Will the new migration figures force the Tories to go one step further on free movement?

Where do migrants to the UK come from the EU or non EU?

David Cameron's hopes of getting back on the front foot on migration have been dealt a blow this morning - ONS figures show that immigration is up, and specifically immigration from the EU is up as well.

These figures are important for two reasons, firstly the timing - these figures come ahead of a much anticipated speech David Cameron is about to deliver on the whole subject. Secondly, the numbers when compared to two targets, firstly the Conservatives' 2010 manifesto migration target of "tens of thousands a year not hundreds of thousands." Secondly, the comparison to migration flows under Labour. Here are some of the headline figures:

• Total net long-term migration estimated to be 260,000 in the year ending June 2014 up from 182,000 in the previous 12 months.
• Total gross immigration of 583,000 in the year ending June 2014, a statistically significant increase from 502,000 in the previous 12 months.
• EU immigration up 45,000 and non-EU up 30,000.
• 32,000 Romanians and Bulgarians came to the UK up 11,000 and EU15 migration also up 10,000.
• Estimated employment of EU nationals resident in the UK was 16% higher in July to September 2014 compared to the same quarter in 2013.

Interestingly, while immigration is also up from the new EU member states, the longer term trend driving EU migration is that from the EU15.

So how will all this play out? Well as you can see from the ONS graph below EU migration is not the largest component in total UK migration. That non-EU migration also went up for the first time in a while is politically significant.

However, EU migration is a large portion. The fact it is not showing any sign of decreasing will fuel trust issues over both the EU and migration.

Politically, perhaps the most significant aspect here is that net migration to the UK is now higher than when Labour left office (but lower than the peak during the Labour government). Ukip and some media are already jumping on this. Ahead of the speech, there’s one key question:

Has the Tory leadership already ‘priced in’ today’s figures, or has this made a cap of some sort more likely? 

Heads begin to roll in aftermath of European election shock

As might be expected after some shocking showings in the European Parliament (EP) elections, the heads have begun to roll – and rightly so, some would say.

The most high profile resignation so far is that of the Spanish opposition Socialist leader Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba (pictured) who stepped down yesterday after his party’s vote share dropped to 23% from 39% in the previous EP election. His decision is not exactly a surprise as many have been scratching their heads over the opposition’s lack of penetration despite numerous opportunities including (but not limited to) the Spanish economic malaise, austerity and Partido Popular’s top level corruption scandal. Where the party goes from here remains to be seen but with the rise of regional (particularly Catalan) parties and the new Podemos movement (see our profile here) the party needs to reassert itself as the primary opposition.

Similarly, a poor showing by the Romanian opposition party saw its leader Crin Antonescu resign along with all the party’s executive bureau. Interestingly, the party has also voted to switch from the liberal ALDE grouping in the EP to the centre-right EPP.

Meanwhile, in Ireland, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore jumped before he was pushed after his party secured barely 7% of the vote – likely paying the price for being the junior coalition partner during a difficult period of government (similar to Lib Dems in the UK or PASOK in Greece). This paves the way for a cabinet reshuffle, but again his replacement is also still unclear.

Other scalps include Igor Lukšič, President of the Slovenian Social Democrats, who has bitten the bullet and stepped down, as well as the leader of the Hungarian Socialists, Tibor Szanyi, who offered his resignation (subsequently accepted) after his party was comfortably beaten by the neo-fascist Jobbik.

There could still be more to follow as the dust settles. But more importantly than those who have lost their heads is for those that just clung on to theirs to get the message and begin pushing for some serious reform across Europe and offering a clear alternative to those who still do not.

EU migration closes gap on non-EU migration into UK

The ONS has this morning published another set of updated migration figures. As always they make interesting reading with respect to EU migration - many eyes are on the figures for Romanians and Bulgarians in particular.

As the graph above shows, net immigration from the EU increased from 82,000 in 2012 to 124,000 in 2013. While non-EU immigration still accounts for a larger share of the total, the gap has narrowed significantly recently. This jump in EU migration has not been driven by an increase in one particular group, inflows from EU 15, EU 8 and Bulgaria and Romania have all increased.

Looking a bit deeper, it’s clear that these different groups of migrants have very different reasons for moving to the UK. As the ONS graph above highlights, the number of non-EU migrants moving to the UK for work has fallen steadily while those from the EU, and EU 15 in particular, have increased quickly. Furthermore, as the graph below highlights, work related reasons dominate EU migration but non-EU migration is now mostly driven by studying or family migration.

Perhaps the most interesting figure from all of this data though is the sharp rise in the number of Bulgarians and Romanians applying for national insurance numbers in the year up to March 2014 – which jumped by 7,000 and 29,000 respectively.  This is over the past year, not in a single quarter, so broadly fits with the previously released figures (which we analysed here) which showed that 29,000 workers from these countries had moved to the UK in the past year. So there's a gap between people from these countries who got a NIN on the one hand and who are working on the other. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the 7,000 who make up the difference are on benefits (as the periods don't necessarily overlap).

In any case, as the ONS itself points out, the overall impact of removing transitional controls will not be clear for some time, will full data for 2014 not out till mid-2015. Still, Ukip and others are likely to run with these figures.

The gates are open but so far no flood

Official data from Office of National Statistics published this morning shows that the number of workers from Bulgaria and Romania have dropped from 144,000 to 140,000 since transitional controls were lifted for workers from the two countries on 1 January 2014. As we said all along, not quite the opening of the floodgates that some had predicted.

Nevertheless, this still represents an increase of 29,000 workers from Bulgaria and Romania year-on-year. And the quarterly numbers do not present a full picture on which to judge any longer-term change or pattern.

More broadly, the data shows that, while coming from a low base, EU employment has driven quite a lot of the recent increase in employment. In total, the number of  employed in the UK has increased by 741,000 year-on-year. Migrants from the Central and Eastern European 'EU 8' countries only account for 2.3% of total UK employment but, over the past year, workers from these countries have accounted for 15.5% of the increase in UK employment (see graph below).

It remains to be seen whether these figures will have any effect on the political debate about migration in the UK, particulalry from the EU. Annual migration (rather than employment) figures released later this month (potentially on European election day) are expected to show that EU migrants from the EU will outnumber migrants from non-EU countries for the first time - which has the potential to be politically explosive.

Will the European Commission challenge Cameron's crack-down on EU migrants’ access to benefits?

We have just published a new flash analysis looking at David Cameron's plans to change the rules on EU migrants' access to benefits.

Here's a handy table (click to enlarge) summarising the key proposals, and whether they are likely to be deemed legal by the European Commission:

So whether the European Commission will  take the UK to court will very much depend on, how, exactly the measures are implemented. Interestingly, so far the Commission has stayed clear of openly saying the measures are illegal, and of course, the UK government will have sought to ground this with both its own lawyers and EU ones.

However, remember, the UK is already locked into an ongoing legal dispute with the Commission over the rights of EU migrants to access the UK’s ‘universalist’ welfare system. Cameron’s recent intervention signifies a definite hardening of tone and position in this dispute, and in response EU Social Affairs Commissioner Laszlo Andor has said that the UK risks being seen as a “nasty country.”

As we have said before (see here, here and here, for instance), we think the Commission has a tendency to be overly activist in this area. However,  the key issues here - which Cameron could have done a better job of expressing in his intervention -  is that the EU's complicated and outdated rules on access to welfare need a complete overhaul, something which the Austrians, Dutch and Germans have already signalled their support for.

What is proposed under 'Cameron's crackdown' on immigration - and is it compatible with EU law?

In a keynote speech on immigration, David Cameron has today announced a host of new measures designed to curb EU and non-EU immigrants' access to welfare benefits. With transitional controls on Romania and Bulgaria lapsing at the end of the year, the political debate on EU free movement in the UK has threatened to boil over.

We have consistently emphasised the benefits of free movement but we do recognise that there are genuine concerns regarding the impact large-scale immigration can have on public services, the lower-skilled section of the labour market and particular communities. It is also clear that there is real public concern about access to welfare systems, given the UK's particular circumstances: a free health service and a number of non-contributory benefits.

So what does Cameron propose? His speech addressed immigration in general but the measures he announced regarding EU migration in particular were the following:

To ensure people cannot claim benefits indefinitely, in early 2014 we will create a statutory presumption that after 6 months an EEA national can no longer retain their status as a job seeker or retained worker and continue to claim benefits, unless they can demonstrate they have actively sought work throughout that period and have a genuine chance of finding work....

...We will strengthen the test people have to pass to see if they are eligible to claim income related benefits – the Habitual Residence Test. There will be an increase in the number and stronger range and depth of questions asked...

 ...The Government will introduce an expectation on councils to introduce a local residency test in determining who should qualify for social housing. This would mean someone would have to live in an area for say 2 or 5 years before they could even go on the waiting list. This will stop someone from turning up and immediately gaining access to social housing. To ensure UK nationals are protected when they are moving for genuine reasons – for example for work or because of family breakdown – local authorities will have the ability to set exceptions (e.g. in relation to work mobility, armed services personnel, for people escaping domestic violence etc)...  

...Government wants to stop the expectation that our health service is free to the entire world and we will take new steps to ensure the NHS can claim back money that is owed for NHS treatment provided to those not entitled to it. 

So this is addressing the so-called "pull factors". Now these are all things that the Government thinks it can do within the existing limits of EU free movement law - but the European Commission has already launched legal proceedings against the UK for its 'right to reside' test and you can count on the Commission to scrutinise any new proposals closely. The fact that so much of this is already considered possible begs the question of why the UK hasn't done it earlier.

Cameron also explicitly mentioned two areas where the UK will seek to renegotiate the rules at the EU-level:

We are also going to take forward negotiations with European partners to explore whether we can make economically inactive migrants the responsibility of their home country before they gain any eligibility for UK benefits.

And also whether we can work with like-minded European partners to limit the amount we pay in child benefit towards the upkeep of children living abroad.

The UK is likely to find allies on these two issues among the Northern countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, but whether there will be a majority in the EU to make these changes is unclear at this stage.

Let's tone it down a notch: Comparing the UK and German debates on EU migration

No one picking up a UK paper will have failed to notice that there is some concern over EU migration on the British isles, with the debate being triggered by the end of so-called "transitional controls" for Romanian and Bulgarian workers (the countries joined in 2007).

As we've argued repeatedly, EU free movement has on the whole been beneficial for both Europe and the UK, but the issue must be handled with much care, given its exceptionally sensitive nature and the practical impact it can have on public services and certain sectors of the labour market.

But there's also a false perception in the UK that all of Europe wants to come to Britain to enjoy its superior welfare system. This is far from the truth and secondly, the UK isn't the only country that has concerns over EU migration. It is, however, the country in which the debate is the most hysterical. Philip Collins looks at this in today's Times.

Speaking in Parliament earlier this week, Work and Pensions Secretary Ian Duncan Smith said there was a “crisis” over rules on EU migrants’ access to services and welfare, particularly in light of the expiry of transitional controls on migrants from Bulgaria and Romania at the end of the year. The issue definitely needs to be looked at, and there are several things the UK needs to do (see here). The Commission also needs get its act together and drop its own-goal challenge against the UK's "right to reside" test - the test is a political hugely important filter to guard against welfare abuse. But crisis?

Duncan Smith did, however, rightly point out that other EU member states shared some of the UK’s concerns, specifically that “Germany has woken up at last to the reality that it might face a large net migration”.

So what is the nature of the corresponding debate in Germany? Well, there's a genuine concern. A recent position paper by the German Association of Cities generated a lot of coverage as it focused specifically on so-called ‘poverty migration’ from Bulgaria and Romania, particularly those from a Roma background. The report warned that these migrants arrived in cities already affected by relatively high unemployment and with severely stretched public finances, and that despite the transitional controls in place, migration from Bulgaria and Romania had increased six-fold since 2006.

In terms of the public response, German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) recently warned that:

“Abuse of free movement could be explosive for European solidarity. If people in Germany feel that their solidarity and openness is being abused and our welfare system is looted then there will be legitimate anger. The message for the EU Commission is clear: Brussels has to take stronger account of situation of the local population in its decision making process.” 

Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (FDP) has also stressed that "Many Roma flee their homes because of discrimination and resulting poverty… Poverty-related migration must be addressed at its roots." Germany has also said it might veto Bulgaria and Romania’s entry to the border-free Schengen zone, which the UK is not part of.

Clearly, Germany could be an ally for the UK in terms of instituting clearer and more transparent rules on EU wide migration and access to welfare which are necessary to restore public confidence in free movement, as we’ve argued in our report on the subject.

However, on the whole, the debate in Germany has been far more measured than in the UK, with substantially fewer scare-stories on the subject from the press and politicians. For example, the often sensationalist Bild ran a feature on Roma migration earlier this week which was relatively balanced, stating that “there has been no mass immigration” and that migrants tend to seek employment, not benefits.

And that's what UK politicians and media need to remember: the overwhelming evidence suggests EU migrants come to Britain to work, not take advantage of the system.

Who are the best Europeans around?

There has been a lot of Romania-bashing going on lately - from immigration to horsemeat. But in Europe there's always more to a story than meets the eye. Looking at the latest Internal Market Scoreboard, released by the European Commission today, it turns out that Romania - along with some of the other new EU member states - are actually the best Europeans around. At least by this measure.

It reveals that,

When all enforcement indicators are taken into account...Romania, Estonia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Lithuania are the best overall performers.

By the same measure, countries that tend to call for more EU integration and more EU laws, are actually the worst at implementing them. Belgium, Spain and Italy are consistently bad at abiding by their commitments. The UK tends to float around the average, but this time it is slightly worse on three of the indicators.

Below is the "Internal Market Enforcement Table" (click to enlarge), which includes the "enforcement indicators" that the Commission takes into account in its assessment (red = bad, yellow = average and green = good):

In 2012, we looked at who had been the "naughtiest Europeans", using the number of ECJ judgments as a measure, in which Romania also did well. However, this might also have had something to do with the fact that, along with Bulgaria, it is a relative latecomer and cases tend to take a while to get to the ECJ. And, of course, complying with EU laws in the eyes of the Commission is not necessarily the same experience that individuals and businesses enjoy in practice. Nevertheless, today's Scoreboard might challenge some stereotypes.

As Bitter As Bile

It has been labelled in all manner of different terms: "a violent clash", "a virile confrontation", "a furious row". But today's Le Monde finally sheds a little light on what Sarkozy and Barroso told each other during their squabble over the Roma deportations at last week's EU summit.

The paper has published a transcript of the row, under a new headline: "A lunch as bitter as bile in Brussels". Unfortunately for our French-speaking readers, we aren't able to provide a link, as the article is only available to subscribers of Le Monde's website. However, we provide some of the more juicy excerpts below. (Only thing to bear in mind is that the transcript has been put together thanks to the contribution of several witnesses - both direct and indirect - and therefore might not always reflect what was said verbatim.)

With no further comments needed from us, we step aside and leave the stage to the protagonists:

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy: "Nicolas [Sarkozy] has asked me to give him the possibility to make some remarks on a current issue. Indeed, I leave him the floor".

French President Nicolas Sarkozy: "I have the highest respect for the [European] Commission. I have done a lot for it. I have done a lot for the Commission and to bring France back to the heart of Europe [...] It's normal for the Commission to investigate. But before any investigation, one of the Commission's Vice-Presidents [Sarko obviously referring here to Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding] has used expressions like 'disgusting', 'disgrace', 'Second World War'. These are words I can't accept. I don't say that the Commission is disgusting [...] I've come here only because she [Ms. Reding] has apologised. I had told [Commission President] Barroso that I would not come if she didn't apologise".

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso: "The substance and the form [of Reding's declarations] are two separate issues. We have rules against discrimination, and it's the role of the Commission to defend them [...] The Commission has distanced itself from Viviane's statement. She has said that she regrets the interpretation which has been made of her declarations".

Sarkozy (interrupting Barroso): "The interpretation?! It's not for this that she had to apologise, but for saying that [France's Roma policy] is 'disgusting'".

Barroso (keeping his cool): "I understand Mr. Sarkozy's emotion [...] Ms. Reding has said that she regretted her statement. I note that the French Secretary of State for European affairs has not done the same".

A quick footnote is needed here. French Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche had replied to Viviane Reding saying that according to him the French people were the real guardian of the EU Treaties, rather than the European Commission.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi: "We need to withdraw speaking rights for Commissioners and their staff. Only Barroso must be allowed to speak [in public]".

German Chancellor Angela Merkel: "We need to convey an image of serenity at the end of the summit. We need to avoid using certain expressions".

At this stage, the Cavaliere's interruption and Iron Angie's words of wisdom might have calmed the atmosphere. But not quite. Sarko insists that he wants his counterparts to adopt a common position on the Roma issue, specifying that the Commission has the right to ensure the respect of EU law, but member states have the final word on the measures to address the question. Barroso loses his patience.

Barroso: "These pressures must stop [...] The Commission must be allowed to do its job. Otherwise, we will not have the kind of Europe we want. The European Court of Justice will have the final word".

Sarkozy: "We can't say that the Commission will refer the matter to the Court. There has to be an investigation before. By the way, I have to pay tribute to Jean-Claude Juncker [Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Ms. Reding's home country], who has urged this lady to apologise".

Sarko avoids calling Ms. Reding by name...

Luxembourgish Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker (trying to mediate): "Ms. Reding should not have talked the way she did. Nicolas should not exaggerate, though. It's only by chance that she was born in Luxembourg".

Barroso (interrupting Juncker): "But it was you who appointed her [as EU Commissioner representing Luxembourg]. Three times!"

Juncker: "Yes, but at your request..."

Sarkozy: "Let Van Rompuy speak".

Van Rompuy reminds the EU leaders that journalists from all over Europe are waiting outside and proposes to draft some conclusions to settle the matter, at least for the moment. Barroso tries to set his own conditions.

Barroso: "We will not target a specific Commissioner. Otherwise, we will also refer to other people".

French Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche obviously springs to mind...

Sarkozy: "Barroso can't tell us what to say!"

Barroso: "I've the right to express my opinion, because I'm a member of the European Council myself. And I even have a special statute [...] We have done everything to help you with the European Parliament, which is furious on this issue. Let's not turn all this in an institutional quarrel. That would be excessive".

Berlusconi: "We need to silence the Commissioners!"

And the row reportedly terminates here, with Chancellor Merkel suggesting they move on to a different topic.

Once Byrned, twice shy

Just got back from a Fabian Society conference on "making EU enlargement work." The event turned into a bit of a love-in for good old Geoff Hoon. The acting head of the Romanian Embassy Raduta Matache declared "If only there were more ministers like Geoff Hoon". Well, he does need all the loving he can get at the moment.

But Hoon wasn't generous enough to share the love with his own governmental colleagues. When asked about the new system for "managing" migration from Bulgaria and Romania he mumbled something about the "transitional problems" of the last accession and likened them to the experiences of provincial towns which have been flooded with students in recent years.

Tellingly, he refused to publicly support the limits that have been placed on Bulgarian and Romanian workers instead saying, "I see [Immigration Minister] Liam Byrne is speaking this afternoon - perhaps you should ask him about that." According to one insider Geoff and Liam had "stand-up rows" over the issue... Hoon is obviously still feeling a wee bit sensitive about it.