• wages and unemployment • productivity • innovation • training • consumer prices • house prices • public finances • allocation of public resources • public services • crime • subjective well-being.
While the Committee believe that EEA migration has had impacts, many of them seem to be small in magnitude when set against other changes. The small overall impacts mean that EEA migration as a whole has had neither the large negative effects claimed by some nor the clear benefits claimed by others. There are ways in which migration policy could be changed to increase the benefits and reduce the costs and the policy recommendations made in this report focus on what the Committee believe these changes should be. • If immigration is not to be part of the negotiations with the EU (MAC not recommending this) and the UK is deciding its future migration system in isolation, it recommends moving to a system in which all migration is managed with no preferential access to EU citizens. This would mean ending free movement which would not make the UK unusual – for example, Canada has an open, welcoming approach to migration but no free movement agreement with any other country. The problem with free movement is that it leaves migration to the UK solely up to migrants, and UK residents have no control over the level and mix of migration. With free movement there can be no guarantee that migration is in the interests of UK residents but this does not mean that free movement is guaranteed to cause problems – that likely depends on the level and mix of the migration flows that result. The recommendations relate only to work migration, though leaving the EU also requires consideration of family and student migration. The existing Tier 2 (General) scheme can provide a useful template but the Committee does recommend changes to it: • The cap should be abolished – it creates uncertainty among employers and it makes little sense for a migrant to be perceived as of value one day and not the next which is what inevitably happens when the cap binds. • The scheme be extended to workers in medium-skilled jobs recognising that harmful skills shortages might otherwise occur. • The existing salary thresholds should remain unchanged. For lower-skilled workers, the Committee do not see the need for a work-related scheme with the possible exception of a seasonal agricultural workers scheme; as that labour market is totally distinct from the labour market for resident workers. This does not mean there would be no supply of low-skilled migrant workers – most of the existing stock would remain and there would likely be a continued flow through family migration or the existing youth mobility scheme. The Committee does not express a view on whether immigration should be part of the EU negotiations.
If there is to be low-skilled work route the Committee do not think it should be based around sectors: an extended youth mobility scheme would be preferable, as is suggested in the Government White Paper published in July.
The Committee is seriously concerned about social care but this sector needs a policy wider than just migration policy to fix its many problems. This is one illustration of a more general point that the impacts of migration often depend on other government policies and should not be seen in isolation from the wider context. Although the restrictions suggested are not intended to affect high-skilled migration, there is a danger that this becomes collateral damage as the system tries to restrict other types of migration. The report recommends that the Government does what it can to reduce the bureaucratic burden of the system and engages in a more systematic way with users of the system to ensure it is fit for purpose.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 155 of 598
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker