Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
In an exclusive broadcast interview in Downing Street, the prime minister has told the BBC that she will leave the job with a "mixture of pride and disappointment".
Speaking to BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, Theresa May said that she didn’t "recognise" herself in the criticisms made of her during her time in the job. But she admitted that she had "underestimated" divisions in Parliament.
The popularity of residential build to rent is sending shockwaves throughout the UK property sector. In this article, the Smith Partnership Commercial Property team takes a closer look at the residential build to rent boom and its implications for commercial property.
The explosive growth of build to rent is one of the most significant shake ups to have taken place in the property sector in recent years. According to the Office for National Statistics, an estimated 4.5 million UK households made up the private rented sector in 2017 – a 63% increase on the 2.8 million privately rented households in existence back in 2007.
With the above growth showing no clear signs of stagnating just yet, it’s little surprise that build to rent developers have been quick to react to changing market conditions. All things considered, the UK is in the midst of a residential build to rent boom – but what exactly does this mean for the commercial property sector?
The term ‘build to rent’ refers to private rented residential property that has been specifically developed for rental purposes. In many cases, build to rent schemes offer significant investment potential through offering developers a long-term rental income. As such, many build to rent properties are funded by private investors as part of a wider property portfolio.
There are many reasons why the popularity of build to rent has continued to take flight in recent years, with the rising cost of property ownership being one of the most significant.
While the cost of home ownership continues to pose challenges throughout many layers of the UK population, a 2018 report by The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) showed that young adults are especially disadvantaged in finding their way onto the property ladder. With average house prices having grown approximately seven times faster than the income of young adults, it’s easy to see why more and more people are choosing to rent.
In reaction to the increased demand for private rented residential property, developers have been eager to step up supply. Unsurprisingly, this is especially the case across many of the major British cities, with London currently accounting for the lion’s share of build to rent in the UK.
The growing importance of residential build to rent inevitably raises questions regarding its potential impact on other areas of the property sector. In the wake of Brexit, the commercial property market has been undergoing its very own changes – many of which are relevant to the strength of commercial property as an investment opportunity.
Commercial property – which covers the totality of real estate used for business activities – has long been a favoured investment opportunity for property investors. Much like the property sector as a whole, Brexit has helped to drive increased uncertainty, with some segments of the market significantly outperforming others. Despite this, recent figures by Savills show that investment in UK commercial property continued to stand at a robust £62.1 billion in 2018.
The idea that investments in commercial property differ substantially from those made in residential property is far from new. For example, commercial properties may often involve a longer lease, offering investors income over a longer period of time.
The higher value of commercial properties often also paves the way for numerous methods of investment, whether that be through direct investment or through an indirect property fund made up of multiple parties. As such, commercial property investments are more complex in nature, often requiring the involvement of commercial property solicitors.
Differences aside, one could nonetheless argue that commercial property investors can take valuable lessons from current growth in the area of residential build to rent.
Although the increasing cost of property ownership may represent less of a threat to businesses in comparison to individuals, the decision to rent flexible commercial property continues to be made by countless commercial organisations.
Initially, this had especially been the case for smaller and medium-sized businesses (SMEs), many of which lack access to the financial resources available to larger organisations. Since then, businesses of all sizes have followed suit. In recognition of that fact, demand for flexible office space alone is projected to grow by as much as 30% over the next five years.
If the build to rent boom has taught us anything, it’s that significant gains await investors who react successfully to market trends. As businesses are opting to secure more flexibility in the form of commercial property rentals, there may be significant room for commercial property investors to benefit from the very same developments that have helped drive residential build to rent.
No matter what the future of UK commercial property may bring, taking heed of current developments in the property industry is likely to go a long way in safeguarding long-term investment in the sector. In any case, all signs point towards diversification as a tried and tested characteristic of a successful property portfolio.
www.smithpartnership.co.uk
Smith Partnership combines decades’ worth of legal expertise with a desire to do things a little differently. Apart from offering the knowledge and hands-on experience you’d expect from a leading UK law firm, we also pride ourselves on taking a straight-talking, jargon-free approach to your case. Smith Partnership’s expert legal teams offer a range of services that cover various aspects of the law. From criminal law to personal injury claims and from business defence to property law, we’re here to offer both individuals and businesses a solution to every legal need.
Here Alexander Edwards, a lawyer with Rosling King LLP, discusses what’s to come and how it will affect you.
The UK government has unveiled a series of amendments to the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) to ensure the UK’s legal framework for data protection functions correctly after the UK leaves the EU and to prepare for the prospect of a No Deal Brexit. It is crucial that companies are attuned to these amendments, which come into effect on Exit Day (whenever that may be), to ensure that they do not fall foul of data protection rules and avoid potentially hefty fines.
The PECR is a set of regulations that implements into UK law the EU e-Privacy Directive (ePD). It sits alongside GDPR and both must be read together. It is worth distinguishing from the outset the key differences between PECR and GDPR. The PECR generally only applies to organisations that provide a public electronic communications network or service. In some instances, even if you are not a network or services provider, PECR may still apply to you. Such as if you market by phone, email or text; use cookies or similar technology on your website; or compile a telephone or public directory. By this account most companies will in fact be caught by PECR.
Whilst GDPR does not replace PECR, it does change the underlying definition of consent: PECR stipulates that you must not send marketing emails or texts to “individual subscribers” without ‘consent’. This will need to meet the GDPR standard of consent to ensure it is valid. This involves a clear affirmative action, such as an opt-in to receive such communications.
Whilst GDPR does not replace PECR, it does change the underlying definition of consent: PECR stipulates that you must not send marketing emails or texts to “individual subscribers” without ‘consent’.
There is an exemption within PECR called the Soft Opt-in, which states that you do not require consent where:
The GDPR governs the data you use for email marketing, whilst the PECR defines the required permission to send email marketing. There is naturally much overlap between the GDPR and PECR as both aim to protect people’s privacy and therefore compliance with one shall help compliance with the other.
To ensure that the UK legal framework for data protection functions correctly after the UK leaves the EU, the government is preparing a series of amendments. The first set of amendments, PECR Amendments No 1, will come into effect on the day the UK leaves the EU, and will:
The second set of amendments address the prospects of the UK leaving the EU under a “No Deal” scenario, and will ensure that personal data transferred from the UK to Privacy Shield organisations in the US will continue to be protected under the Privacy Shield framework should the UK leave the EU under a “No Deal” scenario. Reliance on the Privacy Shield can only take place after Exit Day in a “No Deal” scenario if the certified Privacy Shield organisation has updated its privacy policy to refer to personal data transfers from the UK.
The Privacy Shield is a framework for regulating transatlantic exchanges of personal data for commercial purposes between the EU and the US. It enables US organisations to more easily access personal data from entities based in the EU and protected by EU privacy laws.
This will provide some commercial and legal certainty for UK businesses in a “No Deal” scenario and UK data subjects will continue to have access to the redress mechanisms afforded by the Privacy Shield.
In order to ensure compliance, organisations should carry out audits of their policies and procedures to help understand and meet obligations. UK organisations wishing to make transfers to US organisations under the Privacy Shield will need to check the US organisation has made the necessary update to its commitment to compliance with the Privacy Shield which is usually possible by checking the US organisation’s publicly available privacy policy.
The prime minister Theresa May confirmed in a short speech that she would be departing from her position on June 7. There was an emotional moment as she finished, her voice breaking as she said it was "the honour of her life to serve the country she loves".
Rob Dempsey, personal injury lawyer at Roythornes Solicitors, takes a look at how the process could change once we leave the EU.
An injury of any kind is incredibly distressing, but for it to happen whilst in a foreign country can be particularly upsetting. It is therefore vital for claimants to know what remedies are available.
The European Commission and the UK Government recently published advice on travelling in Europe in a post-Brexit world. However, the advice very much centred on issues such as baggage control and passport renewal with almost no mention as to what may happen if you sustain an injury whilst in Europe.
One remedy which will be lost post-Brexit is the ability to pursue the insurer of the defendant directly in the UK. For example, prior to Brexit if a UK resident was injured at the hands of a French defendant, it would be possible to identify the defendant’s insurer and sue the insurer’s representatives from the UK.
Similarly, European directives created this same remedy specifically in regard to road traffic accidents. The benefits associated with this arrangement include the removal of language barriers and the need to travel to attend court hearings.
There are however, areas that will remain unaffected by Brexit, such as the ‘Package Regulations’ which are incorporated into UK law regardless of the EU. A package holiday offers a much higher level of protection - if you sustain an injury whilst on said holiday there is still a potential remedy through the UK courts.
It will still be necessary to show standards have been breached - by reference to the law of the country where the injury occurred - but there’ll be no need to travel back to the country to give evidence at trial or to be examined by a medical expert.
The UK is also a signatory to a number of international conventions outside the remit of the EU. These include specific conventions which offer potential remedies to claimants injured whilst travelling by air or sea. These will remain unaffected by Brexit.
The above developments point to the advantage of booking holidays as a package rather than separate components, so there can be some level of protection in the event of an injury. The international conventions which already apply to international travel, and which are unaffected by the EU, point to the possibility of the UK entering into separate agreements so that similar protections that exist in a pre-Brexit world can be sought.
This does however leave a period of uncertainty in any transition period, during which time the only remedy may be to liaise directly with a solicitor in the country where the accident happened.
Since UK trade mark law is largely harmonised with European Union trade mark law, this has serious implications for rights holders. Below Mike Sweeney, Senior Legal Counsel at Incopro, discusses the potential implications for IP laws in the UK in the face of Brexit.
Many businesses in the UK own intellectual property rights which are granted or otherwise administered by a European Union body – for example European Union Trade Marks and the European Union Intellectual Property Office. The position in relation to EU Trade Marks (“EUTMs”) is (currently) that, in the event of “no deal”, the government will grant holders of existing EUTMs an equivalent UK trade mark, recorded on the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) register, at no cost to the rights holder. These rights will stand alongside the equivalent EU marks meaning they can be attacked, assigned, licensed etc separately and independently from the corresponding EUTM (resulting in additional burdens for brands in terms of policing, enforcing and administering rights). Rights owners are also expected to be given the option to opt-out of registering the new right.
The Withdrawal Agreement contains provisions concerning “retained law” which, in simple terms, means that on Brexit, the law (including intellectual property law) will stay the same unless and until Parliament enacts legislation to change it. The key implications for brands are that from the date of exiting the European Union up until the end of the transition period (currently set to last until at least 31 December 2020), the law will effectively stay the same – which is good news. At the end of the transition period, existing EU Trade Marks (“EUTM”) will continue to have effect in the EU and will also automatically be converted into equivalent UK rights with immediate effect (and at no cost to the brand). This will however give rise to additional burdens for brands in terms of policing, enforcing and administering rights since they will exist independently from one another and are therefore able to be to attacked, assigned, licensed etc separately and independently from the corresponding EUTM. The government has sought wherever possible to give brands and rights owners comfort by maintaining the status quo after Brexit – exiting the EU pursuant to the Withdrawal Agreement largely achieves that goal.
The Article 50 process can be stopped by the UK Government at any time. It can do this unilaterally (i.e without the need for buy-in from the EU). In those circumstances, the UK would continue as a European Union Member State on its current terms and would continue to be subject to (and benefit from) the intellectual property laws of the EU. Whilst it remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50, the uncertainty which continues to engulf the Brexit process means that it cannot be ruled out. There may also now be a significant delay to Brexit, in view of Government failing (twice) to have won the “meaningful vote” in Parliament on the terms of the Brexit deal. If Brexit is delayed, businesses and brands will have to endure further uncertainty until the Government agrees a way forward. What happens from that point onwards is frankly anyone’s guess!
Research* from AXA – Global Healthcare has revealed that a third (31%) of expats living in the UK are concerned about domestic politics. It proved to be such a concern, that expats currently living and working in the UK reported feeling more worried by domestic politics than those in any other country surveyed; France (22%), Canada (11%), the UAE (10%) and Hong Kong (7%).
By comparison, with just a fifth (18%) claiming to feel worried about global politics, UK-based expats seemed to be considerably more concerned about domestic politics than those on the world stage. They were also more worried by domestic politics than terrorism (18%).
Those expats who were most concerned by the local political landscape were aged 41-50 (36%), with residents aged 24-30 (29%) and 31-40 (28%) much less worried.
Tom Wilkinson, CEO, AXA – Global Healthcare commented: “There’s no denying that, with Brexit looming, we are in the midst of an incredibly turbulent political period. For months now, it has felt almost impossible to read or listen to the news without the UK’s political situation making the headlines. It’s understandable, therefore, that the impact of the local political landscape on their daily lives would worry expats who have made their home in the UK more than those in other parts of the world.”
Looking to the future, the research also found that expats living in the UK are more likely than any other surveyed to consider returning to their home countries for political reasons. The research revealed that 14% would consider leaving, compared with 12% in France, 6% in Hong Kong, 5% in the UAE and 3% in Canada.
Despite the current political uncertainty, it seems expats have more reason to come to the UK than they do to leave. While 14% would consider leaving for political reasons, a third (32%) of expats have moved to the UK for career opportunities and a fifth (20%) did so for better pay and benefits.
Tom Wilkinson concluded: “Speculation is rife over how Brexit will affect both British citizens who are living abroad and expats who have chosen to make their home here, in the UK. Whatever the future holds though, the skills, experience and investment that expats from all corners of the globe bring to the UK cannot be underestimated. It’s hugely encouraging, therefore, to see that large numbers of expats are still choosing to make their home here, in the UK. Likewise, it’s reassuring that the number of expats who would consider returning to their home country for political reasons remains relatively low.”
Among the political turmoil over Brexit and the UK’s future relationship with Europe, the issue of money laundering seems to have been overlooked so far. And that would be a big mistake. There can be no conclusive estimates of the scale of money laundering in Europe. But we are talking about many billions a year.
Many commentators would say the EU has been far from perfect when it comes to tackling money laundering. But it has at least introduced a series of money laundering directives in recent years that aim to stop the proceeds of crime flowing into its member states.
The most recent one, the Fifth Money Laundering Directive (5MLD), is set for implementation in 2020. Following on from the Fourth Money Laundering Directive, which ordered major changes to how businesses should take a risk-based approach to money laundering and removed automatic exemptions from due diligence, 5MLD will regulate virtual currencies, improve precautions for transactions involving high-risk countries and enhance the centralisation of bank data in member states. In short, it is a further removal of weaknesses that allow money laundering to flourish.
Membership of the EU has been no guarantee of protection against laundering, especially as some of its smaller members lack either the expertise or the resources to tackle it - as has been shown in a number of financial scandals in recent years. Such problems have led to louder calls for an EU-wide organisation to see greater consistency between member states’ identification and prevention of laundering.
Yet now such arguments are now overshadowed by Brexit. Whether the EU states come to miss the UK’s expertise in identifying sources of illegal wealth and its movement around Europe and the rest of the world remains to be seen. But what has to give concern is the issue of how the UK’s investigating agencies will be able to continue to track those proceeds of crime if they cannot benefit from the sharing of intelligence that currently goes on between them and their European counterparts.
We are obviously yet to see how this problem is resolved. It is possible that, given time, new relationships will be forged on a country-to-country basis between the UK and EU members. But how quickly they are put in place and how effective an alternative to EU membership they prove to be in tackling money laundering remain to be seen.
Withdrawal from the EU means the UK is no longer part of the EU’s law enforcement agency, Europol. Europol’s centralised intelligence database for members, the Europol Information System (EIS), is arguably one of the world’s most valuable assets when it comes to sharing information across borders to tackle crime. And money laundering is certainly a crime that crosses borders.
Yet it seems unlikely that the UK will be able to continue to use this, which has to hamper its attempts to tackle flows of laundered money. And a lack of such cooperation will also be to the detriment of countries who are still in the EU. They are unlikely to be able to call on UK expertise and intelligence as part of their money laundering investigations as seamlessly as they can while the UK is still in the EU.
The EU has been criticised for its efforts to tackle money laundering in its member states not being concerted or consistent enough. But at least its members have an infrastructure and working relationships in place.
The UK can boast tough anti-money laundering legislation. Its recent use of unexplained wealth orders and account freezing orders are testimony to its authorities’ willingness to tackle money laundering. But soon it will not have those working relationships in place that EU members benefit from in their efforts to tackle money laundering.
No doubt attempts will be made to instigate replacement arrangements. But the speed with which a patchwork of anti-money laundering agreements between the UK and other countries can be established – and the value of those arrangements compared to EU membership - has to be a cause for concern. For both the UK and those nations still in the EU.
Among the political turmoil over Brexit and the UK’s future relationship with Europe, the issue of money laundering seems to have been overlooked so far. And that would be a big mistake.
There can be no conclusive estimates of the scale of money laundering in Europe. But we are talking about many billions a year.
Many commentators would say the EU has been far from perfect when it comes to tackling money laundering. But it has at least introduced a series of money laundering directives in recent years that aim to stop the proceeds of crime flowing into its member states.
The most recent one, the Fifth Money Laundering Directive (5MLD), is set for implementation in 2020. Following on from the Fourth Money Laundering Directive, which ordered major changes to how businesses should take a risk-based approach to money laundering and removed automatic exemptions from due diligence, 5MLD will regulate virtual currencies, improve precautions for transactions involving high-risk countries and enhance the centralisation of bank data in member states. In short, it is a further removal of weaknesses that allow money laundering to flourish.
Membership of the EU has been no guarantee of protection against laundering, especially as some of its smaller members lack either the expertise or the resources to tackle it - as has been shown in a number of financial scandals in recent years. Such problems have led to louder calls for an EU-wide organisation to see greater consistency between member states’ identification and prevention of laundering.
Withdrawal from the EU means the UK is no longer part of the EU’s law enforcement agency, Europol.
Yet now such arguments are now overshadowed by Brexit. Whether the EU states come to miss the UK’s expertise in identifying sources of illegal wealth and its movement around Europe and the rest of the world remains to be seen. But what has to give concern is the issue of how the UK’s investigating agencies will be able to continue to track those proceeds of crime if they cannot benefit from the sharing of intelligence that currently goes on between them and their European counterparts.
We are obviously yet to see how this problem is resolved. It is possible that, given time, new relationships will be forged on a country-to-country basis between the UK and EU members. But how quickly they are put in place and how effective an alternative to EU membership they prove to be in tackling money laundering remains to be seen.
Withdrawal from the EU means the UK is no longer part of the EU’s law enforcement agency, Europol. Europol’s centralised intelligence database for members, the Europol Information System (EIS), is arguably one of the world’s most valuable assets when it comes to sharing information across borders to tackle crime. And money laundering is certainly a crime that crosses borders.
The UK can boast tough anti-money laundering legislation.
Yet it seems unlikely that the UK will be able to continue to use this, which has to hamper its attempts to tackle flows of laundered money. And a lack of such cooperation will also be to the detriment of countries who are still in the EU. They are unlikely to be able to call on UK expertise and intelligence as part of their money laundering investigations as seamlessly as they can while the UK is still in the EU.
The EU has been criticised for its efforts to tackle money laundering in its member states not being concerted or consistent enough. But at least its members have an infrastructure and working relationships in place.
The UK can boast tough anti-money laundering legislation. Its recent use of unexplained wealth orders and account freezing orders are a testimony to its authorities’ willingness to tackle money laundering. But soon it will not have those working relationships in place that EU members benefit from in their efforts to tackle money laundering.
No doubt attempts will be made to instigate replacement arrangements. But the speed with which a patchwork of anti-money laundering agreements between the UK and other countries can be established – and the value of those arrangements compared to EU membership - has to be a cause for concern. For both the UK and those nations still in the EU.
Since establishing Rahman Ravelli in 2001, Aziz’s expertise in serious and white-collar crime has seen both his and the firm’s reputation rise dramatically. His ability to coordinate national, international and multi-agency defences has led to success in some of the most significant business crime cases of this century.
Aziz's achievements have led to him being described as “top class”, “charismatic and indefatigable” and a “strategic thinker” by The Legal 500; which keeps naming him as one of the elite solicitors in the UK. The latest Legal 500 calls him “a Rolls-Royce performer’’ and adds that his “formidable intellect and great strategic judgement mark him out as an exceptional lawyer’’.
In the week the UK was due to leave the EU (and coming just days after the European Council agreed to delay exit date from 29 March 2019 to 22 May 2019 if the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by parliament – or until 12 April 2019, if not), the government has launched a new marketing campaign to promote the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) to secure EU nationals rights to live and work in the UK.
This comes against the backdrop of EU net migration having reached its lowest level since 2009, with the latest quarterly migration statistics, published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in February 2019, revealing yet another significant drop in EU net migration to the UK.
Falling EU net migration
Whilst net migration remains positive overall, net EU migration has been in steady decline since the 2016 Brexit referendum (+57,000 in the year to September 2018, in contrast to +189,000 in the year to June 2016).
So why are more EU citizens deciding to leave, and fewer opting to take up job opportunities in the UK? And what does the future hold for those EU nationals who do want to remain in/migrate to the UK - and for UK employers seeking to fill vacancies?
Longer-term statistics consistently indicate a correlation between migration and economic conditions, with economic growth and demand for migrant labour being significant drivers of immigration to the UK.
What accounts towards the changes in EU migration patterns?
Inevitably, a combination of push and pull factors lie behind the statistics rather than any single cause. The most significant decline in EU migration relates to EU citizens from the Central and Eastern European countries (including Poland – the largest source country of EU nationals in the UK), where the number of migrants leaving the UK exceeds those arriving (-15,000 during the year to September 2018). Many of these member states had previously experienced higher levels of unemployment, which may have contributed to increased migration to the UK before the referendum. Subsequent improvements in those economies, including higher levels of employment and wage growth, together with the lower relative value of the pound, are likely to be contributing factors attracting EU nationals to return to, or remain in, those member states.
Longer-term statistics consistently indicate a correlation between migration and economic conditions, with economic growth and demand for migrant labour being significant drivers of immigration to the UK. But currently the UK economy remains reasonably buoyant (for the time being), with the highest levels of employment since the early 1970’s - yet EU net migration continues to decrease.
Many EU nationals have experienced a reduction of confidence about their future in the UK
Voting with their feet
There has been no change to the free movement rights of EU nationals and their family members to live and work in the UK (and high levels of employment), therefore the figures reflect the personal choice of EU nationals: they are choosing, in greater numbers, to leave the UK/not to come to the UK. This is not a ‘reducing net migration policy’ success story; it is a reflection that the UK is seen by increasing numbers of EU nationals as a less attractive place to live, work and do business than previously.
Many EU nationals have experienced a reduction of confidence about their future in the UK - in terms of their economic prospects in the UK post-Brexit (compared to other jurisdictions), uncertainty about their immigration status, concerns regarding the ‘hostile environment’ for migrants (particularly in light of Windrush) and a general feeling for some of being ‘less welcome’ in the UK.
Despite the government’s attempts to inform organisations and the public, we continue to see unfortunate examples of confusion for employers and landlords
Lack of certainty has been a significant factor for EU nationals and employers alike. The government’s handling of citizens’ rights in the immediate aftermath of the referendum was woefully equivocal, creating and perpetuating uncertainty and anxiety for EU nationals and their family members already in the UK, as well as for those contemplating a move to the UK. It took almost two years for the government to set out a clear position on protecting citizen’s rights post-Brexit and its no deal proposals were not announced until December 2018 - for many this was too little too late.
Despite the government’s attempts to inform organisations and the public, we continue to see unfortunate examples of confusion for employers and landlords (and others that are responsible for immigration checks under the hostile environment policies), in some cases, inadvertently discriminating against EU citizens on the incorrect assumption that they will require UK immigration permission to work or rent a home in the UK after Brexit.
Employers, landlords, banks, doctors and others are now tasked with checking immigration permission before they employ, rent a property to, provide banking facilities or provide medical treatment to migrants in the UK.
The government’s hostile environment policies (rebranded as the ‘compliant environment’, post-Windrush scandal but no less hostile) have undoubtedly contributed to these difficulties.
Employers, landlords, banks, doctors and others are now tasked with checking immigration permission before they employ, rent a property to, provide banking facilities or provide medical treatment to migrants in the UK. With substantial civil penalties for employers of up £20,000 per illegal worker, and fines for landlords of up to £3,000 per tenant and prison sentences of up to five years, some employers and landlords have been nervous about employing or renting homes to EU nationals who they may mistakenly perceive soon will not have permission to be in the UK. The discredited ‘right to rent’ scheme, in particular, has resulted in significant discrimination, laid bare in the recent landmark High Court judgment (R (JCWI) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 452 (Admin)) which held the scheme amounts to unlawful discrimination and is incompatible with the HRA 1998 and the ECHR: ‘the Scheme introduced by the Government does not merely provide the occasion or opportunity for private landlords to discriminate but causes them to do so where otherwise they would not’. The government is appealing the judgment.
Whilst the EUSS is not without its faults, for the average applicant it provides a streamlined, fast and free online application process with minimal documentation required - unlike anything seen before in UK immigration.
EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS)
Whilst there has been a lot of confusion and uncertainty surrounding the precise date of Brexit, as well as whether the UK will leave the EU with or without a deal, in reality, there is a reasonably strong package of measures to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK (in both a deal and a no-deal scenario).
The Withdrawal Agreement reached forms the basis for the new EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) under which EU citizens in the UK can apply to protect their rights to reside in the UK post-Brexit. The EUSS was gradually rolled out in test phases from August 2018 with only certain migrants able to apply, becoming fully operational (open to all applicants) from 30 March 2019.
Under the scheme, subject to meeting the eligibility criteria, EU nationals and their eligible family members with at least five years’ residence in the UK are granted ‘settled status’ (indefinite leave to remain) and those with less than five years’ residence are granted ‘pre-settled status’ (temporary leave to remain) for five years, to allow them to accrue the necessary time for settled status.
Notably, the drop in net EU migration has coincided with an increase in net migration from outside the EU
The deadline for applications under the scheme varies depending on whether the UK leaves with:
Whilst the EUSS is not without its faults, for the average applicant it provides a streamlined, fast and free online application process with minimal documentation required - unlike anything seen before in UK immigration.
Increase in non-EU migration and the future of EU migration
Notably, the drop in net EU migration has coincided with an increase in net migration from outside the EU - reaching its highest level for 15 years. In part, directly in response to falling numbers of EU migrants together with longer-term concerns about access to the EU workforce, businesses are increasingly turning to migrants from outside the EU, and the Tier 2 sponsorship route, to fill skills shortages in the UK.
This is a trend we can expect to see continue. The government’s white paper setting out the blueprint for the future of the UK from January 2021, confirms that migrants from the EU will be subject to the same rules as non-EU nationals. The main route is expected to remain a system similar to the current Tier 2 arrangements, with a number of modifications - including a reduction in the minimum skills threshold from RFQ 6 (degree level) to RFQ3 (ironically where the scheme started when it was first introduced in 2008) – but with no corresponding reduction in minimum salary thresholds.
With upfront government charges associated with a 5-year sponsorship of Tier 2 migrant (with 3 dependants) also exceeding £18,000 (not including the costs of obtaining a sponsor licence) small and medium-sized British businesses, regional businesses as well as certain sectors such as social care, hospitality, leisure, and charities, may be disproportionately impacted.
The government is carrying out a 12-month consultation on its white paper proposals and UK business would be well-advised to engage in that process and make their views known.
Sophie is Senior Partner and Head of the UK Practice of Laura Devine Solicitors (LDS) in London.
Recognised for many years by legal directories (including Chambers and Partners, Legal 500 and The Who's Who of Corporate Immigration Lawyers) as a leading expert in UK immigration and nationality law, she has been described by directories as having ‘exceptional knowledge' and ‘one of the best in the field’.
