Starting a national conversation on immigration
By: Royal Society of Chemistry Director of Science and Communities, Jo Reynolds
The Immigration White Paper, released this week, outlines the Government’s intentions for a future immigration system post-Brexit but concerns remain for chemical sciences.
Mobility for scientists and researchers is a key concern for the science and innovation community in relation to the Brexit debate. This week we finally learned the Government’s intentions for immigration once freedom of movement ends.
Early indications were positive. In May of this year, the Prime Minister stated: "The UK will always be open to the brightest and the best researchers to come and make their valued contribution… When we leave the European Union, I will ensure that does not change". Skills are at the forefront of policymakers minds; encouraging words for our community.
The importance of mobility
We have consistently said that for the UK to remain a global leader in science and innovation and thrive as a scientific community, a future immigration system must be flexible; low cost and light-touch in regulation; cater for short and long-term research postings; and present a welcoming and open attitude. To capitalise on opportunities for new knowledge and ideas, innovation, and improvements in health and the environment (to name just a few), chemical sciences must have access to the necessary skills that lie only in the hands of very few scientists from around the world. Without access to vital skills, opportunities are lost. This is why freedom of movement for EU citizens has worked so favourably for UK science, allowing access to a far wider pool of talent without any extra administration or cost.
The White Paper sets out the much-trailed change in the UK’s immigration system away from freedom of movement to EU nationals, to one where skill level is the key determinant. The opportunity here is to attract talented chemical scientists from outside the EU, who may be able to work in the UK more easily: the risk is that the UK becomes less attractive to EU nationals, as visa requirements and charges will apply to them. This risk is very real: about 20% of staff in the UK’s university chemistry departments are non-UK EU nationals and our case studies show the importance of this mobility, as well as the benefits of participating in the EU’s Framework programmes for science. The UK’s mobility framework must facilitate association to the next Framework programme, which we are campaigning for.
Some of the proposals in the White Paper could facilitate the needs of the chemical sciences. The removal of the cap on high-skilled workers is welcome, creating some flexibility for research and business. Existing sponsor licence holders will know that when they find the right applicant with the necessary skills that so few possess globally, they will not be hampered by arbitrary caps that have already been exceeded. We also welcome the proposed abolition of the Resident Labour Market Test.
Visa concerns
We remain very concerned about the prospect of no deal, something we think would be very bad for UK science, but we welcome the commitment to reciprocal arrangements with the EU on visa-free short-term visits and social security arrangements, making it more comfortable for those on such visas. This will help facilitate knowledge exchange for scientists and researchers but we await further developments.
However, the White Paper effectively proposes an expansion of the existing visa system, to cover EU/EEA nationals. Employers have been clear that the current system is burdensome and not fit for purpose. From start-ups to multinationals to university chemistry departments, the system needs to reflect the community’s need for flexibility and easy access to the right talent. The White Paper also commits to reducing cost and bureaucracy where possible, but it is not clear how expanding a bureaucratic visa system will lead to these reductions.
We know that having to meet salary thresholds is problematic for many in chemical sciences. Conflating salary and skill in this way is already an issue for the current visa system so the proposal to maintain the £30,000 salary requirement is a concern. This is particularly the case for start-ups and SMEs – who account for 96% of science and technology companies – who may not yet have the administrative capacity to apply for a sponsorship licence or the funds to match the salary threshold. Similarly for university departments, where nearly two-thirds of staff are EEA nationals but many do not meet the threshold.
In order to keep up with science and innovation, any future visa system has to be agile enough to match its rapid pace as well as consider all types of employer, large or small, as noted by the MAC. We hope for more clarity on this during the consultation as well as feeding into Government thinking on how to make it easier for smaller companies to get sponsor licences.
The importance of a welcoming and open attitude towards talented scientists cannot be overstated. Removing the cap on skilled worker numbers is welcome, however the Immigration Skills Charge remains. Similarly, the proposed short-term visa is, in the White Paper’s own words, "tightly constrained", including no right to settle or bring dependents. This risks making the UK unattractive for visiting roles, exchanges and other shorter-term roles in science. Language is also important here: the new arrangements must be described in welcoming ways.
Enabling the exchange of ideas and knowledge
But mobility of scientists not just about attracting talent to work in the UK. It is equally important that the UK’s scientists, researchers and technicians are able to go overseas to learn from others, share ideas and knowledge and have access to different, and sometimes better, facilities. If Freedom of movement ends for EU citizens coming here, then by definition it ends for UK citizens too.
In May, the Prime Minister also said that "the essence of scientific progress is not private contemplation, but collaboration. Every great British scientist could only reach new frontiers of invention because they built on the work of others, exchanged ideas with their contemporaries and participated in an international community of discovery".
The proposals in the White Paper could mean some opportunities for UK researchers and scientists to interact with peers and contemporaries is restricted, putting them at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to collaboration and discovery. This would be an own goal for UK interests.
The Home Secretary made explicit that this is "the starting point of a national conversation on immigration". This is exciting to hear and we will work in close consultation with our community throughout 2019 to ensure these proposals are shaped to secure the best outcome for the chemical sciences.