Juan Camilo explains why restricting settlement for skilled migrant workers might not be a wise idea

The pledge to bring down net migration to tens of thousands has turned out to be a headache for the Conservative party leading the coalition government. Because net migration reflects the difference between the number of people moving into Britain and those moving out, the Government faces significant challenges in its attempt to bring it down to a fixed target.First, the Government cannot restrict the movement of EU citizens, so it has to focus exclusively on non-EU migrants in order to achieve its goal. Yet changes in migration patterns of EU citizens can significantly alter the figures in unexpected ways, scuppering the efforts made on other fronts.

Second, if the number of people leaving the UK goes down, net migration figures can go up even if the number of arrivals remains the same. This seems to be precisely what is happening: fewer British people are leaving the UK than in previous years and the number of East European migrants returning to their countries has been lower than expected.Therefore, the net migration figure actually went up in 2010 despite tighter immigration rules imposed through the interim cap on non-EU migrant workers.The net migration figure for 2010 stands at more than double the Conservative party’s aim, at 239,000. So in order to stand a chance of achieving its goal by 2015 the coalition government has to look at the full range of options for reducing the numbers of non-EU people coming to the UK and increasing the numbers leaving the country.

Part of this drive has been capping the number of highly skilled workers (Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points Based System). However, reducing the number of non-EU migrants entering the UK will not be enough to reach the target and the Government is now looking at increasing the number of migrants leaving the UK by restricting settlement rights. Specifically, the Government has laid out plans to restrict the options for skilled migrants to settle in the UK.The restrictions focus on Tier 2 of the Points Based System, i.e. skilled migrants who come to the UK with a job offer. For 2011/12 the limit of Tier 2 (General) visas was set at 20,700. In summary, Government is proposing to categorise all Tier 2 migrants as ‘temporary’, making exceptions for a very limited number who would become eligible to switch into a permanent visa once in the UK. The majority of Tier 2 workers would be expected to leave after five years, driving the net migration number down. But is it really sensible to target this group of migrants by restricting their ability to settle?

The proposals to withdraw the option of settlement from Tier 2 workers seems unfair to prospective migrants. Government argues that it will make clear to applicants that their stay is temporary and they will be expected to leave once it is finished. Migrants will be expected to come to the UK on the understanding that their stay will be temporary. However, five years is a significant period in time in which personal and family plans can change significantly.In this period of time people can settle down and become attached to the new place. Their children may grow up with a sense of belonging to the UK and may be affected by abreak in their education, making parents reluctant to move out. Skilled migrant workers will be contributing to their employers and therefore the British economy; they will be paying taxes and into pension pots, and yet they will be expected to leave without being able to access some of the benefits accrued from these contributions. Workers with a good track record within a business and with a career ahead will see their progress trumped as they have to leave the country. People’s lives and career prospects will therefore be undermined by immigration policy even if their performance is good. Removing the flexibility to have the option to settle is failing to acknowledge that personal plans can change significantly in a lapse of five years and that what was expected to be a temporary sojourn can be transformed into a desire for a more permanent stay.

In the present context, however, these arguments have little purchase with Government or the wider public. The overriding concern is reducing immigration, not the circumstances of individual migrants. So what about the economic argument? Does it make economic sense for the UK to introduce these changes? The first point is that Tier 2 migrants are, by definition, workers that the UK economy labour market needs and does not have. They are either qualified in professions with a short supply of workers or recruited after an employer can show they have been unable to recruit within the EU. Second, because of the nature of their work, skilled workers tend to be net fiscal contributors and therefore pay more in taxes than they take in services. These are, therefore, workers that are needed and that make a positive economic contribution.

The private sector, on which the hopes of an economic recovery are pinned, is particularly reliant on the skills of these workers: in the most recent quarterly labour market outlook survey 25% of employers stated that they were planning to recruit migrant workers (continuing an upward trend in the proportion of those planning to do so) but the private sector is the main driver of recruitment of foreign nationals doubling the public sector (32% vs. 15%). Regionally London has the highest proportion of employers planning to hire from abroad (40%) confirming the demand for migrant workers within London´s private sector economy, itself the economic powerhouse of the country.So these workers are clearly needed by the British economy. Government argues that they can still come but will be in-country only for a limited time-period. However, UK-based businesses are competing for international workers with businesses from across the world and the attractiveness and barriers of moving to the UK will be a factor in the decisions of workers on where to move.

As emerging economies become stronger they are joining the traditional world economic centres in this competition for global talent. In future China, India and the Middle East will be increasingly aiming to attract skilled labour from the same pool of international workers as the UK. States have often sought to restrict the rights of low-skilled migrants, frequently giving them only temporary leave, while seeking to attract high-value migrants by making their migration easier. With the new proposals the UK seems to be going the other way and actually putting restrictions on skilled migrant workers. The key question becomes what weight do skilled workers give to restrictions such as the opportunity to settle when deciding between working in one country or another?

If the UK becomes less attractive for skilled workers at the same time that other countries are competing for that pool of labour then in the future there is a risk that the current set of regulations will end up harming the economic potential of the UK.

Ellen tell us about your background relating to migration, being born in and relocating back to the UK after living in various African countries.

Although I was born in the UK, my parents - my father worked for the Zambian High Commission in the UK - went back to Zambia soon after my birth so I grew up in Zambia. I only came back to the UK as an adult after I had obtained my first degree from the University of Zambia.

In your novel Patchwork, the protagonist as a child was envied by Zambian children for her father’s international travel and later for her life as a student abroad, yet as an adult returning to Africa she was scorned for the loss of her culture. In your experience, and in general, do you think migrating has overall positive effects in terms of identity and belonging?

Exposure to other cultures is always positive as it makes one understand and become more tolerant to other ways of life. For me, it has been very positive, perhaps because I came to the UK as an adult so my foundation as to who I am in terms of identity and belonging was already laid. For this reason I was able to integrate in the UK without losing who I am. If my parents had stayed on in the UK I think it would have been very hard for them to raise me as a Zambian, remember it was the 1960’s so the UK was not as multicultural as it is today.  

Having lived in multi-cultural countries like South Africa and the UK, do you view multiculturalism in a positive light or do you agree with the controversial statement “state multiculturalism has failed”?

As the world becomes more global, multiculturalism now exists in most cosmopolitan cities in the world. Most of these cities have not gone up in flames or ceased to exist, on the contrary they are becoming more and more multicultural. I think it is a positive thing as it enriches us as people when we live with and learn about other cultures.

With the recent riots across England escalating to community grievances i.e. English Defence League and the Black and Asian gang warfare, and reflecting on the history of Asians and Europeans living amongst Black Zambian’s, what do you suggest for a harmonious multi-cultural society?

It is up to individual families and communities to instil a sense of culture and identity in their children. This could be through ensuring the children learn the language, the customs, the food etc. of their culture. However, I believe that if one chooses to migrate one should be prepared to integrate, and also appreciate that by settling in another country they are accepting that they will inevitably assume some of the culture that exists in the place they have migrated to. It is this acceptance or acknowledgement that fosters a harmonious multi-cultural society.

With cuts to public services and as a mother and children’s story writer, how do you address ways to empower young people through literary programmes, particularly in the face of the issue of social exclusion of disenfranchised youth and declining literacy rates?

There is no way round it, to improve literacy rates and empower our youth, money and investment is needed. More literary programmes, not only for children, but for the many adults who have fallen through the cracks are essential. There is a need to invest in public services for well-equipped schools and public libraries. We need to encourage society to ‘value’ education and literacy and not just send children off to school to get them out of the house.

What writing tips can you recommend to young people with creative talent, and are you running or planning any programmes for targeted communities in the UK?

I would encourage young people to read a lot and to find the time and space to write. I think a lot of aspiring writers don’t get around to writing because they don’t make the time for it. So it is important to make time, ideally, on a daily basis to write something creative. Also, to keep a journal as it’s a good way to practise putting ones thoughts into words.

What can we expect from your future work, more children’s stories, adult novels or another genre?

I am working on a play and plan to start working on a book for young teens later this year.

The voluntary sector cuts risk undermining the very idea of the Big Society, as reduced services will affect London poorest areas and its most vulnerable communities. Gary Buswell reports

Following the heavy cuts in spending to the public sector back in the spring, the government’s axe has now fallen on the very sector we were led to believe would be picking up the slack as the state rolled itself back: the third sector consisting of voluntary and community organisations that make up the so-called Big Society.

Research published by False Economy has shown that over 2,000 charity groups in England have had government funding slashed, with many losing the full 100 per cent of their funding. A hefty 110 million has been sliced from the voluntary sector budget. With data still to be collected from several local councils, the final figure will be even higher.These cuts shed some light on the government’s commitment to t he “Big Society”. When the plan to reduce public spending was announced, David Cameron deflected a lot of the negative press by highlighting the role of charities and volunteering in filling the gap in service provision. But a study by London-based LVSC found that 51 per centof voluntary organizations in the capital have had to close services in the past year despite increasing demand. Furthermore, although demand for volunteering has increased, the capacity to support volunteers has decreased.
Worryingly, both these studies suggest that, as with the public sector cuts, the reduction in funding and services are disproportionately affecting poorer areas.In London, boroughs such as Hackney, Bromley and Waltham Forest have each lost millions in funding. Among those hit are numerous small refugee and migrant groups along with organisations supporting volunteering.

However, it is charities supporting children and young people who have been the most affected.
One such charity is The Crib, an organisation based in Hackney that works with 11-24 year olds who are NEET (not in education, employment or training) or at risk of offending.
The Crib offers support and advice to young people and runs projects aimed at raising their ambitions and building relationships between them and their communities. They work closely with local police, schools and elderly community groups.Third sector cuts have meant that the organisation has lost 75 per cent of its public funding, equating to over 200,000 pounds a year.Project manager Janette Collins says that they have yet to secure alternative funding despite facing rising demand for services.
“We are constantly asked to help out in high anti-social behaviour areas” she said. “We used to run three youth clubs in areas of high gang violence but due to cutbacks we’ve gone from working with 200-plus young people a quarter to working with 16”.

It’s not hard to see how all this intensifies the general impact of the cuts. Back in March I wrote how the spending cuts were likely to increase poverty, unemployment and crime. Poverty figures are unlikely to be available for a while, but latest unemployment figures show a rise of 38,000 unemployed between March and June this year. Unemployment stands at nearly 8 per cent. The number of males aged 16-24 unemployed is around one in four, and a study by the Institute of Public Policy Research suggests that nearly 50 per cent of black British 16-24 year-old males are out of work.

Another study funded by O2 found that a quarter of 16-24 year-olds are depressed about their employment prospects. Then, in August, we had the riots. Now, one must be mindful of making over-simplistic assumptions about the complex causes of these events. To say they were determined by the cuts would be foolish, but Cameron’s attempts to blame them on simple “criminality” is equally so. They cannot be seen in isolation from the reduction of public and third sector youth services and the impact this is having.
Collins’ organisation works in one of the boroughs most affected by the riots. “The reoffending rate with our young people has risen. Young people feel like there is no hope” she says. “We had to close one of our centres that housed 64 young people every Friday night. Young people engaged in cooking, music and fashion workshops. We also delivered family support and CV writing. Young people feel let down by the council and are unable to understand the reasons for the cuts”. Another organisation affected is The Peace Alliance, a multi-agency organisation consisting of faith groups, community leaders and the police working to reduce crime and promote cohesion in Tottenham, Haringey. Haringey is one of the most diverse boroughs in London. It is also facing some of the most severe public sector cuts. It has the highest unemployment rate in London. 75 per cent of the youth service budget was recently cut and 8 out of the borough’s 13 youth centres were shut down. Tottenham was the area where the recent rioting first broke out. The Peace Alliance is facing a reduction of 63 per cent of public funding and has yet to find alternative financial means.

According to Reverend Nims Obunge, Chief Executive of the Alliance, the organisation is working flat out and is struggling to rebuild community relations in the aftermath of the riots.
“Of course we have had to reduce our services, like many other organisations in a similar situation. But it’s no use complaining about what’s happened and how difficult things are. We must remain strong. I have faith in the goodwill of volunteers in this community”.

The government has defended its actions by stating that charities must become less dependent on state funding and seek out other alternatives. But where? Funders such as trusts and the national lottery are already heavily over-subscribed and to make up the deficit there would need to be 6.6 million new private donors, or existing donors would need to give an extra 32 pounds each. Interestingly, the government has just announced a new Transforming Local Infrastructure model for charities. This promotes a social enterprise approach, encouraging streamlining and merging among organisations.

So perhaps the ultimate legacy of Cameron’s Big Society will be that charities end up behaving more like private businesses.

Jaffar al-Hasabi was tortured in Bahrain for distributing leaflets which called for democratic reforms and equal rights. Interview by Eva Sanchis

Before the Arab Spring reached Bahrain in February a crackdown on political activists was already underway in the small Gulf state, ruled by the Sunni Al Khalifa dynasty. It was 10 p.m. on a hot August night during Ramadan last year when security officials arrested Jaffar al-Hasabi at Bahrain International Airport as he returned from a holiday with his family.

The 39-year-old father of five said he was jailed and tortured for six months, during which time he was beaten, kept suspended, deprived of sleep, given electric shocks and forced to sign a confession. He was accused of terrorism and plotting to overthrow the government, charges that he denies and that could have resulted in a death sentence.

Al-Hasabi was among 23 Bahraini activists arrested in a clampdown ahead of parliamentary elections last year. That was not the first time he had been detained by the Bahraini government. In 1995 he applied for asylum in the UK after he was tortured in Bahrain for distributing leaflets which called for democratic reforms and equal rights for the Shia Muslim majority to which he belongs.

Since then, the computer technician and minicab driver has been living in London with his family, and after 2005 started to visit Bahrain again occasionally.  He became a British national in 2009.

Al-Hasabi and other detainees were finally released under royal pardons at the height of the uprising on February 23rd, following calls from protesters for their release. The other detainees also said that they had been tortured, charges that the government denied. Shortly after his release Al-Hasabi returned to the UK, but most of the others were detained again in the crackdown that followed the protests. When I recently met Al-Hasabi, who is now receiving assistance from REDRESS, the NGO I work for which helps survivors of torture, he said he is still experiencing pain in his back and that he feels weak most of the time. During the interview he talked about how he came to Britain, his latest detention and the uprising in Bahrain.

Why did you apply for asylum in 1995? I was working as a computer technician in Bahrain and through my small business we had been distributing leaflets, just collecting speeches from different people that called for democratic reforms and a constitution. I was arrested and tortured severely. When I was released the authorities followed me for more than three months. One morning I heard that my friends had been rounded up. I fled the country that afternoon.

Why were you arrested again in August of last year? After my father died in 2005 I started going to Bahrain again to see my family. I never had any difficulties until on August 16, when I came back from a visit to Iran with my mother and two daughters, I was arrested by security forces at the airport. They took my passport, my mobile, my watch, everything; they blindfolded and handcuffed me and took me to a prison called The Fort in Manama, where I was interrogated and tortured for nearly 40 days. They accused me of being a terrorist and getting money from a foreign country to plot against the government. They wanted me to confess to something I hadn’t done, so they tortured me and kept asking me the same questions. Then they moved me to another prison outside Manama, where the worst of the torture stopped, but I still had to beg to go to the toilet and I could not sleep because the guards would bang on the cell to wake me up.

What was the most terrifying moment during your detention?

The isolation, the beatings, and the fear every day that I was going to die… When you are blindfolded all the time, and you can’t see, and you are inside a small cell in the basement, it’s scary.

Why were you released? What happened after that?

Because the government came under pressure from the UK and because the Arab Spring started in Tunisia and Egypt and then happened in Bahrain and after that in Yemen and Libya… The pressure was so great they couldn’t resist it. People were protesting on the streets. If they had kept us in jail for any longer it would have backfired on them. But when they cracked down on the revolution on March 15th they came to look for us. I had already left the country, but they took most of the other activists and now they are in jail. Two or three people are in hiding. Luckily I’m here, but I’m worried about them.

Do you think that they are being tortured?

Of course they are being tortured, and more severely. Four detainees died in recent months in jail. They can’t kill political figures, but they are being tortured severely. One of them can’t move his arms as a result of the electric shocks. Another, who is disabled, was forced to crawl to the toilet because they wouldn’t give him his crutches. Now they have been sentenced to life in prison. The government has called an international committee to investigate torture, but the crackdown on the street, the revenge by the regime against the people is severe. More than 33 people have been killed on the streets and more than 3,000 have been sacked from their jobs, so thousands of families are suffering. The government released 147 detainees a few days ago, but there are still more than one thousand people in jail. Everybody is scared, but people are continuing the uprising against the regime, because if they stop, they’ll never get reform.
What political reforms would you like to see in Bahrain?The people of Bahrain should write their own constitution, rule themselves and elect their government, because we have been living in a military or police state since independence from Britain 40 years ago. People are scared when they go in or out of the country. We want to end this police state. We want democracy and we want the people not to be scared any more.

Do you have hope that the situation in Bahrain will change?

It could change if the international community and the UN apply more pressure. It could also change if America and Britain stop their double standards. They are protecting the regime and the royal family because they are their friends. They don’t care about the people being killed or about the crackdown. My hope is that because the new generation is more educated and new technology makes people more aware these days of what is happening in these countries, hopefully one day we will see these killers and torturers facing the same fate as Hosni Mubarak, being tried and facing jail.