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 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/18/brexit-eu-citizens-special-access-migration-advisory-committee

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Brexit should end EU citizens' special access to UK, says report Employers condemn Brexit immigration advice for ministers
(about 3 hours later)
Free movement from the EU should end after Brexit and the UK should embrace a Canada-style system in which there is no preferential access to the labour market for citizens of any other country, according to the government’s migration advisory committee (MAC). EU citizens should no longer have preferential rights to work in the UK and only skilled workers should be allowed to obtain employment visas after Brexit, the government’s migration advisory committee (MAC) recommended in an advisory report that triggered a chorus of concern from business.
The report, which is intended to advise ministers on how to proceed after Brexit, concedes it may not be possible to achieve a country-neutral system because the UK may not have an entirely free hand in determining migration policy after the it leaves the EU because the final policy will be subject to exit negotiations. The body, which is supposed to advise ministers on migration policy after Brexit, said no visas should be made available for workers in jobs paying less than £30,000 a year, prompting employers in sectors such as housebuilding, hospitality and haulage to accuse the committee of proposing an “ignorant and elitist” policy.
It concludes that if “immigration is not to be part of the negotiations with the EU, and the UK is deciding its migration system in isolation, we recommend moving to a system in which all immigration is managed with no preferential access to EU citizens”. It said the model would be similar to that used in Canada, which had “an open, welcoming approach to migration but no free movement agreement with any other country”. It also recommended that free movement should end after Brexit and the UK should embrace a Canada-style system in which there is no preferential access to the labour market for citizens of any other country, unless the government decides that it should make access to the UK part of the divorce negotiations with the EU.
The committee was set up by Amber Rudd when she was home secretary to inform the UK’s migration policy after Brexit. It is designed to inform a white paper that has repeatedly been delayed but is due this autumn. Business leaders expressed concern that a £30,000 salary threshold and skilled worker visa system would make it almost impossible to recruit workers in critical but lower-paying industrial sectors.
EU citizens have, until now, been able to enter the UK freely, seeking work on arrival, and concerns about the impact of free movement is considered to be one of the central reasons why the country voted for Brexit. But the report is likely to strengthen the hand of those who want the UK to take a tough stance in the Brexit negotiations. The Federation of Master Builders warned that the recommendations would “cripple” the construction industry. The chief executive of the FMB, Brian Berry, said: “It’s not at all clear that EU workers with important skills already in short supply, like bricklaying and carpentry, will not fall foul of a crude and limited definition of ‘high-skilled’ worker.”
The MAC report says there has a been small impact on wages and employment in the UK, arguing it has had “neither the large negative effects claimed by some, nor the benefits claimed by others”. The chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, Richard Burnett, said: “We need an immigration policy across all skill levels. It is about what our businesses need. The idea that only high-skilled immigration should be allowed is both ignorant and elitist.”
It also argues that because “the biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves”, British ministers should see preferential access to the UK labour market as “something of value to offer in the negotiations” with the EU over the UK’s exit. Jasmine Whitbread, the chief executive of London First, a business campaign group representing 200 big businesses in the capital, said: “The MAC has missed the mark by failing to recognise the critical role of lower-skilled workers to our economy.”
Any future policy determined by the UK should favour higher-skilled workers over lower-skilled ones, the MAC advises, and says there should be no sector specific migration schemes except possibly for one to supply seasonal labour in agriculture. Alan Manning, the committee’s chairman, said that if the UK had a free hand in deciding its immigration policy then “our recommendation is for a less restrictive regime for higher-skilled workers” and that “for lower-skilled workers, we do not see the need for a work-related [visa] scheme”.
Jonathan Portes, senior fellow at the thinktank The UK in a Changing Europe, whose research fed into the report, said: “Contrary to fears that immigration might reduce the incentive for businesses to boost productivity, my paper suggests the opposite: immigration has a substantial and positive impact on productivity. Areas that see inflows of immigrants see productivity rise. Manning added in the foreword to the report that if “immigration is not to be part of the negotiations with the EU, and the UK is deciding its migration system in isolation, we recommend moving to a system in which all immigration is managed with no preferential access to EU citizens”.
“What does that mean for policy? The MAC are too polite to say so, but this report shows beyond doubt that the government’s economically illiterate net migration target should finally be put out of its misery. After Brexit, we will need immigration – for growth, productivity, and not least to help the public finances – more than ever.” The model, Manning said, would be similar to that used in Canada, which had “an open, welcoming approach to migration but no free movement agreement with any other country. The problem with free movement is that it leaves migration solely up to migrants and UK residents have no control.”
Prof Alan Manning, who wrote the conclusion to the report, said the problem with free movement from the European Union was that “it leaves migration to the UK solely up to migrants and UK residents have no control over the level and mix of migration”. But he also concludes that free movement is not guaranteed to cause problems because “that likely depends on the level and mix of the migration flows that result”. The MAC was set up to advise on the UK’s migration policy after Brexit. It is designed to inform a white paper that has repeatedly been delayed but is due this autumn. A battle over how to proceed is expected between Sajid Javid’s Home Office and Philip Hammond’s Treasury.
The MAC report says that the existing tier 2 skilled workers scheme, which applies to people outside the EEA for skilled jobs earnings more than £30,000 a year, provides a useful template for a future migration scheme. Existing monthly caps should be abolished and Manning said it should be extended to “workers in medium-skilled jobs”. EU citizens have, until now, been able to enter the UK freely, seeking work on arrival. Concerns about the impact of free movement is considered to be one of the central reasons why the country voted for Brexit. The report is likely to strengthen the hand of those who want the UK to take a tough stance in the Brexit negotiations.
Manning said there should be no scheme for lower-skilled workers, aside, possibly, from in agriculture, although Manning recognised that some employers in industrial sectors “will lobby intensively against this proposal”. He concluded that there would be enough low-skilled workers in the UK because “most of the existing stock will remain and there would likely be a continued flow through family migration or the existing youth mobility scheme”. The MAC report says that the existing tier 2 skilled workers scheme, which applies to people outside the European Economic Area (EEA) for skilled jobs earning more than £30,000 a year, provides a useful template for a future migration scheme. Manning said it should be extended to workers in medium-skilled jobs and the existing cap of 20,700 migrants a year should be abolished.
The academic also indicated that he believed that the government’s annual net migration target of 100,000 was not helpful, arguing it would be better to raise the salary threshold for skilled worker visas to reduce inflows to the UK. The target has never been met since it was introduced by David Cameron in 2010. Manning said: “If you want influence migration flows it is much better to influence salary thresholds rather than use hard caps.” Manning said there should be no scheme for lower-skilled workers, aside, possibly, from in agriculture, although Manning recognised that some employers in industrial sectors would “lobby intensively against this proposal”.
He concluded that there would be enough low-skilled workers in the UK because “most of the existing stock will remain and there would likely be a continued flow through family migration or the existing youth mobility scheme”.
The MAC report says EEA migration has had a small impact on wages and employment in the UK, arguing it has had “neither the large negative effects claimed by some, nor the benefits claimed by others”.
It also argues that because “the biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves”, British ministers should see preferential access to the UK labour market as “something of value to offer in the negotiations” with the EU.
Manning also indicated that he believed that the government’s annual net immigration target of less than 100,000 was not helpful, arguing it would be better to raise the salary threshold for skilled worker visas to reduce inflows to the UK.
The target has never been met since it was introduced by David Cameron in 2010. Manning said: “If you want influence migration flows it is much better to influence salary thresholds rather than use hard caps.”
Net migration to the UK in the year to the end of March 2018 was 270,000, an increase of 28,000 year on year. But net migration from the EU sank to 87,000 in the same period, the lowest level since the Brexit vote in June 2016, according to the most recent set of figures from the Office of National Statistics.Net migration to the UK in the year to the end of March 2018 was 270,000, an increase of 28,000 year on year. But net migration from the EU sank to 87,000 in the same period, the lowest level since the Brexit vote in June 2016, according to the most recent set of figures from the Office of National Statistics.
Business leaders and analysts expressed immediate concern over the recommendation that highly skilled workers should be favoured over low-skilled workers in future migration policy. They fear a £30,000 salary threshold and skilled worker visa system would make it almost impossible to recruit workers in warehouses, meatpacking and fish factories, cleaning services, care and hospitality. Stephen Clarke, a senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said: “If enacted, these proposals would effectively end low-skilled migration, while prioritising mid- and high-skill migration in areas where we have labour shortages. This would represent a huge shift for low-paying sectors like food manufacturing, hotels and domestic personnel, where over one in five workers are migrants.”
“The MAC has missed the mark by failing to recognise the critical role of lower skilled workers to our economy,” said Jasmine Whitbread, the chief executive of London First, a business campaign group representing 200 big businesses in the capital. The Home Office said it would consider the recommendations. A spokesman said: “After we leave the EU, we will take back control of our borders and put in place an immigration system that works in the interests of the whole of the UK. The government is clear that EU citizens play an important and positive role in our economy and society and we want that to continue after we leave.”
“Businesses want access to high and medium level skills from around the globe, as the MAC rightly recognises, but this can’t be at the expense of having enough workers to keep our hospitals, care homes, hotels and building sites up and running,” she added.
Stephen Clarke, a senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said: “If enacted these proposals would effectively end low-skilled migration, while prioritising mid- and high-skill migration in areas where we have labour shortages. This would represent a huge shift for low-paying sectors like food manufacturing, hotels and domestic personnel, where over one in five workers are migrants.”
BrexitBrexit
European UnionEuropean Union
Foreign policyForeign policy
MigrationMigration
Immigration and asylumImmigration and asylum
EuropeEurope
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content