This is probably a bit of an obscure area on the immigration debate – particularly as it is the end of the current series, but this is very important for any area which has attracted a large part of the Eastern European immigration – such as Old Stoke and other areas such as Rectory Road and the upper end of Wherstead Road.  If this is the sort of area that will attract Polish immigrants now, it will attract Turkish immigrants if Turkey is allowed into the European Union.  The pressure on rents, house prices, unskilled and semi skilled wages, doctors’ waiting lists and school places will be felt in exactly the same places – although it is likely to spread wider to places like the Maidenhall Estate and the Hayes.

One rather worrying piece here is the assertion that there is balanced immigration within the EU.  Well to a point.  There is now, but there has not always been in healthier economic times.  There is also a difference between British pensioners going to Spain, or British computer programmers going to Amsterdam and Polish plumbers going to Ipswich.  There are different pressures from different types of immigrants.  While immigration can be a very healthy thing, there does need to be a constant watch to ensure that the right mix of immigrants is coming in. 

Here are Ben’s answers:

Questions on Turkish accession and immigration

18. There was no mention of Turkish accession to the EU in the Conservative Manifesto or Programme for Government, although there was a general expression of support for further enlargement. Do you accept that David Cameron was wrong to say that those who oppose Turkey’s accession were driven by “protectionism, narrow nationalism or prejudice”?

The Conservative Party and David Cameron in particular have for a long time stated their support for Turkey’s appropriate accession to the European Union. There has been no change of policy in this area.

I do agree with the Prime Minister that some of those who oppose Turkey’s accession do so for the wrong reasons although I am sure that he at no point sought to claim that everyone who opposed Turkey’s membership of the European Union did so on a selfish basis, as your question indicates. 

I believe that Turkey’s accession can only be achieved with VERY strict safeguards on its borders. I understand that it is an issue which causes people a lot of concern and I appreciate that some people are inclined to urge caution. I too agree that there should be extreme caution even though I am a firm supporter of Turkey’s accession.

19. Do you approve of Turkish accession? If so where was the most prominent place that you stated this before the election?

I support Turkey’s appropriate accession to the European Union and have done so for some time. Anyone asking me whether I supported Turkey’s accession previously would have received that answer, although I have to admit that this was not, as I recall, a matter of primary interest to the voters of Ipswich.

Turkey’s accession to the European Union is vital if we are fully to develop our economic ties with that country. By 2017, Turkey will be the second fastest growing economy in the world. The current value of our trade with Turkey is over £9 billion. The government therefore believes that Turkey is of crucial importance to our own economy and hopes to double this figure over the next five years. Furthermore, I am assured by the government that Turkey’s unique geographical position at the border between Europe and Asia means that good relations with that country are essential to preserving the security of the UK.

The Home office has confirmed that Turkey’s accession to the EU is still a long way off and it is not yet clear what form the accession process will take. Turkey’s application process has already taken far longer than any other: it first applied to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1959 and although formal accession negotiations began in 2005, these have now stalled. Eighteen out of thirty-five negotiating ‘chapters’ are either informally blocked or formally frozen, and talks on opening another chapter, scheduled for 22nd December, have now been cancelled.

20. The Conservative Manifesto or the Programme for Government talked about the use of transitional controls for new accessions. Do these transitional controls include immigration?

I am told by the government that it has always been very clear on the need for immigration controls for new members of the European Union to avoid any influx of immigrants from new member states. This was the case with Romania and Bulgaria and will also apply to Turkey.

21. Will permanent or indefinite controls on immigration from Turkey be considered as a condition for Turkey’s membership?

I have investigated this with the government and their policy is as follows.

There will almost certainly be long transitional restrictions on free movement of workers in the event of Turkey joining the EU, probably in the form of a permanent ‘safeguard clause’ allowing member states to introduce restrictions in certain circumstances. However, there is currently no agreement on permanent restrictions.

I am assured that the 2005 negotiating framework for Turkey provides for long transitional periods, specific arrangements and (for the first time) permanent ‘safeguard clauses’ on free of movement of persons and other areas. Furthermore, the government believes that the decision making process on the eventual establishment of freedom of movement of persons should allow individual member states as much scope as possible to determine their own arrangements taking into account the impact on competition or the functioning of internal markets.

It is vital to remember that net immigration from the European Economic Area has been almost balanced. There is no reason to suggest that this would change with Turkey’s accession. This of course was not the case with the 2004 enlargement of the EU. In this case, the last government were forced to admit they had got it very wrong. Labour ministers predicted an influx of around 13,000 immigrant workers from Eastern Europe, but by giving all the new EU citizens work rights, they opened the borders to over 600,000 immigrants. The government reassures me that, in the event of Turkey’s accession to the EU, it will implement strict measures to prevent this from happening again. These restrictions will be more severe and more permanent than those applied to the 2004 and 2007 enlargements of the EU.

22. Will any Treaty that prepares for accession of a new country automatically be subject to a referendum lock due to the diminution of British representation in EU institutions? Or will the coalition break their promise as they look to be doing with the scrutiny of national budgets (including those outside the Eurozone) that is proposed by Germany?

Following the successful passage of the EU Bill through the House on 11th January, the government has assured me that in future any significant treaties or changes to existing treaties relating to Europe will be subject to a referendum lock.

Another installment on the long, long letter from Ben Gummer on immigration and the coalition’s policies.  This time the focus is on the accountability of the intracompany and enrepreneur’s visas.  Part 1 is here. 

Although the entrepreneur visa is a good idea, there will need to be a close eye kept on whether it is really attracting job creators.  If this is not watched by Parliament the best that can be expected is that it will be exploited by the Daily Mail or the Daily Express, the worst is tha the BNP jump on this.

The Freedom of Information answer is deeply disappointing.  If a person wishes to join a community then this is a very public act and this information should be available to the community.  For example if you have lost a job that has been filled by someone with a suspiciously similar responsibilities, do you really have no right to find out if you have been treated fairly?  What abut if you lose a council house or a school place? 

The fact that most of these suspicions will be unfounded is a greater reason to allow the maximum transparency to the process.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Now to the more interesting part of the blog post:

Questions on the accountability of applications

5. Are there any estimates for how many people will use these two routes?

In 2008, 48,010 people successfully applied for an intra-company transfer to the UK. The government assures me that the restrictions it is imposing on the intra-company transfer route will reduce this number significantly.

The government has not published estimates of the number of future applications under the entrepreneur visa categories, but is keen to encourage more talented people to come to UK via this route.

6. Will the numbers applying for and being granted these visas be published on a monthly basis and in a timely manner?

Immigration statistics are published quarterly on the Home Office Research and Development Statistics website and in answer to Parliamentary Questions.

7. What measures are proposed if the number of migrants using these routes is significantly higher than the estimates?

The government tells me that it has no plans to limit the number of migrants using the entrepreneur’s visa, since it hopes to attract more of these workers. In her announcement on 23rd November the Home Secretary stated that fewer than 300 people entered the UK in the investor and entrepreneur categories last year, “and that is not enough”. Furthermore, I am assured that the intra-company visa route will be tightened up, ensuring that the number of intra-company migrants will fall.

8. Will individual visa applications under these two routes be covered by the Freedom of Information Act and the Information Commissioner?

The government does not intend to make provisions for individual visa applications to be covered the Freedom of Information Act.

As a bit of a background I wrote an email to Ben Gummer a bit before Christmas.  Despite responding months ago, I’ve not put his answers up on the blog as intended.  If you are concerned about immigration there are a number of interesting points about the coalition’s policies.  Unless Ben’s been asked for his opinion the answers are based on the coalition’s policies.

It is very important to establish a thoughtful middle ground on immigration where the immigration policy is centered around the interests of British citizens, so allowing in job creators and highly skilled service providers (such as doctors and university tutors) and not to hurt the working class through bringing in immigrants who crowd out jobs, housing and services. 

On this issue (there are plenty of other parts to this which will be coming on line) I must admit that I’ve changed my mind on the Entrepreneur’s visa although still worried that it will become a loophole.  The slight tightening on the intra-company visas is welcome, but I can still see them being blatantly abused by large employers.

Now to Ben’s responses:

General questions on the visas

1. Do you still accept the need to reduce economic immigration into this country?

Yes. I think that this is very important. In Ipswich and elsewhere I, along with many other people, have become very disillusioned at the lack of control of our borders. I have long been concerned that this failure in confidence not only damages our communities but erodes traditional British tolerance for those seeking genuine asylum.

We need to be clear, however, that in terms of the European Economic Area, net immigration is more or less balanced. In 2009, the net inflow of European workers into the UK was just 12,000. When it is considered that overall immigration runs into the hundreds of thousands, this is a very small number. Overwhelmingly, migrant workers come to the UK from outside of Europe. This is an important point to bear in mind and I will return to it later on. 

2. In the Conservative Manifesto and Programme for Government there was no mention of either the new entrepreneur visa route or the intra-company transfers. In both documents there were pledges “to introduce an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants” and “to introduce new measures to minimize abuse of the immigration system, for example via student routes.” Do you agree that the two new routes are both a potentially large loophole in any limit on economic migration and a potential new route to abuse of the immigration system?

I appreciate why people are concerned about this. I should say that although I do not agree with this view myself, I have raised the issue with the government and their response is as follows.

It is crucial to establish, first of all, that the intra-company transfers are not a new immigration route. They form part of the existing tier two (skilled worker) entry route. Furthermore, the government assures me that, far from creating a new route, they are in fact working hard to tighten up an existing one. The government intends to increase the minimum salary for someone entering the UK by an intra-company transfer from £24,000 to £40,000, ensuring that only senior managers and essential specialists are able use this immigration route.

The government is also responding to the needs of industry and to the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee and limiting the number of tier one visas (meant for the brightest and the best, but widely abused in the past) to 1,000 exceptionally talented scientists, sportsmen and artists.

The coalition believes that entrepreneur’s visas are essential to the growth of the UK economy and that those who enter the UK by this route are some of the most important wealth creators in our country. The government therefore thinks that it is right to encourage more of such individuals to come to the UK.

3. What will be the time limit for these visas?

The government’s proposal, as I understand it, is this. Entrepreneur’s visas will apply for two years. Towards the end of this period, immigrants must apply for permission to extend their stay. If this application is approved, highly skilled migrants are allowed to remain in the UK for a further three years, after which they may apply for permanent citizenship.

The government has confirmed that under the existing system of intra-company visas, a worker is allowed to stay in the country for up to three years, after which an extension of two years can be granted. An application can be made for permanent citizenship after five years.

4. Will applicants for these visas be denied the ability to apply for UK citizenship, state benefits, employment outside the firm or follow on visas?

The government’s policy here is as follows. As far as benefits are concerned, most people with limited leave to remain are subject to the condition that they have ‘no recourse to public funds’ during their stay in the UK. If such an individual breaches the conditions of the leave they become liable to be removed from the country and to have all further leave refused. They may also be prosecuted. These public funds include child benefit, council tax benefit, housing benefit, income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, pension credit, working tax credit and many others.

At present, workers on both of these visas will be able to apply for permanent citizenship after five years. They will all be entitled to apply for follow on visas upon the expiry of their original visa. However, the Home Secretary has stated her commitment to ending the link between temporary and permanent migration and will be bringing forward more details on this in due course.

Migrants on intra-company transfer visas are, like other tier two migrants, allowed to undertake ‘extra work’ in the same profession for up to twenty hours per week without having to inform the UK Border Agency. If they wish to do a ‘second job’, however (more than twenty hours per week or work in a different profession) they must obtain a separate Certificate of Sponsorship in order to do so.

Highly skilled workers on entrepreneur’s visas are able to come to the UK without a specific job offer and to determine their own employment arrangements.

I know this isn’t within the ward but Ben Gummer has got a real result with Holywells School getting the funding for rebuiliding.

He raised this issue with me yesterday and I congratulated him as is proper.  I also told him that he’d have to do the same for Stoke High School.  It’s a good thing I’ve already  got the Christmas card

The path between Halifax cut and Bourne Park is in a shocking state of repair, partly due to the fact that no one is quite sure of who owns it.  The right of way is not certain either.  Ben Gummer asked a question on the right of way last week:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Network Rail plans to make formal arrangements for public access to the footpath it owns between Bourne park and Halifax road in respect of its location on Sustrans National Cycle Route 1.

The reply from Theresa Villiers, the Minister of State for Railways was quite bland:

This is an operational matter for Network Rail as the owner and operator of the national rail network. My hon. Friend should contact Network Rail’s acting chief executive at the following address for a response to his question:

Peter Henderson

Acting Chief Executive

Network Rail

Kings Place

90 York Way

London, N1 9AG.

I am told the Network Rail are in fact looking at this now, although there is an ownership issue.

The odd thing is that in the last government the minister for railways was none other than Chris Mole.  I know that Philip Smart has been looking into this issue as well, but either never thought that Chris Mole would be interested or Chris Mole simply was not interested in such a small matter that affected “little people”.  After all according to Freedom of Information requests he had no meetings with the executives of National Express East Anglia during his time in the Ministry of Transport, and that inaction affected thousands of his constituents – many of them on a daily basis.

(When Ben Gummer did his cycle around Ipswich I made sure that the cycle Ipswich people put the route through that path, even though it is not one of the marked roads, so now he knows first hand how shockingly bad it is).

… well not literally.

This is from a written question tabled by Ben Gummer:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to assist competing bus companies to reach cooperative agreements to provide regular services on (a) Wherstead Road in Ipswich constituency and (b) other routes with an identified need.

And here’s the answer from Norman Baker, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Regional and Local Transport:

The regulatory framework for buses permits co-operative agreements between bus operators as long as certain conditions are met. We have seen good results in places where local authorities and operators work effectively in partnership to improve bus services-such as in Brighton, York and Cambridge.

While it is the role of Government to set this framework and encourage more of this type of activity for the benefit of bus passengers in Ipswich and elsewhere it is up to local authorities and communities to make it happen. This might be a local authority making a statutory quality bus partnership scheme, as in Nottingham, or instead endorsing a qualifying agreement between two operators, as in Oxford.

Ultimately, however, it is for commercial operators to decide whether to run services such as the route 66 bus in Ipswich, and at what frequency. If a service is not considered commercially viable, a local authority can decide it wishes to tender for and support a replacement service, or discuss with the local community alternative forms of transport provision.

Of course it is for commercial operators to decide what routes they should operate, and the irony here is that First actually created a demand where it had previously been limited.  However if the current services were better spaced out (which would involve some collusion) then there would be a more reliable service, without the need for a subsidy.  European anti-competitive rules are really hampering us here.

Come on Suffolk, get your act together!

Speaking of rubbish, I was pleased to see the election court in Oldham and Saddleworth find Labour’s Phil Woolas guilty of lying.  Not that he saw fit to apologize.

True, politicians are not famous for giving straight answers.  But they should at least apologize when they are proved wrong.  For instance, at the last election, thousands of leaflets were put out in Ipswich scaring some very vulnerable people about what a Conservative government would do.  None of them had even a glancing relationship with the truth.  One of the most effective was the “warning” that we would cut the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners.  I know how this worried people, as I had to answer concerned pensioners across the town who brought the issue up on the doorstep.

Well, just as we promised at the time – repeatedly – the Allowance has stayed.  Will Ipswich Labour apologize?  I won’t hold my breath.

I’m certainly not putting the previous article up “Time we learned from Europe”.  Harrumph.  It was about leaning from Germany.

(There is a massive issue of political free speech in the Woolas judgement, and it was the wrong judgement.  But politicians such as David Ellesmere and John Cook do need to stop lying so much.)

Related articles

• Oldham East & Saddleworth: It’s already on (libdemvoice.org)
• The JC and the Phil Woolas affair (thejc.com)
• Woolas loses seat as MP in ruling (mirror.co.uk)
• Phil Woolas: what the judges said (telegraph.co.uk)
• Woolas rival ‘risked everything’ (bbc.co.uk)
• Phil Woolas is Labour’s fall guy | Dan Hodges (guardian.co.uk)
• Phil Woolas to launch legal challenge next week (telegraph.co.uk)
• Court to rule on Woolas election (bbc.co.uk)
• “+++Breaking News Woolas election declared void – new election in Oldham East and Saddleworth” and related posts (carons-musings.blogspot.com)
• Phil Woolas: ‘Gone but not forgotten’ (bbc.co.uk)
• 7 in 10 voters back decision to unseat Phil Woolas (newstatesman.com)
• Labour ‘had to act’ over Woolas (bbc.co.uk)
• The Phil Woolas affair is about the soul of the Labour party | Sunny Hundal (guardian.co.uk)
• Phil Woolas guilty (sluggerotoole.com)

It’s really as simple as that.  The link’s here.

I’ve been criticised by Andrew Coates for not “engaging” with Suffolk Unison’s attempt to sacrifice services in order to preserve jobs (I will talk about that particular failure of the left later) and instead talking about the East Anglian Children’s Hospice.  So in that spirit this is Ben Gummer‘s itinerary on Sunday:

8h30  – Meet at Ben’s current office, IP-City, 1 Bath Road, Ipswich, IP2 8SD

9h00 – Start cycling through Bridge

11h00/11h30 – Finish Bridge at  Stone Lodge Lane (just outside Bridge)

11h30/12h00 – Start Stoke Park

14h00/14h30 – Finish at The The Kingfisher, Hawthorn Drive, Ipswich.  Break for lunch.

14h30/15h00 – Start Sprites

17h00/17h30 – Finish at Hawthorn Drive Shops car park.

Sorry for the European times, but it’s from Ben Gummer so what do you expect?

As someone who gets in trouble for putting up funny looking pictures of Ben Gummer I will refrain from putting this one up, and will suggest that you go to the Ben on a Bike website.  How old does he look?

The cause is far better than the photo.  He’s going around The East Anglia Children’s Hospice is a cause that is well worth supporting.  Human life needs to be nurtured at all points from conception to death and the Hospice movement is a rare bit of unalloyed good news in the culture of late twentieth century Britain.