4 Impact on business and services
32. Immigration has an effect on business and services.
Public and private sector employers hire immigrants to perform
key tasks in the economy, but some immigrants also create an added
demand for public services, and a failure to manage migration
can create significant tension in and between communities. In
her statement of 28 June (see paragraph 1), the Home Secretary
noted that the Government wanted "to ensure that we can properly
weigh the economic considerations against the wider social and
public service implications".
33. It emerged in evidence from Mr Keith Sharp, Marketing
Director of Tata Consulting Services, and Mr Som Mittal, President
of the Indian National Association of Software and Services Companies,
that the temporary immigration cap had had 'very little effect'
on their businesses, since intra-company transfers had been excluded
from the temporary cap.[32]
34. However, since the Government announced its intention
to implement a cap, some business and service leaders have publicly
raised concerns about the economic impact of a cap. The Immigration
Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA), which represents 900 immigration
lawyers and firms, wrote to us that:
The view overwhelmingly expressed by members'
clients is that the imposition of an immigration cap will stifle
economic growth, result in greater burdens on employers and affect
the delivery of key public services.[33]
35. The Federation of Small Businesses also stated
their concerns that any cap on non-EEA economic immigration "would
have an adverse effect and would act as a barrier to economic
growth and competitiveness".[34]
A number of other organisations expressed similar concerns. A
contrasting view given by the Confederation of British Industry
(CBI), which represents some 240,000 businesses which together
represent around a third of the private sector workforce, stated
its members' belief that the "economic migration system should
efficiently balance the needs of employers for access to skilled
workers from abroad and the undoubted weight that migration can
place on the social fabric of local communities". On this
basis, the CBI stated that its members had no objection to the
Government's proposals for an annual limit to migration, provided
that "the system that is rolled out is one that businesses
are able to work within".[35]
Highly skilled migrants
36. Witnesses stated that the cap would curb only
skilled immigrants, most needed by businesses. The City of London
Corporation argued:
The City fears that this cap, coupled with other
changes to the domestic tax and regulatory environment, could
exclude those individuals who typically bring tangible benefits
to the UK, do not displace existing British workers, and whose
talents are mobile and welcome in many other centres. These individuals
could be investors, entrepreneurs, or key staff for the many international
firms situated in the UK.[36]
37. Universities were extremely concerned by the
impact on their academic staff. Universities UK told us that 10%
of the academic workforce comprised non-EEA nationals, particularly
in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subject areas.
The top five nationalities were American, Chinese, Indian, Australian
and Canadian. Universities UK did not want to lose the ability
to compete internationally for top academic staff.[37]
38. A number of high-profile figures have publicly
argued that the cap would prevent top-class international professionals
from coming to the UK. Eight Nobel prize-winners in science, in
an open letter submitted as evidence to us, wrote that they believed
that the cap would "damage [the UK's] ability to recruit
the brightest young talent, as well as distinguished scientists,
into our universities and industries", and underlined that
"the UK produces nearly 10 per cent of the world's scientific
output with only 1 per cent of its population: we punch above
our weight because we can engage with excellence wherever it occurs".
They highlighted the exemption from the cap for international
sportspeople, commenting that "it is a sad reflection of
our priorities as a nation if we cannot afford the same recognition
for elite scientists and engineers".[38]
39. Research commissioned and published by the Confederation
of British Industry (CBI) in May 2010 found that demand for highly-skilled
people would intensify during the economic recovery, and employers
feared they would not be able to find people with the skills they
needed to fill high-level jobs. The report concluded:
Half of employers (51%) are concerned they will
not be able to fill posts requiring the right graduate level or
higher skills in the coming years, and a third (32%) don't believe
it will be possible to fill intermediate level jobs, requiring
skills equivalent to A-level. A third (30%) of employers predict
the need for lower-level skills will decrease, while just 17%
say it will increase.
Despite the recession, nearly half of employers
(45%) say they are already having difficulty recruiting staff
with skills in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM),
with manufacturers and science-related businesses having the most
difficulty finding highly-skilled people to fill their posts.
Even more companies (59%) expect to have difficulty finding STEM-skilled
people in the next 3 years.[39]
40. However, we note that there are varying views
throughout the business community. For instance, research published
by the Institute of Directors in 2007 found that "80 per
cent of IoD members support some form of limit on migrants from
outside the EU"[40]
and that "42 per cent thought [the current level of immigration]
was too high relative [to skill shortages], whereas only 11 per
cent thought it was too low".[41]
The effect that the non-EEA economic immigrant cap would have
on these employers is unclear, especially considering the fact
that, according to the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development,
more than 73 per cent of migrants recruited between December 2009
and March 2010 were already UK-based, and only 27 per cent were
recruited directly from overseas.[42]
Recruiting needed skills
41. Both the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) and
the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) argued that they needed
to be able to recruit some migrant workers. In addition, businesses
highlighted the fact that many small businesses struggled to train
for highly specialist roles themselves, and in other cases training
existed but was inadequate or took too long when business needs
were pressing.[43]
42. While the Immigration Minister cited a Report
from the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs in
April 2008, which argued that net immigration was not indispensible
in order to fill labour and skills shortages, both he and the
Home Secretary recognised in evidence to us that there would continue
to be a need for migrants to fill jobs which could not be filled
from the resident labour market. During the course of our inquiry
it became evident that ensuring businesses were able to recruit
the workforce they needed in order to remain competitive was about
more than just getting immigration policy right. Both the British
Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses emphasised
the need for both Government and business to improve training
and education opportunities to address problems which businesses
encountered in recruiting from the resident workforce. The Federation
of Small Businesses told us that small businesses found training
expensive. However, written evidence from the British Chambers
of Commerce pointed out that "employers are happy to play
their part in up-skilling domestic workers, but the Government
must take a long-term, strategic look at the UK's skills shortages,
and act to find solutions to them".[44]
The Government has also suggested, in the UK Border Agency consultation,
that businesses be required to prove a shortage in both local
and national labour markets before a Tier 2 visa can be issued.
The Federation of Small Businesses appeared to be unconvinced
that small businesses would be able to meet this requirement:
The FSB does not want a cap. There is a certain
immediacy when we have vacancies and we believe a cap could prevent
us getting the right persons for the right jobs as soon as possible.[45]
43. This was echoed by the Law Society, which argued
that "City law firms advise on complex matters spanning multiple
jurisdictions ... the economic impact of restricting the ability
of law firms to recruit the best legal talent from the global
market will be felt well beyond the current recession and may
impede the recovery of the legal sector and the City more broadly".[46]
The British Chambers of Commerce seemed to be more optimistic,
but believed the Government needed to act immediately to up-skill
workers to address occupations on the shortage occupation list,
and that employers "should not be responsible for strategic
skills planning and identifying the skills gap and knowledge across
the whole economy".[47]
44. We also received evidence from the information
technology and communications sector emphasising that their business
needs were primarily for temporary immigrants which they catered
for by using intra-company transfers (ICTs). Intra-company transfers
of less than 12 months' duration were not included in the net
long-term immigration figures cited by the Government, as these
only included stays of over 12 months. Som Mittal, President of
the Indian National Association of Software and Services Companies,
told us:
I just endorse the view that people come here
for temporary purposes. It's determined by business and trade.
It's not intended to be [permanent] migration, and I think the
[intra-company transfer] provisions today do not allow people
to apply for [permanent] migration either. So I think we have
seen the trend in the last few years; it goes up and down with
business and in more recent years, particularly in the [information
and communications technology] sector, we have seen a lot of investment
coming in.[48]
Location factors for businesses
45. We heard evidence that the UK had a strong record
of attracting international business, which would be threatened
if the ability of businesses to recruit the skills they needed
was curbed too sharply. Dr Marshall, representing the British
Chambers of Commerce, noted that "50% of European headquarters
are in the UK. There have been 469 headquarters projects over
the past decade compared with 86 in Germany, and that is on the
strength of the UK's business environment".[49]
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development told us that
their research showed that 9% of private sector companies planned
to relocate jobs overseas in the 12 months to June 2011, principally
to India, China and Eastern Europe.[50]
However, the CIPD further noted that business decisions to locate
UK jobs offshore was "a phenomenon which may spread further,
irrespective of the policy outcome of the cap".[51]
46. The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association
(ILPA) told us that "migrants with a choice of destination
will go to other countries, while multinationals will give serious
consideration to leaving the UK to set up their European headquarters
elsewhere, pulling out existing investment in the UK".[52]
Sophie Barrett Brown, Chair of ILPA, gave an example from the
United States of how a cap on economic immigrants could affect
whether multinationals would come to the UK:
There was a notable example a couple of years
ago when Microsoft was having such difficulty with the H-1B cap
that they relocated one of their centres to Canada, where they
now employ over 1,000 Canadians, and the US lost those jobs.[53]
47. The Indian National Association of Software and
Service Companies (NASSCOM) pointed out, however, that during
the period the cap was in place in the US, its economy did very
well. But NASSCOM went on to say that, in the specific case of
intra-company transfers, which are discussed in further detail
later in this Report, its members "would be driven to explore
the possibility of locating elsewhere in Europe, particularly
in light of moves to introduce a Schengen-wide work permit".[54]
Dr Marshall from the British Chambers of Commerce believed that
the impact of the non-EEA economic migrant cap would have on businesses
was difficult to assess, telling us:
I do not believe a cap would mean that somehow
Britain was closed to business. It would not give that signal,
but it might make some businesses' immediate recruitment needs
very difficult and that could have knock-on impacts on employment,
recovery and tax revenues to the Exchequer".[55]
Keith Sharp, Marketing Director of Tata Consulting
Services (TCS), agreed, but noted that his company was well-established
in the UK and was therefore unlikely to leave: even though a cap
would be "disruptive", the company would "adapt
and figure things out".[56]
Tax and investment
48. Several witnesses noted that, while Tier 1 and
2 immigrants used public services, they also contributed via taxes
and spending income domestically. The Law Society noted that "migrant
employees are high-earning individuals who also contribute to
the domestic economy by spending their income in the UK. Partners
and employees pay income tax. Individuals relocated from abroad
typically receive a generous relocation package, funded by firms".[57]
The City of London Corporation claimed that:
These individuals will also pay higher rates
of tax, to the benefit of public purse. These individuals also
benefit the UK economy by being here. They are likely to be trained
in skills that will be passed on through training and education
to British workers and businesses and, on the whole, are less
reliant on public services such as education or the health service.
Their spending on goods and services in the UK also benefits the
wider economy.[58]
49. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said
that, if GDP is to grow by the projected 2.3% in 2011, about a
third of that growth will have to come from increases in business
investment.[59] Professor
Metcalf said that a cap on economic migration would reduce foreign
direct investment productivity but that "the macro consequences
are probably not large"[60]
and that in the longer term "it would be possible to upskill
our own people and that can in due course provide a substitute
for immigration".[61]
50. The British Chambers of Commerce stated that
it was important that the UK work to increase the number of migrant
investors and entrepreneurs coming to the UK.[62]
The Government appears to agree with this view and has indicated
in its consultation that it believes the distinct migrant routes
for investors and entrepreneurs should be expanded and encouraged.
Public sector jobs
51. Our predecessor Committee in the last Parliament
conducted an inquiry into the Points Based System in 2009 which
found high numbers of hard-to-fill posts in the care sector, many
of which were being filled by non-EEA immigrants.[63]
In September 2008 the Migration Advisory Committee reported to
the Government that it had received evidence from the care sector
that "over 70,000 vacancies for care assistants and home
carers were notified to Jobcentres in the first six months of
2007 (i.e. about 12,000 per month)".[64]
52. We were told that the problem was significant
in the public sector. In evidence to us Professor Metcalf suggested
that social care and education might be the two sectors most likely
to be adversely affected by the proposed cap.[65]
The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) reported that
acute shortages of qualified social workers, the inadequacies
of some training, and the difficulties in retention of experienced
staff because of high workloads and low public esteem for the
profession, had led employers to recruit internationally.[66]
Hilton Dawson, Chief Executive of BASW, noted that "there
is a lack of confidence in some of the social workers graduating
from some British universities, with good reason ... but the huge
issue is about retention and the terrible fact is that we burn
out very newly qualified social workers, by exposing them without
enough support to the rigours of child protection work".[67]
In light of the fact that social workers played such an important
role in supporting families and protecting children, it was extremely
important that the need to recruit non-EEA social workers was
taken into account in the design of the cap. He further stated
that the Government and the sector needed to provide better training
and more support for social workers so that the sector could "work
towards a reduction of social workers coming from abroad".[68]
Mr Dawson emphasised that with an immigration cap there would
be a greater need to recruit UK residents into the social work
force and "to train them well".[69]
53. It should be noted that the Committee did not
receive evidence from generally recognised public services such
as education, housing and local Government in the limited time
available to our inquiry.
Merging Tier 2 routes
54. There are currently three routes by which a sponsoring
employer can bring in a skilled immigrant under Tier 2: by first
advertising the job to the resident labour market, by employing
an immigrant for an occupation on a national shortage list, or
by intra-company transfer (ICT). The UK Border Agency consultation
asked whether the first two routes should be merged, so that both
tests be applied to every vacancy before an immigrant could be
recruited.[70] The two
routes were reviewed by the Migration Advisory Committee in August
2009, which concluded that it "did not see an economic case
for restricting Tier 2 to the shortage occupation list only".[71]
Professor Metcalf argued in evidence to us that:
The shortage occupation route is a very important
one...it provides a good safety valve, particularly in a time
of limits. The resident labour market test is really a very important
one, particularly as it happens for health and education where
there's no national shortage but maybe there's a shortage of teachers
in London, health care workers or nurses in a particular area
... speaking personally and on behalf of the Committee, we don't
think the proposal to merge those two routes is something we would
be in favour of.[72]
55. Several witnesses agreed with this position.
The British Medical Association (BMA) pointed out that the resident
labour market test allowed employers to account for regional shortages,
whereas the shortage occupation list only measured national shortages.
It was concerned that a merger would exacerbate regional shortages.[73]
On the whole, businesses were against the proposal to merge the
routes. The Confederation of British Industry, for instance, told
us:
The merging of the two routes creates the possibility
of a firm being unable to hire domesticallyand being able
to demonstrate thisbut still not having access to a work
permit as the Shortage Occupation List has not yet been updated.[74]
56. There does not seem to be strong argument
in favour of merging the resident labour market and shortage occupation
list routes under Tier 2. They serve separate and distinct purposes,
the former being a tool to fill specific or regional shortages,
the latter a mechanism for recruiting skills in national shortage.
Exempting intra-company transfers?
57. Under a specific route in Tier 2, international
firms can bring company workers into the UK for temporary periods
under an intra-company transfer (ICT). The UK Border Agency consultation
asked whether intra-company transfers should be included within
the cap.[75] In 2009,
the number of non-EEA immigrants[76]
issued with visas under the various Tier 2 routes were as follows:
Table 4: Tier 2 visas, by route, in 2009 (thousands)[77]
Visa type | Main applicants
| Dependants |
Work permit holders (pre-PBS)
| 5,160 | 11,485
|
Tier 2 General |
8,555 | -
|
Tier 2 ICTs |
22,030 | -
|
Tier 2 Ministers of Religion
| 370 | -
|
Tier 2 Elite Sportspeople
| 265 | -
|
Dependants (all Tier 2)
| | 15,505
|
Tier 2 total |
36,490 | 26,985
|
58. In 2009 intra-company transfers accounted for 60% of all Tier
2 visas, up from 45% in 2008, meaning that 22,000 of the total
36,000 Tier 2 main applicant visas were accounted for by intra-company
transferees. By contrast, the resident labour market test and
shortage occupation routes combined accounted for 23% of all Tier
2 main applicants. The intra-company transfer route is heavily
used by the IT and telecommunications sector, which accounted
for 66% of all intra-company transfers issued in the first quarter
of 2009.[78] Following
a review by the Migration Advisory Committee in 2009, intra-company
transferees can now apply for a maximum initial stay of three
years, extendable by two years, but cannot apply for indefinite
leave to remain.[79]
59. The UK Border Agency consultation suggested the
option of excluding intra-company transfers from the cap only
if transfers were for less than 12 months' durationin order
to ensure that migrants were only temporaryor the option
of limiting the entire route to 12 months. Some witnesses argued
vigorously in favour of excluding intra-company transfers from
the cap. As well as making general points about intra-company
transfers enabling companies to access specific skill sets not
available in the UK, the Indian National Association of Software
and Services Companies (NASSCOM) and Tata Consultancy Services
emphasised that the intra-company transfer route only allowed
temporary migration and did not lead to settlement, although a
third of those entering under the intra-company transfer route
did remain in the UK via other routes.[80]
Research by NASSCOM had revealed that its member companies tended
to apply for about 40% more entry clearance visas than they actually
used (so that they could move people around quickly and flexibly).
NASSCOM argued that where quotas had been implemented in other
jurisdictions for intra-company transfer type schemes, it had
led to hoarding, increased costs, inflated figures and a distortion
of the system.[81] The
British Chambers of Commerce stated that "it is of critical
importance to the economy that the ICT route is not included in
the capif there are restrictions on this route then global
companies will reduce their investment, jobs and number of transactions
in the UK".[82]
In the engineering sector, IChemE (representing chemical, biological
and process engineering firms) argued that intra-company transfers
were "absolutely vital" to international businesses.[83]
60. Mr Sharpe of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)
and Mr Mittal, President of the Indian National Association of
Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), emphasised that the
intra-company transfer route was a key one for IT companies in
particular. TCS had 3,150 employees in the UK on intra-company
transfers as of 31 March 2010.[84]
Mr Mittal told us that "the UK is the headquarters for the
majority of [NASSCOM's] companies when they work pan Europe [and]
a quota system ... will be quite detrimental to business here
because then we would need to look at those places where the movement
of people is not a consideration".[85]
Mr Sharp agreed that intra-company transfers were determined by
"economically driven supply and demand", noting that
TCS had a net outflow of IT workers in the year to 31 March 2010,
due to a reduction in demand from UK corporations.[86]
61. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) drew
lessons from the United States' H1-B work visa system, which was
subject to variable annual limits set by the government. It was
set at 65,000 per year with an additional 20,000 visas reserved
for holders of advanced degrees.[87]
The CBI noted that intra company transfers to the US were exempted
under the H1-B quota, which had "improved the business experience
of the H1-B by ensuring that genuinely temporary migrationwith
no route to settlementis not subject to restriction".[88]
It warned that the US system risked annual quotas being snapped
up as soon as the allocation opened:
In 2007, for example, the quota expired within
a week, leaving firms with a "closed" period of over
a year until further permits could be issued through the H1-B
tier".[89]
62. In opposition to these arguments, some witnesses
maintained that companies were using the intra-company transfer
route to bring workers from overseas to do jobs that could be
filled by qualified UK-based workers, and criticised the route
for having no requirement to check that a resident worker could
not do the job.[90] The
Professional Contractors' Group (PCG), a professional membership
association representing 1.4 million freelance workers, stated
that "freelance consultants and contractors in the IT industry
have regularly contacted PCG alleging displacement or replacement
by ICT workers".[91]
Migration Watch agreed:
[The ICT] was originally intended to allow international
companies to move their senior staff in and out of the UK. This
is a key attribute that must be maintained. Unfortunately, the
scheme has been used in recent years to post tens of thousands
of, at best, middle ranking IT workers to the UK, often from India.
Their purpose is to become familiar with particular IT functions
in the UK so that the work can be offshored.[92]
63. There was disagreement over the cost-effectiveness
to business of employing immigrants on intra-company transfers.
The Professional Contractors Group argued that "a non-EEA
worker is likely to cost less than a UK worker".[93]
However, a report by the Migration Advisory Committee found that
for most companies the cost of bringing an intra-company transferee
to the UK was higher than hiring an EEA national.[94]
Gary Burgess, an individual with personal experience of the intra-company
transfer route, considered that they should be included in the
cap, and suggested that the salary level for workers on intra-company
transfers should be increased.[95]
He pointed out that the US had recently introduced legislation
to increase charges for companies more than half of whose workforce
were on migrant visas.[96]
The Professional Contractors Group suggested that a "sliding
scale" of charges could be introduced to make certificates
of sponsorship increasingly more expensive for companies the more
they used.[97]
64. The proposed cap on Tiers 1 and 2 will by
definition only affect skilled workers. Tier 1 consists of very
highly skilled individuals, likely to make a significant contribution
not only to the UK's skills, but also directly to its economy
through tax and income spending; and Tier 2 is driven by the business
requirements of employers across a range of private and public
sector skills shortages. Both private sector businesses and public
sector services made compelling argumentsmany of which
have been well-rehearsed in public debateabout the negative
impact a cap on Tiers 1 and 2 will have on their ability to operate,
leaving vacancies unfilled unless it is properly designed with
business needs in mind. However, we also agree with the evidence
given by many employers, that the country should be better training
the skilled people we need to reduce the need for immigration
in the future, and we believe there is an important role for Government
in providing a strategy to ensure that occurs. We note the concerns,
expressed to us by eight Nobel prize-winners in science, about
the potentially negative effect of the cap on the UK's position
of international excellence in science and engineering. We consider
it totally illogical that professional sportspeople should be
exempted from the cap but elite international scientists are not.
65. Despite agreement that a cap set too low would
have an adverse impact on businessesboth international
companies such as Tata Consultancy Services, and the UK companies
which utilised their servicesit remains unclear what the
extent of that impact would be. Several witnesses told us that
companies might seek to establish headquarters elsewhere, but
others were well-established in the UK and unlikely to leave.
The level of the cap will be key in determining the effect it
will have on this kind of business decision. It is hard to assess
whether disruption would be of sufficient magnitude to force businesses
to relocate overseasthey may not be in a position themselves
to answer this question before the details of a cap are set out.
66. Although we note the Minister's evidence about
wider social and public policy concerns, the evidence we received
from businesses alerted us to the possible negative impacts the
non-EEA economic migrant cap could have on business investment
in the UK, and on tax revenues from high-earning immigrants. We
emphasise that the Government must closely study the recruitment
needs of businesses when determining the level at which the cap
is set, as it has promised to do. This will be relevant to the
UK's economic recovery, especially if, as has been said by the
Office for Budget Responsibility, one-third of the economic growth
needed in the next year must come from business investment. However,
we were told that the macroeconomic effects may be small. We are
pleased that the Government is planning not only to protect the
migrant route for investors and entrepreneurs, but also to encourage
high net worth individuals to come to the UK to drive economic
growth.
67. The Government must decide whether or not
to exclude intra-company transfers from the cap. Whilst it is
meant to be a temporary immigration route, migrants on intra-company
transfers can remain for up to five years, and we heard that a
third stay in the country permanently, having transferred to another
visa route. There is significant pressure from some businesses
not to cap the route. However, to make any significant reduction
in non-EEA economic immigration, a cap would have to include intra-company
transfers, which in 2009 accounted for 60% of all Tier 2 visas
and 40% of Tier 1 and 2 combined. We recommend that intra-company
transfers under 2 years' duration should be excluded from the
cap.
32 Q 184 Back
33
Ev 52, para 5 Back
34
Ev 45, para 1 Back
35
Ev 64, para 3-4 Back
36
Ev w26, paras 2, 3 and 4. Ev 69, para 4.7 Back
37
Ev w14, para 3 Back
38
Letter from Nobel laureates, submitted to Committee Back
39
Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Ready to grow: business
priorities for education and skills, May 2010: http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/content.nsf/802737AED3E3420580256706005390AE/C4393B860D00478E802576C6003B0679
. Accessed 4 October 2010. Back
40
Institute of Directors (IoD), The Immigration-the business
perspective, January 2007, p 9: http://www.iod.com/MainWebsite/Resources/Document/policy_paper_immigration_business_perspective.pdf
Back
41
Ibid., p 8 Back
42
Ev w23 Back
43
Qq 9-11, 14-16 Back
44
Ev 64 Back
45
Q1 Back
46
Ev w43, para 15 Back
47
Ev 66 Back
48
Q 185 Back
49
Q 2 Back
50
Ev w24 Back
51
Ibid. Back
52
Ev 52, para 6 Back
53
Q 211 Back
54
Ev 69, para 4.7 Back
55
Q 2 Back
56
Q 198 Back
57
Ev w43, para 19 Back
58
Ev w26, paras 2, 3 and 4. See also Ev 69, para 4.7 Back
59
Office for Budget Reform (OBR), Budget Forecast June 2010, Table
C3 Contributions to GDP growth, p 85 Back
60
Q 182 Back
61
Q 183 Back
62
Ev 64 Back
63
Home Affairs Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2008-09,
Managing Migration: The Points Based System, HC 217-I,
para 209. Back
64
Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), Skilled, Shortage, Sensible:
The recommended shortage occupation lists for the UK and Scotland,
September 2008, p 155. Back
65
Q 164 Back
66
Ev 59 Back
67
Q 191 Back
68
Q 193 Back
69
Ibid. Back
70
UK Border Agency, Limits on non-EU economic migration: a consultation,
June 2010, p 7 Back
71
Migration Advisory Committee, Analysis of the Points Based
System, Tier 2 and Dependants, August 2009, p 152 Back
72
Q 147 Back
73
Ev w9, para 16 Back
74
Ev w13, para 8.iv Back
75
UK Border Agency, Limits on non-EU economic migration: a consultation,
June 2010, p 9 Back
76
Dependants are given for Tier 2 General (11,485 total in 2009),
but as an aggregate for the other three routes (15,505 in total) Back
77
Home Office Control of Immigration : Statistics United Kingdom
2009, Bulletin 15/10, August 2010. Table 1;1: Entry Clearance
Visas to the United Kingdom issues by category. http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1510.pdf
. Accessed 4 October 2010. Back
78
Migration Advisory Committee, Analysis of the Points Based
System, Tier 2 and Dependants, August 2009, p 106 Back
79
Migration Advisory Committee, Analysis of the Points Based
System, Tier 2 and Dependants, August 2009, p 114 Back
80
Q 185 Back
81
Ev 68-69, paras 4.2, 4.4 and 4.6 Back
82
Ev 67, para 9 Back
83
Ev w10 Back
84
Q 185 Back
85
Ibid. Back
86
Ibid. Back
87
Ev w12 Back
88
Ev w12 Back
89
Ibid. Back
90
Ev w17 and Ev w20 Back
91
Ev w20 Back
92
Ev 50 Back
93
Ev w21 Back
94
Migration Advisory Committee, Analysis of the Points Based
System, Tier 2 and Dependants, August 2009, pp 118-121 Back
95
Ev w17 Back
96
Ev w18, para 11 Back
97
Ev w22 Back
|