Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers'
Union (NFU)
INTRODUCTION
1. The NFU welcomes this opportunity to
submit evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the Government's
current proposals to cap migration through Tiers 1 and 2 of the
points-based-system by implementing a permanent limit. The NFU
represents the interests of approximately 55,000 agricultural
and horticultural businesses some of whom will be affected by
changes to Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points Based System for immigration.
The total number of workers employed in the sector in 2008 was
154,283 (permanently and non-permanently, full and part time and
salaried managers but excluding farmers, their partners, directors
and spouses) some of whom will have entered the UK as migrants.
The total number of migrant workers in the sector is not known,
but it is known that non-EU migrant workers are important in some
areas of agriculture and horticulture.
2. Except where it is expressly stated to the
contrary, the NFU has no objection to the contents of this submission
being published or made publicly available.
SUMMARY
3. The following paragraph is a summary
of the detailed submission:
— the immigration cap should be considered
in the context of a globalised world where non-EU economic migrants
serve many roles within the UK economy, not only to fill shortage
occupations, but also to transfer technology and build international
networks;
— if there is to be an immigration cap, the
implementation of both the interim cap which was implemented on
19 July 2010 and the permanent cap proposed for 2011 onwards need
to be carefully designed and applied with discretion;
— a programme to reduce the reliance of
the UK economy on skilled non-EU migrants and their substitution
by resident workers who will be trained in skills which are presently
in short supply should recognise that it will take time to attract
and train resident recruits to the necessary level of qualification
and experience;
— "first come, first served",
pools and auctions all sit uneasily with a Points Based System
based predominantly on occupational qualifications;
— intra company transfers should be excluded
from the cap due to the transient nature of such migrations;
— merger of the RLMT and SOL will `tighten'
the entry criteria considerably and close the system to occupations
which have not already been determined by the MAC to be shortage
occupations reducing the flexibility and capacity of the available
UK workforce; and
— dependents should not be included in
the cap because their entry to the UK is derived from their relationship
to a non-EU migrant rather than on their own occupational status.
DETAILED SUBMISSION
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. The immigration cap should be considered
in the context of a globalised world where non-EU economic migrants
serve many roles within the UK economy, not only to fill shortage
occupations, but also to transfer technology and build international
networks. Even in field of agriculture there are UK subsidiaries
of non-EU multinationals, Tier 2 Resident Labour Market Test (RLMT)
and Shortage Occupation List (SOL) non-EU economic migrants. If
transient migrants such as intra company transfers and brief visits
by other professionals such as sportsman and performing artists
are outside of the cap it will alleviate some of the disconnection
from global migrations. An example of a transient agricultural
occupation is sheep shearing. Although some non-EU sheep shearers
will enter the UK as Tier 5 Youth Mobility or other routes, about
150—200 Australian and New Zealand sheep shearers enter
the UK on an annual basis, presently as Tier 2 SOL migrants, stay
in the UK for about two months in the early summer shearing sheep
and then return to their country of origin to prepare for the
Southern Hemisphere shearing season. This group of itinerant,
internationally active, agricultural workers includes UK nationals
and it is essential that the non-EU sheep shearers are able to
continue to enter and re-enter the UK to provide this essential
service.
5. If there is to be a cap, it is essential that
the implementation of both the interim measures from 19 July 2010
and the second phase in 2011 are designed thoughtfully and applied
with discretion and humanity. The restriction of the number of
Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) available from 19 July 2010
based on 2009 as the datum figures is extremely restrictive and
applies the cap from that date and not 2011 as is sometimes claimed.
It is extremely restrictive because in 2009 the PBS was a new
and unfamiliar system which may have depressed the numbers of
migrants, and secondly the economy was extremely weak in 2009
which will have reduced economic migrants. This 2010 reduction
in the number of available CoS of migrants was introduced with
little time for employers to prepare, indeed, it was purposely
done in this way to prevent a surge in applications shortly before
the new measures were implemented. For employers and workers alike
who have had changes of circumstances which have resulted in further
applications it is arbitrary to place them in the same "pool"
of applicants for CoS as new applicants.
6. In designing the second stage of the
cap to be implemented from 2011 onwards, if the intent of the
cap is to replace the recruitment of skilled non-EU migrant workers
with similarly skilled resident workers, and it is accepted that
there are presently skill shortages in the UK economy, then the
implementation of the cap needs to allow time to train the resident
workers. To be eligible for Tier 2 a migrant needs to be qualified
to NVQ3 or higher. To train an unskilled but motivated and otherwise
competent recruit to NVQ3 requires a minimum training period of
two years. Realistically the process is twice as long because
suitable candidates for the training must be recruited, the training
provision must be established, and often work experience is required
during or after the training period before a candidate is fully
qualified to undertake the role. Consequently, implementation
of the cap will stand the best chance of success if it is implemented
in numerous stages over a period of years.
The numbers of skilled and non-skilled migrants
likely to be affected by a cap on Tiers 1 and 2
7. The NFU is unable to supply information
of the numbers of migrants likely to be affected by a cap on Tiers
1 and 2.
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
8. The present allocation of CoS to sponsors
on the basis of the number of CoS issued in 2009 is historic and
does not match CoS to current conditions. The longer such a system
of issuing CoS is continued, the more inadequate it will become,
and indeed it could have the most restrictive affects on those
businesses who are looking to recruit skilled workers to expand
their productive capacity.
9. Both the "first come, first served"
and pool system are flawed in that they may encourage sponsoring
employers to apply for additional certificates of sponsorship
to try to maintain or increase their share of the declared quota.
They could also distort the labour market in other ways such a
introducing a calendar upswing into recruitment to mirror the
issuing of CoS.
10. An auction system has the advantage
of consistency but it will favour businesses with available funds
to spend on recruitment and this may not be a true measure of
the value of the non-EU worker to the wider economy. It would
risk pricing certain sponsors out of the market and could serve
to exclude economically useful occupations.
11. The imposition of a numerical cap will
reduce economic migrants through quotas. The NFU would prefer
to apply a more flexible approach linked to the labour market
and respectively suggests adjusting the points awarded for qualifications,
competences, English language and maintenance funds through the
points-based-system. This approach could be coordinated with training
the resident labour force by reducing the points awarded for various
qualifications as resident workers become upskilled in those occupations
and raising the English language and maintenance thresholds incrementally
to reduce the number of economic migrants without recourse to
a quota.
Whether and how intra-company transfers should
be included in a cap
12. Intra company transfers should not be
included in the cap because it is assumed that they will generally
retain connections to their sponsoring employer and will not settle
permanently in the UK.
The implications of merging the Resident Labour
Market Test and Shortage Occupation Lists
13. This will make it harder for sponsoring employers
and employees alike to satisfy the criteria.
14. Were the RLMT and SOC to be combined, it
would heighten the importance of ensuring the SOL is regularly
reviewed by the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that it
is up to date and that employers, trade bodies and occupational
organisations could submit prospective shortage occupations to
the MAC for inclusion. At present however the MAC is not reviewing
the list which is done on an ad hoc and is not regular procedure.
15. For organised occupations there may
be bodies to put forward occupations to the MAC for inclusion.
However, for activities which are not in some way organised this
may not happen, and for these occupations the combination of the
RLMT and the SOL could be seriously adverse.
Whether dependents should be included in the cap,
and the effect of including them
16. As Tier 2 is designed to manage the
migration of skilled economic migrants who are admitted to the
UK on the basis of their occupation, it is inconstant to include
dependents within the cap who are admitted on the basis of their
relationship to a migrant, and not on the basis of their own occupation.
August 2010
| 
