Cable criticising the temporary cap in reply to 'Stick that on your blog!'

If you read the headlines you may think that Vince Cable, Business Secretary is criticising the Cap on immigration, well if you look at the detail your see its the temporary and arbitrary cap that he is criticising.

 

I was emailed this today by someone who works in IT;

 

'So the Lib Dems lost my support and vote yesterday when Vince Cable again insisted that a cap on non-eu immigration would hurt businesses who cannot recruit the right staff. He is missing the point. As far as businesses are concerned they cannot recruit staff AS CHEAPLY AS THEY WOULD LIKE. Surely the right way forward is to ensure graduates in this country are trained to be able to meet demand for jobs here, including company sponsored and maybe govt subsidised schemes? Nothing wrong with a bit of investing in your future is there?

 

I would imagine that Mr Cable's policy would ensure IT graduates will be the highest percentage of the post-graduate unemployed community, if they are not already. Am I missing something here? I thought economics worked like this:

 

High GDP from local populace = ability to spend and help business grow + good tax revenue (- overcrowding) = good services and a nice place to live / high house prices.

 

however

 

High GDP - lower paid workers from outside EU x additional drain on local services - watered down tax revenues + overcrowding - graduate employment = not a good place to live or have prospects.

 

Stick that on your blog!'

 

 

 

It is not wrong to say that some companies are considering moving jobs abroad because they could not recruit the staff they needed, when some of those companies moved here because of our employment laws. Cable is right campaign for the cap to be applied flexibly. It need to be much more targeted and clever, its too simple.

 

He's not alone in thinking this politicians from all main parties like Shadow Business Secretary Pat McFadden and Conservative mayor of London, Boris Johnson have also raised the issue.

 

Readers of my blog will know that I have covered this subject a few times, we need to protect jobs in Britain from on shoring of cheaper labour. I am not against immigration just wait to see a fair system. Immigration effects not just low paid jobs but professional jobs too. We must also bear in mind that emigration is part of this equation and to be a global player you need a certain amount of free movement of people just like in the EU.

 

In response to the above email I also received this reply;

 

'The temporary cap has disproportionately hit legitimate businesses and organisations that use only a small number of migrants workers, employ mainly UK workers and pay UK corporation tax. It does not affect the main abusers using intra company transfer visas.

 

I have 3 points to raise.

 

A) The distribution of tier 2 general certificates of sponsorship should consider the value of the sponsor. Those sponsors that mostly employ UK workers and pay the most UK corporation tax should have preference over those that don't. If a new business is going to employ a hundred UK workers but needs a couple migrant workers to start up then it should be allowed to bring those in. If a business plans to bring in 500 "engineers" then I would want to know why.

 

B) The tier 2 intra company transfer is not covered by the cap but is the most open to abuse.

 

C) Tier 2 migrant workers are tied to their employers and this seems a very illiberal way to run things. It is open to abuse and underpaying. Less than 1% of businesses have sponsorship licenses, so only a small group benefit from the system. If these workers are so vital to the UK then they should be able to move employers to give the maximum benefit to the economy. However many are doing low paid work (e.g. chefs on £8.40 per hour and care workers on £7.80 per hour) and they are likely to leave and do other better paid work (e.g. driving a taxi), so there really needs to be a lower UK salary limit of say £32k (median skilled worker salary) on tier 2. '

 

 

In the good old days companies would want to be here because of the skill and dynamism of the workforce. I still believe that is a valid pull.

 

Unfortunately the cap is the only thing on the table and the iterim/temporary cap is the first instance of that. It will cause problems.

The best thing about the cap is that it will force the government, business etc to choose what is best for the UK and implement rules that support this. 

 

Today's link is to Stephen Tall who also has 3 points to make in FT interview: Immigrant cap hits economy, says Cable

Immigration - What to say on the doorstep

There is no doubt the the Liberal Democrats are about to have a whole world of hurt directed at them. I'm sure it's about to get really nasty for the Liberal Democrats.

One issue that the parties will attack the Lib Dems over is that hot potato Immigration. What the papers are calling an amnesty for illegal migrants.

However Lib Dem policy on immigration is not an amnesty or all illegal immigrants as is being quoted in the news today. It's is not relax as it says in the Daily Mail today but it is sensible and brave.

The policy is;

1.reintroduce exit checks immediately.

2.co-ordinated National Border Force with police powers

3.A regional points-based system to ensure migrants go where they are needed.

4.Allow asylum seekers to work.

5.Give responsibility to an independent agency.

6.burden proportionally between EU member states.

7.Focus deportation efforts on criminals – letting law-abiding families earn citizenship.

The 7th one is the most controversial point. the full policy explaination is;

'It would take years and cost us £8bn to deport all those who are living in Britain illegally. Some of them are criminals and people-traffickers. Others are families who have been here for years, and just want to work and pay their taxes. Immigration officers are focusing on families because they’re easy targets, letting criminals off the hook. We would allow people who have been in Britain for 10 years, speak English, have a clean record and want to live here long-term to earn citizenship. That way, immigration officers can spend all their time deporting dangerous people and checking up on employers to stop illegal working.'

The fact is that these people have already put down roots and will be here for 10 years more. We can't find illegal immigrants because they are hiding or are being forced to work for criminals. So in the mean time they are not paying taxes and are hiding away from society. It cost £11,000 to deport one person on average and that person may come back. We can't afford it even if we did find them. They are not being given a amnesty but a chance to earn citizenship. This is not offered to everyone but only to families because of issues like child slave labour.

No government will beable to find all the illegal immigrants or indeed stop illegal immigrants from coming as long as our borders are not tight enough. He have to start with a clean slate. If say UKIP froze migration they would find a massive increase in illegal migration as demand for cheap labour escalated. There would also be a hugh increase in false asylum claims that a UKIP government would still have deal with.

Migration is not that easy to fix or reduce so seting out markers and geting some long term illegal immigrants to pay tax makes sence.

I mention UKIP because a guy came up to me in Bracknell town while campaigning last saturday.

He said "let me tell you the problem with this country"

I said "Immigration".

He said "Yeah yeah immigration" He pulled out his Daily Mail and showed my an article in it.

I said "look we have policies on immigration"

He said "I don't care your all the same"

I said well "If you don't look you wont know"

He said "I'm voting UKIP so you can just F'off! He walked away at this point.

I said "your a good advert for UKIP!"


Anyway I do understand how angry people get on this subject people tell me all the time and my girl friend works for immigration in the Home Office so I know a fair amount about the issues of trying to send people back (this can't be done to some countries as they will not accept them and not allow your plane to land).

On the Doorstep I would say 'We are not asking for everyone to be part of an amnesty just those that have been year for 10 years and are unlikely to leave. We won't know who these people are unless we offer them the right to gain citizenship otherwise they will continue to work for criminal gangs and we will continue to have this hidden underclass in our society. Is it not a good idea to cut the slave labour offered to the criminal gangs but cutting of their supply of labour? To solve the problems of immigration we have to be radical and brave and should not hide away from it because of popularist politics that won't solve our problems.


Liberal Democrats full policy on immigration can be found here