EU citizens willing to work nights and weekends in the UK should get priority over other low-skilled migrants in post-Brexit Britain, a think tank claims.
Policy Exchange is calling for a “bias” towards those ready to take unsociable shifts in health, social care, security and other sectors to be built into official policy after the UK quits the bloc.
The body argues immigrants from central and eastern Europe are “often here mainly to earn money and many do not have family responsibilities, unlike most British workers (whose in-work benefits may also decline sharply if they work too many hours)”.
READ MORE: Sturgeon: Leaked paper shows why Tories have engaged in a cover-up
The report, published today, suggests a work-permit regime would be in place, adding: “Why not make a virtue of these different priorities and give preference in work permits to those prepared to work anti-social hours for all or some of their period working in the UK?”
David Goodhart, head of demography, immigration and integration at the organisation, said agriculture work schemes could also be expanded and EU nationals staying for more than six months should have biometric identity cards.
He said: “While we welcome an end to freedom of movement, a good post-Brexit immigration deal should maintain a lot of continuity in the movement of people, especially for students and professionals, and we can open up several new temporary work routes.
“There’s no reason for arrangements to change around tourists and students from the EU, but we do need to see a general reduction in the number of low-skilled workers.
“The Government, in partnership with industry and the Migration Advisory Committee, needs to set out how it will gradually reduce low-skilled immigration from the EU, while maintaining a route for workers coming to do jobs with antisocial hours.”
The report emerged after two key committees took evidence on the impact of Brexit on immigration and family law.
MSPs on Holyrood’s Justice Committee heard that family law, which deals with divorce, child custody and other sensitive issues, is “a long way down the list” of importance for the UK Government.
Making the claim, Janys Scott QC, chair of the Advocates’ Family Law Association, said the matter is “really important for our citizens” and warned of impending conflict between courts in different jurisdictions.
In evidence submitted to the panel in advance, she said: “Family law is the point where Brexit becomes personal. Families who have taken advantage of free movement around Europe are at risk of waking up one morning and finding their problems much more difficult and expensive to resolve.”
MSPs heard more than 5000 babies were born to parents of EU origin in 2016 alone.
However, Professor Paul Beaumont of Aberdeen University said fears of a major loss of rights is “much ado about nothing in most cases”, arguing that international protections for the rights of children will still apply.
Meanwhile, Chris Murray of the Institute for Public Policy Research told Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee that the UK must develop more “sophisticated” ways of measuring immigration.
Describing the UK Government’s net migration target as “not particularly fit for purpose”, he called for a more nuanced look at the subject that takes in those who enter through spousal visas and for work or study.
He said: “We count migrants that have very different impacts on our economy and very different impacts on their communities as generic migrants.”
Murray said the need for a new approach also applies to Scotland, stating: “It’s not that there is a uniqueness. Scotland has fallen into all the same traps as the other countries.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel