Establishing a migration advisory committee

Home Office IND consultation

January 2007 

Q1. Do we need a new independent body to advise Government on migration?

Law Centre (NI) would agree with the sentiments expressed by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that an advisory committee on managed migration could be a useful way of independently establishing appropriate levels of economic migration into the UK - but only if the Committee’s Terms of Reference ensures that it is truly independent and representative of a range of stakeholders, and emphasises and enshrines the fact that the figures it is projecting on migrants are human beings with rights. Above all, its task of determining optimum levels of migration will be impossible if the irregular migrant population already present is not taken into account through a regularisation scheme.

Q2. Should the new body (if there is one) be called the Migration Advisory Committee?

We believe the name is acceptable while the aim of the Committee is to advise on how best to facilitate migration into the UK. On our reading of the consultation paper, our concern is that the Committee could be interpreted as a body with the aim of advising on severely limiting migration into the UK.  If this were to be the case the name would be Orwellian in nature.  To prevent this we would urge the government to set out clearly how the Committee’s advice would help facilitate migration into the UK.  Law Centre (NI) would suggest this could be best achieved by ensuring an independent and representative membership including trade unions, NGOs, representatives from the CBI and small business and regional representation (again, in the form of NGOs, trade unions and employers) working to clearly defined terms of reference that allow for the benefits of migration to be explored fully and that respects the vast contribution migrants make to the cultural, social and economic well-being of the UK. 

Q3. Do you agree that the MAC should advise us on what package of skills and attributes people should have in order to come to the UK in categories leading to settlement and to bring dependants to the UK?

Unless the benefits of migration are recognised as being more than that gained from acquiring a new economic unit, we believe the MAC will not be able to best advise the government on the skills and attributes required for settlement and bringing dependents into the UK.  Migrants bring far more to the UK, and particularly Northern Ireland, than just a skill set.  In Northern Ireland we have seen the regeneration of communities, like South Tyrone and industries, most notably agriculture, as well as the clear benefits from the cultural interaction of migrants with the existing Northern Irish communities.  Equally, many migrants pay taxes without accessing services and send money to their country of origin in amounts that far outstrips the amount of aid the UK spends annually.  Law Centre (NI) would argue for the government to task the MAC to take the most comprehensive approach to understanding the benefits of migration in advising on the requirements for settlement and bringing dependents into the UK.  This would initially provide a mandate for the Committee to compile an independent review of the levels of immigration; the benefits this migration has brought to the UK (not limited to economic measures); an assessment of the impact of emigration from the UK; a focus on the secondary benefits of migration (e.g. the benefit to countries of origin from migration such as that from the remitting of wages) and an assessment of the dangers of a ‘reactionary’ approach to migration policy such as the validation of prejudices and the encouragement of illegal practices.

Q4. How can the MAC best advise us on when migration is the best way of meeting gaps in skilled employment?

It is widely recognized that migration benefits the UK and stimulates the job market through economic growth.  We believe that economic migration should be facilitated for the benefit of the UK socially, economically and culturally.  In so doing the fears and prejudice being raised in the current immigration debate will prove to be largely unfounded.  Therefore we would suggest that the best way the MAC could advise the government with respect to skilled migration is on how best to facilitate it.  We would suggest that if the membership is broadly as we set out in our response to question 10, the Committee

should be able to report accurately to the government on the areas where migration is needed most.  We believe that the Committee should be able to report directly to the Home Secretary or Minister of State for immigration; that it should do so on a regular basis and that it should have the power to develop its advice not only from the experiences of its membership and analyzing economic data, but also by having the remit to research, analyze and investigate the situation with respect to migration throughout the UK.

Q5. How can the MAC best advise us on when migration is the best way of meeting gaps in lower-skilled employment? 

We believe that to achieve this goal the Committee needs not only to follow the points set out above in question 4 but may also wish to draw, particularly, on the advice of its union representation.  However, to achieve this goal, the Committee should be tasked, as one of its first objectives, with advising the government on how best to deal with the plight of the many undocumented migrants trapped in the UK, often in conditions of economic serfdom.  In so doing the Government would begin to address the challenge posed by illegal traffickers and exploiters who are regularly exposed in the national media, alleviate the suffering of many people (often women and often abused) and send a message that the UK is prepared to lead in upholding the dignity of individuals.

Q6. Should the MAC take into account the economic, fiscal and wider impacts when giving us advice on where migrants might fill gaps?

We believe that focusing purely on economic issues when deciding the levels of migrants while important, does not produce a fair picture of the benefits of migration.  We recommend that a fully independent committee should be required to look beyond economic and fiscal measures and consider the cultural and social benefits of migration while also focussing on the need to prevent society fracturing into tiers with those at the lower levels being treated as economic commodities rather than people entitled to the full range of human rights that anyone else in the UK would be able to access.  By actively promoting and protecting migrants there will not only be a boost for the economy of the UK but also its reputation.

Q7. Should the MAC provide advice on regional as well as national skills shortages?

Law Centre (NI) believes it is vital for the Committee to be able to reflect both regional and national situations.  Indeed this is particularly important for Northern Ireland given that it is the only part of the UK with a land border with another EU Member State, while at the same time being separated from the rest of the UK by the Irish Sea. Similarly, as is the case in Scotland, migration has brought demonstrable benefits; migrants have boosted a number of Northern

Irish industries (such as agriculture, food processing, tourism and hospitality) and helped regenerate communities across Northern Ireland.  Also given the ageing demographic pattern within Northern Ireland there will be an ongoing and increasing need for people of working age to take up jobs (particularly in sectors such as health and caring) if the Northern Irish economy is to remain as healthy and vibrant as it is currently.  We would recommend that to reflect these different regional priorities of the UK there should be greater flexibility, within a UK framework, for negotiation on immigration policy between central and devolved government bodies. However, as we are aware that this currently is not an option being discussed by the Home Office, we would strongly argue for a Committee that not only could provide advice on regional aspects of immigration, but also had strong regional representative membership to fully reflect the needs of their areas.

Q8. Should the MAC advise Government in relation to migration for skilled employment as set out in paragraphs 2.6 – 2.11 of the consultation document?

While believing an independent MAC could greatly contribute to the discussion on the benefits of migration and the best ways to facilitate and integrate migration within the UK we would suggest that there are flaws in the arguments set out in sections 2.6-2.11, detailing the treatment of highly skilled migrants.  Most notably we would comment that the argument as set out in 2.8 on shortage occupations is without

any reference to the fact that throughout much of the world in the last six years there have been periods of considerable recession yet despite this, there has been no corresponding significant increase in labour from outside the EU, or any significant rise in the UK levels of unemployment attributable to immigration.  Indeed, the only noticeable effect has been that unlike many countries with stricter immigration laws, the UK has ridden out the period without suffering from recession.  Given this experience, to now adopt the practices which have so ill served our ‘competitor nations’ would be to hand back a competitive advantage that has been so obviously benefited from.  It is our recommendation that the MAC be specifically tasked with advising the Government on how best to facilitate migration into the UK in a way that benefits both migrants and those already resident in the UK.

Q9. Should the MAC advise Government on migration issues in respect of lower-skilled employment as set out in paragraph 2.12 of the consultation document?

It is our belief that restricting the access to lower skilled jobs to applicants from Romania and Bulgaria only is discriminatory (as are the restrictions placed on the access to UK job market for nationals from these countries).  While this policy may or may not be objectively justified for legal purposes Law Centre (NI) firmly believe that restricting the scope of a fully independent MAC, whose composition should be as set out below (question 10), would greatly

undermine the efficacy of the MAC while at the same time imparting little, if any benefit, to the UK.  It is our opinion that the MAC should have the ability to examine all aspects of the migration of unskilled workers and advise the government on methods to best integrate these workers into the UK irrespective of their country of origin.

Q10. What kinds of people should be represented on the MAC? 

Law Centre (NI) believes that the proposed advisory committee will only be able to accurately predict migration need by consisting of representative organisations. To gain and be able to present a balanced and objective view on the migration situation for the UK, a range of groups should be represented on the Committee and this should include regional representation as well as representation from Unions, industry, the community and voluntary sector, agriculture and local authorities.  This would, we believe, allow for the specific migration needs of Northern Ireland (as set out in our response to question 11) to be reflected in the advice provided by the Committee.

One further factor which we believe has not been addressed within the consultation paper is how the proposed MAC would work in relation to the Sector Skills Councils.  We would note there are potential areas of overlap in the respective remits of the two bodies.  It is our concern that without explicit terms of reference there may be duplication in the work from both and potentially even contradictory advice emanating from them. We would welcome clarification from the Immigration & Nationality Directorate on this point.
 

Q11. Should the MAC be able to commission research, within a limited budget?

Yes.  We believe that to accurately portray the issues surrounding migration the MAC should be tasked to research the non-economic benefits of migration, remedies to perceived issues surrounding migration (such as whether stronger enforcement of employment laws would benefit not only migrants - often the victims of exploitation and poor wages - but also existing workers who otherwise may feel negative wage pressures) and the regionally different experiences and impacts of migration (this would allow the MAC to advise the government on those areas that would benefit from more relaxed immigration controls.