Britain’s immigration policy is not winning friends in Europe. Earlier this month, the vice-president of the European Commission, Vivane Reding, said that it was “simply not true” that there was an “invasion of foreigners” stealing jobs and draining welfare and the NHS. A few days later,Europe’s social affairs commissioner, Laszlo Andor said that Britons were “emotional and misguided” about migration, and that “myths” spread by politicians would be disproved when the much-touted flood of Romanians and Bulgarians did not materialise.
Of course, these criticisms have done nothing to influence policy. The latest measure to clamp down on so-called “benefits tourism” will prevent EU migrants from getting housing benefit, if they are also claiming jobseeker’s allowance. Announcing the measure, the work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith also confirmed that from April, EU migrants who have been in work but then lost their job will not be able to claim jobseeker’s allowance for six months.
"These are strong and fair measures to make sure British taxpayers don't subsidise people who want to do a bit of benefit tourism and come from one country to another just to get the better benefits system," said Duncan Smith.
The measures are clearly designed to deter people from coming to Britain. Anxious about the growing popularity of the anti-European, anti-immigration UK Independence Party (Ukip), the Conservatives are determined to publicise their efforts to limit EU migration – hence the upsurge in anti-European rhetoric.
But is “benefits tourism” actually a real phenomenon? The right-wing campaign group Migration Watch published a study of benefits across the EU, concluding that the British system is more generous and easier to access than in other states. It said that those from poorer EU states would be attracted to the UK because they are seeking a higher standard of living.
That last part is certainly true: there is evidence that workers move from the poorer south and east of Europe to the west and north, in search of higher salaries and standards of living. But what scant evidence there is suggests that the primary reasons for people moving are either to work or to be with family. Most people do not cross borders to receive better state handouts.
In October, the European Commission published a report on the effect that migration within the EU was having on the welfare and social security systems in each member state. It found: “On average EU migrants are more likely to be in employment than nationals living in the same country. This study found little evidence... to suggest that the main motivation of EU citizens to migrate and reside in a different member state is benefit-related, as opposed to work or family-related. This is underpinned by data which show that, in most countries, immigrants are not more intensive users of welfare than nationals.”
It found that the UK is the only EU member state where a smaller proportion of EU migrants (1 per cent) claimed any type of benefit than nationals did (4 per cent). Of course, it is a complicated issue, and there may be isolated instances of “benefits tourism” – but not enough to be statistically significant.
Yesterday’s policy announcement on housing benefit is just the latest move to clamp down on EU migrants to the UK. There is already a stringent residency test that restricts access to certain benefits.
So why the “benefits tourism” bogeyman? The phenomenon might be statistically insignificant, but given the prevailing anti-immigration climate, no mainstream politician is likely to make that argument in the near future.
