The EU's Global Approach to Migration and Mobility: Government Response to the recommendations and conclusions

The numbers reflect the relevant paragraphs in the Lords Report

Addressing skills shortages

189. In the context of the EU's demographic challenges and future labour market needs, we consider that flexibility by Member States in the operation of the European labour market to legal migration from third countries, particularly in those with skills shortages, could be essential in order to secure economic growth and competitiveness. However, such an approach is not a panacea, and should form part of a comprehensive approach which also tackles the development of skills among the existing workforce, as well as any necessary labour market reforms. (paragraph 46)

Response: The Government agrees with this assessment. Selective and well-managed migration aimed at facilitating the admission of those with valuable and scarce skills, as well as sources of inward investment and entrepreneurial talent, can make an important contribution to delivering growth and competitiveness.

The Government has, however, been clear that there is a need to reduce employers’ dependence on migrant labour as a means of addressing skills and labour shortages as part of its objective of reducing net migration to the UK. Policies aimed at the admission of skilled workers from outside the European Union should therefore be aimed at complementing, rather than being a substitute for, efforts to up-skill the resident labour force, and should also take account of the benefits and impacts of an expanded EU internal labour market.

Anticipating labour and skills shortages

190. Member States should continue to have the right to choose the number of migrants from third countries they wish to admit to their labour markets, depending on their needs. Therefore, we consider that any transfer of responsibility to the EU in the management of legal migration would be undesirable and also impossible to agree and achieve. (paragraph 55)

Response: The Government agrees with this assessment. The Government is strongly of the view that the management of economic migration from outside the European Union is a matter of national competence, and is to be undertaken in response to national assessment of economic need and of the extent to which such needs should be met through migration. The United Kingdom has a well-developed capacity to make such assessments, drawing on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee. Furthermore, the implication that those admitted from outside the European Union to meet particular skills or labour needs should immediately gain access to the wider EU internal labour market is not one that the Government accepts.

191. We also doubt whether it is possible for the EU accurately to predict labour demand or skills shortages into the future. (paragraph 56)

Response: The Government shares this view. The Government shares this view. A forward-looking analysis of EU-level labour shortages that was sufficiently fine-grained to be of use to policy makers at national level would need to identify the extent of hard-to-fill vacancies across the EU, the likely success of steps taken at national level to up-skill the resident workforce in order to fill those vacancies and factor in the extent to which those skill shortages in any particular Member State may be ameliorated or aggravated by intra-EU movements of EU workers. In any event, the Government does not judge that the effort required to deliver such an undertaking could profitably substitute for work undertaken at national level to identify labour demand and skill shortages.

Social security coordination

192. We note the Government's concerns about the Commission's approach to the external dimension of EU social security coordination. However, notwithstanding these concerns, we consider that the EU may need to consider the portability of social rights. (paragraph 60)

Response: The Government fully recognises the importance of social security coordination within the EU. For those who work and pay their social security contributions, the rules for claiming benefits currently apply regardless of whether they are UK, EU or non-EU citizens. As a matter of principle, the Government has stated that it does not want to increase social security rights for third country nationals. While we recognise the importance of improving social security cooperation with third countries, we question the need for agreements at EU level, and underline the anomalies that exist in such agreements. The UK’s legislation does not make distinctions to entitlement on the basis of nationality, so any third country national who has worked and contributed in the UK and wants subsequently to export their benefit will receive the same treatment as a UK national in the same circumstances. In particular, they can receive their retirement pension anywhere in the world.

Family reunification

193. We believe that there could be problems with a situation that admits spouses and children more readily to one Member State than another, considering that, once admitted they may eventually acquire the right to freedom of movement throughout the EU. We repeat our view that the Government should seek to opt-in to the Family Reunification Directive. (paragraph 64)

Response: The Family Reunification Directive sets out the conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification by third country nationals residing lawfully in a Member State. The UK did not opt into the Directive adopted in 2003 because we wanted to retain the ability to set our own family migration policy and we are not therefore bound by it.

The UK is concerned about the potential for abuse of the right to family reunification, in particular by third country nationals, and is working with other Member States to tackle fraud and abuse in this area. In view of this, we maintain the view that it is not

in the UK’s interests to be bound by this Directive, and therefore have no plans to review the earlier decision not to opt in.

Labour market integration and public opposition to migration

194. We consider that the EU's contribution to labour market integration policy should primarily be through the European Integration Fund. We support the recommendations of the European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals, and encourage the Commission to develop these recommendations into concrete proposals, particularly those dealing with countries of origin in the context of the GAMM. (paragraph 70)

Response: The Government agrees with the Committee’s assessment that the EU’s role in integration should primarily be through the European Integration Fund, as well as acting as a channel for the sharing of good practice. The United Kingdom continues to participate in the European Integration Fund, which supports a number of UK-based integration projects.

The Government considers that it is not appropriate or necessary for all the recommendations of the European Agenda for the Integration of Third Country Nationals to be developed further at an EU or national level. Although the Government welcomes the Commission’s acknowledgement that integration is a matter reserved for Member States, and that effective integration solutions should be found within national and local contexts, not all the recommendations made in the Agenda reflect this approach. It should be for individual communities to consider for themselves which recommendations will be useful.

The Committee mentions particularly the proposals for dealing with countries of origin. The Government considers that these proposals require further clarification, although we recognise the important contribution made to development through, for example, migrants’ remittances.

195. We also support the Commission's efforts to promote the sharing of Member State experiences and good practice in the wider area of integration policies. We believe that language learning has an important role to play in this respect. We would also stress the valuable role that the voluntary and private sector can play in this process, and recommend that the views of civil society be taken fully into account in the formulation and implementation of integration policy. (paragraph 71)

Response: The Government agrees with the Committee that the acquisition of the language of the host society is key to integration, and also that the Commission has a role to play in sharing and promoting good practice across Member States.

Local organisations can have an important role to play in identifying and meeting local integration needs and the Government believes that communities, businesses and voluntary bodies should be enabled to lead integration in their local area. The Localism Act introduces new rights for communities to take greater control in their local areas, for example by challenging local authorities to contract out services where they feel they could do a better job of running them.

External border controls and tackling irregular migration

196. We strongly support the Government's efforts to play an active role in the work of Frontex and the development of EUROSUR and believe that it is in the United Kingdom's national interest that these operations are efficient, effective and well resourced. (paragraph 81)

197. However, we believe that while external border controls are a crucial part of any strategy to deal with irregular migration, they have limited effects on reducing irregularity, not least since most irregular migrants in Europe are visa over-stayers. We recommend that both Member States and the EU consider a more balanced and comprehensive approach to over-stayers, including the selective encouragement of legal migration channels. We also support the Commission's forthcoming proposal for an entry-exit system. (paragraph 82)

Response: The Government thanks the Committee for its support for the UK’s active involvement in the work of Frontex and in the development of EUROSUR. The latter is on track to become operational in October 2013. The Government shares the Committee’s view that the effectiveness of these initiatives is a matter of national interest. The United Kingdom is not able to participate in either the Frontex or EUROSUR Regulations because they develop the parts of the Schengen agreement dealing with borders. However, UK officials are able to attend the meetings of the Frontex Management Board, where they are able to exercise influence on decisions affecting both the availability and the efficient use of resources.

The Government notes the Committee’s support for a proposal from the Commission on the establishment of an entry-exit system within the Schengen area. Publication of the proposal is now expected in Spring 2013 and we look forward to being in a position to advise the Committee further at that time.

EU Readmission Agreements

198. We have constantly advocated the United Kingdom's participation in all EU Readmission Agreements. We believe that they can be important tools in facilitating returns to third countries particularly if bilateral relations were to weaken between the United Kingdom and particular third countries. We were disappointed that the Government chose not to participate in the negotiating mandates with Belarus and Armenia and would like to see the United Kingdom opt-in at a later stage. We support the Government's decision to opt-in to the agreement with Turkey. (paragraph 88)

199. We believe that the existing Readmission Agreements would benefit from a full evaluation and urge the Government to support such an approach by the Commission. (paragraph 89)

Response: The Government believes that it is in the interest of the United Kingdom to weigh up the benefits of participation in each EU Readmission Agreement (EURA) rather than to opt in automatically. This includes an assessment of the impact of such decisions on wider bilateral relationships. This is consistent with the UK’s case-by-case approach to the application of our JHA Opt-In.

Some EURAs may assist the UK to enforce the return of irregular migrants. However, each EURA also constrains signatories’ freedom to negotiate subsequent bilateral agreements. The existence of an EURA does not guarantee that returns will be accepted by a third country, as implementation is variable and an EURA cannot force any third country to accept returns. If a country wishes to block or slow returns from the UK for political reasons, we believe it is unlikely that our participation in an EURA would dissuade them.

The Government does not wish to withdraw from participation in EURAs. We will remain fully involved in discussions and will exercise our opt-in where we believe participation will benefit the UK, or where the UK’s participation will strengthen the EURA overall. We agree with the Committee’s view that it will be valuable for the Commission and Member States to continue to evaluate the operation of existing EURAs.

Human Trafficking Directive

200. We support the commitment to embed anti-trafficking measures in wider external migration relations as well as the recognition of the need for a more coordinated and strategic approach. We look forward to seeing evidence of these commitments being put into practice in the 2014 evaluation report of the Anti-trafficking Strategy. (paragraph 92)

201. We restate our support for the United Kingdom's participation in the Human Trafficking Directive and welcome the Government's joined-up approach to this area. (paragraph 94)

Response: We welcome the Committee’s conclusions on the Human Trafficking Directive. The Government recognises the complex international aspects of trafficking and the need to work with European and international partners in tackling this crime. The UK chairs the EMPACT (European Multidisciplinary Platform against Criminal Threats) group on human trafficking to enhance cooperation and coordination of the European law enforcement effort against trafficking.

European Asylum Support Office

202. We welcome the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office and look forward to monitoring its progress. (paragraph 98)

Response: We also welcome the progress that EASO has made since it became operational as an EU Agency in February 2011. We are committed to working with EASO to build capacity in those Member States that are facing particular pressures to their asylum and migration systems. We are also looking forward to EASO fulfilling the objectives in its 2013 Work Programme.

Regional Protection Programmes

203. We acknowledge the potential of Regional Protection Programmes to facilitate the GAMM's work in building capacity in countries of origin and transit. We particularly welcome the recent establishment of a Regional Protection Programme

for Syria. We encourage the Government to play a proactive role in their operation and development. (paragraph 106)

Response: We support the Commission’s initiative to establish a Regional Protection Programme in order to ensure effective protection is given to those fleeing the humanitarian crisis in Syria, and we will engage with the Commission and the UNHCR on its development.

Our support for the RPP in the Syrian region is in line with our broader support for the underlying principle of RPPs, i.e. that it is desirable to provide protection close to the country of origin. This facilitates the provision of durable solutions, either through integration in the local community or return to their country of origin when conditions improve. We also believe that any resettlement element of RPPs should be neither mandatory nor large scale.

Joint EU Resettlement Programme

204. We recommend that the EU should aim to accept more resettlement refugees under the Regional Protection Programmes as part of their ongoing dialogue and cooperation with the UNHCR. (paragraph 110)

205. We commend the Government's ongoing commitment to resettlement through its Gateway Protection Programme and endorse its support for the establishment of the joint EU resettlement programme. (paragraph 111)

Response: The Government agrees that resettlement is an appropriate activity for Member States to undertake. In particular we encourage those Member States which have not yet established a resettlement programme to consider participating in this scheme. However, we continue to believe that resettlement initiatives should be neither mandatory nor large scale, and that they are most effective when specifically targeted and undertaken in consultation with expert bodies (primarily UNHCR).

A more integrated approach?

206. Migration policy cannot and should not be the sole concern of interior ministries. We support the approach advocated by a number of our witnesses for a more integrated approach to be adopted, which should involve other ministries such as Business, Innovation and Skills, Development and Foreign Affairs. (paragraph 117)

207. We also consider that the Commission should adopt a similar approach when seeking to achieve the objectives of the Global Approach by engaging all the relevant parts of the Commission, including the Directorate-Generals for Home Affairs, Development and Employment and Social Affairs, and the European External Action Service. (paragraph 118)

Response: The Government agrees that migration policy cannot be solely the concern of Interior Ministries. We support the approach taken by the EU under the GAMM, which is explicit on the links between home affairs, external relations and development policy, as well as the ties between migration, mobility and growth for

both third countries and the EU. As such, it would appear that the Commission is already seeking to achieve the objectives of the GAMM though a joined-up approach, although it may be possible to make further improvements in this regard. Similarly, the Home Office works closely with the FCO, DfID and other departments in its engagements with EU and third country partners under the GAMM, ensuring proper coordination, input and coherence across departments with regard to the EU’s external migration policy. The Home Office likewise works with the FCO, BIS and other departments on the development of UK migration policy, including in relation to the Government’s growth agenda. However, the Home Office retains overall responsibility for border and immigration issues, and policy in this area remains the principal responsibility of the Home Secretary, while also being subject to collective Cabinet responsibility.

Trade

208. We consider that the EU's development aims in the migration context could be assisted by taking steps to reduce trade barriers with non-EU countries. (paragraph 120)

Response: The UK is using its G8 Presidency to support the EU’s current policy of negotiating Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements with a number of countries in North Africa, including Tunisia and Morocco. These Agreements will reduce trade barriers with the EU and will also encourage investment, thereby helping to underpin the EU’s development aims of increasing growth in the countries concerned, creating more job opportunities, raising incomes, and ensuring greater economic and political stability.

The EU already provides tariff-free access to its markets for substantially all products from the least developed countries under the ‘Everything But Arms’ scheme. Many other developing countries benefit from reduced tariffs on many products under the EU’s general trade preference scheme. But other non-tariff barriers for developing countries remain, including the lack of a level playing field as a result of European farm subsidies. This is one of the reasons why the UK is pressing for a substantial reduction in farm subsidies as part of comprehensive reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Brain Drain, Remittances and Diasporas

209. We believe there is a general EU interest in pursuing proactive policies regarding brain drain, remittances and diasporas. However, in order for the EU to make a positive contribution to facilitating remittances, mitigating the effects of brain drain on countries of origin and assisting diasporas to transfer skills to their countries of origin, its work in this area needs to supplement dialogue with concrete actions. This could include support for making remittances more affordable, schemes to increase access to finance in remote locations and providing funding for the development of vocational skills. (paragraph 126)

Response: The UK agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. The UK is committed to the G8/G20 target of reducing the global average cost of remittances by 5 percentage points to 5.0% by 2015 and fully agrees that diaspora groups have an important role in development. The Department for International Development provides support to diaspora groups through a variety of mechanisms such as the Common Ground Initiative and the Global Poverty Action Fund.

There is also an increasing recognition of the vital role that skills and vocational training plays as a stepping stone to good jobs and wider economic growth. DfID is working with several other donors, including three EU partners (Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden), to identify the best way to improve the access of poor people, women and disabled people to good quality modern skills development opportunities in the world’s poorest countries.

The UK will look to share best practice within the EU to support its delivery of concrete actions in order to help those who need it the most, including under the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility.

Mixed competences and effective implementation

210. We agree that the GAMM is a useful framework for the EU to approach the external dimension of migration. We also welcome the extension of its scope to cover mobility. (paragraph 133)

211. However, we believe that the current approach in the GAMM is too diffuse and that in reforming it the EU should adopt a more focused approach, concentrating on the EU's geographical and strategic priorities, as well as focusing on a smaller number of key objectives and instruments, which have a sound evidence base. (paragraph 134)

212. We believe that Turkey should become one of the GAMM's main geographical priorities, in tackling irregular migration, alongside more general engagement in tackling terrorism, transnational organised crime and promoting judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. (paragraph 135)

213. The EU does have a significant role to play in migration policy, but if the GAMM is to be effective it must accommodate rather than disregard Member States' different approaches in this area. We believe that facilitating voluntary cooperation between Member States with an interest in particular projects will yield the most results. (paragraph 136)

Response: The Government agrees with the Committee that, overall, the renewed GAMM is a useful framework for the EU’s work on the external dimension of migration. We are particularly supportive of the GAMM’s emphasis on practical cooperation, and its voluntary and non-binding character, which allows particular Member States to cooperate on work in countries or regions where they have particular expertise. As the Committee’s recommendation suggests, the GAMM’s role as a framework for

voluntary cooperation is conducive to the best results from the joint work of the Member States and EU institutions with third country partners. The renewed GAMM saw increased emphasis on the facilitation of mobility alongside cooperation on legal migration. Increased mobility is sought by many third countries as a means of furthering their economic and social development. As such the inclusion of mobility as an aspect of the GAMM provides a potential lever for some of the EU’s key objectives with regard to migration, including progress on tackling illegal immigration, as well as wider foreign policy aims. But we believe the EU must carefully consider the potential impacts of increased mobility in any instance. From a UK perspective, we will continue to ensure that facilitation of mobility by the EU does not erode our ability to decide immigration policy at national level. There are other ways in which the EU can improve cooperation on migration issues, such as sharing of expertise and technical advice. We agree with the Committee that the EU should adopt a more focused and strategic approach under the GAMM. The need for prioritisation and consolidation of activities, particularly given limited resources, with the principal geographical focus being the EU’s neighbourhood and key countries of transit and origin was noted in the strategy adopted by the General Affairs Council on 29 May 2012. Although some good efforts have been made on a more focussed approach, we feel that further efforts are required in this area. Turkey remains a priority country for both the UK and the EU more broadly in our engagement with the wider European neighbourhood and beyond. Its status as an accession country (which commits Turkey to alignment with the EU’s JHA acquis) means that Turkey is excluded from engagement under the GAMM, e.g. through a Mobility Partnership. However, cooperation on migration issues with Turkey is carried out through EU-funded projects, including Twinning projects, which share expertise and build capacity and co-operation in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. Turkey is also involved in a number of regional processes that fall under the GAMM ‘umbrella’. Of particular note is Turkey’s chairmanship of the new Silk Routes Partnership, a regional process covering Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. The UK continues to work closely with both Turkey and our EU partners in the development of this important initiative. The UK has consistently supported the conclusion of the EU Readmission Agreement (EURA) as it represents a concrete step towards enhanced co-operation on combating migratory pressures. The UK also remains a strong supporter of broader EU dialogue and cooperation with Turkey in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, and has played a leading role in the development of an EU framework for such co-operation.

Funding, evaluation and monitoring

214. We consider that despite its stated intention the current iteration of the GAMM has not evaluated effectively the EU's progress to date in achieving its objectives. Therefore, we believe that a full and detailed evaluation of the GAMM's different pillars and the funding instruments that support their objectives should form a core part of the forthcoming report in 2013, in order to ensure the GAMM's future relevance and efficacy. (paragraph 139)

Response: Since the inception of the renewed GAMM in November 2011, the Commission has indicated its intention to ensure the effective evaluation of the Global Approach. The importance of monitoring progress under the GAMM was affirmed by the General Affairs Council on 29 May 2012, as agreed by the UK and other Member States.

The UK welcomes current efforts by the Commission and the Irish Presidency to develop the first biennial implementation report on the GAMM, which is intended for publication in 2013. We understand the report will include an assessment of the various programmes and projects which fall under the GAMM, including Mobility Partnerships, and the identification of future priorities. We believe that any such report would necessarily include an assessment of the GAMM’s effectiveness across its four key ‘pillars’.

It is important that the 2013 report contributes to the GAMM becoming more strategic and efficient, delivering effective concrete action to ensure the better management of migration by the EU and key countries of origin and transit. On this basis, we would also support the Committee’s view that a full evaluation of the GAMM would also include an assessment of the use of the funding instruments that support its objectives.

Mobility Partnerships

215. We note that none of the existing Mobility Partnerships are with major sending countries. We recommend that Turkey (as a candidate country) and Pakistan, as major corridors for irregular migration into the EU, should be priorities for future Mobility Partnerships. (paragraph 144)

216. However, it is important to be realistic about what can be achieved between the EU and third countries regarding migration and mobility. To this end we support the development of looser, more informal, forms of cooperation with other important third countries before moving on to more formal agreements such as Mobility Partnerships. (paragraph 145)

217. We urge the Government to press the Commission to accept the need for a thorough evaluation of the existing Mobility Partnerships. We welcome the recent evaluation of the Moldovan Mobility Partnership as a positive step in this regard but consider that considerable progress is still required in this area. Due to their bespoke nature there cannot be a "one-size-fits-all" approach to Mobility Partnerships and separate evaluations of each are therefore required. (paragraph 148)

218. Looking ahead we also believe that any future Mobility Partnerships should contain clear provision for integrated monitoring or evaluation mechanisms to assess quantitative benchmarks, including the views of the target beneficiaries. These mechanisms should play a prominent role from the very beginning of the process. (paragraph 149)

Response: The Mobility Partnerships concluded thus far have predominantly been with countries of the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood. Negotiations are currently taking place for two Mobility Partnerships with the Southern neighbourhood, namely Tunisia

and Morocco. As noted above, Turkey’s status as an accession country means that it is excluded from bilateral engagement under the GAMM, including via an EU-Turkey Mobility Partnership, but is included in other pre-accession cooperation and in negotiations for a EURA. The renewed Global Approach has also seen the development of an alternative framework for cooperation in addition to Mobility Partnerships – the ‘CAMM’ (Common Agenda for Migration and Mobility) – in cases where one side or the other is not ready to enter into the full set of obligations and commitments a Mobility Partnership implies. The ‘CAMM’ is likely to be used with many countries further ‘upstream’ from the EU’s external borders. We believe that the flexibility and ‘lighter touch’ offered by CAMMs, compared to Mobility Partnerships, is likely to make them a useful tool for development of the GAMM. There are no current plans to start a Mobility Partnership or CAMM dialogue with Pakistan but, as noted above, Pakistan is included in the Silk Routes Partnership.

The Government agrees that monitoring and evaluating Mobility Partnerships is necessary to assess their value as a tool of the GAMM. However, as each Mobility Partnership is tailor-made to address country-specific issues, we believe that each Mobility Partnership should be individually evaluated (with any transferable finding then being considered in the development of future Partnerships).

The UK does not actively participate in the four current Mobility Partnerships and, as such, is not directly involved in their evaluation, although we continue to monitor their progress. Ongoing evaluation activities are proposed for the Mobility Partnerships with Morocco and Tunisia.

The Global Forum for Migration and Development

219. We believe that the Commission should be welcomed to future meetings of the GFMD as an observer so long as it is clearly recognised within the EU that this will not indicate any transfer of responsibilities from the Member States. (paragraph 154)

Response: The European Commission is already a formal observer at the GFMD and participates in meetings of the Friends of the Forum. The Government would not support any further extension of EU competence in relation to the GFMD, or any transfer of responsibilities from the Member States to the EU institutions.

Other international organisations with a role in migration

220. Increased coordination and reduced duplication between the various international organisations involved in migration policy is necessary. (paragraph 158)

221. We also consider that co-operation and the sharing of expertise between cities and regions in different parts of the EU could be every bit as important as inter-governmental and international co-operation on migration. (paragraph 159)

Response: The Government recognises the important role played by international organisations with regard to international migration. For example, the role played by both the IOM and the UNHCR in addressing outflows from Libya during the Arab

Spring. Similarly, we believe the UNHCR has key expertise that will be essential in the development of the Regional Protection Programme being developed in the context of the current Syrian crisis. Our experience in the context of the GAMM has been that, rather than seeking to duplicate expertise, the EU has sought to draw on the expertise of these organisations through working closely with them.

It is not clear exactly how the Committee foresees co-operation and the sharing of expertise between cities and regions in different parts of the EU contributing to the work under the GAMM. However, we welcome the sharing of experience of best practice and expertise both within and beyond the EU in the development and implementation of GAMM initiatives – for example, as an aspect of Mobility Partnerships. Moreover, one of the strengths of the GAMM is that it enables the EU to draw on the expertise of Member States with regard to particular third countries and global regions in furthering joint cooperation in migration management.

The United Kingdom's partial participation in EU asylum and immigration policies / EU immigration measures

222. We consider that the United Kingdom's approach to migration policy cannot and should not be formulated and implemented in a vacuum. Migration is a global phenomenon so the United Kingdom's policy needs to take proper account of the European and international policy frameworks in order to achieve a more effective approach. (paragraph 165)

223. We consider that migration has provided benefits for the EU and can continue to do so while Member States' primary competence in this area is respected. We continue to believe that the United Kingdom should seek to play a full role in the development and implementation of the EU's migration policy. (paragraph 167)

224. We see advantage in the United Kingdom's participation in individual EU migration measures brought forward by the Commission where these are broadly consistent with Government policy. While a policy of non-participation may leave the United Kingdom free to frame its own labour migration policy, we believe that this may also place the United Kingdom at a competitive disadvantage in terms of attracting highly-skilled migrants. (paragraph 168)

Response: The Government would agree that the United Kingdom’s migration policy should not be formulated and implemented in a vacuum; indeed, this is not the case. We work closely with international partners in fora ranging from the Five Country Conference to the Global Forum on Migration and Development, as well as EU fora, taking careful account of the wider context of international migration policy and other relevant areas in developing our own approach. However we do not believe that such close partnership working necessarily means we should take a common approach either within the EU or elsewhere. On that basis, we continue to use our Title V ‘opt-in’, and participate in EU migration instruments only where our analysis shows us this is in the national interest. Similarly, it is unarguable that migration has provided benefits for the EU, and can continue to do so. But not all migration is beneficial. Moreover, with regard to legal

migration, Member States’ needs differ greatly, so a ‘one size fits all’ approach to migration and growth would be counter-productive. On that basis, like the Committee, the Government believes the competence of Member States in this area is an essential part of the ability to ensure migration is properly managed across the EU, particularly with regard to the number and type of migrants admitted. The Government also agrees that the UK should continue to play a leading role in the development and implementation of the EU’s migration policy. However, we believe this policy has been overly focussed on common legislation to the detriment of the EU as a whole. On this basis, we continue to lead EU discussions by arguing instead for enhanced practical cooperation within the EU, and in the EU’s joint work with external partners; for example by sharing expertise and technical advice and by working together to prevent abuse of our legal migration systems. We have also led on ensuring concrete progress on practical cooperation, for example through the development and implementation of the EU’s illegal immigration ‘roadmap’ (‘EU Action on Migratory Pressures: A Strategic Response’).

EU asylum measures

225. We have also consistently advocated the United Kingdom's participation in the majority of individual EU asylum measures. We continue to believe that the United Kingdom should seek to play a full role in the development and implementation of the EU's asylum policy, including the completion of the Common European Asylum System. (paragraph 170)

226. We welcome the Government's admission that non-participation in proposed recast asylum measures does not release them from their obligations under the first phase of Common European Asylum System (CEAS) measures, in which they currently participate. This has been our view since the second phase CEAS proposals were brought forward by the Commission. (paragraph 171)

Response: We are committed to working with our EU partners on asylum issues in order to address the challenges we all face in preserving the integrity of our asylum systems and helping those who are genuinely in need. However, we do not judge that adoption of a Common EU Asylum Policy would be right for Britain’s particular situation.

Looking forward, the Government intends to focus on providing practical support and cooperation on asylum to Member States under pressure. We intend to participate actively in EASO to provide UK expertise to Member States such as Greece, to build capacity and implement reforms to ensure that they operate effective asylum systems.

The Schengen Area

227. While not being a full member of the Schengen Area, we believe that the United Kingdom should seek to engage with the border-free travel area wherever possible. This can be achieved through continued participation in policing and criminal justice Schengen-building measures, as well as through exploring options for enhanced cooperation between the Common Travel Area and the Schengen

Area. We regret the Government's negative attitude to such cooperation and hope they will reconsider. (paragraph 176)

Response: The Government assesses the UK’s participation in all EU measures on a case-by-case basis. The national interest is at the heart of our decision making. In considering new measures we include security, civil liberties, integrity of the UK common law systems and control of immigration. The UK already takes part in Schengen provisions relating to police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (except hot pursuit), to narcotic drugs, and to carriers’ liability. The UK is also working to join the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SISII). However, the Government has not applied to join Schengen provisions on visas and border controls and has no intention of doing so. This position excludes us from participating in some EU measures on the basis that they build on the part of the Schengen acquis in which we do not participate, i.e. the border control elements. However, as the Committee notes, we are able to choose whether to participate in EU measures which build on the part of the Schengen acquis in which we do participate, i.e. the police and judicial cooperation elements. In these cases we are deemed to be participating unless we choose to opt out pursuant to Protocol 19 to the TEU and TFEU (the “Schengen opt-out Protocol”) within three months of the publication of the proposal. When the UK does not participate in Schengen-building measures, we are nevertheless able to debate these – for example in the JHA Council’s biannual debate on Schengen governance. This can be particularly helpful where unintended consequences arise for the management or security of the UK border as a result of the management of the external borders or the Schengen area – for example, as a result of Schengen visa liberalisation. UK officials are alert to the need to ensure interoperability between Schengen and UK systems and processes, insofar as this does not impinge on the security of the UK’s borders. However, there are no plans for mutual recognition allowing Schengen visa-holders to enter the UK or the CTA. The countries of the Schengen area operate a common harmonised list of third countries for citizens who require visas. The UK maintains its own policy and legislation on visa requirements, including countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa before travelling to the UK, because we believe it is of fundamental importance that the UK maintains control of its own border security.

Free movement of persons

228. The free movement of persons is fundamental to the structure of the EU and an integral part of the Single Market. We believe it would be neither desirable nor feasible to seek to revise its terms. However, we support any efforts by the Government to tackle benefit fraud as long as it complies with their obligations under the Treaties. (paragraph 180)

Response: The Government supports the legitimate exercise of the right to free movement, which brings substantial benefits to UK and other EU citizens. However, this right is not unlimited and EU citizens must adhere to the responsibilities this brings and abide by our laws. The EU legal framework– notably the 2004 Free Movement Directive and the EU Accession Treaties - limit our ability to prevent

abuse of free movement rights by those who are not genuinely exercising Treaty rights. Within those constraints, we have put in place a robust and uncompromising strategy both at EU level and domestically to tackle abuse of free movement and reduce the pull factors for migration. We have consistently raised the problem of fraud and abuse with other EU Member States, and we are working to curb such abuse domestically, and together with our European partners. We will also examine the scope and consequences of the free movement of people across the EU as part of the Review of Balance of Competences in 2013.

International students and net migration targets

229. We welcome the Government's commitment to the sustainable growth of the higher education sector. While we also welcome their intention to disaggregate the statistics on student migration within headline migration figures as a small step in the right direction this does not address the heart of the problem, which is not purely statistical in nature. (paragraph 186)

230. We consider that the current policy creates the perception that overseas students are not welcome in the United Kingdom. We therefore believe that it harms both the quality of the United Kingdom's higher education sector and its ability to compete in an increasingly competitive global market for international students, particularly with other English-speaking countries and some EU Member States, thus reducing much needed income from tuition fees for our universities and damaging the United Kingdom's international influence in the longer term. (paragraph 187)

231. We recommend the removal of international students from the public policy implications of the Government's policy of reducing net migration. If the Government genuinely favour an increase in bona fide students from outside the EU they should make this clearer and ensure that all policy instruments support this objective. (paragraph 188)

Response: The Government is committed to the sustainable growth of a sector in which the UK excels. We welcome all genuine students coming to attend any university or college that meets our requirements, and we have always been very clear that we recognise the important contribution that international students make to the UK economy. In December, the Home Secretary reaffirmed that we will place no cap on the number of genuine students coming from across the world to study in this country. The Government is also committed to reducing net migration. We have put in place strong safeguards to tackle immigration abuse in the student route. We are allowing no opportunity for bogus colleges to operate in the UK, or for non-genuine students to come. But any student with the right qualifications, sufficient funds and a good level of English can come with no annual limit on numbers.

Our anti-abuse reforms were targeted at the non-university sector, where abuse has been most prevalent. Data shows that the reductions in visas have hit that sector. By contrast, Higher Education Statistics Agency figures show that the numbers of students from outside the EU at our universities increased in 2011/12. Recent

UCAS data shows that the applications to UK universities from non-EU nationals are up by nearly 10% compared to the same time last year.

The net migration statistics are produced by the independent Office for National Statistics, and they have historically included students. The UK will continue to comply with the international definition of net migration, which covers all those coming for more than 12 months, including students, regardless of any future intention to leave. Conclusion

232. We make this report to the House for debate. (paragraph 11)

Response: The Government welcomes a debate on this report.