---

Economic Migration (EUC Report)

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, and the members of the sub-committee on both their reports. This kind of sane, balanced and authoritative analysis sheds real light on the controversial issue of migration. If I might presume to offer the committee advice, this report merits a more significant budget for publicity and dissemination so that the media can understand these matters better and the wider public hears more of this wise and informative guidance. The Joseph Rountree Foundation—I declare an interest as its director—has embarked on a substantial research programme on the theme of ““immigration and inclusion””. We published an important report on 1 May, exploring the employment of migrants from east and central Europe in low-wage occupations: agriculture, construction, hospitality and au pair work. This study was conducted before and after the enlargement of the EU on 1 May 2004 and involved surveys and interviews with well over 1,000 migrants and employers. I will share some of the fascinating findings. Employers say that migrant workers are answering their recruitment problems. These employers valued the highly skilled migrant workers who were willing to do low-skilled and low-waged work. They preferred benefiting from what they see as the strong work ethic and reliability of migrant workers to employing reluctant UK nationals who some described as lazy. We cannot be sure what impact the employment of EU nationals has on the employment of UK nationals, but several employers said that they had tried to make their jobs more attractive to UK nationals, with little success. This research also sheds light on the tricky question of illegal migrant workers. Twenty-two per cent of those surveyed prior to enlargement were illegally resident, mostly because their visas had run out. Three-quarters of student visa holders and more than half the au pairs surveyed were legally resident, but were working more than the 20 hours permitted or were working in non-permitted employment—for example, in bars or restaurants. But almost half the workers illegally resident or violating conditions paid national insurance contributions. Therefore, there are shades of grey in these matters and it seems emotive and inaccurate to describe so many migrant workers as illegals, let alone to treat them harshly. Chapter 5 of the EU sub-committee’s new report makes several recommendations urging the Government to reconsider ratifying various conventions that would provide a solid floor of rights for migrant workers. The evidence in the Rowntree report supports that call. Although migrant workers knowingly make a trade-off, being willing to do work that many UK nationals will not do because of the economic and other benefits, such as learning English, there is a point at which trade-off become exploitation. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation study cites only a few cases of clear exploitation, but it nevertheless suggests the need to be vigilant about the rights of migrant workers balanced against employers’ demands for flexibility in low wage, low status sectors. Clearly, those who are illegally resident are more vulnerable to exploitation. Most of the A8 country migrants in the study, who were interviewed before and after enlargement, welcomed the increased security and peace of mind stemming from accession rights, as well as the opportunities to change employer and sector of employment. Enhanced rights that protect migrant workers also reduce the hazards of employers turning their backs on training up unskilled young people in the UK, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said. More research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is in the pipeline. I hope it will shed light on non-work aspects of migrants’ lives. Will A8 and then A10 migrants move into a second phase in which they want to bring over their families, with implications for housing at a time when shortages of affordable homes are a major bone of contention in so many parts of the UK? At present, it seems that the vast majority of A8 migrant workers are here to make money and improve their skills with little thought of living in the UK on a permanent or long-term basis, but if that were to change the implications for housing and other services will need more understanding and management. I was rather distressed to see among the excellent press coverage for the new Joseph Rowntree Foundation report an article in the Daily Mail by Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch that dismissed our work on the grounds that my foundation is a ““long-standing supporter of the immigration industry””. If the implication is that the researchers are part of some conspiracy to distort the facts to the benefit of the industries that employ migrant workers, I can only say that that is a ludicrous assertion. Perhaps I may instead pay tribute to the work of the researchers involved, who are people of the very highest calibre. They are Dr Bridget Anderson, Dr Martin Ruhs and Sarah Spencer from the ESRC Centre on Migration Policy and Society at the University of Oxford, and Dr Ben Rogaly at the Centre for Migration Research at the University of Sussex. I commend their work to your Lordships as an important supplement to the two excellent reports from the sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Wright.