E.R.
iii) we could conclude bilateral agreements which give open access to
the labour market with all Commonwealth countries which make the right
offers, whether we are sceptical or not, and run the working holiday
scheme on a trial basis for two years to look at the take-up in each
direction. If very few Britons used the scheme we could then decline to
continue the reciprocal arrangement and offer a bilateral agreement
under TWES;
iv) if reciprocity under a working holiday scheme was impracticable,
but we considered that a youth mobility scheme other than TWES had to
be available we could either (a) allow in quotas on Code 1 or (b) allow
people in on Code 2, i.e. subject to the need to obtain local job centre
permission for each job they do.
17. The option of a unilateral working holiday scheme based on quotas is not
attractive. However if Ministers so decided it could be a means of winding down
current arrangements over a period for those Commonwealth countries which were
unable to operate a truly reciprocal scheme and were unwilling to settle for a reciprocal arrangement based on TWES. Putting people on Code 2 on the other hand, would be
likely to be unpopular with the Employment Service, which might charge us for this
service, and would not keep the numbers down as effectively as quotas.
International consultation
18.
Which approach was adopted would be largely a question of political handling in the light of developments both in the EC and the Commonwealth. It is already clear
that harmonisation of immigration policies within the EC will be a long process. Youth
mobility is not yet on the agenda. Given the likelihood of slow progress on the EC front, B2 believes that we should now proceed to consult the Commonwealth and other
countries who may be interested in reciprocal youth mobility arrangements and take
stock in the light of replies received.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.