HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Post-Brexit Migration Policy
Consultation
Name: Professor Thom Brooks FAcSS FHEA FRHisS FRSA
Job title:
Dean & Chair in Law and
Government
Address:
Durham Law School, Durham
University, Durham, DH1 3LE
Website: http://thombrooks.info
|
|
OBJECTIVES
1. What should the Government’s
objectives be in drawing up a post Brexit immigration system?
This moment should be seized
to overhaul the immigration system. For over 20 years, there have been
countless Acts of Parliament relating to immigration and sometimes annually.
These can be amended almost as soon as they come into force. An immigration
commission is needed urgently to effectively tidy this up with a new draft Bill
that harmonizes existing laws. This would be one small, but important, step
towards making the system more transparent and less complex.
The next step would be to
ensure Britain’s competitiveness with an immigration system that both attracts
the world’s best and brightest – but without separating British citizens from
their families. I would recommend an end to points-based migration, the use of
post-study visas, and a new Tier 6 stream for EU (and Commonwealth) citizens
based on the UK’s longstanding and deep connection with each.
There should also be
fundamental reforms to the family rules. The minimum income threshold, if it
were to remain, should account for income by the couple and not only the UK
citizen earned in the UK. Non-EU citizens cannot claim public benefit anyway
and the income threshold aimed at cancelling out any such benefit burden is a
red herring. But denying income earned from the non-UK citizen in calculating the
threshold increases risk of separating lawfully recognised marriages of British
citizens with no convincing public policy benefit.
2. What are the implications of
the net migration target?
The net migration target is a smokescreen.
As I have argued elsewhere and many times, the government could reach its
target of 100,000 or less within 12 months if it wanted to.
At present, we see non-EU citizens within the government’s full control rising
while the EU citizens it claims are unrestricted falling fast. The net
migration target could be reached by ending visas for entrepreneurs, skilled
professionals, students and more for non-EU citizens. But there has not been
deep cuts for these areas because of the evidence-based benefits they deliver
for the UK. This raises a question about why have a net migration target that
could be reached but isn’t. Brexit is not a cause.
In fact, there has been what I
have called ‘the free movement myth’ that EU migration is unregulated.
This is untrue. What is true is the UK has done much less at imposing existing
powers that could be used to restrict EU migration than other EU countries,
such as France and Germany.
It has been alarming to see
the continued exodus of British citizens, which I have also written about
repeatedly.
Net migration not only includes estimates of foreign students, but British
citizens. Neither should be included lest it incentivizes the government to
encourage more UK citizens to leave to achieve a net migration drop, that is
justified as an attempt at improving public confidence.
Of course, the biggest problem
with net migration is that it does not address the root issues. The public’s
concern – rightly or wrongly – with immigration has much more to do with
perceptions of their adverse impact on access to public services. A cut in
migration numbers is thought to lead to shorter A&E queues, more available
housing or better job prospects. Putting aside the issue of underinvestment in
public services, less migration is likely to counterintuitively contribute to
more adverse impact. Migrants in A&E are more likely to be the doctors and
nurses than patients – fewer of the former will lead to longer waiting times
for the latter. And so on. Cutting net migration may well fuel further
anti-immigration sentiment based on an intuitive, but false, perception of how
migration impacts on public services.
- How should the UK address
skills shortages which are currently met by EU migration?
I strongly recommend
significantly reforming the Migration Advisory Committee. The MAC is a group of
five economists providing macroeconomic advice. The government would benefit
far more than a slightly expanded MAC including 2-3 additional experts in law and
social policy that could help assess the wider social impacts of changes. This
is currently overlooked. Plus, the MAC should provide more evidence on
microeconomic impacts on regions.
Such a reformed MAC would be
better placed to assess where skills shortages are locally as well as
nationally with a view to the wider potential impacts.
- Should a post-Brexit
immigration policy seek to reflect regional variations?
Yes. I would strongly
recommend a national quota system for Tier 1 and 2 visas with additional quota
made available by region on evidence-based application for this additional
quota by regions. This would keep the standard sufficiently high in terms of
accountability and transparency. Too rarely do we hear our elected officials
espouse the known benefits that immigration has brought to Britain. This system
would share this responsibility nationally and locally while engaging the
public to support such cases.
BREXIT
NEGOTIATIONS
5. To what extent will trade and
immigration arrangements be linked in the negotiations and in the legal text on
the UK’s future relationship with the EU?
This is uncertain at present,
but migration can regularly feature in such arrangements. I would expect it to
feature here.
- What are the likely
trade-offs?
This will depend on which
arrangement is agreed.
MIGRATION
CONTROLS WITHIN EU SINGLE MARKET RULES
7. Could the UK seek to continue
to participate fully in the Single Market while satisfying public demand for
control of immigration?
Yes and no. Some segments of
the public have been led to believe that the Single Market’s “free” movement
means uncontrolled mass migration. They will not be satisfied.
But this view rests on a
substantive mistake about “free” movement. Like any freedom (such as free
speech or free assembly), there are reasonable restrictions to its use. The
EU’s “free” movement is not a right to go here or there at will, but a freedom of
labour to cross borders. There is no unconditional right of travel, benefits
acquisition or permanent settlement. Some countries like the UK might choose to
not utilise the full range of existing powers than others like Germany, and
this may contribute to the false belief that freedom of movement is anarchic. Such
a perception can and should be challenged. The government could ensure less
abuse of the system, etc if it wanted to while remaining in the Single Market.
Other EU countries manage this with greater migration flows. There is no reason
to think the UK could not do so too.
- What controls to EU
migration or employment, additional to those currently used, are presently
available to the UK Government within the single market and what might be
the impact were they to be adopted by the Government? What measures are
used in other EU countries?
MIGRATION CONTROLS
IN AN EEA-TYPE FRAMEWORK
9. Would there be benefit in any
future deal between the UK and the EU containing an ‘emergency brake’ or
similar safeguarding clause? If so, what might such a provision look like and
how might it be activated?
No. The issue would be
justifying the activating threshold. If this was not suitably robust, it would
be difficult to defend. If every country could pull the brake (so to speak)
willy nilly, then it would undermine any shared system.
However, if there could be
found an agreed threshold, this could make such a scheme potentially workable.
- What kind of emergency
brake might be available within an EEA type framework?
See previous answer.
MIGRATION
CONTROLS WITHIN A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
11. What UK/EU immigration controls
would be possible in a free trade agreement, what relevant precedents exist and
what would be the likely trade-offs if the UK pursued an FTA?
See answer to 8.
- What would be the
advantages and disadvantages of having the same immigration arrangements
for EEA and non-EEA citizens? Would it be practical to apply existing
non-EEA rules to EEA citizens after Brexit?
I would recommend treating EEA
and non-EEA citizens differently, as an individual originally a non-EEA
citizen. The UK has had a deep, longstanding relationship with the EEA sharing
a common citizenship framework. There are common systems, standards and
understandings above and apart from many other non-EEA countries. Plus there
are benefits to providing a more beneficial scheme given both the proximity of
the EU market to the UK and the interest of UK citizens wanting reciprocal
rights in the EEA.
I would recommend this is
formalised in a new Tier 6 visa scheme. I would also recommend including some
Commonwealth citizens especially post-Windrush – and for the same reason of
sharing a deep, longstanding relationship. Less than 100 years ago, Citizens of
the UK and Colonies was a shared passport from the Caribbean to Cumbria and
beyond. This should not be forgotten for its significance in contributing to
British identity, and neither should Britain’s place in EU be forgotten or
overlooked.
- Is visa liberalisation
likely to be a priority for the UK’s trade partners in any potential
future FTA negotiations? To what extent can the UK hope to strike trade
deals without migration provisions of some kind?
It is difficult to see free
trade deals of the kind discussed by ministers lacking any migration provision.
LABOUR
MARKET CONTROLS
14. Is there evidence that free
movement has had a negative impact on workers’ pay and conditions in the UK? If
so, to what extent could such issues be addressed by reforms to labour market
regulations? Are there relevant practices from other EU countries that the UK
could adopt should such reforms be required?
The main negative impact has
been in temporary work in the agrarian economy. Labour market regulations could
be reformed, but prices at supermarkets would likely rise.
- What steps should the UK
take to encourage UK businesses to employ workers already resident in the
UK?
The best step is to invest
more substantially in education. The UK will flourish from being a world
leader. This means attracting the best talent, but also developing homegrown
talent of equal or better quality. Closing ourselves off will not raise our
competitiveness nor improve future prosperity.