Expert Group on Economic Migration European Commission Brussels, 25 March 2015
Paper 1 Questions for discussion: 1. Taking account of respective EU and Member States' competences in the area of labour migration, what should be the focus of the EU action in this area for the future? More specifically: a. Would there be an added value in easing intra-eu mobility (either based on mutual recognition of permits or on a much more facilitated access to another Member State territory and labour market) to categories other than intra-corporate transferees (e.g. long term residents; all non-eu workers)? Are there other areas in which the EU should do more, besides mobility, for those categories foreign workers already covered under EU Directives? The EU action should be focused on organizing the Intra-EU mobility for the holders of certain EU permits with the goal of attracting talent and business to the EU as a whole. The mobility should be based on mutual recognitions of permits. The holders of these EU permits should be authorised to start working in a different EU country without obtaining any prior authorisation. Perhaps, a notification system could be appropriate. The third country national or the employer in the new Member State should file a notification to the immigration authorities prior starting the activity as it is required for the ICT Short transfers. The regulation should determine if the mobility should be limited to the countries where the first sponsoring company operates directly, through companies of the group or with clients, or no limits should be imposed. These EU permits might coexist with national permits. Other areas could be improved regarding the already existing categories such as: Visibility of the features and benefits of the current categories: ICT; blue card, long term. Clear definitions of the concepts linked to the permit and procesess. Removal of process hurdles that are not essential. Measures to foster the internationalisation of projects through EU permits. b. Would there be an added value in having additional categories of third-country national workers covered under new EU legal migration instruments? If so, which ones and why? Participants in international renowned shows: artists Investors
Technicians for short term urgent assignments (i.e. maintenance of machinery, equipment installation) Entrepreneurs These categories are demanded by stakeholders and would economy. help to boost the c. Should the EU refrain from further harmonising EU labour migration law in the short/medium term? Yes provided the national schemes and the improvement of the regulation of the already existing EU categories is achieved in order to reach the goal of attracting talent and business to the region and to mitigate the impact of the demographic imbalance in the labour market. 2. Should the focus of a new EU strategy on labour migration be on highly skilled workers only or cover all skill levels, taking account of existing and foreseeable skills shortages? Taking as starting point the following assumptions/facts: From one side It seems that a shortage of highly skilled workers is foreseeable; this should be the focus of the EU strategy, so it is aligned with the labour market demand. The regulation of the highly skilled- migration should be approached as an opportunity to boost the economy attracting investment, talent and fostering the internationalisation of the region business. From the other side Low skilled migration is as general rule approached as an issue having a potential negative impact on the national labour markets. There is not a sole labour market in the for the region since each member state has a very different situation and its own tools to match the hosting of low skilled migrants with markets demand. The EU should focus on the regulation of the categories as highly skilled- migration does not require a regulation taking into account the labour market test. These categories must be attracted for the benefit of the region.
Spain has actually made a shift in its immigration policy, changing from a regulation that focused on low skilled migration, to the creation of new categories of work and residence permits with the view to attract talent and investment. 3. How can the EU's migration policy achieve the right balance between, on the one hand, filling the EU's labour market needs using its own internal human capital and, on the other hand, attracting workers from outside? The development of different legal treatments of the two main categories of migration might achieve the right balance. According to this scheme, the labour market test would be applied for the Member States when it comes to host foreign nationals whose performance would impact on the labour market (low skilled migrants) and, on the other hand, the other category (highly qualified migrants and similar categories) would be regulated in a different way since it will not have any impact on the labour market. The spirit of the system would be based on the assumption that the talent does not need passport. The companies for certain job positions would select the most appropriate applicant irrespective of his/her nationality. Preventing companies from hiring the most suitable candidate due to his/her nationality does not lead, in most of the cases, to the employment of an EU national if not found suitable. In the long run, hampering the companies to select their human resources may lead them to choose other locations to undertake their business more accordingly. 4. How can the EU help in facilitating access to labour market information and improving matching between potential migrant workers and employers? Should this build on existing tools (e.g. Immigration Portal, Skills Panorama, Eures) or could specific means and tools be further developed? What role could employers and trade unions play in this respect? Indeed, the existing tools mentioned are valid to facilitate the access to the EU labour market. These tools should be more advertised by the Member States stakeholders; such as employers, trade unions, public employment services, in different forum, symposium, conferences... so as the potential workers and employers can be aware of their benefits especially in terms of the mobility within the region and the existing opportunities.
5. Would the development of an "expression of interest" model at EU level be viable and useful to facilitate the job matching? If so, what should be its main features? How should employers and trade unions be involved? The EOI would be useful as additional tool but should not be mandatory at any point for economic migrant processes. This program could coexist and complement the hypothetical lack that the demanddriven program might cause in matching between potential migrant workers and employers. It would not be suitable to add the pre-step hurdle of an EOI to the demand-driven program. Employers and trade unions may be consulted to determine sectors and job positions in which a demand exists and others where it will be interesting not only to work through the EOI system, but also granting job-seeking visas in certain sectors. 6. How can the EU step up its action in facilitating the process of recognition of migrants' qualifications and skills? Should this build on the European Qualification Framework and the European National Qualifications Frameworks related to it? How should countries of origin be involved? How could alignment between the EQF and external Qualifications Frameworks support this? In the same line, the requirement of recognition of migrants' qualifications and skills should be part of removing process hurdles that are not essential. The recognition of migrants' qualifications should be required only if it is compulsory to perform the activity according to the national law applicable to the nationals of the hosting member state. For instance, it would be justified to require the recognition of a Degree in Law to a third country national willing to cover a job position as Lawyer practicing in the Court but non if the application would be manager of a legal department. Regarding the recognition of skills, it would be suitable to avoid any parallel or additional process step to evidence it. The applicant s skills evidence (when it is derived from experience not based on higher education) must be supported by documents provided by the process stakeholders: sponsoring entities, foreign national and recruiters. The review of the documentation provided by the stakeholders along with the job position description will demonstrate whether the skills of the applicant match with the job position offered. The only fact of sponsoring the application by the company
should be assumed as a hint/ evidence that the company has confirmed that the applicant skills are suitable for the job position. 7. How can labour migration policies best ensure that recruitment from abroad is driven by unmet needs on the domestic labour market and not labour cost/ work conditions considerations? It is important to take into account that immigration permits categories must be aligned with the labour market needs, demographic figures and goals of the EU. The regulation of the categories of permits that will have an impact on the labour market must include tools to determine if the labour market test requires the approval. Once determined the convenience of granting the permits, either because it does not affect the labour market or because actually it would not have any impact on it, it would be advisable to establish control measures to ensure not only the host country basic employment applicable rules are respected in relation to the third country workers but also that they do not receive a worst treatment in the company and/or activity sector due to their nationality. In a nutshell, to achieve this goal, it is necessary to take into account: Labour market test tools. Mechanism to guarantee equal treatment. 8. How can labour migration policy ensure a level playing field between large and small enterprises when it comes to international recruitment? A useful migration measure would be to provide access to the SMEs to the immigration fast track usually available for the Large corporations. Spain actually has implemented this type of measures. The current Spanish legal immigration framework does allow the large companies to have access to international recruitment as they fulfil the requirements established by the Large Companies Unit managing the fast track. Nevertheless, taking into account the Spanish industrial structure is mainly made up of SMEs and the need to attract talent and boost the economy, the Entrepreneurs Act, entered into effect in September 2013, which coexists along with the general legal framework, has made it easier for the SMEs to have access to international recruitment due to the fact that the requirements of access to the fast track have been softened. 9. What is the perception of stakeholders on EU labour migration law? Is the law easily understood or would the employers/recruiters find it useful to have more information about
possibilities offered under the existing legislation? There is still a broad lack of awareness regarding the EU migration law even among professionals. The stakeholders in general terms are not familiar with the EU permit categories and in case they are aware of their existence, there is a significant misinformation about their features, limits, process to procure them and benefits that they represent in general terms and in comparison to the national permits. 10. How can strategies on fostering labour market integration of migrants be maximised? What role should employers and other economic stakeholders play in this respect? What role should third-countries play? Crucial measures should be adopted: - Removal of unnecessary hurdles that can refrain from the integration of the economic migrants - Broader mobility with the EU - Higher awareness of the EU permit and EU tools established - Softening the access of the SMEs to the international recruitment
Paper 2 Questions for discussion: WouId increasing the harmonisation level of the EU-wide rules for highly qualified workers (HQW) improve the attractiveness of the EU labour market? Absolutly, because each category could be presented as a sole permit/category common to and available in all the member states with same/similar features, process limits and benefits. How do you see the relation between the EU Blue Card and national parallel schemes for HQW? To have a clear picture of how useful the Blue Card is, we can take the Spanish immigration System as an example, where besides the EU Blue Card, it includes other categories of permits for highly qualified workers, that fit better with the needs of the Spanish labor market and make our national system very competitive in comparison to other highly qualified systems in other countries, and also at EU level. As such, when we face a skilled worker s permit application, we would only consider the possibility of recommending the Blue Card if the company can go through a specific fast track, where the labor market test will not be applicable, otherwise the application will not be successful. But even if the application can be processed through the fast track, we only recommend it if the intra EU mobility benefits are essential for the company and/ or employee. That said, for skilled workers, our first choice is the permit for highly qualified professionals introduced in our legislation in September 2013, through the Act of Entrepreneurs and their internationalization. This permit is our preferred choice because it affords additional benefits in terms of timelines, process and requirements for qualification and minimum salary. Regarding dependants, renewals and cancellation reasons applicable to both permits are quite similar.
The additional benefits of the permit for highly qualified professionals regulated in the Act of Entrepreneurs and their internationalization vs blue card may be summarized as follows: Timelines: Both processes are handled by the Large Companies Unit, but the Blue card has to be resolved in one month while the national permit in 20 working days. Process: It is easier to skip the visa step under the national permit. If the employee is under a lawful status in Spain when the application is submitted, it is not needed to leave Spain to obtain the visa after the permit approval. We only can avoid the visa for Blue card process when the employee has been holding a Blue Card in another EU country during 18 months. Flexibility in terms of qualifications and salary requirements. The Blue Card requires the minimum established in the Directive and the national permit in some cases does not require any specific superior education or experience and the salary must just be aligned with the minimum established in the collective bargaining agreement and in accordance with the job position. To conclude, currently the Blue Card is not the most attractive option for skilled workers mainly because it competes with the national permit introduced to strongly attract talent and investment to the country and the benefit of the mobility within the EU is not strong enough to make it the preferable option. Does the existence of national parallel schemes result in internal competition, a complexityof multitude of schemes, a reduced attractiveness due to limited geographical scope, adiluted publicity effect or other effects? Or, on the contrary, does it allow for much neededflexibility to cater to migrant workers who do not meet the criteria of the EU schemes? The coexistence of two parallel schemes, that is the national scheme and the EU Blue card, makes sense and it is justified as long as each of them responds to different needs. The national scheme will meet the specific needs of the national labor market circumstances, and the EU Blue card will give response to those situations where an EU scope or mobility within the EU is essential. In the same line, the different conditions to have access to the blue card and to the national schemes are justified due to the extent and limits of each category: potential EU scope of he blue card vs national limited scope of the national categories. To conclude, the coexistence of both schemes is not only justified but it also adds additional value.
In general, what could be done to encourage Member States to make better use of the Blue Card to attract highly-qualified workers, researchers and innovators? Improving the mobility of the blue card holders within te EU. Level of flexibility for Member States The Directive sets only minimum standards and leaves much leeway to MS through many mayclauses and references to national legislation. Member States have thus developed diverging national interpretations of the Blue Card within the lines set by the Directive. Questions: Would further harmonisation of admission channels at EU-level be desirable? Would it help with increasing the EU brand recognition as an attractive destination for HQW? Does this bring a need for allowing more flexibility to MS to tailor the Blue Card to their national needs? Would a more prescriptive Blue Card, with less may-clauses and room for national interpretation, increase its strength as an instrument? Or would this lead to overly inflexible rules with too little space to adapt to the national context and needs?. A more prescriptive blue card would increase its attractiveness for third nationals because it could be presented as a common permit with same features, process and limits applicable in all the member states. The deeper harmonisation of the blue card should coexist with paralel HQW schemes. Recognition of qualifications The recognition of qualifications remains an important hurdle for the admission of foreign highlyqualified workers. The process can be time-consuming and its outcome uncertain. When it is part ofthe admissions procedure of a labour migrant, it can result in overly restrictive policies if the degreehas to be relevant for the job, regardless of whether it was obtained 2 years or 20 years ago. Equivalent professional experience is not widely recognised when selecting labour migrants. To date,the focus is firmly on the formal qualifications (degrees), whereas the optional provision to take into account at least five years of relevant professional experience of a level comparable to higher education qualifications and which is relevant in the profession or sector specified in the work contract or binding job offer has been transposed into national legislation by only 12 MemberStates9. In fact, not all of these Member States even actually apply this provision10. One of the difficulties encountered by Member States is how to assess such relevant professional experience as evidence of higher professional qualifications.
Questions Should the required link between the higher educational qualification and the job offer be loosened (e.g. a migrant with an MA or MSc in Psychology should not be prevented from working as marketing manager)? What would be the pros and cons of offering more flexibility on this aspect? Absolutely. The link between the higher educational qualification and the job offer should be loosened to achieve the goal of removing process hurdles that are not essential. The link must be maintained when it is also compulsory to its nationals for the performance of this job position, according to the legislation of the host country. For instance it should be maintained for a lawyer offered a job position in the Court or to an engineer/ architect signing project but not to an engineer to be a general manager or to a lawyer to be a legal counsel. Are you aware of well-functioning and/or innovative national systems for the recognition of qualifications? How can the cooperation between the immigration authorities, employment services and qualification recognition bodies be improved?. No How can relevant professional experience in lieu of higher education qualifications be assessed and taken into account?. Regarding the recognition of skills, it would be advisable to avoid any parallel or additional process step to evidence it for the immigration process. The applicant s skills evidence (when it is derived from experience not based on higher education) must be supported by documents provided by the process stakeholders: sponsoring entities, foreign national and recruiters. The review of the documentation provided by the stakeholders along with the job position description will demonstrate whether the skills of the applicant match with the job position offered. The only fact of sponsoring the application by the company should be assumed as a hint/ evidence that the company has confirmed that the applicant skills are suitable for the job position. The only fact of sponsoring the application should be assumed as a hint/ evidence that the company has confirmed the applicant skills are suitable for the job position. 4. Where is the untapped potential and how to reach it?
Graduate students Many potential highly-skilled migrant workers currently already reside in the EU. For instance, ove one million non-eu students reside in the European Union. Many of them will graduate with marketable skills, local degrees, knowledge of the local language and the ambition to get ahead inlife. Nevertheless, many of them have to leave the EU after their studies as their permits run out and, as inexperienced young graduates, they do not immediately find employers who are willing to sponsor their immigration status. Currently, in some Member States graduates may stay for a limited period of time after finishing their studies to look for a job (these periods generally range from 6 to18 months). The proposal for a new Directive on Students and Researchers that is currently beingnegotiated also includes such a job seeking permit for recent graduates. Questions: Several Member States have recognised the potential of foreign students and allow them to stay to look for a job under certain conditions. Once they have found a job, would the EU Blue Card be a suitable instrument to retain them? The blue card might be an option, but only if they are going to perform a job position considered as HQ. Especially taking into account the minimum salary applicable to EU Blue Card, at least in Spain, it is quite unlikely that a recent graduate perform that kind of job position with the range of salary established. Would this require different conditions (e.g. lower salary threshold) than currently is the case? Or would facilitated access to the EU Blue Card dilute its focus on retaining the best and the brightest? It would make sense to require lower salaries than the current established for the EU Blue card for newly graduated. Entrepreneurs European countries increasingly recognise the potential of attracting and retaining promising entrepreneurs from abroad. So far only a few Member States have implemented dedicated schemes for entrepreneurs, on top of a package with targeted measures for entrepreneurs.12 Admission schemes are focused mostly on wealthy investors, while the EU already has many investors looking for promising start-ups. As is the case for highly-qualified workers, individual Member States may lack the recognition or attractiveness for entrepreneurs which the EU, as the largest economy in the world, can provide.
Questions: Spain has introduced a specific permit to attract entrepreneurs. The goal of this regulation established in 2013 is to soften requirements and to streamline the process to procure permits for this category of migrants since they contribute to attract talent and foreign investment, and it is a good example of aligning economic policies with immigration ones. Would an EU Blue Card with a wider scope be a suitable instrument to attract entrepreneurs? Could a separate set of admission conditions for entrepreneurs be introduced under the umbrella of the EU Blue Card? If so, how? The Entrepreneurs category due to its importance and peculiarity does not require sponsorship, it is subject to a special social system and subjective criteria to be resolved. The permit for Entrepreneurs requires to be assessed from an economic and trade perspective, and probably it would receive a more accurate treatment and regulation in an independent set of rules. Should a potential EU Blue Card covering entrepreneurs include a start-up visa focussing on young potentials with a promising idea but without the business credentials? Should this cover all ctors or focus on specific sectors? Should this be combined with a start-up package of support services (e.g. mentoring, networking support, financial support, incubator, etc.)?. In order to attract entrepreneurs, the entrepreneurial activity should be fostered, irrespective of whether it is undertaken by a physical entrepreneur, or by a start -up and also irrespective of the field because the opportunity can be in any sector. The regulation should be flexible enough to avoid loosing any interesting project irrespective of the age of the person, academic qualification and amount of the investment. The business plan must be considered as a whole and taking into account the estimated impact in the economy. In this regard, strict criteria in order to determine the access to this actegory should be avoided. The evaluation of the intended entrepreneurial activity should be undertaken not only by the immigration authorities but mainly by financial, bussiness and trade experts. The "start-up package of support services would be an added value as long as it is operational also for the national entrepreneurs but it is not essential.
How can business potential of start-up entrepreneurs be recognised when little is proven? Could there be a role for the entrepreneur's backer (venture capitalist, business angel, accelerator ) in the admission process? Yes, there could be a role for entrepreneurs backers. Financial, business and trade experts should examine the viability, not the Immigration Authorities that eventually would deal with the appropriate permit. To apply for an entrepreneur permit, it should be required a report certifying the intended activity as Entrepreneurial. As mentioned, the project needs to be evaluated by experts, applying flexible criteria, considering it as a whole and in all the cases considering its potential contribution to the economic interests or focus in the region where it will take place the activity. Others Other categories of migrants in the EU (e.g. family migrants, asylum-seekers) may also possess valuable skills that they cannot apply due to restrictions in the access to the labour market or loose over time due to de-skilling while waiting during procedures. The lives of many resourceful and entrepreneurial people outside the EU are uprooted due to conflict and other hardships. For reasons out of their control they may look at years of losing significant amounts of money, incurring great personal hardship and professional inactivity before acquiring some degree of certainty again. These people often resort to wasteful, expensive and dangerous migration channels to find a way out. For some of them, existing legal migration channels could provide an alternative, while avoiding the waste of human capital that is currently associated with irregular migration and asylum. Questions: Could existing legal migration channels, such as the EU Blue Card, provide an alternative for resourceful, entrepreneurial and/or highly-qualified migrants who are fleeing from conflict?. Irrespective of the specific permit categories for these groups, the Blue card is available for them provided they fit with the specific grounds of approval of the permit. Specialities regarding to the process could be agreed based on the special situation: no visa required; non rejection for being in the country under illegal situation...)
If so, how could such migrants be identified? 12 E.g. Sirius Programme for graduate entrepreneurs in the UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/siriusprogramme-for-graduateentrepreneurs) or the Italia Startup Visa in Italy (http://italiastartupvisa.mise.gov.it/). Advertising these programs on an international level. How could the countries of origin involved be identified and limited? The entrepreneurs living abroad through the trade offices of the EU consulates. The origin countries might be consulted to avoid brain drain How could they be attracted and their admission facilitated? They could be attracted facilitating as much as possible the procurement of the visa/ permit allowing them to undertake the activity in a timely manner with a reasonable cost. The regulation should be flexible enough to avoid loosing any interesting project irrespective of the age of the person, academic qualification and amount of the investment... The business plan must be evaluated as a whole and taking into consideration the estimated impact in the economy. In this regard, strict criteria in order to determine the access to this category should be avoided. The regulation should focus on: Short processing times Non establishement of a minimum amount of investment Smoother processes Flexible requirements Fostering the internationalisation of the project wihtin the EU and outside. 5. Admission under the Blue Card Directive The current Blue Card Directive applies a salary threshold as a condition for entry. This is an easily verifiable admission condition, but it also indicates the economic need of the skills which the migrant worker brings. Therefore, it plays an indirect, but significant, role in determining the scope of the admission scheme. Currently, the Blue Card Directive sets the salary threshold at 1,5 times the average gross annual
salary of the Member State concerned. A comparison of available data on salary thresholds with Eurostat and OECD data on average gross annual salaries suggests that some MS the threshold may not correspond to the minimum 1,5 times the average gross annual salary. The Directive also foresees a possible derogation for employment in professions which are in particular need of third-country national workers and which belong to the major groups 1 and 2 of ISCO, for which the salary threshold may be at least 1,2 times the average gross annual salary in the Member State concerned.13 Some of the parallel national schemes do not have a salary threshold thus allowing a wider scope for the admission of wider categories of migrants. The scope of the Blue Card Directive is also determined by, for unregulated professions, the required relevant higher professional qualifications in the occupation or sector specified in the work contract or in the binding job offer as provided for in national law, and, for regulated professions, the required document attesting fulfilment of the conditions set out under national law for the exercise by Union citizens of the regulated profession specified in the work contract or binding job offer as provided for in national law. Currently, the rules on how to apply for an EU Blue Card vary from Member State due to the leeway given to Member States. A majority of Member States requires that the migrant makes the application for an EU Blue Card, but some require the employer to do so,14 jointly by the migrant and the employer,15 or either the migrant or the employer.16 In most Member States applications can be considered and examined when the applicant is either outside or already residing in the MS as holder of a valid residence permit or national long-stay visa.17 Seventeen Member States18 also applied the derogation that applications may be submitted when the applicant does not have a valid residence permit but is legally present in its territory. In LU and SE an application can only be submitted from outside the territory19. Thirteen Member States set the time limit for adopting a decision on a 13 CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, HU, LU, MT and PT have transposed the option to apply a salary threshold of at least 1,2 times the average gross annual salary for employment in professions which are in particular need of migrant workers and belong to ISCO major groups 1 and 2. Only DE, EE, HU and LU are known to effectively made use of this derogation possibility to set a lower salary threshold. 14 CY, ES, FR, IT and MT. 15 BE and LV. 16 NL, AT, PT and SI. 17 Except in BG where applications can only be made in the territory. EL requires a pre-application for a visa outside and then a formal application within the territory, with a visa for the issuance of a Blue Card. 18 Except BG, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, PL and RO. 19 Standstill derogation of Article 10(4): a corresponding national provision existed in LU and SE prior to the adoption of the Directive. complete application and giving written notification to the applicant at 90 days20, yet the others set shorter time limits.21 The time needed other procedures, such as the recognition of qualifications, is not included in this period. Most MS determined
the consequence of a decision not having been taken by the end of this period, though some have only foreseen an extension of the deadline.22 The Directive determines that Member States must set a standard period of validity of the EU Blue Card in their legislation of between one and four years which, in principle, applies to all applications and renewals. As an exception, if the work contract covers a period less than the standard period, the EU Blue Card is to be issued or renewed for the duration of the work contract plus three months. Member States issue Blue Cards for widely differing periods of validity within this range.23 However, some Member States appear to link the period of validity of the EU Blue Card to the length of the work contract plus three months and set a maximum period (between 1-4 years) instead of a standard period. Questions How do you evaluate the usefulness of the salary threshold as a selection criterion? Is it too restrictive or not selective enough? Is it too rudimentary or does it allow for a useful selection? On one hand, the main advantage of the current criterion is that it provides an objective tool for the member states to determine the minimum salary applicable. However, after our experience with the EU Blue Card, we can conclude that it implies more negative points: -In most cases, it entails a higher salary for foreigners than for nationals for same job position, and thus - this higher salary means in practice that applicants prefer the national scheme according to which the minimum salary is more adapted to the market. Therefore, in general terms the minimum salary should be according to the job position in the sector, according to the national legislation applicable. Exceptions should be admitted; i.e. newly graduates. Would it be better to link it to the median salary rather than the average? Would it be better to calculate it per job type or per sector? Median salary of the sector would have the same problem as the average, therefore, the best solution from our persepctive is that minimum salary should refer to the sector and the position when available, according to the national legislation. The job position is a better way of matching and being more realistic and fair with the internal labor market receiving the foreigner. Should more derogations, i.e. different salary thresholds, be made possible? E.g. for shortage occupations, recent graduates? Could for some occupations with high skill shortages aderogation for the (high) skill level be envisaged?
Yes, it could be possible. How do you evaluate the rules on how to apply for an EU Blue Card? How do you evaluate the wide variations between the Member States? The differences are over the top. The same category is the only available in some countries to hire HQW, in other contries it is not available for the stiffness of its implementation and at last in the rest of countries as Spain it has been relegated by national schemes more beneficial. The common point is that the evident benefit, which would be the mobility within the EU, is not strong enough to justify its use. How do you evaluate the variations in the periods of validity for which EU Blue Cards are issued by Member States? Does this affect the attractiveness? How does this compare to the national parallel permits? It would make sense to link the validity of the blue card to the validity of the employment contract provided with the application. In Spain, The HQP regulated by the Act 14/2013 has an initial maximum validity of 2 years against the 1 year maximum validity of the initial blue card. Could there be a role for certain "certified" employers in the admission process? No, this would lead to additional complexity of the process 6. Intra-EU mobility Intra-EU mobility of migrant workers is one of the main added values of EU legislation, as it cannot be provided for by national law. It is also widely accepted (and provided for by law) that migrants become full members of the EU workforce after a certain period and if certain conditions are met, either through long-term residency status or through naturalisation. The EU has already facilitatedintra-eu mobility for certain foreign workers, including Blue Card holders, mostly because their jobs required such mobility and/or because they were considered desirable and low-risk. However, thedegree of facilitation provided varies across the Directives and it is only within the most recent Intra-Corporate Transferees (ICTs) Directive that the principle of "mutual recognition of permits" has beenenshrined in EU legislation, at least to a certain extent. Questions
Would the perspective of facilitated residence in other Member States of the EU (that apply the Blue Card Directive) further increase the attractiveness of the scheme? Definitely, this is the only goal that national schemes can t reach. How could intra-eu mobility for Blue Card holders be improved, concretely? Should this be based on the ICTs model? Should alternative models be considered? ICT model would be valid, but in all cases the starting of the activity could be commenced as soon as a simple communication to the Authorities of the second country is made rather than requiring a new procedure. 7. Other factors that affect the attractiveness and potential success Promotion Currently, it is up to individual Member States to promote EU Blue Cards. Some Member States do this actively, others prioritise their national permits for highly qualified workers. Questions Would it be useful to do more promotion of the EU Blue Card at EU level? Yes because this permit shall be shown as an available permit in all the MS If so, what would be the most efficient way to do so and reach potential applicants? Through EU consulates International stakeholders Organisms. WEBS Family members The admission conditions for highly-qualified migrants are not wholly responsible for the success (or failure) in attracting and retaining such workers. Surveys among expatriates show that opportunities (or lack thereof) for the spouse play a major role. EU Member States already admit the spouse and dependants of highly-qualified workers under fairly favourable conditions (when compared to the general framework). However, the procedural deadlines remain clearly out of step with those applying to the highly-qualified worker him/herself. The recently adopted ICT Directive grants more favourable conditions to family members of intracorporate transferees. These family members receive their permits at the same time as the migrant worker and are given access to the labour market.
Questions: Should the favourable conditions for family members of highly-qualified migrants be improved? If so, how? They should have the following features: The same processing time and process should apply The dependants must be authorised to work The application may be filed at the same time as the one related to the principal or at any moment during the validity of the principal s permit or its extensions.