Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Below Alison Conley, Head of Retail & Consumer at MHA MacIntyre Hudson, explains some of the prospects for UK retailers at either side of the Brexit deal outcome.
The sums at stake for retailers as a result of Brexit are huge. With the value of UK imports from the EU and the rest of the world totalling £590.5 billion*, the threat of the import tariff post-Brexit means UK retailers must re-examine their supply chains and scrutinise their product portfolio.
Post Brexit, UK retailers reliant on imports will face challenges of ‘revolutionary’ proportions. The introduction of the import tariff in the absence of a free or fair trade deal with the EU will likely prompt many UK retailers to make drastic changes to their business operations and look for innovative ways to respond to changing consumer habits.
For some of the biggest UK food retailers, the imposition of an average 22% tariff would mean that top selling consumables such as vegetables, berries and clothing could suffer from a drastic change in consumer perception of ‘essential goods.’
Free from the parental guidance of the European Customs Union, the UK would be able to alter the tariffs on goods. Nonetheless, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) would insist that the UK didn’t discriminate between trade partners, unless a free trade agreement was in place or the aim was to give developing countries special access to the UK market. The UK would have to impose tariffs on all of its trade partners, including the EU, causing the price of imports in the UK to increase significantly.
Tariffs could be reduced or done away with, particularly for goods not normally produced in the UK, but in reality we’re yet to see what the cost implications will then be for the British consumer. Movements in the exchange rate and trade tariff changes could quickly affect the cost of obtaining imported goods. The increased cost will naturally filter into the prices charged to the retail consumer and domestic producers may, in turn, increase their prices in response. With all of this potential competition, the British consumer will need to be the top priority when the UK retailer assesses their pricing strategy.
Major UK retailers could adopt temporary measures post-Brexit, absorbing the increase in import charges to protect their market share from the likes of Amazon. The twists and turns of tactical ‘retail poker’ among retailers could be endless and the introduction of import tariffs will revolutionise trading relationships beyond our wildest imaginings.
The ‘Brexit Revolution’ could herald positive outcomes for the UK retailer as Britain could be better placed to enter trade agreements with countries such as China and the United States, to date an elusive prospect for the EU. Nevertheless, the UK retailer will need to abandon any leanings towards short-termism and embrace the long-term by:
* https://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-trade-partners/
Rajeev Shaunak, head of travel & tourism, MHA MacIntyre Hudson, comments below on the Brexit bottleneck delaying new travel regulation, and urgent action needed to address concerns on the future of air travel and holidays.
Consultations for the new Package Travel Directive (PTD) started in Autumn last year but have been dogged by delays and are well behind schedule. The 1 January 2018 deadline to transpose its requirements into UK law has been missed, with lawmakers distracted by the masses of Brexit activity at the end of last year. Brexit has overridden many government department plans in the last 12 months, causing delays and leading to growing concerns around the future of air travel and holidays within the EU and further afield. Although few agreed with Michael O’Leary of Ryanair when he warned that flights could simply stop after Brexit, that worry has been confirmed by the EU Commission as a potential outcome if no new agreement is reached.
The PTD seeks to address changes in how consumers book holidays, as more and more travellers move to book their trips via online travel websites. The Directive will extend legal protection beyond traditional tour operators. Travel businesses which create packages for customers involving two or more travel arrangements, for example the flight and hotel, will now be responsible for all elements within this package. They must also make the new regulation rights extremely clear on their websites.
New agreements on ‘Open skies’ within Europe and also to the US, currently based on EU agreements, must be reached within the next six months to enable operators and airlines to produce their plans for 2019 by mid-summer this year. The issues run deep; many UK citizens are employed as overseas representatives and managers, and may lose the right to work after March 2019; yet the UK government gives the impression that everything will be resolved ‘in time’.
Without urgent action, the second half of 2018 could be nerve-racking for the UK travel industry. Despite PTD being a European initiative, the UK government has made it clear that it will implement it, perhaps in the hope of currying favour to obtain a better outcome for the current negotiations. With the implementation date fast approaching on 1 July 2018, there are serious doubts over whether this deadline can be met by the government and the travel industry itself. Combined with other developments such as the EU ban on card surcharges and GDPR, the industry is rife with issues to contend with; to succeed in this environment, travel companies will need to carefully review their business structures to manage both their costs and data obligations.
Ahead of the second reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in the Upper House, the House of Lords Constitution Committee is calling on the Government to amend the Bill.
The Committee’s report, published last week, states that legislation is necessary to ensure legal continuity and certainty when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. The Committee does not comment on the merits of Brexit, but concludes that the Bill, as drafted, has fundamental flaws of a constitutional nature. The Committee find that the Bill risks undermining the legal certainty it seeks to provide, gives overly-broad powers to ministers, and has significant consequences for the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved administrations. The Committee propose a number of recommendations to improve the Bill to make it more constitutionally appropriate and fit for purpose, while still meeting the Government’s objectives.
Chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Baroness Taylor of Bolton said: “We acknowledge the scale, challenge and unprecedented nature of the task of converting existing EU law into UK law, but as it stands this Bill is constitutionally unacceptable. In our two previous reports we highlighted the issues this raised and we are disappointed that the Government has not acted on a number of our recommendations.
“However, we identify a number of practical ways in which the flaws in the Bill can be addressed in line with existing constitutional principles and without compromising the Government’s aims. We look forward to constructive engagement with the Government on our recommendations.”
(Source: House of Lords)
The UK Government’s Brexit bill, which is currently making its way through the lower chamber, is being considered by the UN as to whether it breaks international law by failing to consult the public over its legislation.
The complaint originated from Friends of the Earth (FoE), an environmental campaigning community, which noted that the withdrawal bill breached the Aarhus Convention, an agreement that establishes the rights of the public regarding the environment.
What is the Aarhus Convention and how is it being breached?
Adopted on 25 June 1998, it ascertains that the public has a right to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities who are obliged to actively disseminate it. The public also has a right to take part in environmental decisions and law preparation at an early stage.
FoE’s complaint considers that most environmental laws in with UK are derived from EU laws, so the bill gives ministers “unique and wide-ranging powers” to alter or outright remove environmental laws originating from the EU without consulting the public.
According to The Guardian, Associate Professor at the London School of Economics Michael Mason explained that the Government remains legally bound to the Aarhus Convention even after withdrawal from the EU, and would be in breach of treaty if it tried to abolish any laws relating to it.
He concludes with: “A withdrawal from the Aarhus convention would be disastrous for UK environmental policy.”
William Rundle, a legal representative for Friends of the Earth told The Guardian that “the Government said Brexit was about taking back control, yet it has ignored the views of the UK people in taking it forwards.”
At this point in time, the bill fails to require that environmental standards are continued and maintained after Brexit, and says nothing on the requirement that the public should be consulted regarding significant changes to environmental legislation and law. While there is time for this to be included, there are still concerns over its exclusion from the bill.
A similar case was filed and won by campaigners against the Ministry of Justice in February 2017, over proposed amendments to cost protection orders that could have made it too unreliable to pursue legal challenges against the Government over environmental issues.
On the matter, a Government spokesperson said: “The purpose of the withdrawal bill is to provide a functioning statute book on the day we leave the EU – it is an essential bill in the national interest. While we can’t comment on proceedings, we believe we have complied with all of the relevant obligations in developing this crucial legislation and remain committed to maintaining the highest environmental standards. We will be submitting our full response in due course.”
The committee will decide whether the UK Government is in breach of its obligations after it has received a response - the Government has until 5 June.
On behalf of Lawyer Monthly, Richard Thomas, Partner at Cardiff and London based commercial law firm Capital Law, looks at what legal changes will be sweeping administrations in 2018.
GDPR
European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the result of four year’s work by the EU to bring legislation in line with the new ways that data is now being used. And it’s set to come into force this May.
Described as the biggest change to data protection rules in two decades (since the laws were created in the 90s), GDPR overhauls laws that are essentially no longer fit for purpose.
Currently, the UK uses legislation from the Data Protection Act 1998, which was enacted following the 1995 EU Data Protection Directive. But, the new laws will supersede everything that came before it. They’ll vastly change how businesses and public sector organisations handle the information of their customers and stakeholders.
The new laws will introduce tougher fines for non-compliance and breaches, and also give people more control over what companies can do with their data. It also more or less standardises data protections rules across the EU.
Gender pay gap reporting for private companies
By 4th April 2018, private sector employers (with at least 250 employees) will be required to publish gender pay information. Gender pay gap reporting legislation will require large employers to publish their overall mean and median gender pay gaps. It will apply to both salaries and bonuses.
Employers must publish the results on their own website, as well as a government site. This means that gender pay gap information will be publicly available to everyone, including customers, employees, and future recruits.
Similar reporting requirements have applied to larger public sector employers since 31 March 2017. The first reports are due by 30 March 2018.
Drone laws
A new Bill, set to be published in spring 2018, will overhaul drone laws in the UK. Until now, drone use has remained largely unregulated. The new laws mean that users will need to take a basic online safety test to ensure users they are competent and aware of hazards. They’ll also need to register their drone. And, if there are grounds for suspicion, police will be able to search and seize drones.
Aviation Minister, Baroness Sugg, said, ‘under our new laws, users of all but the very smallest drones will need to take an online safety awareness test before they take to the skies. Similar to a driving theory test, the drone test will assess users’ knowledge of the rules, and make sure they are able to fly safely. When new drone users have passed their test, both they and their drones will be registered as safe to fly. Thanks to this registration system, owners of drones that are being misused will be traceable by police. And, under laws we’ll be proposing to Parliament soon, we will also give police the right to search for, and seize, a drone, where there is a reasonable belief that a crime is taking place.’
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
2018 is crunch time for the UK Government’s Withdrawal Bill (or Repeal Bill) – the main piece of legislation which aims to make sure that European law will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit.
The Withdrawal Bill will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which took Britain into the EU, and meant that European law took precedence over laws passed in the UK Parliament. It also ends the power of the European Court of Justice in the UK. However, to ensure a smooth transition post Brexit, all existing EU legislation will be continued into domestic UK law – until certain changes may (or may not) come into force.
The Bill is one of the largest legislative projects ever undertaken in the UK. Every regulation and piece of legislation needs to be re-examined to see how they’ll work after Brexit. It’s no small task – the figures run into the tens of thousands. Capital Law will keep you posted of the relevant changes in the employment law and HR context.
Undoubtedly, this is a piece of legislation we’ll be hearing a lot more about as 2018 rolls out.
The Seattle area has become known as an international technology and innovation hub, with first-rate tech companies, universities, and a thriving start-up scene all contributing to the city’s large and growing talent pool.
We have an exclusive interview with Elena Donio, CEO of Axiom who speaks more on technology impacting the legal sector.
'Axiom’s research and development centre, based at this technology epicentre, will be at the forefront of technology innovation in law. Part of Axiom’s research and development efforts are going towards shaping how state-of-the-art techniques in machine learning can be applied to contracting work.
'The goal is to move from finding clauses to interpreting clauses, which will dramatically improve the speed of contract analysis, enable more powerful insights, and deliver the capability of creating new bodies of contracts faster, and with higher quality', they reveal.
What do you think the legal industry needs to improve on, in regards to technology?
We believe that technology is already beginning to bring fundamental shifts to the legal industry – not just further enabling today’s processes, but altering legal work itself. And we think these shifts will be a tremendous force for good, empowering attorneys and business leaders to focus on what matters, minimising risk and maximising the value of their decisions. Innovations such as the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) as part of M&A diligence efforts and the use of workflow and data analytics to drive contract remediation for large scale events like GDPR and Brexit are examples at play today.
Given the rate of change in legal tech, and the opportunity to profoundly improve outcomes, we believe that the industry at large must continue to push itself to think big – looking beyond incremental improvement – for fundamental changes to the nature of legal work; change that eliminates perceived trade-offs between, cost, speed, risk, and the quality of outcomes.
This change is already taking place across the industry. Our clients are thinking differently about the role technology can play in their day-to-day. We’re really excited to be partnering with companies like Dell, Johnson & Johnson, and many others, to explore how we can leverage technology to drive game-changing improvements and insights for them today.
In what ways are you ensuring that these improvements are being implemented?
While technology’s role in the legal industry will only continue to expand, we’re still in the early days of that journey – and that means remaining aggressive in our diligence, development and deployment of game-changing technologies, but also being meticulous in our assessment of them. We believe that’s the balance required to take great care of our clients, while offering cutting-edge solutions incorporating technology.
The tech we’re already using in the field includes workflow and analytics engines for contract negotiation and remediation. We used these to repaper contracts for six of the world’s largest banks as part of uncleared margin reform, and also currently use them in our Clinical Trial Agreement and M&A solutions. We’re also outfitting this technology in advance of outreach efforts related to GDPR and Brexit. We’ve deployed AI solutions to gather contracts and extract contract data as part of M&A and other corporate transactions, enabling our attorneys to focus on the legal language that matters. The data and insights these efforts generate mean that our tools improve with every single engagement.
While our clients are enjoying the benefits of these technologies today, it’s also essential that we build technology solutions that last and scale as our capabilities continue to expand. To that end, we recently appointed a new Chief Technology Officer, Doug Hebenthal. A 30-year technology industry veteran who has worked on disruptive technologies across Amazon, Microsoft, and other cutting-edge players, Doug is working to expand our technology vision, artificial intelligence capabilities, and automation of contract and other legal processes. He will also be overseeing the creation of our Seattle-based research and development centre, which we plan to open in 2018. The centre will be focused on developing the most advanced technology solutions in the legal industry.
We also launched AxiomAI earlier this year, a program that leverages AI to improve the efficiency and quality of contracts work. As part of AxiomAI, Axiom will accelerate the use of current-generation AI to help extract information from contracts for more rapid analysis. At the same time, Axiom will continue our R&D efforts to shape next-generation AI for more unique and transformative use cases. This program, combined with our market leadership in tech-enabled legal services, leaves us positioned as a market leader in the practical application of AI to legal work.
In five years, what do you think would be the most ideal situation for the legal industry in regard to tech?
In five years' time, we believe that the legal industry will view technology as integral to the delivery and deployment of legal services. Enabling seamless access to legal talent, data and analytics, and strategy implementation. The role of technology over this timeframe can be truly transformative – altering how legal services are delivered, as well as the work that’s done and how our clients spend their time.
The non-incremental change we envision reflects how rapidly technology can grow and mature and we cannot allow convention and prior experience to prevent the profound impact of tech from being felt. Technology will alleviate the industry from focusing on how work is done (as well as substantially reducing the cost of that work), while enabling focus on what matters – contract data analysis, optimising value in negotiation and transactions, and making strategic, informed decisions for the business.
Not only is that our ideal situation for five years from now, but we believe many elements of this vision will be realised even sooner. In fact, we’re already helping our clients with contract analytics today, at places like Dell, where we offer visibility into active contract terms for over 35,000 contracts, dating back 20 years.
In general, what are the biggest obstacles individuals face when trying to expand their company, in regard to legal requirements? How will better technology improve this?
As companies expand, they often face the challenge of not having sufficient processes or people in place to tackle their legal needs, particularly when they face a hard deadline like an M&A transaction or a new regulation coming into effect. As they grow, it also becomes more important to remain fast and nimble in securing commercial relationships. The sales engine therefore needs a fast and nimble contracting process.
While we believe that our business model is well suited to solve these challenges today, we also firmly believe that technology will lower these barriers in the future, making top legal talent more accessible, rapidly sourcing a unique and in-demand skillset for a period of time, and tackling a large scale contracting challenge in really cost-competitive ways.
Take the upcoming introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GPDR), for example. This regulation, for which companies need to be compliant by May 2018, requires organisations to analyse which vendors access or process covered data, and which customers use the company for data processing.
If we step back and just look at the contracting work that needs to be done, we estimate that global firms have millions of contracts that need to be identified and remediated ahead of the regulation. However, less than five per cent know how many contracts need to be addressed in order to comply with the regulation. The cost of identifying and remediating these contracts will conservatively run over one billion dollars.
We’re working with quite a few companies on their GDPR readiness by leveraging AI, coupled with our deep expertise in contracting solutions and data privacy. With so much work still left to do in the next six months, taking a tech-enabled approach to regulatory response is the most cost-efficient way for companies, including high-growth ones, to identify and remediate all of the applicable contracts.
Elena Donio is Chief Executive Officer of Axiom, the recognized leader in the business of law. Through a curated marketplace, Axiom employs and then deploys 2,000 lawyers, professionals, process engineers and technologists to deliver the future of law to the Fortune/FTSE 500. Elena has over 20 years of experience in fast-paced technology companies.
Doug Hebenthal serves as Axiom's Chief Technology Officer, overseeing the company's industry-leading technology platform and opening Axiom's first R&D centre in Bellevue, Washington. Doug has more than 30 years of experience in tech, including 21 years at Microsoft, where he was a founding member of the Xbox team and an early pioneer working on the Internet. He came to Axiom from Change Healthcare, where he served as Chief Network Engineering Officer and Senior Vice President of Cloud Infrastructure, driving industry change through healthcare cloud adoption. Prior to that, Doug was a Director for Amazon's Payments Platform, leading their 160 person engineering team, processing hundreds of millions of dollars of financial throughput annually.
In the years you have been practicing, how have you seen the international trade scene evolve?
Free-trade agreements shape significantly the international trade landscape for the last couple decades. With the majority of countries involved in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, e.g. ASEAN Free Trade Area, NAFTA, EEA, APEC that are still functioning nowadays, tariffs are removed or reduced and services and goods become more accessible and affordable; enterprises enjoy more stable and safer environment for their investments; and the strength of international cooperation is evidenced as we see international organisations, such as WTO, have substantially contributed to international trading, leading to a remarkable and fruitful development of the global economics.
During its course, several features of international trade can be observed over the recent years. Developing countries in Asia and Latin America, including China, Mexico, India and Brazil, become important partners in global trades. There is also a rising trend in South-South trade, partially because of the changing of the international supply chains, as today a substantial share of the production processes of global supply chain is taking place in developing countries. The development of transportation in cost-saving and improving efficiency, as well as the emergence of e-commerce has created more opportunity for small and medium-sized businesses. It is not until the global economy recession since 2008 that the political support for international free trade started to weaken, shaping a different international trade landscape for today from the past scores.
How would you describe the current international trade landscape and what are the hottest talking points today?
Inequality in different personae (among countries, corporates, and social classes for example), but in fact all centring around the low-growth of world economics, has emerged into the main theme and call for the changes that may damage the international free trade nowadays.
Two illustrations can be provided: first, the fierce attack from the US President. President Trump pledges to bring corporate activities and manufacturing jobs back and to correct the unfairness the States has been suffered in various free trade agreements. He withdrew from Trans-Pacific Partnership, questioned the WTO, and called NAFTA ‘the worst trade deal in... the history of [the US].’ Second, Brexit. There are criticisms on the EU for UK’s immigrant policies, unemployment rates, and economical losses. However, leaving the EU disqualifies UK of the enjoyment of the EU's internal market, meaning potential increase in tariffs, administrative burdens, and financial costs of trades, as well as other non-tariffs barriers.
However, most countries are still determined to oppose protectionism and believe in free trade among countries. It appears to be the consensus of developing countries to support open trade based on global rules. For example, Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), consist of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia, is approaching Latin America countries such as Brazil, Bolivia, Nicaragua, for trading on aircrafts and others (e.g. energy-related projects). Some important members of EU also march to defend the idea—the four-year negotiation between the EU and Japan has finally reached an Economic Partnership Agreement recently. Also, as an important trading country, China will always be open to the outside world. In fact, in the 12th G20 Summit, Chinese president Xi Jinping just gave a speech to warrant China’s support to the multilateral trading system and an open global economy.
Which do you think is the most important country of 2018 for companies to be keeping their eyes on, in relation to trading opportunities?
After years of recession, 2018 still seems to be a year full of opportunities for international trading and investment for most of countries.
As an emerging market, though questions never cease, China’s growth and development is well-evidenced. China has the largest and fast growing consumer market, especially considering its increasing mid-class consumer. It is reported that the majority of China's total consumption has historically centred on essential items such as food, beverages, clothing and footwear. But going forward, higher spending is expected on cars, luxury goods, financial services and health, as average disposable income levels rise. China has been considering to reach free trade agreements with EU, Canada and other countries. In addition, a series of domestic policy changes, including industrial guiding policies, also herald China’s commitment to welcome and encourage international trades for companies. Therefore, China is expected to stay in the line of the most lucrative markets around the globe for the next decade.
Yunfeng Xing
Partner
www.broadbright.com
Mr. Yunfeng Xing, before he joined Broad & Bright Law Firm as Partner in 2016, and his performance as special advisor in Slaughter and May in 2015, had served in the Foreign Investment Management Department of MOFCOM from 1995 to 2014. Mr. Xing was responsible for formulating the rules and policies concerning foreign investment and approval of establishment of the foreign investment companies, and he participated into the drafting and formulating of the Foreign Investment Law, the Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries and the foreign acquisitions regulations. Mr. Xing also engaged in the establishment of national security review system for mergers involved foreign capital. Mr. Xing is proficient in foreign investment laws and regulations, and has a wealth of experience of anti-monopoly and outbound investment.
We reconnect with Ilya Kazi, IP Partner at Mathys & Squire, who spoke on being commercially pragmatic with patents in our April edition. Months on from his previous interview with Lawyer Monthly, a lot has changed; from artificial intelligence to Brexit, Ilya speaks on how these changes are impacting the patent world.
Are there any particular industries which are cropping up more, in relation to IP disputes?
Telecoms especially, and we can use Unwired Planet Vs Huawei as an example, and other IT related disputes.
Why do you think this is and what could be done to reduce such disputes?
In part, this is due to well-known mobile phone companies selling off patents to patent monetisation entities and a large secondary market in patents having become established. In IT, as opposed to pharmaceuticals, there are large numbers of patents potentially relevant to any successful product. Moreover, the recent Actavis Supreme Court decision may embolden those wishing to enforce patents where infringement is questionable. Companies may have to become more pro-active about clearing the way.
You previously mentioned how Brexit may impact the legal world; with Brexit now underway, what do you think the future of the UPC will be?
I was at a conference at the EPO recently and spoke to the EPO team leading the project. They are very keen to have the UK part of the UPC and believe it is legally possible. The informal view from those who have seen the German Constitutional challenge is that although lengthy and well-written, it is unlikely to be conclusive. I am more positive than I was (which was not very!), that in 2019 we will have some movement.
AI has been a huge topic of discussion this year; do you think the rapid development of robotics has, or will, affect the legal world? If so, how and why?
Yes. Firstly, firms may use it to take some cost out of certain things. Secondly there will be new issues like liability associated with autonomous systems, self-driving vehicles being a topical issue. Thirdly, AI design will raise issues of authorship and possibly ‘inventorship’.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
Both AI and Brexit have caused larger corporations to seriously question established issues of who and what does things in the value chain. The coincidence of both being on the agenda is likely to accelerate change, most likely not in the way supporters of Brexit might have hoped. The legal world will have to deal with this change in commercial realities.
The effectiveness of UK sanctions will be undermined unless the UK can quickly agree arrangements for future sanctions policy co-operation with the EU. Without this, the UK could be left with the choice of imposing ineffective unilateral sanctions or aligning with EU sanctions it has no influence over.
This is the main conclusion of the House of Lords EU External Affairs Sub-Committee’s Brexit: sanctions policy report, published last week.
Other report findings and recommendations include:
Commenting on the report, Lord Horam, Spokesperson for the EU External Affairs Sub-Committee, said: “Sanctions are most effective when imposed in concert with international partners. We need swift agreement on how the UK and the EU will work together on sanctions policy after we have left the bloc—and consideration of how wider foreign policy co-operation will be framed. It is not yet clear what the Government’s proposed ‘tailored arrangement’ with the EU on sanctions policy would involve. If we don’t agree on a formal mechanism for co-operation, we will have an unappealing choice to make between imposing less effective unilateral sanctions, or aligning with more effective EU sanctions, the design of which we have not influenced.”
The Brexit: sanctions policy report considers the UK's current sanctions regime - as a member of the EU - and its options for designing an autonomous regime and collaborating with the EU and other international partners after Brexit. It focuses on sanctions policy - the process of designing measures to achieve the UK's foreign policy and national security goals.
(Source: House of Lords)
Immigration Minister, Brandon Lewis, has announced that in order to apply for ‘settled status’ post-Brexit, 3 million EU nationals will have to go through an online application. He application will take a few minutes, with about eight questions, and cost no more than £72.
Lewis says the online application will be live to use around half through next year. Those applying will have to pass a criminal record test and be able to demonstrate a history of five years or more living in the country.
However, while this sounds fairly simple, EU nationals will actually have a lot more trouble applying for ‘settled status’ in the UK. Paul McCarthy, Senior Associate at Charles Russell Speechlys explains: “Whilst the news that the UK Government is hoping to make it quick and simple for EEA nationals to apply for documents to confirm their established rights in the UK is welcome, there are still many hurdles to face in any Home Office application.
“Whilst online registration may only take ‘a few minutes’, this is the first of up to eight steps. It will take some time to locate the specific information and documents needed to submit an application. The Home Office only accepts original documents to support an immigration application, which either need to be posted or taken to a local council for the European Passport Return Service. This process will not be quick and easy for many.
“It’s also worth noting that only one in three EEA applicants currently use the online application system, partially because the online form does not always appear at the top of the Google search list. The Home Office has not confirmed whether there will be a simple paper form for those who either cannot locate the correct online form or choose not to use the online form.
“On a practical point, the current application form for Permanent Residence for EEA nationals is 85 pages long containing 20 sections with each section containing up to 43 questions. It is difficult to see how this could be condensed to just eight. Likewise, current processing times for Permanent Residence are up to six months. Given the current pressures on the department and the security checks that will have to be performed on each application, it is difficult to see how such a process can be reduced to two weeks.”
