Examination of Witness (Questions 140-156)
MR JOHN
CRIDLAND
3 FEBRUARY 2009
Q140 David Davies: Is everyone inspected?
Mr Cridland: CBI members would
tend to be inspected. I fully accept that I am speaking for a
membership, given they have chosen to join the CBI, that might
reflect those more inclined to be compliant with the role; I accept
that.
Q141 Mrs Dean: What kind of difficulties
have your members had with achieving "A" sponsorship
ratings and has the UK Border Agency listened to you and been
more pragmatic about processing sponsor applications?
Mr Cridland: I have already touched
on the backlog, and that was a serious concern which is now being
alleviated rapidly. I could say with some satisfaction that I
think the Border Agency has taken a flexible approach to the application
of their ABC categorisation and informally they have said to companies,
"You have not yet done enough to receive a category A but
if you take the following steps we will look at it again."
Companies have found this very helpful. Again, it is part of the
reputation of business; most of the companies that have bothered
to apply for sponsorship want to get it right, and that is a good
example of the Agency and employers working in partnership to
make sure that the threshold is met on a constructive basis rather
than a punishment basis.
Q142 Mrs Cryer: Mr Cridland, just
to delve a little bit further into what Mrs Dean has already asked
you, where businesses have been refused a sponsor licence does
the refusal notice from the Border Agency explain why they have
been refused and is it also helpful as to what they must do to
improve their situation?
Mr Cridland: We have found, our
members have been telling us, that this has happened informally,
so I would not make claims for the actual notice but there has
usually been a conversation whereby that information has been
put forward such that the employer could do whatever they have
not done first time round.
Q143 Mrs Cryer: The actual refusal
notice then does not set out clearly the reasons for refusal so
usually your members have to go back to the Border Agency to find
out?
Mr Cridland: Forgive me, I am
not aware specifically whether it does or whether it does not,
but it has not become a problem because there has been an effective
dialogue we have found.
Q144 Chairman: Are your members not
concerned that there is no right of appeal? This is an administrative
decision taken by officials sitting in the UKBA and there is no
right of appeal.
Mr Cridland: That was a concern
we had when the regulations were originally put forward.
Q145 Chairman: Do you still have
that concern?
Mr Cridland: We still have that
concern.
Q146 Chairman: Because this Committee,
obviously, is in a position to make recommendations on this matter.
Do you think it should be there as a protection?
Mr Cridland: It is a matter of
natural justice that any process of this kind should have the
ability to appeal.
Q147 Chairman: When they are turned
down, what do they do? Do they just go and see their Members of
Parliament and their Members of Parliament go and write to the
ministers, or is there some other method they have found?
Mr Cridland: Increasingly, Chairman,
they are in dialogue with the Border Agency and they will go away
and recast their system, but clearly there is considerable opportunity
cost there which we should seek to avoid.
Q148 Chairman: You would like to
see it provide for appeal.
Mr Cridland: We would.
Q149 Gwyn Prosser: Mr Cridland, I
want to ask you about intra-company transfers. Your organisation
has raised concerns about some of the barriers to this process.
Firstly, what have you got to say about the £800 bank balance
requirement?
Mr Cridland: This is another area
where progress is being made rapidly, and my understanding is
that the issues we raised in our written evidence to you have
now been addressed by the UK Border Agency. We felt it was inappropriate
in a matter like intra-company transfers that money needed to
sit in a bank account. What has now been allowed to the best of
my knowledge is that the sponsor company sends a clear letter
of undertaking and that that letter of undertaking is sufficient,
both in relation to the individual and any dependants.
Q150 Gwyn Prosser: The other barrier
you have mentioned in evidence is the requirement to work for
six months in the company before transfers can take place. Is
there any progress on that?
Mr Cridland: I think that is still
there and, clearly, we are sensitive to the fact that we may reflect
the concerns of the compliant, the great majority who operate
within the rules but we do accept that the UK Border Agency has
to have some requirements to avoid scams, so we can see both sides
of this argument but that remains as it was.
Q151 Chairman: When this Committee
went to Mumbai, Agra and Delhi last year we were very concerned
that companies that invest in the United Kingdom such as, for
example, Tata—and there are many, many others—had
a concern that there was not enough information available at posts
about the way in which the points-based system operated. Do you
have any anecdotal evidence to help us as to whether or not this
has been addressed?
Mr Cridland: I still think there
is a need to provide better guidance and advice at post. We still
receive anecdotal evidence that many people on the ground cannot
go beyond what is on a website or in a guidance leaflet but they
are not sufficiently clear as to the origin and purpose of the
scheme to be able to extrapolate beyond it, which is often what
an employer needs to talk about when they are speculating as to
what might happen if they made an application.
Q152 Chairman: I do not want to reopen
the earlier discussion but do you think we need to explain to
the public and trade unions much more what an intra-company transfer
is, because there is going to be a lot of people saying why are
they bringing workers in under the points-based system and this
is going to affect the number of British jobs that remain. Do
you think more explanation needs to be made about this?
Mr Cridland: Yes, it is absolutely
vital. Intra-company transfers are meant to relate to situations
where a company has a particular project under way and I think
again of the R&D example I described earlier where it is essential
for that project for people to be able to come from another part
of the company somewhere else in the globe. That seems to me a
quite legitimate corporate desire and a legitimate part of globalisation
and something that helps to keep high value added activity within
the UK. You may recall that last year when the points-based system
was being put together there was significant concern from some
of our best car companies about the level of language requirements
making it impossible to bring design engineers into Britain for
short periods because they could not meet the language requirement,
when there was no suggestion they would be here other than for
a short development project. We have to be flexible on these issues—that
is what the intra-company transfer scheme is there to achieve,
and it is not a soft touch scheme. The employer has to demonstrate
the necessity, they have to provide the undertakings and it is
for a fixed period.
Chairman: You mention the language test:
we have just written as a Committee to the Immigration Minister
concerning his exemption for football players under the points-based
system.
Bob Russell: That is for foreign footballers,
not English footballers.
Q153 Chairman: For those who come
from abroad. Do you think that should be extended to other professions?
Why do you think footballers have been singled out for special
treatment?
Mr Cridland: I am pleased to say
the CBI does not represent any football clubs so I would not claim
competence on that particular question.
Q154 Chairman: Would you like to
see it extended to others, not just footballers?
Mr Cridland: I think as a result
of the very constructive discussions that we had with the Home
Office on the issues I have raised we now consider those matters
have been satisfactorily resolved.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr Cridland. A final
question from Mr Salter.
Q155 Martin Salter: Chairman, you
may have been in Mumbai but the rest of us were in Delhi. When
we were in Delhi, Mr Cridland, we met NASSCOM, the National Association
of Software and Service Companies, which of course includes the
major Indian corporation and a big British employer, the Tata
Corporation itself. Two questions in response to what we heard
from them. They confirmed to us that they were very concerned
at any notion of a blanket cap on the movement of labour, just
an artificial figure imposed at the start of the year would affect
their ability to conduct their business effectively, to move around
labour—in particular specialist labour—in the way
that the business requires and could in the final analysis lead
to some disinvestment in Britain, which could have a long term
impact on jobs and the health of our economy. Do you share those
concerns; is that why you favour the points-based system, where
the system will lead us?
Mr Cridland: The two are not mutually
exclusive. We believe that the points-based system is the right
building block for dealing with the needs as they exist for migrant
labour outside of the EU. Whether there should be a cap on the
overall numbers, frankly, is entirely a political matter and the
CBI will not take a view on that issue. We think it is a perfectly
legitimate issue for political parties, for Parliament to debate,
but what we will continue to argue is that the points-based system
is a necessary way of ensuring that where the skill needs of companies
cannot be met from the EU or from the indigenous British workforce
that there is an ability, on an evidence base, to bring additional
workers into the country for that purpose, but there is no desire
in the CBI membership to take a view on quotas per se.
Q156 Martin Salter: Thank you, that
is helpful. The second issue that NASSCOM raised with us was the
issue about increased compliance responsibility for employers.
Are you satisfied that your members can meet the conditions that
are laid down or do you feel that they are too onerous?
Mr Cridland: They are certainly
onerous and when I visit companies it is now spontaneously from
chief executives coming up, "Can't the CBI do something about
these burdens?" They are very noticeable, so the conditions
need to be legitimate and proportionate, but we are supporters
of a managed migration system and it is clear that in previous
years that system was not satisfactorily managed so you would
expect employers to be concerned about administrative burdens.
As a movement, as an organisation, when we have debated our policy
on this we have accepted that we needed to step up to the plate
and share the responsibilities to make sure the system is managed.
All we ask in return is if there are now those administrative
burdens on employers that the service level from the public sector,
from the Border Agency in terms of guidance sent out at the appropriate
time, guidance right first time, helplines staffed by people who
can answer questions, here and in international posts, has to
be right. Initially we felt we were honouring our side of the
managed migration debate without receiving the service agreement
that we needed, but I would end by saying there has been rapid
and considerable progress in meeting our concerns.
Martin Salter: Thank you very much.
Chairman: Mr Cridland, thank you very
much for coming in today of all days; we are extremely grateful
for the precise way in which you have given your evidence. We
may come back to you again for some written evidence before we
conclude our inquiry. Could I invite Alastair Henderson and Mandy
Thorn to come forward?
| 
