Memorandum submitted by Public and Commercial
Services Union (PCS)
IMMIGRATION CAP
INQUIRY
1. The Public and Commercial Services Union
(PCS) is the largest civil service trade union, with a total membership
of 300,000 working in over 200 civil service departments, non-departmental
public bodies and related areas. This includes approximately 15,000
working in the Home Office and UK Border Agency.
2. We welcome this timely inquiry and would be
happy to supplement this submission with further written evidence
and would welcome the opportunity to provide oral evidence to
the committee.
3. When the Conservative Party first announced
plans for an immigration cap in their manifesto dated 30 April
2010, PCS agreed with business leaders who warned that such a
policy could have a negative impact on the UK's economy and therefore
could jeopardise economic recovery.
4. It was clear throughout the election
campaign that the Conservative Party had no proposals for a figure
for the immigration cap presented in the manifesto. As Nick Clegg
put to David Cameron during the televised leaders' debate on 22
April, "You're proposing a cap but you don't know what the
cap would be."
5. PCS have concerns regarding proposals
relating to the reduction of migrant workers who enter the UK
Labour market under the tier 1 and tier 2 system. One of our main
concerns about the consultation document itself is that while
it sets out these proposals, it does not pose the fundamental
question which is whether or not people are in agreement with
the reduction of migration.
6. The proposals to cap tier 1 and tier
2 focus on non European Economic Area migration to the UK which
accounts for a third of immigration to the UK. They will therefore
impact on people mainly from former British colonies and commonwealth
countries. These are territories that have historical and existing
links to the UK and have helped build the wealth of this country
and other European countries and indeed continue to contribute
to the wealth of the UK. PCS is concerned that current debate
on immigration too often fails to ignore this fact. In times of
economic crises immigrants are targeted and scapegoated as being
responsible for the ills of a country despite ongoing exploitation
in the form of conditionality clauses attached to so-called aid
packages, the continuance of third world debt as well as unfair
trade practices and the insistence of the International Monetary
Fund that they concentrate on opening up their markets to western
trade.
7. We are also concerned that the government
has failed to ensure that when migrant workers come to the UK
and help to provide essential services, migrant workers, like
the UK's native born "black" workers do not receive
adequate protection from discrimination. For example the government
intends to reduce protection for black workers against race discrimination
in the new Equality Act 2010.
8. The broad ethos of the UK Border Agency
paper on limits on non-EU immigration, is that uncontrolled migration
leads to social cohesion because it is perceived that immigrants
take British jobs and use public services over and above what
they are entitled to. PCS believe that these arguments are misguided
and do a great injustice to hard working people or people seeking
work and give a valuable contribution to the wealth of this country.
9. Missing from this discourse is the fact
that these migrants have been invited to work in the UK because
of skills shortages and the inability of governments to develop
an effective programme in terms of ensuring that the UK labour
force is effectively skilled to face the challenges of the future.
10. While we have welcomed government initiatives
such as lifelong learning, what seems to be missing is an integrated
approach between the government and employers as to what the education
systems need to embrace in order to enhance the skills of UK workers.
It is an anomaly that so-called developing countries who are struggling
under debt are able to produce workers that can fit into the UK
labour force, but the UK is unable to produce the requisite number
of well educated and trained workers.
11. PCS believe that there is a real danger
that arbitrary decisions to reduce the numbers of highly skilled
migrants will mean companies will look to relocate away from the
UK to access workers that have the necessary skills. The skills
deficit is a long term problem. Attitudes and practices within
education and training institutions would therefore take a significant
period of time to be changed. Faced with the ongoing cuts in FE
and the proposed cuts in HE and right across the education Sector
it is hard to see how the skills deficit is going to be addressed.
12. Unless the government invests in the
existing and future workforce, the UK will struggle to remain
amongst the top 12 economies. Highly skilled migrants that have
the door closed to them by the UK will look elsewhere for employment.
The UK will risk missing out on entrepreneurs, scientists and
medical professionals who will use their skills to the benefit
of other countries.
13. What cannot be discerned from the paper
is the extent to which tier 1 and tier 2 migrants resort to public
services, even though the general tenet of the paper seeks to
link competition for depleting public services as a result of
migration from non EEA migrants.
14. Migrants who enter the UK via tier 1
and tier 2 are mainly young, highly skilled and highly motivated
people who are less likely to make demands on the public purse.
What should be remembered is that migrants for outside the EEA
accounts for 7% of the UK's immigration, the paper does not provide
any figures as to what percentage tier 1 and tier 2 migrant workers
account for.
15. According to the government's own records
the number of migrants to UK fell last year. In addition, the
government has been unable to provide comprehensive records of
how many UK born citizens migrated to other parts of the world.
16. It is concerning that there is no mention
of an impact assessment relating to reducing the numbers of people
affected by the proposals. There is no evidence to suggest that
a reduction in tier 1 and tier 2 workers will result in:
— a significant reduction in unemployment
in the UK;
— a significant reduction in the skills
deficit in the UK;
— an increase in social cohesion in the
UK;
— improved provision of public services
in the UK; and
— an ability for the UK to sustain its
place as one of the most progressive and richest economies with
entrepreneurs being attracted to work and remain in the country.
17. PCS are also concerned about job losses
resulting in the UKBA as a result of the cap. At this time the
tier 1 and tier 2 work is administered in Sheffield by approximately
300 staff, but it is hard to give a definitive number as staff
move between work streams. The total UKBA workforce in Sheffield
is just under 1,000. Sheffield is a city where a large proportion
of the workforce are employed in the public sector and so any
cuts in this area will have dire consequences for the local economy.
18. Staff currently employed on the points
based system are already facing job cuts of 90 based on the current
workloads and budgets. Therefore a cap on the number of cases
has the potential to lead to further job cuts which we estimate
could be in the region of 100 jobs.
19. If the proposed cap was introduced this
could have an effect on the role of staff in preventing exploitation
and abuse of the system. The danger is that with a cap, employers
and applicants are more likely to resort to unregulated employment
with little legal protection.
20. Any cap will lessen the revenue streams
of this work and would result in a reduction in the money taken
by the UKBA.
21. A ministerial briefing accidentally
leaked by UKBA to our members in June, made specific reference
to the migration cap and outlined some proposals along with how
these could be implemented by the department. It made it clear
that the UKBA was confident that they could deliver a package
to cut net migration, albeit at a cost to the Agency in terms
of lost income. It also alluded to the fact that whilst cutting
back on migration the government would have to take into account
that employers had the access to skills they need in order to
secure the UK economy. The document then suggests that the government
would need to take action on welfare reform and action on skills
to get British workers into the jobs which will be blocked to
non-EEA migrants.
22. The document concluded that estimating
the impact of the policy changes on net migration is difficult.
UKBA's initial modelling assumes limits set at half of the current
tier 1 and 2 levels which indicates and reduction of around 100,000.
According to the statistics produced in the document the UKBA's
baseline is around 163,000 and by limiting the tier 1 & 2
as suggested would meet the achievement of the Conservative party's
manifesto of reducing net migration. However, the document makes
it clear that this does not take into account other factors that
may have an equal or greater impact on migrant numbers.
23. PCS does not believe that reductions
in migration should be met by targeting dependants. This is a
universal human right for entitlement to family life that should
not be undermined by what will amount to racist immigration policy
and law. They should not be put in a position whereby they have
to choose who to leave behind or having to work in a foreign country
without the support of their family.
24. It is important to set these proposals
against the background of the planned cuts to public sector jobs.
Many private sector enterprises are reliant on public sector projects.
It is doubtful the UK will continue to be an attractive proposition
when there are less highly skilled migrants and a contracting
labour market.
25. PCS strongly believe in the benefits
of migration for the UK and also that it benefits the economy
and society as a whole. We are opposed to an arbitrary reduction
in migration. It would result in further job losses, have a negative
impact on the UK economic recovery and make the country a less
attractive to businesses due to a shortage of skills and expertise
in the workforce.
September 2010
| 
