The Home Affairs Committee has criticised the Government’s
failure to set out detail on post-Brexit migration policy or to
build consensus on immigration reform despite having over two
years since the referendum in which to do so.
Continued delays to the publication of the White Paper on
Immigration and the Immigration Bill has meant there is little
indication of what immigration policy will be. Despite the fact
that the issue was subject to heated and divisive debate during
the referendum campaigns in 2016 the Government has not attempted
to build consensus on immigration reform or consult the public
over future migration policy in the two years since. The
Committee believes this is a regrettable missed opportunity.
The Committee warns that migration policy now risks being caught
up in a rushed and highly politicised debate in the run up to the
vote on the withdrawal agreement and it cautions all those
involved in the Brexit debate on the withdrawal agreement not to
exploit or escalate tensions over immigration in the coming
months.
EU migration is an important part of UK history. The need for a
good economic deal, the fact that the EU is our closest neighbour
and trading partner, UK skills needs and shared economic, social
and cultural bonds all mean that EU migration will remain
important in future. The committee cautions the Government
against implying that the only EEA migration post-Brexit will be
in the limited categories referred to in the Withdrawal White
Paper, as that is not conducive to an honest or open debate. Nor
should the Government make meeting the net migration target an
objective of EEA migration policy as it is not working and should
be replaced.
In the absence of detail from the Government, the Committee has
explored a range of post-Brexit immigration policy options which
are set out in this report for Parliament and the public to
inform the debate, including on the trade-offs between migration
and trade. The Committee will wait for the Migration Advisory
Committee’s report in the autumn before making further
recommendations, and calls on the Government to consult on
options.
The interim report looks at three broad sets of policy options:
- Within the EU and during transition there are further
measures that could be taken, in particular on registration,
enforcement, skills and labour market reform. As witnesses noted,
the UK has opted not to take up measures which are possible.
- Within an EFTA-style arrangement with close or full
participation in the single market, the report highlights a range
of further measures that might be possible - especially in a
bespoke negotiated agreement. These include ‘emergency brake’
provisions, controls on access to the UK labour market, accession
style controls and further measures which build on the
negotiation carried out by the previous Prime Minister. We
conclude that there are a series of options for significant
immigration reform that should be explored by the Government.
- Within an association agreement or free trade agreement, the
options in part depend on how close such an agreement is. While
any agreement itself may not cover many ‘labour mobility’
measures, the government will still need to make decisions about
long-term migration, including for work, family and study.
Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Rt Hon MP, said:
“Immigration was one of the central issues during the referendum
and it divided the country, but sadly there has been no attempt
by the Government to hold any kind of sensible debate on it or
build any kind of consensus on immigration since. That is deeply
disappointing and it has left a vacuum – and it’s really
important that people don’t exploit that again.
“The misinformation and tensions over immigration during the
referendum campaign were deeply damaging and divisive. It is
essential that does not happen again, and those who exploited
concerns over immigration during the referendum need to be more
honest and more responsible when it is debated in the run up to
the final deal.
“We are calling for a measured debate and consultation on
immigration options instead.
“We found there were a much wider range of possible precedents
and options for immigration reform than people often talk about -
including options that could be combined with participation in
the single market - that we believe the Government should be
exploring further now.”
Interim findings and recommendations include:
- • The net migration
target should not be an objective of EU migration policy.
- • Refusing to
discuss reciprocal immigration arrangements with the EU will make
it much harder to get a close economic partnership. Geography,
shared economic, social and cultural bonds between the UK and EU
mean we will need a distinct and reciprocal arrangement for EU
migration that is linked to our economic relationship.
- • The Government has
not considered the range of possible immigration measures and
safeguards that could allow the UK to participate in the single
market while putting in place new immigration controls. It should
immediately do so. Should the Government change its red lines,
there are a series of options which could provide a basis for
greater control on migration within the single market.
- • Even whilst in the
EU and during the transition there are immigration reform
measures that the UK has not taken up – in particular on
registration, enforcement, skills and labour market reforms to
address lack of skills, exploitation or undercutting.
- • Irrespective of
the future EU relationship, the Government should seek to improve
labour market conditions. Regulation of the labour market,
further measures to prevent exploitation and increased funding
for enforcement would benefit both domestic and migrant workers,
subject to practical arrangements with business.
- • Within a Free
Trade Agreement the options depend on how close the agreement is,
but it is not the case that an FTA would necessarily mean limited
migration. A free trade agreement along the lines of CETA would
only require limited immigration provisions, but decisions would
still have to be made on long-term migration from the EU and
there would still be pressure for educational, high and low
skilled, seasonal and family migration that the government would
need to address.
- • The DCFTA between
the Ukraine and the EU gives a precedent for partial integration
in the single market without requiring the free movement of
people. The European Commission has said there can be no
‘cherry-picking’ of the four freedoms of the single market,
however this is a political judgement rather than a technical or
legal obstacle. The Committee notes that the EU-Ukraine package
was agreed in the context of Ukraine moving towards the EU,
rather than away, and the European Commission has so far insisted
that, for the UK-EU negotiations, the four freedoms of the single
market are indivisible.
- • Whatever the
Government’s intentions for EU migration, it should overhaul
immigration arrangements for non-EEA nationals about which the
Committee received many complaints. We heard considerable
evidence of problems that would arise if arrangements for non-EU
migration were applied for EU migration. The Government
should also introduce a Seasonal Agricultural Workers scheme as
soon as possible.
The range of options referenced in the interim report
as options for Parliament and the public to inform the debate are
set out in the Annex below
Inquiry information:
Post-Brexit migration
policy
Media bids and information:
George Perry: perryg@parliament.uk; 078341
72099
Committee Membership is as
follows:
Rt Hon MP (Chair, Labour, Normanton,
Pontefract & Castleford)   
MP (Conservative, Gillingham
and Rainham)  
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Conservative,
Christchurch)  
(Labour, Cardiff South
and Penarth)  
Kirstene Hair MP (Conservative, Angus) 
MP (Labour, Stretford and
Urmston)
MP (Conservative, East
Worthing and Shoreham)  
MP (Scottish National
Party, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East)  
(Labour, Nottingham
North) 
MP (Conservative,
Moray)  
MP (Independent, Barrow and
Furness) 
Annex
Suggestions and examples of policy options for future
migration from the EEA raised by witnesses to the Select
Committee’s inquiry included:
-
Existing applicable controls
-
· Registration
of EEA citizens within free movement rules combined with
comprehensive and accurate exit checks would help the Government
monitor and manage migration
-
· Linking
the right to residency to self-sufficiency, as after 3 months an
EU national’s right to remain becomes conditional on working,
being self-employed or having sufficient own resources.
- · Labour
market reforms including those operated elsewhere in the EU could
address demand for overseas labour by preventing undercutting and
addressing skills shortages. Examples given to the committee
included:
- The Swiss resident
labour market permit
- Norwegian ID cards
indicating employment status
- Expanding inspections
of working conditions (Switzerland inspects 10% of companies
compared to 0.2% in UK)
- Collective bargaining
agreements like those in Norway and Switzerland
- Greater regulation of
employment agencies and intermediaries
- Increase in resources
and expansion of the remit of the Employment Agency Standards
Inspectorate (EAS)
- Enforcement or
abolition of the Swedish derogation on agency working
- Stronger penalties on
non-compliant employers
- State enforcement of
holiday pay
- Extension of the
Gangmaster and Licensing Abuse Authority’s licensing scheme to
high-risk sectors
- Joint liability in
supply chains
- A mandatory statement
of rights for all workers within a week of employment commencing
- Extension of the right
to a payslip for all workers, and mandatory inclusion of total
hours worked and pay rate for hourly-paid workers
-
Controls within an EFTA-style framework
- · The
safeguard clause embedded in Articles 112 and 113 of the EEA
Agreement, or a version of it, allows for the unilateral
application of an emergency brake on free movement from EEA
countries in circumstances of “serious economic, societal or
environmental difficulties of a sectoral or regional nature”
while other EEA members may take rebalancing measures under
Article 114.
- · The
suspension by Liechtenstein of free movement since 1998 and the
substitution of quotas, derived from the emergency brake
provisions of the EEA Agreement.
- · The
Swiss Agreement on the Free Movement of
Persons permitted the Swiss Government to invoke a
safeguard clause reintroducing quotas on EU immigration, which
was used in 2012 and 2013.
- · Swiss
arrangements to prioritising domestic recruitment in sectors and
regions facing migration pressures, on the basis of the new law
negotiated after the 2014 referendum “against mass immigration”.
-
· Transitional-style
controls, such as those which have restricted the access of
Croatian citizens to the labour markets of EU countries since
2011, or a scheme based on these arrangements as proposed by
Professor Catherine Barnard and Sarah Fraser Butlin
- · The
agreement reached by the UK Government as part of the ‘Cameron
negotiations’, which restricted the access of EU citizens to
benefits in the UK
- · A
national emergency brake, as proposed by former Swiss State
Secretary Michael Ambühl, which would allow the activation of an
emergency brake if inward migration to the UK from the EEA was
exceptionally high relative to other EU Member States.
- · A
regional emergency brake, as suggested by Catherine Barnard,
exercisable by devolved administrators and at a regional level to
impose restrictions on migration for a time limited period, based
on economic data, demand for public services and other criteria.
- · A
‘prior job offer’ system, in which jobseekers did not have the
right to reside in the UK unless they already had an offer of
employment.
-
Other free trade options
- · A
Ukraine-style deep and comprehensive free trade area, on the
basis of precedent for partial integration in the single market
without requiring the free movement of people
- · A
Canada-style free trade agreement, requiring limited immigration
provisions but allowing for a wide range of possible immigration
rules
-
· Extending
the non-EEA Tier structure to include EEA nationals, or
overhauling the UK’s immigration arrangements for both EEA and
non-EEA nationals
-
· Extending
the Tier 5 temporary workers and youth mobility scheme for 18-30
year olds to include EEA citizens
-
· Considering
a new Seasonal Agricultural Workers scheme to give the
agricultural sector privileged access to workers
- · A
regional immigration system, to give regions and local areas
flexibility in their approach to EEA (and non-EEA) workers
