The Independent Monitoring Authority must act quickly to gain credibility
Jill Rutter sets out how the Independent Monitoring Authority can hit the ground running
Jill Rutter sets out how the Independent Monitoring Authority, a new body with an uninspiring name and no track record, can hit the ground running
With just over a month until the end of the Brexit transition period, the Ministry of Justice has finally identified their proposed inaugural chair of the Independent Monitoring Authority (IMA), the body established to oversee the UK’s application of the citizens’ rights section of the Withdrawal Agreement. Sir Ashley Fox, former Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, will be in front of the Justice Select Committee on 24 November for his pre-appointment hearing.
The EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) has been a success – with over four million applications and nearly 3.8 million grants of status made. But the sheer numbers involved bring risks and the UK government cannot afford to be complacent. Trust in government among migrant communities has been severely damaged by the Windrush scandal and the ‘hostile environment’. An effective IMA should go some way towards providing reassurance.
But as a new organisation with an uninspiring name and no track record, the IMA will have to work hard to gain credibility and profile with those whose rights it has been established to protect. It comes into operation on 1 January and needs to act quickly to establish itself. There are three issues it could focus on straight away.
1. Monitor the impact of lack of physical proof of status
EU citizens with settled status have expressed repeated concerns that they have to rely only on “digital” proof of status. A recent select committee report has recommended the government should reconsider providing physical proof. The government also rejected Lords amendments which would have provided this.
It is easy to understand why EU citizens are nervous. The UK immigration system depends on third parties – employers, landlords and service providers – to apply controls, and the Windrush scandal exposes the risks of lacking documentation.
The IMA should announce that it will monitor whether those fears materialise in practice. That would establish early on that the IMA is listening to affected citizens’ concerns – and would also put the government on notice that it needs to ensure that it gets the digital proof message through to those undertaking the checks.
2. Press the government to have a clear plan for the end of the “grace period”
While the Brexit transition period will end on 31 December, the government has provided a six-month “grace period” – running to 30 June 2021 – in which EEA nationals can apply for the EU Settlement Scheme and claim their Withdrawal Agreement rights. After this, those who have not acquired either pre-settled or settled status under the scheme will become unlawful residents.
The government’s problem is that it has no way of knowing what proportion of eligible people have registered. For example, for every Bulgarian citizen the ONS estimates lives in the UK, there have been around 1.5 applications to the EUSS, suggesting the initial estimates were badly out. The large numbers involved mean that even if an unprecedentedly high percentage apply by the deadline, large numbers of individuals will not – and many of these will be the most vulnerable.
The government has said that those who miss the deadline can only apply later if they have a “good reason”. But they are yet to define what that means.
This is too important to leave to the last minute. The IMA should either set out how it thinks the government should manage the end of the grace period now or – at the very least – press the government to release a plan.
3. Ensure upgrading pre-settled status to settled status is clear and simple
These issues will manifest themselves in the first year of the IMA’s life. But it is not too early to look at some of the longer-term problems.
Of the over 3.8 million people who have been granted status under the EUSS, around 1.5 million were granted pre-settled, as opposed to settled, status. For most this is because they have not met the five-year residency requirement to be eligible for settled status – though the House of Commons Future Relationship Committee heard evidence of some being wrongly given pre-settled status.
In either case, those granted pre-settled status face a ‘cliff-edge’ when that status lapses and they have to reapply for settled status. A continuous and targeted outreach campaign is necessary – explaining the difference between the two statuses, the need to reapply later and, over the next few years, reminding people to upgrade. By leading this process, and ensuring the government continues this outreach even as EU membership fades into the distance, the IMA can help avert a nightmare scenario where thousands become illegal immigrants.
The IMA should also investigate early whether people have been given the wrong status, what the Home Office proposes to do about that and, for the longer term, how the Home Office proposes to ensure that the process of upgrading from pre-settled to settled status is working. If necessary, it should make recommendations on how to improve these proposals.
The IMA needs to swing into action quickly to gain the confidence of those whose interests it oversees. But it must also retain its objectivity and credibility. By focusing on these three issues and ensuring maximum transparency about its thinking, it can effectively safeguard the EUSS and build the trust necessary to do its job.
Sir Ashley Fox, assuming he is appointed, has a big task ahead.
This piece was co-written with Nick Jones.
- Supporting document
- Brexit_immigration_WEB.pdf (PDF, 339.15 KB)
- Topic
- Brexit
- Keywords
- Immigration
- Country (international)
- European Union
- Department
- Ministry of Justice
- Publisher
- Institute for Government