The government’s decision to postpone the publication of a key document relating to its plans for the UK’s post-Brexit immigration system has been called “hugely frustrating” by British businesses.
The immigration white paper, which was originally scheduled to be published in the summer of 2017, will not now be released until after the transition deal is complete which means negotiations due in Brussels this month on the rights of new EU migrants to Britain after March 2019 will get under way with little prior public discussion of the options. It also means that a Brexit immigration bill, promised in the Queen’s speech, will not reach the statute book before the registration of the 3 million EU nationals already living and working in Britain gets under way this autumn. Instead, it is understood that the terms on which new EU migrants can come to Britain after March 2019 will now be set out in a renamed EU withdrawal and implementation bill to be published after the current round of talks which are scheduled to be completed in March but could drag on for several months thereafter if no consensus is reached.
Insight into the proposals
Theresa May has said that Britain wanted new EU migrants who arrive in the UK during the transition period to lose any right to settle after the post-transition Brexit day in March 2021, while a leaked draft of the immigration white paper showed the Home Office wanted to go further. They proposed to ban jobseekers from qualifying for residence permits and require new EU workers to pass a minimum income threshold test as well provide evidence of a job offer. European students coming to study in Britain after March 2019 will also want reassurance that they can stay more than two years to complete their three- or four-year courses without having to reapply for a residence permit.
The decision to postpone the main Brexit immigration bill means May will avoid a damaging defeat over moves to remove overseas students from the annual net migration target. Plans to challenge government policy on this issue – over which May is nearly isolated in the cabinet – were drawn up on the basis there would be an immigration bill to amend.
Anxiety and uncertainty
The delays are causing further anxiety for EU citizens and uncertainty for UK business, a cross-party parliamentary report has said. The Commons home affairs committee described the lack of a timetable for critical new rules to be enacted after Britain leaves the EU in just over a year’s time as extremely regrettable and unacceptable. They found that Home Office teams were already struggling with a lack of resources, high turnover of staff and unrealistic workloads, and warned that inexperience and pressure to meet targets were resulting in mistakes with “life-changing consequences”.
The committee concluded it would soon be impossible for the department’s overstretched agencies covering visas, borders and immigration enforcement to do their job. The UK’s Border Force does not have the capacity to put in place additional checks after March 2019, particularly if there are also additional customs checks.
We need urgent clarity about both registration and border plans for next year so that parliament can scrutinise them and so that families, employers and officials can plan… The lack of detail with just over a year to go is irresponsible. We recognise that the government needs time to consider long-term changes, but the Home Office urgently needs to set out its intentions for next year.
Yvette Cooper, Labour MP and Chair of the Commons home affairs committee
A number of questions remain such as whether (1) there will be more than one registration process, (2) there will be more border checks, (3) landlords and employers would be required to demand registration documents, and (4) the same rules would apply to Norway and Iceland. The report has also described the human cost of Home Office errors, blamed on a lack of resources, high pressure and inexperience and noted that people lawfully in Britain were being caught up in policies and procedures designed to deal with individuals who had no right to be in the UK.
It was claimed that the needless uncertainty was preventing individuals planning for their futures, and businesses and public services, from knowing how and where they can source staff.
