Immigration and Skills – A 'Control' Explosion?

With the publication of the Government’s White Paper, “Restoring Control Over the Immigration System”, the relationship between immigration and skills is once again under the spotlight. This brings a mix of risks and opportunities to Further, Adult, and Higher Education providers. Unsurprisingly, the risks – primarily to an embattled HE sector – have already caused alarm and consternation.

The White Paper puts forward three main arguments for tightening up our immigration controls. The first is the strain uncontrolled immigration places on public services and resources; the second is the danger that a surge of immigrants into local areas can trigger the sort of breakdown in community relations – and indeed public order – that we saw in the riots last summer. But the third argument, linking immigration to skills, is now more prominent than it has been for a long time, if ever. The Prime Minister, in his foreword to the document, criticises: “perverse incentives to import workers rather than invest in our own skills”.

Central to the new approach, therefore, is the proposition that there is a causal link between immigration and skills. Failure to produce sufficient quantities of citizens with the right level of skills forces employers to import labour from elsewhere; failure to enable the right degree of access to skilled overseas workers creates crippling skills shortages and gaps.

Looking first at what is already causing dismay in the higher education sector, there are proposals to further restrict graduate visas by tightening rules around English language requirements and permitted length of stay after completing courses. Most alarming is the idea that is floated in the White Paper (there’s no detail provided) of a tax on international student recruitment. If the Government were to go down that route it would surely have to give the HE sector years of advance warning, or risk pouring fuel on the financial fires already raging in many universities.

On the positive side, there are potential opportunities for colleges and universities. Proposals to abolish the special immigration dispensation for Social Care providers appear sensible over the long term, but given the scale of the recruitment crisis in the Care sector, we urgently need support to dramatically increase the pipeline of Health & Care students FE colleges train each year and a step-change in pay levels to make this vitally important career more attractive. More broadly, requiring those applying for skilled work visas to have prior education to degree-level might provide opportunities for UK universities with overseas campuses.

The idea of requiring applicants for most visas to have English to A-level standard is not a bad one; the LEI’s 2022 report, “ESOL for Skills”, argued that recent immigrants need better access to a much higher level of ESOL education for integration and work, and  recommended a package of reforms. But we think this would be better delivered here in the UK, where tailored courses could be developed that ensure students learn practical English, including occupationally relevant spoken and written skills. Requiring those on work visas to achieve these within a specified period – a year or two  – as a condition of their continued stay, would boost ESOL provision and arguably produce more proficient English speakers and writers for the UK workplace.

The proposal to develop sector specific “workplace plans” – details to be worked out through Skills England working closely with the Migration Advisory Committee – is also welcome. Again, this is close to the “ESOL for Skills” recommendation that ESOL should be a specific strand in all LSIPs. We would hope that an increasing number of the devolved Strategic Local Authorities emerging across England will take this on board, reflecting their local labour market needs.

The notion of “taking back control” at the heart of the White Paper presents a big challenge; the essential first step is to have the right controls in place, and this requires precision engineering. A lot depends on getting the timing of proposed changes right. Recruiting skilled staff is all about flow – employers need a pool of suitable applicants and topping this up through training often takes years. While we shouldn’t be relying on the reservoir of ready-made skilled workers available from overseas, there are big risks in cutting off access to this talent pool. Skills England will surely need to maintain a back-up emergency system so that migrant recruitment can be selectively reintroduced on a temporary basis where there is clear evidence of skills shortages.

Anyone who has worked with recent immigrants to the UK will testify that the vast majority are enthusiastic, highly motivated learners with a strong incentive to learn English; still the world’s dominant language of international trade. Few would argue against the importance of better immigration control, but that should not mean adopting a negative attitude towards individuals who have a great deal to contribute economically, and who add to the cognitive diversity so vital for innovation and creativity. The hope must be that this new approach will over the long term dissipate the negative public mood around immigration and send a message - home and abroad – that global Britain continues to welcome the vibrant and productive diversity of its citizens.