Government Attacks EU Workers to Violate All Workers’ Rights

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Government Attacks EU Workers to Violate All Workers’ Rights

Asylum Seekers Left Hungry and Homeless

Lobby against Asylum and Immigration Bill

On Monday, February 23, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced a series of measures requiring migrants from the new member countries of the EU to register for work in Britain and denying them the right to social security benefits and other services including health care. These restrictions will last for at least two years and possibly much longer. The measures announced by Blunkett will also pave the way for the introduction of ID cards, which will eventually become obligatory for all EU nationals living in Britain.

According to the Home Secretary, further measures may be taken in the future to restrict the entry of migrant workers if this is deemed necessary. The restrictions on workers from the new EU countries – Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta and Cyprus – have been announced after there has been a concerted campaign by the media and politicians to create alarm concerning the number of migrant workers who, it is alleged, will flood in to Britain after May 1, as a consequence of EU expansion. The climate is reminiscent of that surrounding the introduction of racist immigration laws and restrictions which targeted workers from the former colonies in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean in the past, measures which had the clear aim of maintaining a pool of cheap labour and attempting to creating divisions amongst different sections of the people.

The claim that overseas workers will "flood" into Britain, or other existing EU countries, after May 1 has itself been discounted by the European Commission, which this week announced that according to a recent study migration from the new EU member countries be about 1 percent of the working age population over five years, or about 220,000 annually in a Union which will have a population of 450 million. In another study, The Impact of EU Enlargement on Migration Flows, actually commissioned by the Home Office, it is estimated that only between 5,000 and 13,000 migrants per year will enter Britain. The report concludes that migration to Britain as a result of EU enlargement is unlikely to be "overly large". The fact is that EU enlargement, which the Labour government has championed, will work to the detriment of the weaker economies in the EU. Even the European Commission has pointed out that there is a serious risk of a "brain-drain" from these countries, which will provide Britain and the wealthier members of the EU with a pool of young, skilled and often highly educated workers.

The measures have been strongly criticised by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the TUC and by others. The JCWI points out that discriminatory measures against citizens of other EU states are illegal and that measures expose the government’s claim that it supports the free movement of labour throughout the EU.

David Blunkett’s comments that "tougher benefit rules" are required "to make sure our generosity is not exploited", and the inference that workers from other countries enter Britain illegally are not only part of a campaign of chauvinism and disinformation and divert attention from the fact that the aim of the government is precisely to create the conditions so that workers from the poorer EU countries can be exploited as cheap labour whether they enter Britain or remain at home. Indeed Blunkett actually claims that the British economy requires "overseas workers to help fill skill gaps and the 550,000 vacancies in our labour market". It further underlines and exposes the "big power" politics of the government’s programme of EU enlargement and putting Britain "at the heart of Europe".

Furthermore, the Labour government’s UK Trade and Investment Office boasts to the world’s monopolies that Britain is the place to come to since "Labour market regulations in the UK, including working hours, are the most flexible in Europe, and staffing costs are highly competitive…

"The UK’s business environment gives every incentive for companies to grow, innovate and compete in a global marketplace. It has the lowest utilities costs in the European Union, and a telecommunications industry that is one of the most advanced in the world. There are tax allowances available for companies setting up in certain areas of the UK. Plus, the UK has the lowest main corporation tax rate of any major industrialised country, and there are no additional local taxes on profits."

It continues: "Total wage costs in the UK are among the lowest in Europe ... In the UK employees are used to working hard for their employers. In 2001 the average hours worked a week was 45.1 for males and 40.7 for females. The EU average was 40.9 hours ... UK law does not oblige employers to provide a written employment contract ... Recruitment costs in the UK are low ... The law governing conduct of employment agencies is less restrictive in the UK."

This is the other side of the coin of "outsourcing" which the monopolies are undertaking. What counts to the government, which defends this practice in a uniquely chauvinist way, is the interests of these monopolies, and the further exploitation and division of the workers to this end. As David Blunkett makes clear, the government’s interest is the "skills gap" on the one hand, and a pool of cheap labour on the other. Already, this policy has created the climate where the so-called "gangmasters" can flourish, and the blame for this whole criminal state of affairs must be placed squarely at the feet of the government. "Gangmasters" have become the new "evil" which diverts attention from the racism of the state and the demand of the monopolies for the state to support their every move to make the maximum profit. David Blunkett himself in his statement indulged in these diversionary tactics when he referred to a "sub-economy" which "exploits migrant workers" and "undercuts" British workers.

In this situation, the workers must strengthen their unity in defence of their rights and the rights of all. It is unconscionable that anyone in the country, whether legally or indeed "illegally", should be denied the means to live by society, denied the right to benefits and social services, and simply left to fend for themselves. As always, the Home Secretary’s statements are heavy with chauvinism when he says, for example, "Tougher benefit rules will make sure our generosity is not exploited." Thank you very much, Mr Blunkett.

Workers in Britain cannot allow these violations of their rights, nor can they sanction the anti-human, anti-social treatment of any human beings, but must vigorously oppose the government’s plans and reject its chauvinist and anti-worker programme.

Six out of every 10 asylum seekers refused welfare payments under new Home Office rules are sleeping on the streets, according to a study.

The report, by six refugee charities, says the policy causes "desperate suffering" and "unnecessary distress". A survey of 101 asylum seekers refused support found 61% were sleeping rough and 70% did not have regular food. But the Home Office said there was "no evidence" the rules had led to a significant increase in rough sleeping. A further 57% of those surveyed said their health had suffered. Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act denies support to those who fail to lodge asylum claims as soon as they arrive in Britain.

The six charities – the Refugee Council, Refugee Action, Scottish Refugee Council, Welsh Refugee Council, Refugee Arrivals Project and Migrant Helpline – are calling on the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, to scrap Section 55. They also revealed "serious flaws" in the system, saying the authorities reversed two out of every three rulings made under Section 55 when one of the agencies intervened on behalf of asylum seekers refused support.

Refugee Council chief executive Maeve Sherlock is calling for a government inquiry to "uncover the full extent of the problem". "With each fresh report evidence mounts of the devastating impact of this draconian policy," she added. "People who have fled serious oppression should not be left hungry and homeless." Refugee Action chief executive Sandy Buchan added: "Section 55 is not only breaching the human rights of vulnerable people, it is causing unnecessary costs and delays which further undermine the efficiency and credibility of the asylum system as a whole. "It is time to scrap this unjust and inhumane law once and for all."

Over 100 concerned campaigners against the Asylum and Immigration Bill lobbied parliament on February 23.

Among those taking part, Jeremy Corbyn MP said, "I feel constantly disgusted at the way we treat asylum seekers... the most serious part of this bill is the removal of rights of review." Caroline Lucas MEP called the Bill "an appalling piece of legislation on humanitarian and legal grounds". Hugo Charlton of the Green Party said that the Bill is "institutionalised authoritarianism". Tauhid Pasha (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) said that "the government has successfully managed to delineate asylum seekers as separate...Identifying them with criminals by electronically tagging them".

The Bill includes measures which:

· remove the right of appeal of an adjudicator's decision in a Immigration Appeal tribunal (clause 11);

· criminalise asylum seekers who arrive in Britain with no passport or are in possession of a false one (clause 2);

· allow for electronic tagging of asylum seekers (clause 16);

· allow "removals" of asylum seekers to a safe third country before their asylum claims are decided (clause 13);

· withdraw accommodation and financial support from families whose asylum appeals have been dismissed (clause 7).