REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

permit databases and, for example, not all Member States may be able to collect data in a way that
would allow to trace the history of a person and to trace the person post hoc. To address this, the
Commission may opt for defining core principles of data collection and opt for soft measures such as
exchange of good practices and technical information exchange.
OPTION 5: IMPROVING INFORMATION ON THE IMPACT OF
REGULARISATION PROGRAMMES
Description: The Commission should formulate proposals for minimum standards for impact related
data on regularisation programmes. Such a proposal should be output oriented and leave it to Member
States how to best achieve the desired results. The proposal should define minimum information
required to assess the impact of regularisation programmes: this would include persons regularised,
the impact on the state budget (both in terms of costs and incomes), the labour market and the welfare
state. Data for (statistical) impact assessments on regularised immigrants may derive from register
data if longitudinal data is available and registers may be linked to registers holding socio-economic
and other information relevant to assess the impact of regularisation programmes both on persons
themselves (labour market performance, retention of legal status, etc.) and the labour market in
general. If such data is not available, Member States should be encouraged to use post-hoc surveys to
follow up regularised persons. In terms of budgetary impact, Member States generally should be able
to produce data or estimates on costs for implementing a programme and estimated benefits from
income taxes or social security contributions paid be regularised persons. Measures that could be
proposed could also include other studies, including quantitative studies on labour market effects of
regularisation or an assessment of pull effects.
Rationale and possible impact: Information on the wider impact of regularisation programmes is
extremely patchy and in only two states (Spain and Italy) do reasonably good data exist. However,
evidence on impact of regularisation programmes is extremely important in assessing efficiency,
whether they have reached their desired objectives or whether concerns about negative effects,
including those raised by other Member States, are warranted.
What supports EC action? No legal basis for EU action exists, apart from the general powers
granted to the Commission under the Treaties. The Commission may thus want to opt for ‘soft
measures’ and formulate guidelines, for example, in the framework of a communication on
regularisation data. However, such a measure could be easily linked to proposals listed under Option
1.
What works against EC action? As stated above, no legal basis for EU action exists. In addition,
there seem to be generally little capacity in Member States to systematically evaluate the impact of
their policies in the field of migration and international protection in more sophisticated terms. As
evaluation involves costs and may require reorganisation of national data collection and accounting
systems or allocating resources to evaluation research, some resistance to such proposals can be
expected.
118