Memorandum submitted by the Campaign for
Science & Engineering (CaSE)
1. The Campaign for Science & Engineering
(CaSE) is a membership organisation aiming to improve the scientific
and engineering health of the UK. CaSE works to ensure that science
and engineering are high on the political agenda and that through
the implementation of appropriate evidence-based policies and
adequate funding the UK has world-leading research and education,
skilled and responsible scientists and engineers, and successful
innovative business. It is funded by around 750 individual members
and 80 organisations including industries, universities, learned
and professional organisations, and research charities.
SUMMARY
2. Scientists and engineers have a vital
role to play in driving future economic growth and also in solving
some of the UK's most urgent challenges, from security threats
to energy demands. Any limit on the employment of non-EU scientists,
technologists, engineers, and mathematicians will seriously affect
the ability of the UK businesses, industries, research charities,
and academia to recruit the skills and expertise that they require,
but will have little impact on net migration unless enforced at
an extreme level. Given the important role of research and development
and high-tech manufacturing on economic growth, the cap is also
likely to damage the economic recovery. In fact, the targeted
immigrants are unlikely to be responsible for net migration although
limiting their entry into the UK is likely to increase the ratio
of unskilled to skilled workers, accentuating issues around public
service provision—the justification for the cap in the first
place.
3. Financial entrepreneurs, investors, and
elite sportspeople, are set to be excluded from the cap. Skilled
scientists and engineers are intellectual investors and entrepreneurs—looking
to invest their knowledge and skills creatively to advance the
UK. And research in the UK depends heavily on the global marketplace
to advance, in the same way as elite sport does. For instance,
out of the 13 Nobel Prizes awarded to scientists from the Medical
Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology (MRC LMB),
only five went to UK nationals.[29]
Given this, we recommend that a method is found to exclude qualified
and competent scientists and engineers from the cap.
The impact a cap on non-EU economic migration
would have on the ability of UK business and industries to recruit
the skills and staff they require
4. Industries invested £26.6 billion
in research and development (R&D) in the UK in 2008.[30]
An unusually large proportion of R&D in the UK, 17%, is funded
from overseas, and it is therefore critical that the UK continues
to attract this funding. A key determining factor for where to
site R&D infrastructure is access to skilled workers, including
being able to employ talent from across the globe.[31]
A CBI survey found that larger UK firms look abroad to fill their
vacancies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.[32]
Similarly, a 2006 survey by the Institute of Directors found that
65% of members wanted to encourage migration for skills shortages
and to widen the labour pool.[33]
5. The impact assessments that were published
to accompany the Home Office consultation did not attempt to quantify
the impacts on business of the cap, although it does recognise
costs will be from training new staff and employing less skilled
workers. What failed to be considered in the impact assessment
or the consultation document is that businesses might actually
choose to, or have to, relocate to another country where they
can employ the workers that they need. The availability of researchers
in the workforce is falling in the UK but rising in other comparable
countries.[34]
6. UK companies could attempt to invest
more in training, both in house and supporting external bodies,
to meet their skills and staff needs—but it can take many
years or decades to achieve the necessary changes in workforce.
And this option may not be realistic in the current economic context
and at a time where the UK is likely to be decreasing rather than
increasing the number of graduates. (Ironically enough, it is
also likely that a higher proportion of graduates from UK universities
will be from overseas as universities seek to supplement falling
public sector investment by foreign fee income.)
7. Even if employers were able to fill the
skills requirements from recruitment in the UK, it will never
be possible to train up British workers to bring the benefits
of coming from another country: foreign workers bring a diverse
range of perspectives, access to and knowledge of different markets,
and a network of connections for international collaboration.[35],
[36]Such
collaborations underlie the success of the UK research base—from
2002-07, nearly 40% of the UK's scientific output involved such
international collaborations and these publications have a higher
citation rate than papers just by UK authors.[37]
Having a higher proportion of foreign post-doctoral students also
correlates with increased patent activity.[38]
8. Furthermore, if the UK does not enable
overseas workers to come to the UK to build relationships, then
it is likely to become harder for UK students and workers to be
welcomed overseas to gain new knowledge and skills. Thus, UK employers
will not be able to recruit UK workers with effective international
experience for them to draw upon.
9. UK universities are a national asset,
and highly-valued by industry. Four of the world's top ten universities
are in the UK.[39]
But there is increasing competition from other countries—for
instance, the UK's share of world publications has been slowly
falling over the last decade to 8%, reflecting the growth of other
countries like China (whose share quadrupled in a decade), Brazil,
and South Korea.[40]
Universities depend on international recruitment to employ the
best researchers and lecturers in order to maintain their world-class
standards. In 2007-08, non-EU nationals made up 10.5% of all academic
staff, including 22% of engineering staff, 15% of mathematics
and computer science staff, and 13% of physical scientists.[41]
If universities cannot recruit the necessary skilled lecturers,
this will affect the ability of UK employers to recruit well-skilled
UK graduates.
10. Anything that turns away skilled overseas
employees is likely to be damaging, but there will also be a qualitative
impact of the cap, even if the limits are set at levels that have
little impact on actual immigration (ie, with very few skilled
applicants being turned away). The UK's reputation as a desirable
destination for world-class researchers, and as a collaborator
of choice, will be damaged if it is not judged to be welcoming
to international scientists and engineers and to value their skills
and expertise.
The numbers of skilled and non-skilled migrants
likely to be affected by a cap on Tiers 1 and 2
11. All of the migrants coming in under
Tiers 1 and 2 are highly skilled or skilled, so no non-skilled
migrants will be directly affected unless their dependants, some
of whom may be "non-skilled", are included. If they
are not included in the cap then dependants would still be affected
if their related applicant is refused.
12. With regard to how many skilled workers are
likely to be affected, the Home Office impact assessment estimates
that 39,000 visas eligible for the cap were issued in 2009-10
in Tier 1 and 57,000 in Tier 2 (or 24,000 if Intra Company Transfers
are excluded). All of these applicants would be affected by the
cap, either through being excluded, or through new and probably
additional bureaucracy (and thus delays) or fees likely to be
incurred even if they are issued with visas.
13. The actual numbers denied access will
vary depending on the level of the limit—the impact assessment
looked at 10%, 50%, and 90%. Net migration was 163,000 in 2008
and the Government's goal is to reduce this to tens of thousands—presumably
no more than 90,000, so at least 73,000 potential immigrants would
need to be refused entry to the UK if migration levels stayed
constant. A 90% cap on Tiers 1 and 2 would generate a fall of
only 57,800 applicants (including ICT), but would undoubtedly
have devastating consequences on UK universities, the research
base, industry and other sectors.
14. In fact, the UK is already experiencing
a potential brain drain: in 2008, an estimated 66,000 non-EU migrants
entered the UK for work-related reasons, while 74,000 left.[42]
If there is a significant decline in the number of visas issued,
but no decline in the number of workers leaving, the UK will start
to experience a serious outflow of skills.
15. Furthermore, there has already been
a decline in the migration of skilled and highly skilled workers.
This is likely to be partly from the recession as well as the
introduction of the points based visa system in not only turning
down applications but discouraging potential immigrants in the
first place. 6,685 Tier 1 highly skilled workers visas were issued
in the first quarter of 2010, down 44% (or 5,179) compared to
the equivalent visas and period in 2009. The number of Tier 2
Skilled Workers visas issued was 16,915, in the first quarter
of 2010, up 6% (or 995) from the equivalent visas and period in
2009.[43]
16. Given that there is actually a net outflow
in Tiers 1 & 2 it is odd to target them to counter-act net
inflows in other areas. Particularly, given that they make up
the skilled workers that the Government has said that it wants
to continue to attract because of their contribution to economic
growth. If the inflow of skilled workers is limited, this will
shift the balance of skilled to general migrants—meaning
that the pressure on public services that concerns the Government
will be less compensated for by increasing economic activity of
skilled migrants.
The impact and effectiveness of a "first
come, first served" or a pool system for highly skilled migrants
under Tier 1; and of a "first come, first served", a
pool, or an auction, system for skilled migrants under Tier 2
17. A pool system seems to be favourable
for Tier 1 and a `first come first served' system for Tier 2.
The pool system would secure the most excellent candidates, but
would be worryingly slow as proposed, with applicants having to
wait for up to 3 months before even knowing if they can formally
apply. We would recommend that shorter cycles are used and that
candidates can stay in the pool for longer—it is not clear
why they should be ejected after 6 months. Similarly, it is not
clear what the fee for entering the pool would be and how it is
costed or justified. The pool would not be fair or effective if
you are only allowed to enter into it for six months, we would
suggest at least 15 months (ie, five rounds of application) to
allow for variation in the nature and number of entrants over
the course of a year and to allow applicants to apply for work
in two successive academic years.
18. Tier 2 would presumably suffer fewer delays
under the "first come first served" system, but if a
quota for a period is not filled then it should be carried over
and the cut-off for points reviewed.
Whether and how intra-company transfers should
be included in a cap
19. Appendix C of the UKBA consultation
notes the argument that the UK has a strong interest in ensuring
that other countries provide access to the personnel of UK businesses
in branches overseas. It is stated that the UK's ability to negotiate
agreements for such access would be undermined if ICT numbers
are limited -we agree with this analysis. Any limits on ICT would
also be likely to deter foreign direct investment in the UK.
20. We therefore suggest that ICT should be excluded
from the cap but also that any limits to Tier 2 applications are
set at a high level to ensure that businesses which operate solely
in the UK (including SMEs), and universities, are not at a relative
disadvantage.
The implications of merging the Resident Labour
Market Test (RLMT) and Shortage Occupation Lists
21. Admissions through the RLMT and shortage
occupation lists fill different needs and should not be merged.
It does not make sense for workers with shortage skills to also
have to be passed through the RLMT—the Shortage Occupation
List already defines the need for their skills. More critically,
the RLMT must be able to operate outside of the Shortage Occupation
List to maintain the flexibility to respond to local needs, to
recruit to niche areas of shortage, and to rapid changes in need
over short-time periods. The need to advertise in Job Centre plus
as part of the Resident Labour Market Test is an expensive waste
of time for recruiting in many highly-specialised areas of science
and engineering and should be eliminated.
Whether dependents should be included in the cap,
and the effect of including them
22. Individual applicants bring with them variable
numbers of dependents and this number fluctuates over time so
cannot be reliably predicted. Presumably the Government wants
to model the economic and social impacts of admitting skilled
workers and, in calculating a cap, will want to make sure that
an appropriate number of such applicants are issued with visas.
It will not be possible to admit a defined number of skilled workers
into the country, and therefore meet the requirements of industry,
if dependants are included in calculating the cap.
August 2010
29 Nobel Prizes, MRC LMB website, May 2010. Back
30
R&D Scoreboard 2009, Department for Business Innovation
& Skills, March 2010. Back
31
Towards a Global Labour Market? Globalisation and the Knowledge
Economy, The Work Foundation, June 2008. Back
32
Education & Skills Survey, Confederation of British
Industry/Edexcel 2008. Back
33
Immigration-the business perspective, Institute of Directors,
January 2007. Back
34
Performance of the UK Research Base, EvidenceLtd for BIS,
2009. Back
35
Knowledge Nomads, DEMOS, 2008. Back
36
The Difference Dividend. Why immigration is vital to innovation.
NESTA, January 2008. Back
37
Performance of the UK Research Base, EvidenceLtd for BIS,
2009. Back
38
Chellaraj, G, Maskus, K E, & Mattoo, A (2008). The Contribution
of International Graduate Students to US Innovation. Review
of International Economics 16, no 3. Back
39
Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2009. Back
40
Performance of the UK Research Base, EvidenceLtd, for BIS, 2009. Back
41
Data from UniversitiesUK. Back
42
Hansard, HC Deb, 28 June 2010, c450W. Back
43
Migration Statistics 2008, Annual Report, Office of National
Statistics. Back
| 
