Agenda item

  – report of David Whittle, Head of Policy and Strategic Relationships and Richard Hallett, Head of Business Intelligence)

(1)       Cabinet receiveda reportsetting out forconsideration the potentialimpactfor Kentof theendingoftransitionalarrangementsforBulgarian andRomaniannationalson1 January2014, as requestat ameetingofCabinetinApril 2013.

(2)       Mr Simmondsbrieflyintroducedthereport, heremindedmembersthat thereportdid not seektoaddressor commentuponanyissues ofEuropean ornationalpolicy but sought toidentifywhat theimpacton Kent’spublicservices mightbe when the arrangementscame toan end.

(3)       Mr WhittleandMr Hallettwere inattendanceto talkto theitem.  Mr Whittlemadethe following remarks:

(i)     Thatpredictingmigration patternswas adifficulttask.  Thegovernmenthad decided not to releaseits ownpredictions.

(ii)   Thatthereportforconsiderationwas astrongand balancedreportand had involvedcollaborationwith a widerange ofpartners.  He welcomedcomments maderecently bya memberofNationalInstituteofEconomicand Social Researchsupportingthe workundertaken.

(iii)          The report attempted toidentifythe potential levelsof migrationand the potentialimpactthis predictedmigration mighthave on public services.

(iv)                 Thetransitionalarrangementsallowed Bulgarianand Romaniannationalsto live  in  Britain  already,  in  addition,  in  certain  circumstances  those  people alreadylivingin Britaincould alsowork andthiswas thereasonthatthe report identifieda significantincrease inBulgarian and Romaniannationalslivingin Britain since2007.

(v)   Thatmeantthattheimpactcouldnot becomparedto previousliftingofA8 restrictionswhere restrictionson travelling,working andlivingended atthe sametime.

(vi)                 Thereportfocusesonlyon theadditionalnumberofpeoplethatmightchoose tolive inBritain, andKent,afterthetransitionalarrangements arelifted,noton migrationfromthose countriesas a whole.

(vii)   Thosepeoplewere likely to beeconomicmigrants andwere generally, young, healthyand witha limitednumberofdependants,thereforenot heavily relianton publicservices. Thereforeit hadbeenfoundthatthefinancialcosts, estimatedat £3.1mwereoutweighed bythe financialbenefitsat £70m.   He remindedmembersthatwhile benefitswere likelyto befeltnationally,costs may falllocally.

(viii) The reportdevelopsa scenariomodel based onA8 migrationand applies ahigh low variation.    As mentioned theA8 comparisonwas not perfect,as various circumstanceswere differentbuttherewere no othermore similarexamples onwhichto draw.

(ix)                 Theestimatecontainedwithin thereportwas towardthe highendofthose offeredby othercommentators

(x)    Finally, he remindedmembersthat theworkcommissionedhad beenmade moredifficultby thelackofinformationavailable in thisarea andwarned that untilthis wasimprovedpredictionsat locallevel wouldremainchallenging.

(4)       TheCabinetMember forCommercialandTradedServices, MrBryan Sweetland addressedthe meeting.  Heargued thatthe £3.1mpotentialcostand £70mbenefit figuresincludedin thereport werenotcomparablebecauseofthenational/local split,Mr Whittlehaddescribed.  He wouldbeinterestedto knowwhat theUK cost versusthe UK benefit wouldbe.

(5)       Mr Whittlecouldnotcommentonthenationalcosts andbenefitsoftheendingof transitionalarrangements asthereporthadnot beencommissionedto addressthis, butagreed thatmoreresearch couldbe doneshouldcabinetwish.

(6)       Mr Sweetlandcontinued,he referredto housing needin Graveshamandthe requirement foradditionalhousesto bebuilt. Hewas interestedto knowif migration wascreating an impacton the availabilityof housing.He wonderedwhether the work MrWhittleconductedwould supportthat case.  HoweverMr Whittleconfirmedthat thishad not been the purposeofthe workundertaken.