There are several downsides to this arrangement for businesses. Firstly, this will increase their recruitment costs as visas are not cheap; secondly, obtaining work visas can also be time-consuming and delay the hiring of talent. The reality is that the business immigration system needs an overhaul. Business immigration is a benefit to the UK and should not be confused with social immigration which is entirely different. Our immigration should not be governed by policies issued by the current government but, rather, based on the needs of businesses.

To ensure the UK remains one of the leaders in technology and development, we need to encourage the best global talent to come to the UK with a cutting-edge approach to gain talent and investors. In order to do that we have to have an adaptable immigration system that welcomes talent, decent businesses and the workforce we need.

It’s also imperative, in my opinion, that we let students come to the UK to study and work after they have completed their degrees. We have just allowed this again but only for 12 months! Not long enough in my view but it is a start…

A note on social vs business immigration

I have practised business immigration for over 20 years. Social immigration is an entirely different kettle of fish and colours the debate, making it impossible to set sensible goalposts for businesses. Many say most are opposed to immigration and yet most of us are a product of some form of migration. In reality, most are opposed to social migration rather than business immigration.

In all of my 20 years practising business immigration, all of the employees I have helped bring in have paid fees and taxes and the majority have left the UK after their assignment, few (if any) have taken jobs from local people. Some have remained, fallen in love with a person or the country and contributed greatly to the economy. Sadly, having practised criminal defence work for almost a decade before this I think it is still cheaper to obtain a UK passport or false papers on the black market than it is to go through legitimate channels.

Addressing business immigration needs

We are moving in the right direction but we need to take immigration policy out of the politicians' hands and place it in the hands of businesses. Businesses need to be trusted that they will hire those they need. Most businesses want to avoid sponsoring individuals for visas unless there is no other option.

But the job has to be a certain pay grade and a certain level. Industries like hospitality are unable to sponsor the individuals they need as the skills they need are considered too low. A lot of that workforce left in the pandemic and are now stuck, unable to return to the UK. That is why our restaurants and bars are short-staffed.

So business is suffering. And the war for talent, and wages, is fierce.

Businesses must do as follows:

1. Ensure all your existing staff have a right to work by conducting appropriate right to work checks. Taking a staff member's word for it is not sufficient. You must have seen their original paperwork and keep a copy of it or use the Home office to verify their status. Failing to do this can result in a £20,000 fine per illegal found. Getting out of these fines is incredibly difficult and frankly only feasible if you have been given fraudulent paperwork.
2. If you are a professional business needing talent then you need to apply for a sponsor licence ASAP. Or if you previously relied on European workers to staff your business equally you need to apply for a sponsor licence ASAP. This enables you to then potentially sponsor those from Europe and anywhere in the world who wish to work in the UK. Provided the job is at a suitable level. Beware the processing times are increasing as more and more businesses apply for a sponsor licence.
3. Budget for increasing recruitment costs, work visas are not cheap and you will need to pay for them.
4. Allow time to obtain work visas. Sadly our system is overwhelmed and this is likely to only get worse as the scale of the problem reveals itself.
5. Certain sectors that have heretofore relied on lower skill levels need to campaign and raise awareness and push for change, ideally with backing from UK society at large, to help to enable them to hire and recruit the talent they need wherever it may be.

The most important thing is to keep being vocal about the ways the new immigration system is failing businesses. We need to campaign for the best, open-minded, straightforward business immigration system in the world. Let us lead the charge and suck up all the talent we can to ensure the UK remains Great Britain!

Financial passporting enables businesses across the EU to operate throughout member states without needing specific authorization for each country they trade in or provide cross border services within. Craig James, CEO of Neopay, explains to Finance Monthly that the EU stands to lose if financial passporting is revoked, and how a deal could be the best outcome.

Since the country voted for Brexit in June last year, there has been uncertainty about what the future holds, both for Britain and the EU. But, with Article 50 expected to be triggered anytime now, the next 24 months will be dominated by negotiations between the UK Government and the remaining 27 EU nations.

A major sticking point will be the role the City of London continues to play in the financial world in Brexit Britain – particularly when it comes to e-money and passporting. It goes without saying that the UK is considered the financial hub of Europe – most nations looking to do deals across the EU use London as a means of access – not to mention that as one of the world’s largest economies, our financial sector plays a big role in the rest of the world.

No matter what happens, or what deals are put on the table in the next two years, what is essential is that the Government recognises how important the UK’s ability to passport to the rest of the EU is to the wider economy – £27 billion in annual revenue according to Oliver Wyman.

The benefits of passporting for businesses and the economy are obvious.

Through the regime, firms can operate across the European Economic Area (EEA) with a single licence, from one jurisdiction, as long as the regulator is informed by the firm of their intention to use the licence to passport.

Whether Britain remains a member of the European single market could be a determining factor as to whether the country can remain a hub for passporting across the EU bloc, as being a member is a requirement for accessing the benefits this process brings.

If the UK withdraws from the single market, which the Prime Minister has indicated will likely be the case, it will signal the end of the established passporting regime, and could result in a US style arrangement where firms are required to register in each individual state.

However, while this would be a cause for concern in the UK economy, it could be a much bigger problem for the rest of the EU. As the fifth largest economy in the world, Britain will remain a nation that most e-money and payment businesses will want access to.

One of the reasons the UK is a preferred destination for firms looking to passport financial services is that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has made it simpler for this to happen in the UK compared to the rest of the EU. This is not to mention that once the UK is free to make its own decisions on trade and regulations, it will have the ability to make itself an even more attractive prospect for firms.

The UK is also considered a pathway to the rest of the world outside of the EU, significantly including the US, so would likely remain a central destination for firms looking for efficient passporting.

On the other side, the EU would be required to establish a new finance hub. Some reports have suggested Luxembourg or Frankfurt could be gearing up for this role, but neither has the regulatory convenience of the UK and are far behind in developing these arrangements. That leaves the option of registration in individual nations, which again, increases the bureaucracy and is a convoluted and cumbersome regime for a fast-moving and technologically-developed market.

Considering that simply setting up a bank account in a foreign jurisdiction is already problematic and will cause significant delays, it will remain in the EU’s general interest to retain the status quo and allow the UK to remain the passporting destination for the wider union.

To highlight this point further, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request we filed with the FCA has revealed that as many as 75% of new payment firms authorised in the UK in the last eight years, including many from the US and outside the EU, have used the passporting regime to export their services. This is significantly higher than the number of firms looking to enter the UK from Europe and suggests the EU stands to lose out more than the UK if a deal is not reached to retain the current passporting regime.

Questions also need to be asked about the future of e-money and financial services with regards to passporting, especially in the area of expanding the market beyond the borders of the EU.

As a single entity, the UK would arguably be in a better position to negotiate deals with other nations to expand passporting rights. This would be an attractive prospect as emerging markets in the Middle East continue to grow.

While it could be argued that the UK’s financial market could be in a better position post-Brexit than the EU if passporting rights are revoked, it makes more sense for those involved to compromise on this issue above others.

No matter what the future outside of the EU looks like, or the EU’s without the world’s fifth largest economy on board, it is essential businesses can retain the ability to operate across borders as efficiently as possible, and retaining the one licence agreement is the best way to ensure that. Failing to establish this primary principle could lead to long term unrest and a detrimental business environment far beyond the two year negotiations ahead of us.