Britain fails to renegotiate EU free movement rules

Home Secretary Theresa May’s proposals to place greater restrictions on free movement in the EU were dismissed by the European Commission on Thursday.

At the Brussels meeting of EU ministers, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding attacked the UK’s welfare system, saying it was “too generous” and “any abuse of benefits by EU migrants is the fault of the British authorities.”

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding attacked the UK’s welfare system

Last week May suggested a cap on numbers if immigration crosses a certain threshold and proposed new member states reach a certain level of economic output or income per head before full free movement rights are permitted.

“We must be able to slow full access to each other’s labour markets until we can be sure it will not lead to mass migration,” said May.

The Netherlands, Germany and Italy have shown some support for free movement reform.

The meeting follows the announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron of plans to limit EU nationals’ access to benefits in the UK, a move which may turn out to be unlawful under EU law.

Among the limitations on the availability of benefits to EU migrants proposed by Cameron are no unemployment benefits for the first three months, no housing benefits on arrival and no benefits after six months.

Reding said the changes will be monitored in Brussels and challenged legally should they break European law.

“Our EU rules are good and they are here to stay. Member states need to apply them to tackle abuse,” said Reding.

The European Commission is expected to release a report on free movement abuse during the two-day meeting which is scheduled to end today.

The proposals come ahead of the removal of labour market restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian workers in the UK in January 2014.

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal the biggest rise in immigration in the year preceding June 2013 was migrants from EU nations. 

October saw the publication of a European Commission report which claims less than 38,000 EU migrants claimed Jobseeker's Allowance in the UK in 2012 and unemployed migrants made up just 1.2 per cent of the total population.

Free movement is a fundamental principal of the EU and one which is closely tied to trade and economic integration. Eurostat data says there were 2.3 million EU citizens in the UK and 2.2 million UK citizens in other EU countries in 2012.

 

Strong economy responsible for rise in net migration

Home Secretary, Theresa May, says the rise in net migration in the year preceding June 2013 was the result of the strength of the UK economy.

Although immigration to the UK fell, fewer people left, resulting in an unexpected increase in net migration despite government pledges to reduce it to below 100,000 by the next election.

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal net migration rose to 182,000 in the year to June 2013, an increase of 15,000 from the previous year.

Although immigration to the UK fell by 14,000 compared with the previous year, 29,000 fewer people left the UK than in the previous year, bringing emigration levels to their lowest since 2001.

Theresa May attributed the reduction in emigration to Britain’s economic growth, which surpassed that of southern European countries such as Spain, Portugal and Italy. Migrants from these nations made up the biggest rise in immigration.

In contrast, migrants from outside the EU made up the most significant drop in immigration, by around 40,000 from the previous year.

The rise in net migration follows the government’s promise to reduce it to the “tens of thousands” by the end of this parliament.

Following the release of the figures, the home secretary put forward tactics to “regain control” of immigration in an exclusive piece for Politics Home.

In outlining government strategy to achieve this, Theresa May revealed plans to address the pull factors for immigration and to renegotiate the terms of free movement, while she suggested new member states reach a certain level of economic output per head or income before full free movement is permitted.

However, she remarked that an “overwhelming incentive” for migrants to move from poorer to richer countries would remain as long as there is disparity between the earnings of EU states. 

Furthermore, David Cameron announced measures to limit EU migrants’ access to benefits. The welfare restrictions will prevent new migrants from getting job-seekers’ benefits for their first three months in the UK and see benefits terminated after a period of six months unless the migrant has a genuine chance of getting a job. 

“Theresa May has boasted repeatedly that net migration was falling and her target would be met. Now those hollow claims have been completely exposed," said Labour MP David Hanson, shadow immigration minister in speaking of the rise.

Net migration is the difference between the number of people immigrating to the UK and those emigrating. The government has little control over EU migration and emigration from the UK.

Deportation of the valuable and vulnerable

Recent weeks have seen the media cover a number of cases in which the Home Office has unfairly threatened non-Brits living in the UK with deportation.

From a Fijian British Army veteran who was unaware he had to apply to settle in the UK to a highly-skilled Australian NHS therapist who was given days to leave the country, it seems neither valuable nor vulnerable migrants are safe from the overzealous Home Office when it comes to removals based on technicalities.

In some instances, the decision to remove is overturned at the last minute, often without an apology for the distress caused. However, we are increasingly seeing victories against deportation come about when the Home Office cracks under the pressure of public outrage rather than through any common sense or realisation that the deportation would be unfavourable to the public good.

Home Secretary Theresa May herself intervened in the case of Fijian Filimone Lacanivalu who was detained for more than a month after queries over his immigration status emerged. He has since been granted the right to settle based on his nearly decade-long service to the Armed Forces.

Scottish head teacher David McIsaac, who was initially refused the right to remain permanently on the grounds his five-year marriage was a sham, has been offered an extension on his stay on the condition he drops his appeal after his MSP put pressure on the Home Office.

Then there is the case of Vietnam War veteran Marx Hirsch, 74, who has lived in the UK for nearly 50 years. Threatened with deportation for breaking the terms of his right to stay by moving elsewhere for five years, Hirsch won a stay of execution just days before he was scheduled to be removed but still faces the prospect of removal should a review of his case not result in him being granted the right to settle.

But for each of these success stories, there are many thousands more which don’t result in extensions of stay or wide media coverage.

Take the case of UK-born Cher Siyamuanya, just 4, and his mother from Zimbabwe who were sent separate letters saying they were liable to be removed after the courts found her claims that she would face persecution if returned to her country of origin unbelievable.

And let us not forget the case of Harley Miller, an Australian NHS worker who was given less than a month to leave the UK despite having been a resident for nine years. Miller, having first entered on a spouse visa, was given leave to remain after her marriage broke down but was later refused discretionary leave to remain after waiting two years for a decision on her application.

Lastly, a seven-year-old Canadian, Jamie Leung, received a letter telling him to leave the UK. His British mother, initially unaware she needed to obtain a visa for her son to stay in the UK, was unsuccessful in obtaining legal immigration status for him from within the UK before the letter arrived.

While there are cases where falling foul of bureaucratic red tape might fairly result in removal, some of the recent cases which have made it into the limelight have seen a threat of removal issued without any prior request to the applicant for further information or evidence. Often no other options are given to those who face leaving their friends, family, job and property behind.

Most people who unknowingly fall foul of the UK’s complex immigration rules want to establish the right to stay voluntarily and play by the rules. The inhumane way the Home Office handles some cases is counterproductive since deportation should be something that is conductive to the public good, not just a case of hunting down those who slip up on technicalities.

Home Office blunders criticised

From huge backlogs, menacing deterrents and offensive use of social media to proposals for visitor bonds, it is no wonder MP Keith Vaz described this summer as chaotic for immigration policy.

These UK Border Agency (UKBA) failings, among others, are the subject of a House of Commons report published on Thursday.

The report, which covers the first quarter of 2013, is part of a series produced to monitor the work of the now dissolved UKBA by the Home Affairs Committee.

Its publication follows a summer of chaos which has seen the contents of the Immigration Bill debated, the controversial AdVans scrapped, a U-turn on immigration bonds and the publicising of immigration raids on Twitter, alongside other gimmicks labeled as “ineffective and offensive” by Shadow Immigration Minister David Hanson.

Among the Committee’s findings is a backlog of more than 430,000 pending cases, roughly the same figure as before the UKBA was dissolved at the end of March 2013 following damning performance reviews.

In some categories, such as further leave to remain (FLTR) on the basis of marriage, the backlog has grown, with the number of FLTR cases pending initial decision having increased from 2,100 in quarter four of 2012 to 3,791 in quarter one of 2013.

Although backlogs were down overall by around 70,000, the reduction was mostly achieved by loading pending cases onto a computer, with around 50,000 of these cases still awaiting resolution.

Speaking of the backlogs, which could take up to five years to clear according to the report, Keith Vaz said: “[They] must be cleared as a matter of priority, only then will the Home Office be able to tackle the deeper problems in the immigration system”.

The report raises concerns regards the effect the Immigration Bill will have on the most vulnerable, with suggestions for the government to trial a pilot scheme which sees visa applicants use private health insurance as an alternative to an NHS levy.

“We recommend that the government distinguish between those who are temporarily in the country through choice - to work, study or visit family - and those who are here through no choice of their own, such as refugees and victims of trafficking,” says the report.

On the subject of illegal immigration, the report reveals only six per cent of tip-offs from the public were followed up and just 1.5 per cent lead to removals.

In his response to the report, David Hanson said, “Theresa May’s Home Office is failing badly in tackling illegal immigration, backlogs of cases, and can only show progress by sleight of hand”.

“The Home Secretary urgently needs to get a grip on the shambolic performance of the Home Office and make sure people are removed when they shouldn't be here, and sort out the backlogs that are increasing on her watch,” he added.

The break up of the UKBA in March saw immigration services come under the direct control of ministers, with the UKBA replaced by an Immigration Enforcement command and UK Visas and Immigration.

For now it looks as though Theresa May will need more than over-the-knee designer boots to wade through the backlog of pending cases and the mud which the Home Office has been slinging at immigrants of all categories. 

The work of the UK Border Agency (January–March 2013)

Theresa May tries to bully indyref voters

The ‘Vote Yes’ movement may well have garnered more supporters this week after Theresa May highlighted the potential risk to Scotland’s national security as a reason for Scots to vote no.

During the home secretary’s visit to Edinburgh, she said Scotland would face greater security threats in the event of independence, adding that the UK would deny Scotland access to intelligence systems such as MI5.

The warning, which followed on the heels of the publication of the most recent UK government analysis on the implications of independence by the Home Office, was rejected by many Scots who don’t see independence as synonymous with a diminished capacity to tackle crime.

Rather than alarm Scots, this sort of scaremongering is likely to serve as a sore point since many people both sides of the border feel that in the event of independence, security cooperation would be in everyone’s interests.

The briefing came after the announcement of the Scottish government’s opposition to May’s Immigration Bill, a nasty piece of proposed legislation which, if implemented, would see the rights of appeal of family migrants severely curtailed.

Jeremy Hunt raises red alert on loneliness

Rose-tinted views of the Asian model for caring for the elderly aside, when Jeremy Hunt highlighted the problem of loneliness among the UK’s ageing population last Friday, the one thing that most people could agree on is that loneliness presents a threat to one’s health.

The results of the BBC survey which triggered the Tory politician, himself married to a Chinese national from Xian, to wage war on loneliness among Britain’s elderly were branded by him as a source of “national shame”.

The health secretary controversially said we should follow the Chinese in looking after our elderly relatives at home. Furthermore, we should only use residential care as, “… a last rather than a first option”, something we could be forgiven in thinking is already the case.

The idea that the Chinese, or nationals of any other Asian nation, care for their elderly in a superior manner to the way we do in the UK is rather assumptive.

China, like the rest of the world, has seen rapid urbanisation and a decline in the number of people looking after their ageing relatives in the same household; so much so, in fact, that a much ridiculed law was enacted in July this year to enforce visits by children to their ageing parents.

The UK, like China, faces the challenge of an increasing older population which requires support. Yet under Theresa May’s amended family migration rules, introduced in July 2012, we have seen the erosion of the family’s ability to care for the elderly.

Under the rules, the visa criteria for adult dependents of British citizens who wish to come to the UK have been tightened to the point they are virtually impossible to meet. The rules require the dependent to be in need of care to perform everyday tasks and for no person in their country of residence to be able to provide such care.

The rules also prevent many Brits who are married to non-EEA nationals from returning to the UK to care for their elderly relatives since sponsors must now be able to demonstrate an annual income of GBP 18,600 a year in order to qualify as a sponsor. But, alas, Hunt, himself a millionaire, has overlooked this financial hurdle.

As a result of the rules, we are certain to see many more elderly abandoned by their children, either abroad or in the UK, not to mention a possible increase in the bill of state care as isolated old people are forced to resort to welfare. One of the many sad things about this abandonment is that it will not be through choice.

Grandparents will continue to be denied the pleasure of witnessing their grandchildren grow up and the elderly will continue to battle through sickness without the support of their children. Yet Hunt thinks we should learn from Asian cultures that supposedly have “reverence and respect for older people”. 

When cherry-picking issues to highlight, Hunt conveniently ignored the fact that loneliness affects people of all ages. A recent study on age and loneliness in Europe found only a two percent difference in the number of elderly people having reported feelings of loneliness compared with the young, while the Mental Health Foundation has found old people to be less likely to feel lonely than young people.

If these studies are accurate, we should be as concerned about the loneliness of people of all ages as we are with the loneliness of older generations. So what about Brits married to non-EEA partners who are forced into singledom due to visa restrictions? Many who fall into this category haven’t seen their spouses or children for months, even years, often for financial or language reasons alone.

So we see a conflict of interests: as Hunt tries to reduce loneliness, May is intent on increasing it, not just by keeping families from living together in the same household, but by keeping them from living in the same country. Now that is a shocker to top even Hunt’s distorted view of China’s traditionally family-centred culture.

Perhaps before rushing to follow a questionable social model for caring for the elderly from abroad, a few minor domestic modifications would go a long way in reducing the UK’s loneliness ranking.

UK to relax visa rules for Chinese

Sunday saw Chancellor George Osborne announce plans to simplify the visa application process for Chinese visitors to the UK.

Under the new rules, Chinese nationals visiting Schengen countries will no longer be required to apply for a separate visitor visa for tourism to the UK if they apply through a designated travel agent.

"We are two great trading nations, with a shared interest in keeping the trade routes of the world open and free,” said Osborne on day one of his five-day trade trip to China.

The trip is the first of its kind since David Cameron sparked anger among Chinese officials when he met with the Dalai Lama in May last year. 

The streamlining of the visa process is aimed at boosting Chinese investment in UK infrastructure but will benefit wealthy Chinese visitors and business people alike.

The news was welcomed by the British Chambers of Commerce whose policy director Adam Marshall said the plans would cause UK businesses to “breathe a collective sigh of relief”.

Under the current visa system, Chinese Schengen visa holders are required to apply for a separate visitor visa for the UK at the cost of around GBP 200. The additional cost and bureaucracy involved in the process is thought to deter Chinese visitors from visiting the UK on their European tours.

Until now Theresa May, the home secretary, has blocked the move to simplify the visa process based on terrorism concerns.

The new scheme will see the existing mobile visa services of Beijing and Shanghai expanded to other major Chinese cities and a ‘super priority’ 24-hour visa service introduced. Applicants will be able to apply using the same form that is used for Schengen visa applications.

There has been an 800 per cent increase in Chinese visitors to the UK over the past decade according to the WorldPay payment service. Yet the UK only receives seven per cent of the total number of Chinese visitors to the EU. Last year, nearly 200,000 Chinese visitors visited the UK and spent around GBP 300m.

The move to streamline UK visas for Chinese nationals is not thought to signal an overall relaxation in visa restrictions for national of other countries, with government plans to trial a controversial new visa bond scheme which will target nationals of certain ‘high risk’ countries still under discussion.

Meanwhile nationals of other non-EEA countries continue to struggle to fulfill the UK’s difficult visitor visa requirements.

Sham marriages: more Tory fluff?

When it comes to immigration, we’re seeing an increasing tendency for politicians to lean on feelings rather than facts. Take Theresa May’s newly published Immigration Bill which tackles, among other things, so-called ‘sham marriages’.

Despite the fact fewer than 2,000 suspected cases of ‘marriages of convenience’ - defined as marriages concluded: ‘With the sole aim of circumventing the rules of entry and residence,’ by the Council of Ministers of the EU - were reported by registration officials in 2012, the Immigration Bill will see further anti-shotgun marriage measures introduced by April 2015.

The notice period for marriage will increase from the current 15 days to 28 days to allow officials more time to investigate the authenticity of the marriage and to take action should there be reasonable cause for concern. Furthermore, officials will be given the power to extend this period for up to 70 days should a need for further investigation or the prosecution or removal of those involved be deemed necessary.

On the surface, the crack down seems legitimate. But when you factor in that the UK is the most likely of all EU countries to uncover and to punish against such marriages, one could be forgiven for thinking the problem has been exaggerated in order to justify the solution.

Perhaps the UK is just very efficient at uncovering sham marriages but this seems unlikely given the Border Agency’s reputation for inefficiency hidden behind a smokescreen of tough talk. By the Home Office’s own estimates, between 4,000 and 10,000 people a year lodge applications to remain in the UK based on false marriages. Whether these figures support a ‘pressing social need’ which can be used to justify such intrusive action is a matter of debate.

In assessing the genuineness of proposed marriages, we can assume the Home Office will look at the immigration history of the applicant and evidence supporting the authenticity of the marriage. Situations which are likely to come under scrutiny include partnerships in which there is a wide age gap between partners or where the two parties come from vastly different backgrounds or have no common language.

But this one-glove-fits-all approach fails to recognise that social and economic status are often leading factors in a person’s decision to marry, with UK residency rights potentially adding to the attractiveness of a would-be spouse. What we could start to see in the UK is those believed to have even partly based their decision to marry on immigration being excluded alongside other genuine couples who are unable to successfully demonstrate the legitimacy of their relationship simply because their circumstances do not fit the typical profile.

Not just an objective of the Immigration Bill, stopping sham marriages is one aim of the immigration rules pertaining to the sponsorship of non-EEA partners for settlement in the UK. The rules, which include a steep financial requirement which must be met by the sponsor along with a five-year probationary period before the applicant can qualify for Indefinite Leave to Remain, were introduced in July 2012.

As UK immigration laws become harder to comply with, even for genuine couples, it follows that those who don’t qualify might resort to desperate measures in order to enter and remain in the UK. So, ironically, making the already stringent rules surrounding marriage and immigration even harder to fulfill may see a rise in abuse by those who can't take lawful paths to residency. 

In looking at government policies in this area, one could conclude that the aim to prevent fraud through sham marriages is part of a wider desire to stop immigration through marriage altogether. This conveniently fits with the government’s aim to reduce yearly net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ by 2015. Indeed, Theresa May would likely prefer it if Brits stopped marrying non-Brits altogether so that the pesky inconvenience of sham marriages stops getting in the way of her pulling up the drawbridge.

But regardless of whether the need to crack down on sham marriage is legitimate or just more Tory hyperbole, the government has a responsibility to defend its reasoning behind such measures with facts not fluff.

Reactions to May’s heavily criticised Immigration Bill

Thursday’s publication of Theresa May’s flagship Immigration Bill, which spells further bad news for migrants, has triggered a wave of negative reaction. Here, we quote some of the responses:

“A bill, most of all, that sends a message that the United Kingdom is a bitter, paranoid, timorous, small-minded kind of country,”

Alex Massie, blogging for the Spectator

“There seems to be nothing in the promised bill to tackle problems at border control, which is getting increasingly shambolic, nor deal with long delays in getting electronic checks in place, or the UKBA bureaucratic failings that have prevented foreign criminals being deported,”

David Hanson, Shadow immigration minister

“Obviously landlords cannot replace the Border Agency and they shouldn't be asked to do their job,”

Richard Lambert, National Landlords Association chief executive

“These new measures will undoubtedly lead to wrongful denial of access to housing and bank accounts for those with a right to live in the UK,”

Maurice Wren, Refugee Council chief executive

“The government have said this bill is about encouraging people who don’t have a legal right be in the UK to ‘go home’. But from our work with young refugees and migrants across the country, we know that for many children, returning home is just not possible. This bill will make it even harder for these children to access vital services including healthcare and housing,”

Peter Grigg, The Children’s Society director of campaigns and policy

“I'm a Tory, but I can see these impractical measures for what they are: a foolhardy attempt to curry favour with a certain brand of swing voter,”

Garvan Walshe, writing for The Guardian

“Charging international students access to the NHS because they apply for their visa, come to the UK to spend on average GBP 36,000 on tuition alone, and are checked when they arrive on campus is introducing another unfair tax,”

Daniel Stevens, National Union of Students international officer

“I’m not quite sure how - if you can't get a bank account and you can't get somewhere to stay - whether that is actually going to result in people leaving the country,”

Michael Forsyth, former Secretary of State for Scotland

“… the Society has real concerns about the government’s suggested reform of the appeals system for deportation and limitations on established rights under Article 8 of the European Convention,”

Mark Stobbs, Law Society director of legal policy

“Forcing doctors and landlords with the threat of punishments to carry out the work of the border control agency is utterly wrong,”

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party

“[The charge for students is] an indiscriminate levy and should also be scrapped – as they pay extremely high fees to study already,”

Habib Rahman, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants chief executive

Norman Baker: friend or foe to family migrants?

Yesterday’s cabinet reshuffle, which saw Liberal Democrat Norman Baker appointed to the Home Office, came as a surprise to many and as an outrage to others, including Home Secretary Theresa May herself who, according to the Guardian, was said to be ‘furious’ over the appointment.

As the minister of state, Baker will replace fellow Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne in overseeing issues relating to crime prevention, national security, and organised crime. It is thought he will make a more vocal opponent to May than his predecessor, considered by some to have been used by the home secretary as a doormat.

So what does this change in composition mean for family migrants? Well, while Baker will not be directly responsible for immigration issues, early signs reveal he is set to be a proponent of fair Home Office decisions, with the London Evening Standard reporting his belief that Home Office decisions should not be “too harsh, unfeeling or unsympathetic” to those affected by them.

Indeed, the injection of a “dose of liberalism” into the Home Office which Baker looks set to bring with him could be just the sort of ‘refresh’ that the department needs.

Campaigners for change in the UK’s family migration rules remain hopeful that Baker’s past membership to the Joint Committee on Human Rights will prove to be a powerful force against May’s relentless push for a reduction in net migration, the curtailment of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the scrapping of the Human Rights Act.

Baker, who until yesterday had served as Shadow Secretary of State for Transport since May 2010, is perhaps best known for uncovering, or at least trying to uncover, scandals, most notably the 2003 death of Ministry of Defence expert in biological warfare Dr David Kelly.

The outspoken left-wing politician, described by the Daily Mail as a “thorn in the Government’s side”, has previously shown support for issues such as animal rights, a climate change bill and Tibetan human rights cases; however, his backing of the raising of tuition fees and his failure to support marriage equality and a reduction in rail fares have been less popular.

If anything, the reshuffle looks set to be an interesting change for those negatively affected by the new immigration rules, if only to punish Theresa May with his rhetoric, which was compared with “root canal surgery without anesthetic” by Labour MP Stephen Pound in 2002.