The United Kingdom's post-Brexit immigration system was almost demolished by the radical reforms set out on Monday by the government of Sir Keir Starmer.
THE white paper Describe the Prime Minister's plans to revise the country's immigration system will restore work visas to graduate roles, with only close and limited routes in time for low qualification roles in the sectors with shortages.
The way to the United Kingdom to the regulations will become one of the longest in the developed world, unless migrants can prove their contribution to society. Higher costs and salary thresholds will also make the system one of the most expensive.
“These new measures, combined with those that the previous government introduced at the beginning of last year, fell most of the liberation that the post-Brexit immigration policy has brought,” said Madeleine Somper, head of the Oxford University migration observatory.
Starmer argued that an increase in the net immigration Seen since 2020, which has reached a summit above 900,000 in mid-2023, did not prevent the economy from stagnating. If anything, according to ministers, the ease of recruitment abroad was harmful, making no incentive to hire and train in the United Kingdom.
“It has left the growth of the United Kingdom, which too often depends on short-term increases and focused on immigration in labor market size, rather than a sustained increase in productivity,” said the white paper.
The Ministry of the Interior considers that the changes will reduce the number of people arriving in the UNITED KINGDOM Each year of around 100,000, although the effect on net migration is less clear, because it depends on the duration of the duration and the question of whether they are enjoyed.
Economists say that this will make little difference in both directions in growth prospects per capita in GDP – a better measure of living standards than the overall GDP growth, even if the latter is important for short -term budgetary calculations of the Treasury.
“This does not change the game for the management of GDP,” said consumption. “What he (the longer payment route) is generating much more income for the home office.”
The combination of higher costs, higher salary thresholds and a potential 10 -year wait could push the total cost of the sponsorship of a skilled worker with a partner and two children up to £ 67,000, if the employer bore the total cost, according to Nick Rollason, chief of immigration to the Kingsley Napley law firm.
The change in the mixture of migration to more qualified graduates, who pay more taxes and are less based on state support over time, could also give a little boost to public finances, according to Brian Bell, head of the government's advisory committee.
Bell said it was still far from clear how the new visa system in the sectors affected by work The shortages would work, especially when there was no sectoral organization to direct a labor strategy. But he argued that employers could become more likely to “change the structure of production” and to offer jobs accessible to those outside the labor market – an objective of crucial ministers policy – because they had to be the subject of visa surveys for low qualification work.
But there will be a short -term shock for sectors that are most based on work abroad, in particular for care providers who are faced with an immediate closure of the visa route, and a expectation of three years for the government to formulate a policy on the long -term financing of the sector.
Care visa applications are already strongly lowered due to the ban on workers brought to the family to the United Kingdom and a more severe examination of employers.
“It seems that this government deliberately targets the care sector to make things as difficult as possible for us,” said Josh Hawker, Operations Head at Ablecare Homes in Bristol, noting that changes have been able to increases the employer's national insurance and the minimum wage.
“It could be a good policy to increase the remuneration and conditions in the social care sector, but it is difficult to see how it does not cost you money,” said Jonathan Portes, professor at King's College, in London, adding: “How much it will cost and who pays? It is either the taxpayer or the people who are in care and their children.”
For universities, the changes announced to post-study visas were less drastic than fearing the sector, because international students will always be able to work in any job for 18 months after completing their course. But there was a bite in the tail. Universities will not only have to do more for the police with immigration rules, but could also face a 6% levy on their income from international students.
“The idea of ​​a levy on international students will be deeply controversial … A tax will be considered by many as a tax on a very successful export sector,” said Nick Hillman, director of Higher Education Policy Institute.
Meanwhile, for political strategists and labor deputies, the greatest concern was not the economic impact of changes, but the message that Starmer sent, in particular by its warning that the United Kingdom could become a “island of foreigners” and its suggestion that migration had made “countless damage” in the country.
Robert Ford, professor of political science at the University of Manchester, said that he thought that Starmer’s framing was “absolutely disastrous”.
“They chose to direct with the strongest possible 'Nigel Farage is right, do not vote for him' ', he said, adding that Starmer could have opted instead a migrant story that immigration brings many gains but must be controlled to maximize its advantages.
“We potentially add more costs to companies by making things more difficult and more expensive to recruit. We also say that Reform UK is right,” said a work deputy. “Being the food version does not win you when the full fat option is available.”
