed and negotiated, with compromises reached. Last minute unilateral actions taken in an atmosphere of panic and fear mongering are no way to approach this issue.