Immigration Gap - Home Affairs Committee Contents


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





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 3 November 2010