The Home Secretary has also asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), chaired by Professor David Metcalf, to report on:
* whether there is an economic case for restricting tier 2 (skilled workers) to shortage occupations only;
* his assessment of the economic contribution made by the dependants of PBS migrants and their role in the labour market; and
* what further changes there should be to the criteria for tier 1 in 2010/11, given the changing economic circumstances.
I think there could be a very good economic case for restricting tier 2 migrants to shortage occupations only. If the MAC find that a large portion of tier 2 migrants are not in shortage occupations, then of course this means that people are coming into non-shortage occupations via that tier. This may mean that the HO's ability to engineer labour market outcomes with respect to demonstrated shortages, is quite limited. I work in a university that has loads of tier 2 migrants; only a small proportion are in shortage occupations, which I imagine the HO must find deeply irritating.
I thought the remit on migrants' dependants' economic contribution also quite interesting. Suppose 150k people come in in a given year, and 50% have dependants (spouses, partners) who enjoy the same right to work as the principal applicant partner. That's a lot of people whom the HO can't select in or out, and a lot of people who might enter the labour market with few or no restrictions. And let's not forget the obverse: the HO want to evaluate the contribution of migrants relative to their social costs, the demands they make on education, health, etc. After all, a migrant couple earning 60k might pay lots of taxes, but after factoring in the cost of, say, education and health for their children, HMRC and the Government may not actually be coming out ahead. I would not be surprised if the HO were to consider circumscribing dependants' right to work in future, forcing husband and wife to qualify separately for permission to work here. This would give the HO more control over the sort of people who enter the UK labour market from outside the EU, and would create disincentives for those with dependants who would not be able to live well enough here on one income.
And as for further changes to tier 1, well, frankly the changes about to be implemented are rather more modest than I would have expected. Consider that, by 2010, the earnings bands will not have been adjusted even for inflation for four years. And then there's the massive sterling devaluation that has made qualifying from abroad that much easier. Also consider the PM's concern for new graduates entering the labour market: unsurprisingly, new migrants holding only a bachelor's degree have now been cut out of tier 1. But that will scarcely be enough to create sufficient room in the labour market for the new graduates, so I would not be surprised if the age points were to be cut (if not eliminated) later on, to give young people here more of a chance. They could even push up the total points threshold and raise the UK experience points, thus giving the clear advantage to those already here, and slowing the flow of new migrants to a trickle. How drastic their approach in 2010 will be, will largely depend on whether this year's changes show any discernible effect. (Whether the broader effects will be due to the changes in tier 1 or the generalised economic implosion, however, is anyone's guess).
The point of the PBS was to give the Government flexibility in raising and lowering the bar for migration, according to perceived national need. Having created the system, the Government will want to be seen to be using it (cf elections), thus scoring political points with those who have concerns about migration. The HO are likely already to have told the MAC what they broadly expect to see in 2010 --- and the MAC will go out to find the evidence to construct the 'economic case'.
AG
