I am most grateful to you, Mr. Cummings, for providing me with the opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the House. In the next 11 weeks the European Union will experience yet another historic occasion as it expands to 27 members, further unifying a continent in which division, not unity, has historically been the dominant narrative. Many hon. Members deserve recognition for that remarkable achievement. No European leader has been as dedicated a supporter of the new EU members as our Prime Minister. The momentum behind the enlargement agenda was begun by the late Robin Cook when he was Foreign Secretary, sustained by the current Leader of the House when he was in that role, and now moves into a new era under the stewardship of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

A great deal has been achieved in a short time, but enlargement is about more than just admitting new members; it is about respecting them and their citizens as equals. I shall use this debate to urge the Government to clarify their position on migrant workers from Romania and Bulgaria and make it clear that they will not be bullied into adopting restrictions merely because of the erroneous fears of supposedly populist, xenophobic commentators.

When I last spoke on the subject, in 2004, Europe was shortly to undergo its biggest ever expansion. It grew by 75 million citizens overnight and confirmed its place as the world’s largest single market, with the highest GDP of any single trading bloc. Then, as now, certain sections of the media and, I must say, some Conservative Members, forecast that the UK would be overwhelmed by desperate economic migrants. Then, as now, it was said that our welfare benefits system would prove vulnerable and irresistible to tens of thousands in eastern Europe. Of course, neither of those presumptions proved true.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government predicted that approximately 15,000 would come to the UK from eastern Europe and that that figure has turned out to be nearer to 600,000? That was a gross underestimate—far more people have come here from eastern Europe than was anticipated.

My hon. Friend is right; more have come than was anticipated. I shall demonstrate why that has been good for the British economy and for Europe.

A well researched report produced by the Institute for Public Policy Research established that less than 1 per cent. of migrant workers have even applied for income-related benefits since 2004 and that most eastern European migrants are working in jobs that are hard to fill. Almost nine out of 10 visitors from the new EU member states have stayed in the United Kingdom for less than three months. Since May 2004, this country has benefited tremendously from an influx of skilled, trained workers while other countries in Europe, which have denied such migrants the right to work, have struggled to be competitive in a global market. Our Government’s decision to welcome the skills and talents of the new citizens of Europe has paid dividends.

I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to advise the right hon. Gentleman of my intention to intervene. Does he agree that the empirical evidence of the past two years shows that disproportionate pressure has been placed on public services in a small number of areas as a result of the influx from the EU8 countries? That may well cause community cohesion problems in the future, particularly if workers from Bulgaria and Romania are allowed to enter the UK on the same basis as those from the previous eight countries.

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes carefully, but I do not agree. The arrival of the eastern Europeans has not created the tensions that he describes—I do not know about Peterborough, but it certainly has not in Leicester, where many have come to settle. The evidence shows their contribution clearly. In April this year an Ernst and Young ITEM Club report showed calculations that migration contributed more than £300 million in revenue to Her Majesty’s Treasury in the first year after enlargement, keeping inflation under control and boosting overall economic output. The workers in question pay their taxes, and it is for the Government and local authorities to ensure that if any pressure is created, which I do not believe there is, that revenue is spent appropriately.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I shall make some progress, if I may.

With such clear benefits, I can only welcome the comments of Her Majesty the Queen yesterday. On a state visit to the Baltic states, she expressed her encouragement of the freedom of movement and labour between the UK and those states. I am sure that when she is able to visit Romania and Bulgaria she will congratulate them on the progress that they have made in rejoining the European family.

Our Prime Minister made the crucial interventions during the enlargement discussions on Romania and Bulgaria in 1999. In the first ever speech by a British Prime Minister to the Romanian Parliament, he announced Britain’s determination that Romania join the EU as soon as possible. Our Government then ensured that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria was at the top of the European agenda during the 1999 Helsinki conference. We could not have been clearer: we wanted full and proper membership for those members of the European family.

In the past year it has been disappointing to see the remarkable good will that we have worked so hard to establish with Bucharest and Sofia draining away as the Home Office has equivocated and tabloid scare stories have proliferated. Despite being conclusively wrong about the effects of the previous enlargement, tabloid journalists and right-wing commentators are saying that the stability of our society, the security of our welfare system and the success of our economy will be in grave danger unless we block the access of Romanians and Bulgarians to our labour market. There is simply no evidence to support that. The enlargement will have much less impact than the 2004 experience. Romania and Bulgaria have a much smaller combined population than the previous accession countries and have no well established links with the UK. Those who do wish to travel look instead to Mediterranean countries such as Italy or Spain as their first choice.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I give way to my hon. Friend for the last time.

I regret that my right hon. Friend has indicated that this is the last time that he will give way, because the issues are important. Does he accept that while in the first terms of the Labour Government unemployment in my constituency went down by more than 50 per cent., in the past year it has gone up by approximately 9 per cent.? Anecdotal evidence and my own local experience indicate that many of the jobs that would have been filled by people from my area, many of whom we are trying to move off income support and other benefits under the welfare to work scheme, have been taken by migrants from eastern Europe. Employers should not be blamed, because if they are given a choice between a keen, enthusiastic, highly trained 25-year-old from eastern Europe and someone from my constituency who may have been unemployed and has a drink problem, the latter will lose out.

Order. Interventions should be brief.

I have great affection for my hon. Friend; we speak about many matters, especially on Europe. He should not be upset that I will not give way to him again; that is simply because this is an Adjournment debate, I have limited time and I have given way three times. I do not accept what he says; he is talking about anecdotal evidence and chats that he has in the pub in Glasgow. I am interested in the real facts, which are clear. If my hon. Friend shows me a report containing facts, I shall debate them with him. At the moment we have only gossip, innuendo and so on.

The Institute for Public Policy Research, a well- respected organisation, has confirmed in its new report that the new inflow of migrants is likely to be relatively small, and that any impact on the British labour market will be positive. To those who say that wages have fallen owing to the number of new workers, my response is simply to refer them Department for Work and Pensions working paper No. 29, which concludes that

“there appears to be little evidence of a fall in nominal wage growth in the whole economy…since accession”

of the new member states.

Beyond national self-interest, there is a case to be made on the European level. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry,

“enlargement has provided and is providing a stimulus for economic reform across the continent.”

It is perhaps a consequence of how successful the European Union has been that we have not properly recognised the progress that has been achieved. I do not want to get the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) too excited at the mention of his name, but as President Barroso said at Chatham House on Monday, Britain has been too modest in its achievements in Europe, and too weak in publicising the benefits of EU membership to the British public. In a world of uncertainty and challenges, the European Union has formed an association of states that come together to form more than the sum of their component parts.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware, when he quotes such studies, that a comprehensive survey has been undertaken in Bulgaria of where migrant workers are likely to travel after accession. All the indications are that the favoured countries are Germany and Spain, not the United Kingdom.

I am aware of that survey and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is very experienced and a former Member of the European Parliament, for bringing it to the Chamber’s attention. He is absolutely right.

The European Union is a union built upon four fundamental freedoms: the freedom of goods, services, capital and, of course, people. Although implementation of those principles has often been imperfect, since 1997 our Government have led the way in championing them. It is of course understandable that people have doubts. In a new, globalised world, competition and open markets pose new and unfamiliar challenges, but as our Prime Minister made clear in Manchester in September, we must face up to those challenges and not try to draw away from them. In this case, our Government must lead the debate in explaining why welcoming hard-working individuals from Pitesi and Varna does not pose a threat to either our prosperity or our national way of life. The Prime Minister also said in Manchester that we must ensure that British citizens are confident global citizens. The Government must first ensure that they can be confident European citizens.

With 75 days left before Romania and Bulgaria join, the Government have unfortunately still not made their position clear on what the new proposals will be or what the restrictions will be and when they will apply. Last week the Leader of the House informed me that we can expect a full statement from the Home Office nearer to the end of this month. However, I must reiterate that there is not much time left. As soon as a statement can be made, it should be made. I hope that that clarification will be provided by my hon. Friend the Minister, who is very hard-working.

If the Home Office decides to push ahead with a separate scheme for the two new member countries, it will need the good will and close co-operation of Romania and Bulgaria to implement it. I have been informed by some officials that the Home Office has refused to give any indication of the proposals that may be announced later this month. That is not the basis for partnership. If the Home Office has to implement joint mechanisms for migration control, I would ask that the Minister hold discussions with representatives from Romania and Bulgaria as soon as they can be arranged and to tell them the facts.

Furthermore, I have been informed in other discussions with officials from those countries that British recruitment agencies have now become established in Romania. The private sector has staked its position on the worth to the economy of those workers, even as the Home Office refuses to make its position clear. The situation will lead to confusion for British industry and disappointment for the workers of the new EU member states. In contrast, other member states, such as Finland, have announced that they will fully open their labour markets. Other countries, such as Hungary, have been clear for several months about the types of restrictions that they will impose.

In the United Kingdom there is the worker registration scheme, which we established in May 2004. I was sceptical about the scheme, but it is on track and has been going well. I hope very much that the principles of the scheme will be followed. It would allow many talented students at British universities to stay in the UK, with their fresh skills and ambition.

I have been informed of a representation made to the Prime Minister and passed to the Home Office by senior figures of the Romanian community in the UK. The letter outlines their concerns that media hysteria is damaging the image of Romania, with the potential to damage bilateral relations. I hope that the Minister can assure me that such a representation will receive full consideration. I hope that she will also assure me that if a scheme is introduced, there will be an appropriate right of appeal and a review of the decision once it is taken. I am sure that I do not have to tell her that immigration control is difficult to administer, but it is important that we should be fair with the people with whom we are dealing.

In conclusion, I would ask that the Government make clear their position regarding the new workers as soon as possible. In doing so, they must consider the impact on our economy, our reputation in Europe as a champion of enlargement and open markets, and our image with our close friends and allies in Romania and Bulgaria. Most importantly, the Government must consider the interests of the United Kingdom and its citizens, which are best served by welcoming the skills and talents of other European nations into our work force, and announcing that no restrictions will be introduced from the start of 2007.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to him for his long-standing interest in European Union enlargement and for his valuable contributions to previous debates on the subject, notably during the passage of the European Union (Accessions) Act 2006, which related to Bulgaria and Romania. I thank him and other hon. Members and hon. Friends for their thoughtful contributions to this debate, which touched on the important subjects of European Union enlargement and managed migration.

This debate indeed comes at a timely moment. I assure my right hon. Friend at the outset that the Government are not to be bullied and that xenophobic commentators carry no weight with us.

Hear, hear!

Last month Bulgaria and Romania reached an important milestone, with the recommendation in the European Commission’s final monitoring report on their preparedness for EU membership that both countries will be in a position to take on the rights and obligations of EU membership on 1 January 2007. So, subject to the formalities of final ratification of the accession treaty by those countries yet to complete that process, the EU will shortly welcome Bulgaria and Romania as its newest members.

We welcome the Commission’s assessment of progress towards accession criteria in Romania and Bulgaria. We welcome its proposal to establish a mechanism based upon robust benchmarks to monitor progress in the field of justice and home affairs, particularly as regards the reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption and organised crime. Both countries have made progress over the past 18 months under the constant pressure of EU scrutiny, but continuing the monitoring process will maintain a high degree of pressure for reform. The UK stands ready to assist the two countries in meeting the benchmarks set.

I have met my Romanian and Bulgarian counterparts on a number of occasions and made clear the UK’s view on the continuing reforms needed in those countries, on our support for a monitoring mechanism and on our consideration of restrictions to the labour market. I assure my right hon. Friend that those conversations and meetings have been friendly, open and candid.

The monitoring mechanism is an unprecedented approach and the Commission is clear that it will take safeguard action if either country fails to make adequate progress. That could include the temporary suspension of instruments of mutual recognition, including the European arrest warrant, in the criminal or civil fields. The threat of such a sanction over a member state is very powerful.

On law and order and crime, will the Minister explain why the Government specifically absented themselves from the scheme to share criminal records data? The scheme was to ensure that the wrong people—that is, active criminals—did not enter the country. Seven EU member states belong to the scheme, which commenced in May this year. Why did the Government decide not to join it?

Sticking to the subject under review, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have discussed the warnings index, and information on individuals from Bulgaria and Romania on it, in my meetings with my Bulgarian and Romanian counterparts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that there are discussions about such issues between the UK, Bulgaria and Romania.

I turn to labour market access, the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East put on the table. In 2004, only the UK, Ireland and Sweden provided the A8 full access to their labour markets. Two and a half years on, we believe that A8 migration has brought economic benefit to the UK. Based on their economic circumstances, other member states may have decided differently from us in 2004, but several have followed the UK example. Spain, Portugal, Greece and Finland did so in May this year, and in July, Italy announced the lifting of restrictions on A8 workers. Even member states that announced restrictions have issued many work permits to A8 nationals. Germany, for example, issued 500,000 work permits to A8 nationals in the 16 months after accession.

Workers from the new member states have played a significant role in boosting the available pool of labour and helping ease shortages in the UK. The Department for Work and Pensions has published two reports on the impact of A8 enlargement of the EU on our labour market, and it has found that the broad outcome of enlargement has been to increase output and jobs.

On that point, I should say that that is not only the Government’s view, but that of the CBI as well.

Indeed; I am indebted to my hon. Friend. I am aware of his considerable involvement and expertise in these issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) raised concerns about employment in his constituency. I know that the figure of 13,000 is often cited as a Government underestimate of the numbers of A8 nationals who would come to the UK after accession, but that was never an official Government estimate. It is important that we bear in mind the economic boost that we have witnessed since the accession of the A8.

Hear, hear!

Data from the worker registration scheme show that most accession state workers take employment in sectors to which employers find it difficult to recruit from the resident work force. Accession state workers also contribute to the delivery of vital services. For example, 12,700 A8 nationals in the UK are registered as care workers.

On one of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), I should say that although the overall picture of accession is positive, we are aware of some local authorities’ concerns about localised pressures. We take those seriously and are looking into them carefully.

Will the Minister accept that the concern of people such as me is not that there should not be any influx of labour? I am happy to welcome migration, but it has to be managed. Does she concede that, particularly at the low-income end of the spectrum, there is a substantial degree of displacement? Eastern Europeans who are better skilled and trained are taking jobs that otherwise would have been taken by people coming off unemployment. Will the Minister accept that although it is true that the vast majority of eastern Europeans are not claiming income-related benefits, they are claiming work-related benefits?

Order. Interventions really should be brief.

I have directed my hon. Friend to a number of studies that will give him factual information on the issue. Based on that information, which is not anecdotal, we are firmly of the opinion that our decisions in respect of the accession of the A8 were right for our economy; I shall come to decisions that we might take on the A2 in a moment. The evidence is that we made the right decisions at that time, although that is not to say that we do not recognise that there may be some localised pressures. Planned migration is very much the policy of this Government.

Time is short. We are eager to find out when we will know whether there will be restrictions, and if so, what they will be.

I thank my right hon. Friend for refocusing us on the issue that we are discussing. I shall make a little progress and then come to his exact point.

The Government’s decision on labour market access for the 2004 enlargement was right for the UK. A bigger EU has been good for Britain and British business. A8 workers fill valuable roles in sectors of the UK labour market. Now that the accession date for Bulgaria and Romania has been confirmed, the question for us is about what access there will be this time around to UK jobs for migrants from the new member states.

Of course, our experience with the A8 has a bearing on our planning for A2 accession, but that does not mean that our approach has to be exactly the same. The Government have carefully considered their approach to the derogation that could be exercised for Bulgarian and Romanian nationals’ access to our labour market. We are considering how we will apply restrictions consistent with our support for the principle of managed migration.

We have decided on a gradual approach. In following a policy of managed migration, we have sought, while tackling abuses of the system, to attract the migrants who will most benefit the UK. Our migration system should be responsive to economic needs and produce economic benefits. The Treasury estimates that migration has increased output by at least £4 billion and attributes 10 to 15 per cent. of economic trend growth to migration. Migration has eased skill shortages in key industries and public services, including health and education. We want to build on that success.

We have announced our plans to introduce a points-based system for economic migration. That will improve our ability to identify and attract migrants with the skills that the UK economy needs, while improving compliance and dealing with abuse. We have also announced that we will consult on introducing a migration advisory committee, which will produce independent expert advice to the Government on where migration can fill skills gaps in the economy. We shall do so shortly.

We have been doing a lot of work on how to control access to the labour market. By the end of this month, we will announce to Parliament exactly how we see the system for Bulgaria and Romania working in practice. The controls that we put in place will be spelled out in draft legislation that will be laid before Parliament so that it has the chance to examine and discuss them fully. Any controls will, of course, be fully consistent with the obligations of the accession treaty and we will take the necessary powers to ensure enforcement of the relevant legislation and to deal with anyone who might be tempted to work here irregularly or to exploit irregular workers.

It is too early fully to assess the long-term impact of A8 accession on migration to the UK, as we know that, although some will, many who come here do not intend to stay for the long term. We have some useful figures from the labour force survey and from the worker registration scheme.

I know that various estimates have been made of the number of Bulgarians and Romanians who will migrate to the UK and other member states after accession. Estimates have produced a wide range of figures, which goes to show the difficulty of making predictions. Some of the estimates have been based on—

Order.