UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 59-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

HOME AFFAIRS committee

BULGARIAN AND ROMANIAN ACCESSION TO THE EU: TWELVE MONTHS ON

TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2007

MR LIAM BYRNE MP

MR AUREL CIOBANU-DORDEA and MRS RADUTA MATACHE

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 67

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Home Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 27 November 2007

Members present

Rt Hon Keith Vaz, in the Chair

Mr Jeremy Browne

Ms Karen Buck

Mr James Clappison

David T C Davies

Mrs Janet Dean

Gwyn Prosser

Bob Russell

Martin Salter

Mr David Winnick

________________

Witnesses: Mr Liam Byrne MP, Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, Home Office, gave evidence.

Chairman: Minister, we should like to discuss Romania and Bulgaria. Very shortly, we shall be hearing from your fellow Fulbright scholar, the Romanian Minister for European Affairs. We will begin with questions from David Winnick.

Q1 Mr Winnick: Minister, I want to ask questions about Bulgaria and Romania. You will be pleased to know that they will not be based on xenophobia which will perhaps be a relief after the past 10 or 15 minutes. The official figures given by the Home Office about Bulgarians and Romanians are known to us. How far do those figures match the estimates made by the Government prior to those two countries joining the EU?

Mr Byrne: The number of applications to A2 schemes up to September 2007 and across all schemes is about 38,155, but when I came before the Committee last time to explain the restrictions we proposed I said that it was not wise to project what the future estimates would be. I did not make future estimates. Some other organisations did so. I have seen estimates from some think tanks like the IPPR which estimate that about 50,000 A2 migrants might come in the first 18 months. I merely note for the Committee that to date about 38,000 have registered under schemes, but I was quite careful not to make estimates.

Q2 Mr Winnick: There has been much media reporting about the disparity between registered migrants from those two countries and the number of Bulgarians and
Romanian nationals who are living in the United Kingdom at the moment. What is your comment on that?

Mr Byrne: I go back to some of the things I said to Karen Buck. Because A2 nationals have the right of free movement and come to the UK unhindered it is quite difficult at this stage to estimate exactly how many A2 nationals live in this country. The last figures that I saw were those in the labour force survey for the second quarter of 2006, but this is a reasonably fast-moving picture. We have a sense of how many people have registered, but I do not think we have an especially good sense of how many A2 nationals live in Britain because as EU nationals we would not necessarily spend a lot of time counting them at the moment.

Q3 Mr Winnick: Do you accept that it is difficult to obtain such a figure?

Mr Byrne: It is difficult to estimate. When new systems come into place for counting people in and people out the job will become much easier, but at the moment it is a difficult estimate to call.

Q4 Mr Winnick: Let us clarify the position about Romanians and Bulgarians. The phasing in, as it were, in the sense that they need jobs and so on, is for the first seven years. There is no doubt that after seven years they will have as much right to come into the United Kingdom as UK nationals are able to go to other EU countries. That is the position, is it not?

Mr Byrne: Yes - and there is freedom to work. That is right. The EU has fairly strict rules about how long transitional arrangements can last.

Q5 Mr Winnick: It is better to get that quite clear. The Trade and Industry Select Committee was not altogether happy about information, data and so on. Bearing in mind what you have just said, do you believe there is a way that the Government can improve the collection of data on Romanians and Bulgarians in the United Kingdom?

Mr Byrne: I think there is but it will take time to come through. In the short term we rely on the Migration Advisory Committee to make sure that they canvass views of the business community about where there are shortages in low-skilled occupations. I will take some convincing that further low-skill schemes are needed because I represent a constituency which has the fourth highest unemployment in the country. There are labour market reform programmes being put in place by DWP which are important. At this stage I am just not persuaded that further low-skill schemes are needed, but the reason we set up the Migration Advisory Committee is to give us independent evidence on precisely that question. A big part of the task of David Metcalfe, chairman of the Migration Advisory Committee, is to make sure that he is connecting to those sectors which talk about pressure. The agricultural industry was I believe one of the sectors that the Trade and Industry Select Committee identified. The agricultural sector has also been lobbying me on this matter. We will take independent advice on this question, but we will need some persuading.

Q6 Mr Winnick: From the British Government's point of view, in relation to Romania and Bulgaria what does it consider to be future migration trends?

Mr Byrne: It is a difficult question to answer. Obviously, we must look at what is going on in other countries because that affects the choice of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals. It is true that we are amongst the most conservative countries when it comes to lifting restrictions, but the only other major economy in Europe that really lifted restrictions was Italy. Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia also did not have any restrictions, but Italy was the only big country without them. Because it was difficult to predict the answer to such a question I felt that the right course of action was one which had the least risk of big movements of people attached to it. That is a major factor in why we set the balance in the way we did.

Q7 Mr Browne: Can you tell me what proportion of your ministerial time is devoted to borders and immigration and what proportion to the West Midlands?

Mr Byrne: That is a very difficult question to answer because it varies from week to week.

Q8 Mr Browne: What is your experience since you were appointed to the two positions?

Mr Byrne: I have not done that calculation.

Q9 Mr Browne: Approximately?

Mr Byrne: It varies from week to week and depends on what is going on in the constituency and also my family life.

Q10 Mr Browne: Taking purely your ministerial, not constituency, time, since you became minister what have been the percentages?

Mr Byrne: My job as minister for borders and immigration consumes the lion's share of my time.

Mr Browne: Is it 51% or possibly more?

Q11 Chairman: Could you write to us on this?

Mr Byrne: Perhaps I should.

Q12 Mr Browne: It may be a point of genuine interest - not everybody lives in the West Midlands - whether you devote as much time as you would otherwise be able to that function.

Mr Byrne: I shall be happy to go through my diary.

Chairman: Perhaps you would do that and talk to Mr Browne later.

Mr Browne: It is also a controversial issue for the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Scotland; the position is the same.

Chairman: Absolutely.

Q13 Mr Browne: On Romania and Bulgaria, let me put the following supposition to you. In my view, Britain had an extremely enlightened policy with the 10 new EU entrant states, most notably Poland with the largest population, in allowing people from those countries to come and work here, unlike many other large economies of Western Europe. The Government then got cold feet when its estimates were so inaccurate in terms of the numbers coming and, rather than anything else, that was the reason it decided not to extend that invitation to Romanian and Bulgarian nationals in the initial phase. Essentially, it was not a decision about immigration but a straightforward political calculation.

Mr Byrne: I do not think it was a straightforward political calculation but a genuine attempt to try to create immigration policy in a new way. It will not come as a surprise to the Committee to know that I do not believe there is widespread public confidence in the immigration system. That is why the reform programme we are undertaking is so sweeping and important, but migration is a big issue for the British public; it is often the number one issue in the public mind. It touches on many different aspects of public policy. That is why I believe immigration policy must be made in a much more open way in future based on transparent advice. We have to be explicit in recognising that immigration does not simply have an economic impact but a wider one on British public life. The decision to extend the restrictions on Bulgaria and Romania was the first big one we had to make where we tried to bring to bear independent evidence of both the benefits and the wider impact. Therefore, the decision we took was simply the outcome of what we hope will be a much more sustainable and rigorous way of making immigration policy decisions in future.

Q14 Mr Browne: If I were a Romanian or Bulgarian citizen who aspired to come and work in the United Kingdom I might not understand why Poland, with a bigger population, was treated so much more generously by the British Government than my country. Why does it seem to be so keen to allow Poles to work in Britain but not give them that opportunity?

Mr Byrne: I am paid to go to work to help set the right immigration policy for Britain. I am also a member of a government that rightly has led the debate about enlargement. That was why we thought the right balance was gradually to open our labour markets to Bulgaria and Romania. But I have to get right our immigration policy. I think that the right immigration policy today is to take a prudent approach to get the balance right. That was why I thought there was a case for restrictions. When there is evidence of specific, isolated pressures my sense is that we just should not take risks. This is not about Bulgaria and Romania; it is about getting the right balance for Britain's immigration policy.

Q15 Mr Browne: Can I venture the suggestion that it may also be about the Ukraine and Turkey? Bulgaria and Romania are quite small countries in the great scheme of things, but there are a couple of European nations - there is a dispute about Turkey - with very large populations that may at some point aspire to join the European Union. In the case of
Turkey its population is bigger than that of Germany. The Government is therefore trying to put down some sort of marker or express caution about the limits that may have to be imposed on freedom of movement of people within the European Union were it to extend beyond the current 27 Member States.

Mr Byrne: I believe that we have to make judgments like that much closer to the time. That was why I said to Mr Clappison I did not speculate on the number of work permits issued next year because the cut in the number of such permits might be bigger than the 35,000 that he read about in the newspapers. We have to take a decision closer to the time based on what is happening in Britain at the time, that is, what is happening in the economy and public services. We have to set the balance in a much more dynamic, open way. I hope you do not mind if I do not speculate on what the situation will look like in future.

Q16 Mr Browne: Was there, as I read, a lot of dispute within government particularly between the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office? There were some ministers right up to cabinet level who felt we were missing an opportunity to extend Britain's influence into parts of Eastern Europe where previously we had not necessarily had such good diplomatic relations and there were competing concerns between diplomacy and wider foreign policy considerations and the needs of the UK labour market?

Mr Byrne: You will know that the way government makes decisions is collective and seamless.

Q17 Mr Browne: I have observed that! It is interesting you observe that your constituency has the fourth highest unemployment in England. I have employers in my area who appear to have labour shortages particularly in the area of seasonal work, for example fruit-picking and that sort of thing. You referred to agriculture. What is your assessment of the impact on those specific areas of the economy as a result of the decision regarding Romania and Bulgaria?

Mr Byrne: I do not think it has especially aggravated the problem. In the last quarter for which we published data the number of applicants for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme was very low; it was about 625. In part that is a reflection of the fact that the scheme is seasonal, but the feedback from the industry is that the restrictions on Bulgaria and Romania have not especially aggravated concerns - I put it no stronger than that - about low-skilled labour shortages. That is part of the reason why we asked the Migration Advisory Committee to help us monitor the need in the labour market for low-skill schemes. I have already said that I would need some persuading that such schemes are necessary, but is it right to keep it under review? I think it would be irresponsible not to do so.

Q18 David Davies: How many people have come here under the A2 scheme who are in receipt of working and family tax credits?

Mr Byrne: I will have to retrieve that page from the report.

Chairman: Perhaps one of your officials can look for it whilst Mr Davies proceeds with the next question.

Q19 David Davies: Given that there has been a lower than expected take-up of A2 schemes for low-skilled workers, why is it necessary to continue to apply these restrictions on such workers?

Mr Byrne: Because I do not think that we should take any risks in migration policy at the moment. If we lifted those restrictions over night in a blanket way we would create new risks. When I had the Migration Impact Forum report to me that there were specific isolated concerns about pressure on public services my advice to the Home Secretary was that we should not be taking any risks. I now have the figures for both child benefit and tax credits. There were 634 child benefit claims of which 380 were approved. There were 195 tax credit claims of which 137 were awarded.

Q20 Chairman: How many people are there from those two nations in this country?

Mr Byrne: Just over 35,000 people have registered under the A2 scheme.

Q21 David Davies: How many more will become eligible to make those claims when they have been working for 12 months? I think the first tranche will arise some time next year.

Mr Byrne: I shall be happy to try to get that information.

Q22 David Davies: The answer is that there is likely to be a huge increase in the number of people claiming various forms of benefit, because not only will A2 migrants be eligible for working and family tax credits but many will subsequently be eligible to claim income support and the full range of benefits when they can show they have been working for 12 months. Is that not correct?

Mr Byrne: People do build up rights to benefits, particularly contributory benefits, if they have been here and can prove residence, but that is part of the free movement directive approved unanimously by Parliament.

Q23 David Davies: I was told by a very senior member of the DWP that there has been a problem with people from some accession states who come here and make themselves eligible for benefits and then disappear back to their countries in Eastern Europe where standards of living are much lower but continue to claim benefits in Britain fraudulently. Have you been told that? I am not asking you whether you are aware that it is a problem.

Mr Byrne: I do not believe I have been told that formally but, like you, that is a risk in the system of which I am aware. It is for DWP to police it and that is the kind of issue we talk about when we weigh up whether or not restrictions should continue. For example, when we took this decision some of the evidence we commissioned related to the take-up of benefits. That is why in the quarterly statistics we also publish that kind of information to keep a close eye on it. The free movement directive that set out the principles of the policy and reciprocity in benefits is not a new one; it was set out in nine directives before it was consolidated. Seven of those were passed under Conservative governments and two under Labour governments, so it has quite a long heritage in British political life.

Q24 David Davies: Perhaps I may ask about the 640 people who claim child tax credit benefit.

Mr Byrne: There were in total 634 of which 380 were approved.

Q25 David Davies: Those children do not necessarily reside in the UK, do they? Do you know how many of those children are resident in the UK and how many are not?

Mr Byrne: I have not brought the child benefit records with me.

Q26 David Davies: But they could well be back in the accession countries.

Mr Byrne: I shall be happy to talk to my DWP colleagues and give the Committee that information.

Q27 Chairman: You can ask HM Customs and Revenue. I am sure they will send you a disk. You gave the figure of 35,000 but the figure is much higher. Is it right that these are 634 cases out of many hundreds of thousands of people from the A2 countries who are working here and not claiming benefits? We are not talking of just 35,000 people.

Mr Byrne: No, and that was why I said that 35,000 were registered under our schemes.

Q28 Chairman: We are talking about a very small percentage?

Mr Byrne: Tiny.

Q29 Mr Clappison: You will have seen press reports from teachers and head teachers about the problems in schools with the number of Eastern European A8 children. Obviously, we want to help schools and teachers give those children a good education. Do you have a rough estimate of how many school age children who are dependants of A8 and A2 emigrants there are in the country?

Mr Byrne: Again, I shall be happy to write to the Committee about our estimates.

Q30 Bob Russell: What is the annual cost of administering the A2 regulations?

Mr Byrne: The scheme set-up costs were £1.1 million and for 2007 the projected running costs are £1,516,000.

Q31 Bob Russell: that is marginally less than the figure you predicted last December?

Mr Byrne: Indeed. We constantly strive for efficiency and economy in all aspects of BIA operations.

Q32 Bob Russell: How do you respond to the claim by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that the A2 regulations are confusing and inconsistent, and how will you improve communication of the regulations to employers and A2 nationals?

Mr Byrne: There are two answers to that. I saw that evidence and did not fully understand it. Obviously, it is open to A2 nationals to come and register as self-employed and get a card which they can show in order to prove to employers that they are self-employed, but I am happy to look at further evidence of complexity to see if we can introduce simplification. Over the next couple of months we shall write to employers in Britain to remind them not only of their obligations to do right-to-work checks but also to publicise services like the employer checking service which BIA is now dramatically expanding.

Q33 Bob Russell: Will that involve contacting recruitment agencies? We have been told that sometimes there is confusion about taxation among the self-employed, particularly in the case of nannies and construction workers.

Mr Byrne: Again, we work quite closely with the recruitment companies. We talk about this a good deal with the members of the employers' task force. In the case of construction workers, the simplest route is to register as self-employed, get a card that proves it and they can show that they have that right and so on, but when it comes to nannies it is slightly different. In order to prove that you are self-employed obviously you need to work for several families rather than just one. Again, I am happy to look at people's concerns about whether or not the system needs further simplification. We have tried to make it as simple as possible.

Q34 Bob Russell: We are told that the sector has requested further guidance as to what documentation the Home Office would deem proof of self-employment for taxation purposes. Will that be forthcoming?

Mr Byrne: We are happy to look at it. It is not enormously complicated. We will consider evidence like details of business, the lease of premises, contracts, bank statements, invoices, National Insurance contributions and audited accounts. When people say they are self-employed we will look at all such evidence. People can then get a card to show that they qualify as someone who is recognised by us as self-employed, but if concerns still exist in the minds of recruitment companies our commitment is to carry on working with them on those matters.

Q35 Bob Russell: Has the legislation creating the new offences of taking employment without authority and employing workers without authorisation been enforced? How many fines have been imposed, and how many people have been imprisoned?

Mr Byrne: Fines have been imposed. We have not needed to imprison anybody, but as of 1 October we had issued about 190 fixed penalty notices. Of those, 159 were served on Romanian nationals and about 30 on Bulgarian nationals.

Q36 Bob Russell: Is there any evidence that the restrictions have led to higher levels of undeclared workers in the UK as well as bogus self-employed migrants and criminals?

Mr Byrne: There is not evidence of this. I have asked that BIA increases the number of illegal working operations that it undertakes because I am concerned that illegal work undercuts British wages. In the operations we have undertaken overall we have not encountered large numbers of Romanian and Bulgarian nationals. Where we have done so we have issued fines, if needed.

Chairman: Minister, thank you very much for coming to give evidence today. Originally, we asked you to talk just about Romania and Bulgaria, but you will know that immigration is a hot topic. You have answered over 100 questions from the Committee. You promised to write to us with respect to a number of other issues, in particular the chronology of the SIA. It would be helpful if we could have it by Monday as we shall be seeing your permanent secretary on Tuesday.

Witnesses: Mr Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, Romanian Under-Secretary of State, Department for European Affairs, and Mrs Raduta Matache, Acting Romanian Ambassador to the UK, gave evidence.

Q37 Chairman: Minister and Ambassador, bună dimineaţa. Welcome to London and thank you for coming to give evidence on this subject. You had the benefit of hearing from our minister for immigration who made the decision concerning Romania and Bulgaria. Minister, I know that you want to start with a very short statement to the Committee.

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you very much. First, I should like to express the satisfaction of my Government for the opportunity offered to it to express its views about the restrictions imposed by the UK Government on the free movement of Romanian workers in the European Union after Romania's accession on 1 January 2007. I express my personal gratitude for this opportunity today. Having said that, I come here to express the deep dissatisfaction and surprise of the authorities in Romania because of the imposition of these measures by the British Government. That surprise and dissatisfaction is caused by the fact that not only did we not expect to see the United Kingdom impose these measures on 1 January 2007 but we also did not expect the British authorities to maintain these measures after October of this year. We believe that the measures taken by the British authorities are not sufficiently fair or sound and I shall try to express in a few words what we mean by this. They are not fair because we think we are paying the costs of measures taken by the British authorities in 2003-04 in respect of the accession of the first eight central European countries to the European Union on 1 May 2004. Nobody except a few NGOs has adequately calculated the potential impact of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria on the labour market of the United Kingdom, but, being fully aware of the fact that the British Government takes stock of the transition period enshrined in our accession treaty, as it was enshrined in the accession treaty of Poland, Hungary and so on in 2003, the British authorities apply it differently. This is why we think we are paying the costs of the measures then taken. We consider that the same measures concerning Poland, Hungary, the Baltic states and so on should have been taken also in our case, namely the non-imposition of restrictions, because we think that the circumstances which qualify our case are different from Poland. To take just one example, by the date of accession of Poland to the European Union it had 17% unemployment in its labour market and therefore there was a considerable mass of labour force which could be predicted to direct itself towards other EU Member States including the United Kingdom. What was the situation in Romania at the date of accession? Our unemployment rate is somewhere between 3.7% and 3.9% of the labour force. Therefore, it is natural unemployment due to competition in the labour market. What would you expect of these people?

Q38 Chairman: Minister, that is extremely helpful and we are grateful for that introduction. We shall be raising a number of questions on what you have said. Clearly, the Romanian Government is disappointed by the decision taken by the United Kingdom. What about other EU countries? Have you faced similar problems in respect of Romanians being allowed into other countries? For example, how has it affected the number of Romanians working in Italy where there are no restrictions?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: It is true that more recently Romanian nationals have encountered a number of problems in particular in Italy due to the large number of Romanians there and the criminal conduct on the part of some of our nationals. Nevertheless, the situation there was not due entirely to the conduct of our nationals, at least not the entire community. To a large extent it was due to the attitude of the Italian authorities which for a number of years have been complacent in assisting the creation of illegal communities around cities and in rural areas. The danger has deepened until this year when an outburst took place.

Q39 Chairman: Do you think that the reasons why the restrictions were continued for another year were political rather than economic ones? You have heard what our minister has just said. He talked about economics rather than politics. Do you agree that that was the reason?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Essentially, we think that the decision to maintain the restrictions in respect of the Romanian labour force is motivated more by politics than economics. The capacity of the Romanian labour force to generate economic migrants in particular to the United Kingdom is a very limited one. I believe that such capacity to create economic migration is over, first because the Romanian economy has resumed growth for a number of years and is steadily growing; second, the majority of the migration already took place before its accession to the European Union. About 20% of the Romanian migrants in the European Union are already settled in Italy; another 20% are settled in Spain; and maybe another 18% are already settled in Germany. This means that my compatriots have migrated to countries where they have found similar social relationships and cultural similarities. The UK is extreme in geographical terms; it is very far from Romania and culturally very different. I think that is reflected even in the Government's statistics which indicate very low numbers.

Q40 Mr Winnick: You have given us an indication of the employment situation in your country. You have also stated that most Romanians if they wish to go abroad choose countries other than Britain. What is the economic situation in Romania?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: This was precisely my point. The economic situation has constantly and gradually improved since 2000. The growth rate of the Romanian economy is even higher than Britain's.

Q41 Mr Winnick: Is this the long-term trend?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Yes. To take objective statistics, not that Romanian statistics are not objective, figures published in Europe by EUROSTAT offer us a cross-border situation. I have just downloaded from the Internet this morning statistics showing the real GDP growth rate. It indicates that in 2008 the GDP growth rate for Romania is 5.9% while for the United Kingdom it is 2.2%; in 2009 it is 5.2% for Romania and 2.4% for the UK. The growth rate of real GDP per capita in 2008 is 5.56% for Romania; for the UK it is 2.01%. The most recent statistics for employment growth, which indicates the capacity of the economy to absorb the labour force, show that for 2007 it was 2.8% and for the UK it was worse: 0.8%. The total investment rate, which also indicates the vitality of the economy, for 2008 for Romania will be 29.4% and 18.4% for the United Kingdom. I do not want to mislead you. Of course, the starting point for the growth of the Romanian economy is somewhat lower than the starting point for the British economy, but certainly the pace of growth is steady and the Romanian economy is able to reabsorb those who went across Europe a number of years ago in order to find jobs and to retain within it those who now enter the labour market.

Q42 Mr Winnick: You have given us statistics which are certainly useful for our report, but with your ministerial colleagues do you consider that there is an impression in Western Europe that as a result of membership of the EU there is a desire on the part of many Romanians to leave the country and go abroad?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Whether there is a strong potential for migration from Romania?

Q43 Mr Winnick: Yes.

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: We think that there are such fears and exaggerated impressions and they have motivated the governments of a number of other older Member States of the European Union also to maintain restrictions against penetration by the Romanian labour force, but we did not expect the UK authorities to impose such restrictions given their approach to the 2004 enlargement.

Q44 Mr Winnick: You have expressed great disappointment on behalf of your country over what Britain has done. If you had to give an opinion why it has been treated differently from other EU countries who joined in recent years what would it be? It is all right to speak frankly.

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: I do not express disappointment on behalf of an abstract country or only on behalf of my Government. Primarily, I am expressing the disappointment of my compatriots who are directly affected. If there are 1,000, 500 or 100 compatriots or only one we have a duty to defend their cause and interests. We fight even for one case. As to the reasoning behind the decision of the UK authorities, we believe that the Home Office must demonstrate that it is effective in fighting migration and we have paid the cost of a number of decisions which have been taken in the past by the Home Office. We regret to say that but we are not critical only of the imposition of the restrictions but how the restrictions have been framed and implemented in practice by the authorities. We believe that only God and the officials of the Border and Immigration Agency know how cumbersome and complicated the procedures are and how much time they take. There are nine procedures for very different cases.

Q45 Chairman: Are these the procedures under which people apply currently?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Yes, absolutely.

Q46 Chairman: There are nine different procedures?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Yes, for various categories of employees or self-employed persons - agricultural workers, food-processing workers and so on. The procedures are very complicated and the conduct of the authorities is not always predictable. The procedures tend to last for months and months. There is a problem arising from the fact that the burden is on the employer, not the employee. The employer would rather get rid of a Romanian applicant than to have a Polish worker for whom he does not have to engage in any bureaucracy.

Q47 Chairman: Has the Romanian Government raised these concerns with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: We are in the process of raising these aspects with all the authorities.

Q48 Mr Winnick: No doubt the same would apply in Romania if a large number of people wanted to come into the country. Sensitivity and prejudice about immigration is not confined to the United Kingdom; it would be odd if it was. Do you accept that immigration into Britain is a very sensitive subject and is politically controversial, as you have heard from some of the questions put to the minister? Do you believe that to some extent that sensitivity reflected in constituencies undoubtedly has affected the British Government's attitude to people coming from Romania?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Certainly, we are aware that immigration is a sensitive matter not only to British society but any society, particularly in Europe and those confronted by mass influx of immigrants. There is a cultural, economic and social problem attached to it. We are also aware about the particularities of British democracy which we very much admire. Many have taken the example of your democracy and the conduct and behaviour or your media and the way in which they control the Government and hold it responsible for a number of acts that it commits. This is very important for a living democracy, but we believe that sometimes too much passion is injected into the Government by the media, or at least by some newspapers.

Mr Winnick: You are not the only ones.

Q49 David Davies: You have reflected great anger, but you have concerns about the impact of integration. Why is it so difficult to buy a house in Romania if you are a British subject?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: It is not difficult at all. A British individual can build there and buy a house. I believe there is a three-year transitional period, but that is enshrined in the accession treaty, and you have a number of practical solutions that you can use. For instance, you can set up a company and buy a house and land there as of now.

Q50 David Davies: But the reality is that you put these restrictions in place, quite rightly, as have the Hungarians and other countries, because you are afraid that people with large amounts of money will go over there, buy all sorts of housing and push up prices to make it difficult to Romanians to buy their own houses. I perfectly well understand that; that is one of the impacts and why you put in place safeguards. We are doing the same thing. If I may say so, is it not a little hypercritical to have a go at the British Government when your own Government takes steps to safeguard its own people against the impacts of EU integration?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: No. I do not believe the situations are comparable. First, there are a number of legal loopholes.

Q51 David Davies: As there are for Romanians who can come here as self-employed people.

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Romanians are very restricted in finding a solution; they are in a very different situation from Hungarian or Polish citizens who look for work here.

Q52 David Davies: There are loopholes that Romanians can use. You talked earlier about economic growth which is all well and good, but the reality is that migration is driven by living standards and wages. Can you tell us the average wage of a farm labourer or waiter in Bucharest?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: It is certainly lower than here.

Q53 David Davies: Can you tell me approximately what the wage would be in euros so we can make a comparison?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: It may be about €300 a month. Living costs are also lower.

Q54 David Davies: But you will appreciate that with a minimum wage of about £6 or €10 in London someone who works a 40-hour week will earn €1,600 a month, which is five times as much as he can otherwise earn. Clearly, there is a much bigger incentive for someone from Romania or Bulgaria to come here than someone from Hungary or Poland.

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Do you see this as being illegal?

Q55 David Davies: I see it as a practical problem, just as you see the housing issue as a practical problem. The reality is that the living standards in the last lot of accession states were significantly higher than in Romania or Bulgaria. This migration is really driven by living standards. I know that because my wife is Hungarian and I am very familiar with that country. I am aware that there is a marked difference in the standard of living between Hungary and Romania, which is why I think we have to put in place transitional arrangements and why your Government has done likewise to protect itself.

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Those transitional arrangements are not imposed only by my Government but by most governments of the central European countries.

Q56 David Davies: Yes.

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: But how do you explain this discrimination? How do you explain the difference between the regime applied to Polish nationals and that applied to Romanian nationals? All are being driven by higher standards of living and salaries. The problem is whether this damages the UK economy and there are or are not prospects of people returning to their home countries after a number of years.

Q57 David Davies: To be clear, it is not so much the transitional arrangements put in place that affect Romanian and Bulgarian workers that upset your Government but the fact that they have been applied only to Romania and Bulgaria and not other EU accession countries.

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Exactly.

Q58 David Davies: The principle of having a transitional arrangement is not something about which you have an issue?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Exactly. We are surprised to note that the circumstances do not justify the enforcement of these transitional arrangements. We do not see the reasons for it.

Q59 Mrs Dean: Let me turn to something which I hope is more positive. Would you like to comment on co-operation between Romanian and UK law enforcement agencies since accession? How successful do you believe that co-operation has been in tackling organised crime?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: The co-operation between Romania and British law enforcement agencies dates from a few years before accession, so it is of long standing. But after the accession of Romania to the European Union my authorities have become aware of the fact that an additional practical dimension arises in our bilateral relationship. My authorities have been sensitive to the concerns expressed by the British authorities that something should be done in respect of petty crimes committed by some Romanian nationals once on British territory. That is why a number of liaison officers have been transferred from Bucharest to London by my Government in order to co-operate with the Metropolitan Police and other law enforcement agencies of the United Kingdom to ensure smooth handling of cases involving Romanian criminals.

Q60 Mrs Dean: Do you have any examples of where there have been successes and co-operation has resulted in arrests?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: I think one could bring into the discussion the success with which our embassy in London and the relevant people working within it have handled cases involving 88 Roma minors. Perhaps the ambassador can develop it a little since she is better informed.

Mrs Matache: We can give examples. One relates to Slough where over 80 unaccompanied children went into the care of the local authority. We co-operated with the local authority over a number of months. We were continually on the phone with the authority. At this moment we have two Roma children of Romanian origin in the care of the local authorities in Slough. A lot of resources and efforts have been put into solving that. More specifically, in the field of law enforcement operations are ongoing in which policemen in the UK and in Romania work together and co-operate to address organised crime. I am also aware of several successes registered in the past two weeks. I am very wary to speak about them publicly but I hope that at some point the Metropolitan Police and Romanian law enforcement agencies will speak about them publicly.

Q61 Mr Winnick: Minister, earlier you touched on the position of Italy. There has been a lot of media coverage in Britain about the steps taken by the Italian authorities to expel Romanians. Do you think there is a wave of xenophobia in Italy against Romanians?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Unfortunately, I think there is. The complexity of law enforcement authorities in Italy has led to the development of a feeling within a number of Italian communities that the presence of at least part of the Romanian nationals endangers security and compliance with the law and public order of that country. That has led to a number of Italians placing a question mark over the disturbance of public order by Romanians. Yes, xenophobic feelings have developed around this.

Q62 Mr Winnick: It is only against Romanians that steps have been taken?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Yes, inasmuch as the view of the Italian authorities is aimed mainly at Romanians although it is defined in sufficiently general terms as to cover EU nationals.

Q63 Mr Winnick: Do you think there is a danger that that sort of backlash and feeling, which seems to be encouraged by the Italian authorities, could be replicated in other Member States of the EU?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Not really. We believe that the situation in Italy was a particular one due to the concentration of a large number of Romanian nationals in some areas. This is to a certain extent replicated in Spain, but it is far less serious. It is not replicated in other EU Member States. Anyway, my Government is working in close contact with both the Italian authorities and the authorities of other Member States to prevent that.

Q64 Mr Winnick: The European Commission has expressed ongoing concerns about threats at the Romanian border and about trafficking in human beings, illegal immigration and smuggling. Obviously, your authorities are well aware of those concerns. I take it that they are shared equally by your Government. How far are effective steps being taken to deal with those problems?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: In respect of what?

Q65 Mr Winnick: I am referring to the trafficking in human beings.

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: This is mainly the mission of the Romanian border police who often work in close co-operation with a number of national border authorities of other EU Member States, in particular Germany, Hungary and Austria, in order to improve the situation at the eastern border of Romania.

Q66 Mr Winnick: Is it being improved?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: Yes, considerably. Due to some EU assistance which has been provided to Romanian border guards for about six or seven years and the close supervision of the EU agency for border controls situated in Warsaw the situation has improved significantly.

Q67 Chairman: Despite your disappointment, how would you assess British-Romanian relations at this moment?

Mr Ciobanu-Dordea: I think the substance of the friendship, solidarity and alliance which define Romanian and the United Kingdom relations cannot be significantly altered by such incidents. I do not want to make a cheap argument, but I would urge your Government and you personally as a Committee of the House of Commons to think that there also needs to be constant predictability in the relations between Romania and the United Kingdom. We are currently your partners in the European Union in many respects; we have been your allies outside the European Union in many respects. Romania is not such a global player as the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we understand that there is an expectation from the British authorities that we stand alongside you in Iraq and Afghanistan and our soldiers are alongside yours; they are fighting there and being wounded and killed there alongside your soldiers. We did this with a sense of predictability and we expect that to be shown on both sides, and we are convinced that relations between Romania and the United Kingdom are principled ones.

Chairman: The core of your argument appears to be equality. You want to be treated equally as a first-class citizen of the European Union. It would be very helpful if the Committee could have a note on what you say are the procedural problems encountered by people who apply for self-employed status. We are producing a very short report on this matter, but it would be helpful to have it. Minister, thank you so much for coming all the way from Bucharest to address this Committee. Ambassador, thank you for all the help you have given.