Exclusive: government blocks release of estimate for Romanian and Bulgarian immigration

In response to a New Statesman freedom of information request, the government says that the release of the figures could threaten "collective responsibility".

David Cameron once promised that his government would be "the most open and transparent in the world" but Eric Pickles was remarkably evasive when asked how many Romanians and Bulgarians he expects to migrate to the UK when the EU transitional controls end next year. Appearing on The Sunday Politiclast month, the Communities Secretary told Andrew Neil

I’ve been given a figure, I’m not confident on the figure, and until I’m confident on the figure I’m not going to quote a figure.

In the interests of transparency, I submitted a freedom of information request to the Department for Communities and Local Government asking to see the figure that Pickles was so reluctant to give. 

A month later, the department has replied (see below), confirming that it "holds" the requested information (the expected number of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants) but adding that it requires "further time" (another 20 working days) to decide "if the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest disclosing it."

Fascinatingly, one of the exemptions cited by the department is that the release of the figure would "be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers of the crown." 

It's easy to see why the government is reluctant to release its estimates. If the figure is higher-than-expected, it will be attacked from the right for "losing control" of immigration (and will be powerless to act since EU law guarantees the free movement of people). If the figure is lower-than-expected, it runs the risk of suffering a similar fate to Labour, which mistakenly forecast that just 13,000 people a year would migrate from eastern Europe to the UK after 2004 (300,000 did). 

Asked by MPs yesterday how many Romanian and Bulgarian migrants were expected to arrive in 2014, immigration minister Mark Harper said: "Speculative projections about future inflows cannot be made with any degree of accuracy and are therefore not particularly helpful". 

Nonetheless, I am promised another response from Pickles's department by 12 March. We will soon find out how "transparent" Cameron's government really is. 

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has consistently refused to give an estimate for Romanian and Bulgarian immigration to the UK after 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.