---

Romanian and Bulgarian Migrants

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issue of restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens who wish to come to the United Kingdom to work. Since my application for this debate, the Government announced their decision last week, after a 10-month review, to retain the restrictions placed on migrant workers from Bulgaria and Romania. However, it is important for us to debate why the Cabinet reached that conclusion, as well as to examine the wider issues surrounding the emotive immigration debate. I am pleased to see the Minister for Borders and Immigration on the Front Bench. He is a very pleasant and cheerful man, who has to do a very unpleasant job. It cannot be easy to say no all the time. Despite being cheerful and happy, he is, as we say, a tough cookie as far as immigration policy is concerned. On 1 January 2007, Romania and Bulgaria became members of the European Union—a move championed by Britain for many years. On 4 May 1999, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, became the first British Prime Minister to address the Romanian Parliament. During his historic speech, he announced:"““Britain wants the European Union to enlarge… I want Romania to be part of that process.””" At this point, may I pay tribute to our ambassador in Bucharest, Robin Barnett, who has done a tremendous amount of work to build the excellent relationship between Britain and Romania? May I also commend the efforts of Raduta Matache, the chargé d'affaires of the Romanian embassy in London, who has been relentless in her pursuit of equality for Romanians? On 1 May 2004, the United Kingdom was one of only three countries that decided not to impose any restrictions on the A8 countries. Without a doubt, those who have come from Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia have made a great contribution to our country. From Ealing to Glasgow, and from Leicester to Hull, citizens from eastern Europe have added to our country economically, socially and culturally. Like the vast majority of original EU member states, Britain chose to put restrictions on the A2, which require that their citizens gain authorisation from the Home Office before they start work. The accession of the A8 and the A2 appears not to have had any significant negative impact on the British economy or the jobs market. Added to that have been many positive responses from companies such as FirstGroup, which says that the economy and its businesses are in need of more migrant workers. On 2 October 2007, following a visit by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I visited Bucharest to assess for myself the impact that restrictions were having on workers from Romania and Bulgaria. I also had the opportunity to meet the Romanian Prime Minister, Calin Popescu-Tariceanu, and other Ministers. Foreign investment in Romania is at an all-time high, as is employment, with only 2 per cent. of people in Bucharest unemployed. Romania's 5.8 per cent. average annual economic growth over the past five years makes it one of Europe's fastest-growing economies. The most prevalent problem now is the shortage of skilled and unskilled labour, with some estimates calculating that as many as 10 per cent. of Romanian citizens live abroad. It would seem logical that the Romanian Government would welcome the UK restrictions, as they would encourage Romania's citizens to stay at home. For the Romanians, however, the matter is one of principle. If they are equal members of the EU, they should be full members, and not treated as second-class citizens. The restrictions have made the Romanians believe that in the eyes of the UK and the rest of the EU they are not equal partners. The Home Affairs Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, will examine the issue on 27 November. The Romanian Government have agreed to give evidence at the session, and we look forward to seeing the Minister on that occasion. The decision to retain the restrictions must be seen against the background of a wide range of issues and debates surrounding immigration. To find out why the restrictions were retained, it is vital that we ask the question: why are we still afraid of immigration? At the end of October this year, the Home Office published a report entitled, ““The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration””. The publication made a number of key points, the most significant being the finding that £6 billion a year of growth is attributable to migrants. It was also found that"““in the long run it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant””," that,"““Concerns that native workers would be displaced by migrant workers…seem ill-founded, as migrant workers appear to have complementary skills to the native labour force””," that,"““Viewed overall…research finds a small positive effect of immigration on the wages of native workers””," and finally that,"““Research provides little or no evidence that migrant labour has had a significant impact on employment prospects for native workers.””" A report produced by the Institute for Public Policy Research established that less than 1 per cent. of migrant workers have applied for income-related benefits since 2004, and that most eastern European migrants are working in jobs that are hard to fill, notably in the public services. The TUC has enthusiastically agreed with those findings. On 1 November 2007, the Local Government Association published a report examining the effect that immigration has had on public services. It found that the current immigration process had had a negative effect on the way in which some public services operate, to varying extents. The fundamental problem appears to be not immigration itself but implementation, and the way in which funding is allocated. The LGA suggests that local services struggle because they are not given the money that they need to serve the number of people who use them, as the allocation is based on the national census, which does not include the majority of immigrants. The LGA sensibly suggests that the solution is to create a central pot of money for which local authorities can apply when experiencing a higher-than-average number of migrants. It also calls for a more efficient way of counting the number of immigrants in the country. The key is to confront our fear of immigration, an issue so potent that only this week the Conservative candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis was forced to resign his candidacy over his comment that"““Enoch Powell was right… warning that uncontrolled immigration would change our country irrevocably.””" Immigration has changed our country, but not into rivers of blood; rather into bridges of hope. In London we have more than 300 different nationalities living side by side. That is why we have been awarded the honour of hosting the Olympic games in 2012, and why the internal cultural conflict predicted by Enoch Powell was so wrong. London's diversity has made it the cultural and financial capital of Europe. I believe that the fear of immigration that we experience is a result of faults in the system, faults that, in my view, can be resolved. Last week the Department for Work and Pensions apologised for erroneous immigration figures. My concern—and, I think, that of my fellow citizens—is that those erroneous figures may have been used in the process of setting Government policy. If the Government's statistics are wrong, how can their policies be right? The British public have a right to expect accurate figures. It is entirely wrong that such a serious mistake was made in an area that is so emotive and sensitive. That error has understandably had an effect on the public's confidence in the way in which immigration is dealt with in this country. It is vital that we establish who is here by counting immigrants in and out of the country: only then can proper decisions be made. There is now a consensus that, as a small island, Britain is not able to cope with an unlimited number of immigrants, and the newly named Border and Immigration Agency appears to be unable to cope with the modern immigration situation. It is vastly under-resourced, understaffed, and—as the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) commented—““not fit for purpose””. I have constituents who have been waiting for up to four years for a response to their applications. That is unacceptable to the Home Office and the country, as well as to the applicants themselves. Applicants deserve an answer, and if they have no right to stay in the United Kingdom they need to be removed quickly. I must add that I myself have waited for four months to meet the Minister to discuss individual cases. Such delays are unacceptable. We should be asking our European neighbours to play a larger role, and to construct and engage in a process to deal effectively with illegal immigration. We are constantly made aware of the problems that exist in Calais, with immigrants attempting to enter the UK illegally. Only this September we heard reports of the French police raiding homes and squats in Calais with tear gas, attempting to find illegal immigrants. There has to be a better way. Secure borders will give the public greater confidence in our immigration system, and they will be less resentful of those who are here legitimately. There has also been talk recently of the importance of British jobs for British people. I worry about that statement. It lacks credible arguments, and some have suggested that it appears to amount to little more than employment apartheid. It assumes that foreign workers are somehow stealing jobs from United Kingdom workers, an idea for which there is absolutely no evidence. It also raises the question: how do we ensure that jobs are going to British people and what do we classify as British? If someone has another citizenship but they have indefinite leave to remain in the UK, they have a right to work. Hopes are falsely raised whenever ““British jobs”” are mentioned. Every position that is filled will require justification and an account kept of how many British jobs there are. The fact is that, in this country, over the past century, we have entered into many agreements with European and Commonwealth countries, which means that we are obligated under treaties, rightly, to give jobs to people who are not British, based on merit. I am still shocked at the way in which we reversed our position on the highly skilled migrant workers programme. There are Indian and other citizens who came to this country to work hard and to help our economy, and they have been treated very badly.