Memorandum submitted by Migrationwatch
UK
SUMMARY
1. A welcome and necessary enquiry. The
proposed system has benefits of transparency and sponsorship.
But these reforms do not limit immigration and are not intended
to. It is thus entirely different from the Australian system which
it claims to resemble. The economic justification is questionable
and there are serious weaknesses described below.
INTRODUCTION
2. The government claim that their extensive
reforms to the immigration system are tackling the problems we
face. But they are not—mainly because the reforms do not
limit immigration, and are not intended to.
3. The proposals are, to some extent, a simplification
of the present system. The scheme also adds transparency in the
sense that the requirements are more clearly set out. A potentially
valuable reform is the introduction of "sponsorship"
whereby the employer (or educational institution) will be responsible
for ensuring the departure of a work permit holders or students
when their visas expire. The introduction of electronic checks
on arriving and departing foreigners, when implemented, will further
strengthen the system.
WEAKNESSES
4. The new regime does, however, have some
very serious weaknesses:
(i) It is economically misconceived
There is no significant economic benefit to the host
country from large-scale immigration as the recent House of Lords
enquiry made plain.[3]
This scheme assumes that there is. Furthermore, the whole concept
of skills shortages is dubious, particularly over the medium term.
Professor Metcalf, Chair of the government's own Migration Advisory
Committee told the House of Lords Economic Committee that "the
whole notion of shortages was a bit of a slippery concept"
(Q557), since, over time, wage increases should deal with the
shortages. With a workforce of 30 million, the only long-term
answer is to train and retrain British workers. The CBI themselves
acknowledged this in their evidence to the House of Lords.[4]
(ii) No limit on numbers
This scheme does not limit work-related migration
in any way, and is not intended to. The Australian system which
it is said to resemble is, in fact, entirely different; it starts
with a limit and selects within that total. By contrast, Tier
One is entirely open ended. For Tier Two, employers are supposed
to make sure that there is no satisfactory candidate within the
European Union but this test is notoriously difficult to police.
Nor does it apply if an occupation has been declared a "shortage
occupation", nor if the migrant arrives as an intra company
transfer.
(iii) It reduces incentives to train British
workers
The main effect of the scheme will be to open the
skilled section of our labour market to competition from overseas,
thus reducing the incentive for employers to train British staff.
For example, Tier One will be open to any foreign student who
has a obtained a Bachelor degree in the UK, is under 28, has stayed
on under the International Graduates Scheme and is earning £23,000
a year. As the average starting salary for a graduate in
the UK is about £21,000, this is not a high hurdle. These
international graduates will be in direct competition with British
graduates who will have run up substantial debts acquiring their
degrees. The disaster over specialist training for British medical
graduates is the clearest possible example of the impact of immigration
on the training of British staff. In 2007 over 1,300 graduates
from UK medical schools were unable to pursue their careers as
a result of competition for specialist training from foreign graduates
benefiting from the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.[5]
Each medical graduate costs the tax payer about £250,000
so the total cost of those unable to proceed in 2007 was £325
million—not to speak of the implications for those concerned
and the impact on future recruitment to our medical schools.
(iv) All can apply for settlement
By staying on for five years and making an application,
all work permit holders will be qualified to apply for settlement
in Britain and, later, for citizenship. (Tier One migrants need
to apply for Further Leave to Remain after three years). This
route to settlement will, of course, apply whether or not their
skills are needed beyond the short term.
(v) It does not fill gaps in the labour force
This Government claim is completely contradicted
by the facts. In the last seven years there has been net immigration
of nearly one and a half million but, by March 2008, vacancies
at 690,000 were slightly higher than in the same quarter of 2001.[6]
This is because immigrants fill some jobs but also create new
demand which means new jobs.
(vi) Scope for abuse
At the application stage, the incentive to forge
the necessary documents will be huge. At stake is a "meal
ticket for life" both for the successful fraudster and his
family. The Government claim that "intelligence led"
detection methods will be effective but with applications approaching
200,000 a year, that must be dubious. Some multinational companies
operating in India no longer rely on paper based applications
because of the unreliability of paper qualifications. This scheme
is almost entirely paper (or e-mail) based; most applicants will
never be seen by an Entry Control officer as the application process
has been out sourced in most countries. Furthermore, after arrival,
there is no guarantee that those granted work permits under Tier
Two will actually do (or continue to do) the jobs that they were
recruited for. Under Tier One there is not even a requirement
that they should do skilled work.
(vii) Absence of embarkation controls
This scheme is being brought into effect before border
checks on individuals are fully in place. The Home Office are,
therefore, in no position to know whether someone granted a work
permit has left at the end of it.
(viii) Difficulties of removal
Quite apart from the extensive legal and practical
difficulties of removing people against their will, the Government
has almost no capacity to remove people who are neither foreign
prisoners at the end of their sentence nor failed asylum seekers.
The Government claim to be removing an immigration offender every
eight months is deeply misleading. This number includes those
turned away at the border. The number actually being removed after
entry is about 1,400 a month or 17,000 a year. Meanwhile, the
number of visas issued has risen 50% in the last five years to
about two million a year. The Government's removal capacity is
less than 1% of this number. Therefore, unless over 99% of those
granted visas leave when they are supposed to, despite the absence
of any checks, the number of illegals in Britain will climb every
year.
(ix) The weakness of the Migration Impact
Forum
This body is almost entirely staffed by employees
of the Government or its quangos. Its performance so far has been
extraordinarily weak. A paper on housing dealt almost entirely
with the problems faced by immigrants when the committee is supposed
to be considering the impact on the resident community. A second
paper on police matters was leaked to the press in an entirely
misleading manner, apparently by its author.
(x) The risk of collapse
This will be a huge and complex scheme. There are
potentially 26,000 job titles and it is expected that there will
be 14,000 sponsors in the first year. Given that students are
included in Tier Two, there could well be half a million applications
a year. On past form, the Home Office are most unlikely to have
the staff and resources necessary to check on the authenticity
of the applicants and their sponsors. The pressure from industry
and academia will be to reduce waiting times and backlogs. It
could well be only a matter of time before they are simply going
through the motions for the sake of appearances, as we have seen
in the past.
July 2008
3 House of Lords, Select Committee on Economic Affairs,
HL Paper 82-1. Back
4
Written Evidence HL paper 82-II Memorandum by the CBI paragraph
2. Back
5
Department of Health Press Release 6 Feb 2008. Notes to Editor
para 5. Back
6
House of Lords, Select Committee on Economic Affairs, HL Paper
82-1 paragraph 103. Back
| 
