Editorial Comment:
It would have been a surprise had the leaked Home Office document on future immigration policy proposed retaining the current system allowing free movement of people from the EU. The fact that Whitehall officials are working on a plan to restrict the rights of European citizens to work and settle in the UK is the inevitable consequence of Brexit. As an independent nation, this country will need to impose its own immigration controls since it will no longer be open to EU nationals to come here as of right. The Home Office paper, which emphasises that the ideas it contains are for discussion and are not settled policy, espouses a direction of travel that is unavoidable if the referendum decision is to be upheld.
Arguments from businesses that EU migrants help to boost the economy, pay taxes and should be allowed to continue to enter the UK without checks to avoid shortages, were advanced during the referendum campaign by the Remain side, but it lost. It is pointless simply to re-run that debate; and it is surprising that Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, is among ministers said to be opposed to the proposals put forward by her own officials.
Moreover, all EU nationals residing in the country on an as-yet-unspecified date before Brexit will be able to stay; and during a transition period, still to be agreed, nothing much is expected to change apart from a requirement to register. After that, low-skilled workers can apply for permits to work for two years but not settle. Businesses needing to fill vacancies will be expected to show that they have tried to recruit from the British population. Essentially, this is the same regime that applies to non-eu nationals seeking to come to Britain to work. It should encourage UK companies to train and employ British workers rather than to rely on an easily available pool of EU labour.
The success of any immigration system depends on the ability of the Home Office to check both the residency status of settled EU nationals and the movements of those who come to work on temporary visas. Establishing whether firms have made more than cursory efforts to recruit in Britain could be a bureaucratic nightmare: a better idea might be a tax on companies for every foreign worker employed.
If this developing new policy is to have any chance of success, the department, once derided as “not fit for purpose”, will need to up its game.