This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/30/uk-government-eu-migrant-benefits

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
UK 'will not cave in' on EU migrant benefits Iain Duncan Smith accuses European commission of benefits 'land grab'
(about 9 hours later)
The government has pledged to fight demands to ease restrictions on EU immigrants' access to benefits, after the European commission said it was taking the UK to the European court of justice over its alleged discrimination against EU nationals who have been living and working in the UK. The European commission has been accused of a land grab by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, after it launched a court case aimed at securing equal rights for non-British EU nationals resident in the UK.
EU nationals face an extra test to see if they are eligible to claim benefits in the UK, which the commission argues goes beyond the standard eligibility criteria for welfare payments. Stepping into the incendiary debate on immigration and benefits fraud, the EU executive said two years of fruitless negotiation with David Cameron's government had left it no option but to take the case to the European court of justice in Luxembourg.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said the right-to-reside test was a vital and fair tool to ensure benefits were paid only to people legally allowed to live in the UK. "It is absolutely imperative that we do all we can to protect our benefits system from abuse by migrants," said a spokesman. But Duncan Smith vowed: "I will fight this every step of the way, I will not cave in and I will continue to work on strengthening our benefit system in the meantime to ensure it is not open to abuse by anyone."
"The right-to-reside part of our habitual residence test is a vital and fair tool to ensure that benefits are only paid to people who are legally allowed to live in Britain. We have always been clear that we believe our rules are in line with EU law. If the commission decides to begin legal proceedings, we will fight vigorously to ensure that our benefit system is protected from abuse by migrants." The issues of EU sovereignty, immigration and welfare involved in the legal dispute bring together the touchstones that have led to a surge in support for Ukip.
A source close to the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, insisted he would not cave in to legal action over the right-to-reside test. They are also likely to become a point of principled dispute in the argument between the Conservatives and the commission over the redrafting of the balance of competences between the commission and individual EU states.
The commission is poised to make a formal announcement, but Duncan Smith has indicated he will "see them in court" if they try to strike out the test. Duncan Smith said he had been given assurances by Cameron that social security would be a red line for the Conservative party in its broader negotiations with the EU over the balance of power between the commission and nation states.
"He will not be dictated to on what he can and cannot do," the source said. "It is his responsibility to do all that he can to stop abuse and benefit tourism in this country." He said Cameron was "very clear that we will do whatever it takes to makes sure that we control our benefits system, because we cannot have British taxpayers living under the cosh of the European commission telling them who they will pay their benefit money to".
Speaking on the BBC's Today programme Peter Lilley, the Conservative former secretary of state for social security, who introduced the right-to-reside test, said the legal challenge was an example of the European commission trying to extend its power. He added that the UK was not alone in objecting to interference from the commission on the way the right to benefits is decided. The dispute revolves around two different sets of criteria determining entitlement to social security benefits, with the EU applying "habitual residence" rules – also signed up to by the UK in 2009 – but Britain also using a more restrictive "right-to-reside" formula when deciding if non-British EU citizens in the UK are eligible for child benefits, child tax credit, income-based jobseeker's allowance and state pension credit.
"The European commission is now saying that our jobseeker's allowance is not social assistance, even the non-contributory bit of it. That seems to me flying in the face of their own rules, but in any case is an attempt by them to extend their competence into areas where the treaties say they shouldn't be involved," said Lilley. "To extend it to others would be costly, unwelcome, undemocratic, not approved by parliament and I hope we will strongly resist this." The last Labour government introduced the extra right-to-reside test, which the commission claims breaches EU rules on eligibility for welfare.
Duncan Smith said: "The commission is now trying to use freedom of movement as a way in to start controlling what national governments do about those who are not in work in their countries. I think it's a blatant land grab." Speaking on BBC radio, he added: "If we do away with our right-to-reside test, what will happen almost immediately is that people from day one will be eligible to income-related benefits."
The Department for Work and Pensions said: "The right-to-reside part of our habitual residence test is a vital and fair tool to ensure that benefits are only paid to people who are legally allowed to live in Britain. We have always been clear that we believe our rules are in line with EU law. If the commission decides to begin legal proceedings, we will fight vigorously to ensure that our benefit system is protected from abuse by migrants."
Labour supported the government position while Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, challenged any suggestion that the UK could overturn the EU's powers.
The commission contends that British rules deciding how foreign EU nationals qualify for social security payments are discriminatory, despite Britain's commitment to a common EU system. Jonathan Todd, a commission spokesman said: "The difference between us is fundamental … There's no alternative but to resolve the issue before the court of justice."
The commission said 28,400 applications for benefits from foreign EU citizens had been rejected in Britain between 2009 and 2011 – two out of three applications. It believes many of them would have been granted were it not for the tighter UK rules which Brussels argues are illegal. The commission also cited a London University study which found that EU nationals living in Britain paid in more to the social security system than they took out. Despite the clear political impact from the timing of the court action, commission officials insisted they were acting purely on legal grounds.
Stephen Booth, director of Open Europe, a sceptical thinktank that supports Britain's continued EU membership, said: "The European commission has thrown a hand grenade into an already intense debate about the UK's continued EU membership. At a time when public support for both the EU and immigration are wafer thin, this is the worst possible issue the commission could have sought to challenge, at the worst possible time."
"Free movement of workers has been beneficial to both the UK and Europe but an absolutely key plank in maintaining public confidence in this area is to give national governments discretion to safeguard their welfare systems. If the commission wants to push the UK out of the EU, it's doing a pretty good job."
Open Europe accepted that the additional UK residence test was legally contentious.
Adam Weiss, legal director of the Advice on Individual Rights in Europe centre, who made the original complaint to the commission, said British and Irish citizens always passed the right-to-reside test but other EU citizens did not.Adam Weiss, legal director of the Advice on Individual Rights in Europe centre, who made the original complaint to the commission, said British and Irish citizens always passed the right-to-reside test but other EU citizens did not.
"What EU law says is that in relation to these benefits, discrimination based on nationality is prohibited, so it is not fair, it is not lawful, to discriminate, to favour British and Irish citizens on the one hand and to discriminate against citizens of other EU member states on the other hand," he said."What EU law says is that in relation to these benefits, discrimination based on nationality is prohibited, so it is not fair, it is not lawful, to discriminate, to favour British and Irish citizens on the one hand and to discriminate against citizens of other EU member states on the other hand," he said.
He added that in many cases EU citizens who had been living, working and paying tax in the UK were denied benefits such as state pension benefit and child tax credits.He added that in many cases EU citizens who had been living, working and paying tax in the UK were denied benefits such as state pension benefit and child tax credits.
Lilley said the commission's action boosted the prime minister's efforts to pull back powers from Brussels. "It does strengthen the case for David Cameron seeking to get power back to this country to make our own laws rather than allowing this creeping competence of law-making being extended to Brussels even in areas where every single country decided it should be reserved for itself," he said. Speaking on the BBC's Today programme Peter Lilley, the former Conservative cabinet minister, said: "The European commission is now saying that our jobseeker's allowance is not social assistance, even the non-contributory bit of it. That seems to me flying in the face of their own rules, but in any case is an attempt by them to extend their competence into areas where the treaties say they shouldn't be involved. To extend it to others would be costly, unwelcome, undemocratic, not approved by parliament and I hope we will strongly resist this."
Britain and Brussels have been at loggerheads for weeks over Theresa May's campaign to clamp down on so-called "benefits tourism". Cecilia Malmström, the European commissioner for home affairs, said there was no evidence to support the claims of immigrants arriving in Britain purely to get benefits and that requests for data from Britain had been ignored.
But diplomats and officials in Brussels admit that concerns about benefits shopping across the EU are growing in several countries and London has some influential supporters who are also increasingly keen on Brussels-bashing.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.