Tier 2 interim limit in place until 31st March 2011

Vital information on the interim limit affecting Tier 2 of the Points Based System

In an attempt to reduce applications for immigration under Tier 2 by 5%, the Government has introduced an interim limit on the number of Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) it will allow employers to issue.  This temporary limit will apply to Tier 2 (General) from 19^th July 2010 to 31^st March 2011. Most sponsors have now seen their CoS quota reduced or removed (reduced to zero).

Additional certificates for existing sponsors will only be issued at the discretion of a panel of UK Border Agency officials and due only to exceptional circumstances. Employers granted a new Sponsor’s Licence during the interim limit, will also have to apply “exceptionally” to receive any Tier 2 (General) allowance at all.

It is important to note that this change only applies to Certificates of Sponsorship issued under the Tier 2 (General) arrangements. It does not apply to the Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) arrangements.

What has happened to your quota of Certificates of Sponsorship?

From the 19^th July, all employers’ existing quotas will be wiped, regardless of their existing quota or how long they have had this quota. The UKBA is emailing all sponsors with their new quotas, which appear to have been calculated automatically.

How your new quota of CoS has been calculated

The interim limit has been calculated based on the CoS usage of each employer for the same period 12 months earlier: from 19^th July 2009 to 31 March 2010. The UK Border Agency has then applied a reduction to each employer that used 2 or more CoS during that period. If an employer issued one CoS during this period, they are likely to be issued with a quota of one CoS for the period of the interim limit. Likewise, employers who did not sponsor anyone under the Tier 2 (General) arrangements last year will be awarded a quota of zero CoS for the new interim period. Employers who did not have a licence before April 2010 will automatically receive an allocation of zero.

It is important to note that the UKBA is calculating the number of CoS to issue by looking at the exact number of CoS issued during the same period last year. This does not take into account the quota that an employer was issued with, but it does count CoS that were issued incorrectly and then withdrawn or never used.

This method of calculation was not announced until Monday 19^th July and runs contrary to general expectations as to how the system would work. It seems both illogical and unfair to issue Certificates to employers on the basis of how many people they sponsored during the same short period last year during a national recession. Likewise, this new system potentially rewards those employers who issued Certificates incorrectly and in contradiction to the UKBA rules, by issuing them with a higher number this year.

The UK Border Agency has given a considerable number of sponsors an allocation of zero. Such employers will not be allowed to issue new certificates or extensions to existing employees until they make an ‘Exceptional Circumstance’ request (and this is approved).

If we have been issued with less CoS than we need, what can we do?

In order to make a request for additional CoS, sponsors must hold an ‘A’ Rated Licence and must account for each CoS that they have already issued (and intend to issue) during the period of the interim limit. Employers must then complete a form detailing the exceptional circumstances under which they need to sponsor an individual. This form asks for detailed information and it is clear that employers cannot make requests ‘speculatively’. Requests must be for a specific role and salary (and in the case of extensions, the exact person), and the UKBA will enforce the use of the CoS for this role (or individual). Requests should be made no more than 60 days before the intended start date of the role.

How will our request be dealt with?

Contrary to the previous system for requesting additional CoS, the new system has moved more in the direction of an employer having to persuade the UK Border Agency that they have the most pressing need. All decisions will be at the discretion of the UK Border Agency, rather than based on a clear set of objective criteria, and as a consequence, all such requests will have to include a set of arguments to influence the decision of the UKBA panel. For this purpose, many sponsors are likely to benefit from professional assistance in successfully requesting additional Certificates.

A panel of UKBA managers will meet on the first working day of each month to consider all requests received by them by the 24^th of the previous month. They will then consider these requests in the following order:

1. A Work Permit or Tier 2 (General) extension for an existing sponsor;
2. A Work Permit or Tier 2 (General) extension for a new sponsor;
3. A new shortage occupation post for an existing sponsor;
4. A new shortage occupation post for a new sponsor;
5. A non-shortage occupation post for an existing sponsor;
6. A non-shortage occupation post for an existing sponsor.

The UKBA has stated that in the majority of cases, requests will be unsuccessful.

This new system is going to dramatically increase the amount of administration and time involved in sponsoring a migrant worker under the Tier 2 (General) arrangements, for both the employer and UK Work Permits Ltd. In the majority of cases, we will need to put forwards a thorough and well-reasoned argument as to why the employer needs to sponsor (or even extend a visa for) each specific individual.

We will shortly be contacting our employer clients individually to request information specific to their quota and their needs over the coming months. As a general rule, it is absolutely imperative that employers notify UK Work Permits as soon as possible of their intention to sponsor a migrant worker under the Tier 2 (General) arrangements, including extensions of existing work permits or Tier 2 visas.

Update for UK Employers: Tiers 1 and 2 immigration limit

Tiers 1 and 2: General short term outlook

UK Employers needing to arrange work related visas for employees or potential employees over the next 1 to 2 years, look likely to face limits, obstacles, and potentially an ‘uphill struggle’. Interim limits are about to be imposed on tiers 1 and 2  (in place from 19^th July) until April 2011, when more long term limits will be put in place.

The limits on Tier 2 (both before and after April 2011) do not apply to the transfer of overseas group employees (the Intra Company Transfer subcategory) but are likely to affect organisations wishing to extend the stay of existing work permit holders, and those bringing in “fresh hires” from outside off the EU. The interim limit is set to lead to a reduction in the number of Certificate of Sponsorship issued over the relevant period, by around 1300, around 5%. While this reduction may seem fairly small, the UK Border Agency appears to be already making preparations to help implement the limit. Indeed, there have been recent indications that the UKBA is keen to restrict the initial granting of Sponsor’s Licences. The longer term limit on Tier 2, to be implemented in April 2011, is sure to remain the subject of much speculation until much closer to that date.

Inevitably, where sponsorship under Tier 2 isn’t possible, businesses will be forced to explore other options for employees and potential employees, but they may also find themselves affected by the restrictions on Tier 1 (General). It isn’t completely clear at this stage whether the limit will directly affect the number of applications approved, or the number considered (A UKBA news article suggest there will be a limit on the number of applications considered) but there is expected be an upper limit of around 635 Tier 1 (General) approvals per month between August 2010 and March 2011. The current consultation and  in particular the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee will influence the longer term limit that is put in place in April 2011. There are no indications at this stage of what the level of the limit will be after this point.

We are advising all employers to plan well ahead where and if they have an anticipated need to sponsor staff under Tier 2, or help make alternative arrangements for someone under Tier 1. Employers should make their consultant aware of their requirements as early as possible, so that we can do everything possible to avoid our clients  being adversely affected by the limits.

Sponsor’s Licence Applications

We have been seeing examples of the UK Border Agency refusing Sponsor’s Licence applications based on stated reasons that appear to be incomprehensible and extremely pedantic.

In all cases the reasons given relate to supporting documentation, and the applications have included documents reliably deemed to be acceptable in the past by the UKBA. In all cases the explanations provided for refusal depend on the most unfavourable (and often unreasonable) possible interpretation of the published guidance. Some rejections we’ve witnessed include explanations based on new, never-previously-published requirements.

The approach being taken by caseworkers appears to lack reason, logic and consistency. It appears that the climate affecting the consideration of Sponsor Licence applications is extremely unfavourable.

It isn’t clear whether the UK Border Agency is under pressure to reduce the number of Sponsor Licence applications being approved in support of the planned limit for Tier 2.

We are taking an approach of conglomerating all of the explanations and information given by the UKBA lately relating to supporting documents for licence applications, and we are advising clients to take an ultra-cautious approach with new submissions and re-submissions of licence applications.

Immigration Limit Consultation Response

UK Work Permits Ltd is sharing with its clients and users of this website, the responses it has given to each of the questions in the current consultation regarding limits on tiers 1 and 2 of the Points Based System.

The Consultation can be found here. We suggest that all clients, particularly employers, submit their views. We have completed the online form as there were errors on the PDF response form.

The consultation questions, and our answers, are below:

Question 1: Do you agree that operating a pool for highly skilled migrants on the basis described above will be the fairest and most effective approach?

Answer:           No.

Question 2: If you have answered yes or no to the previous question, please give your reason(s) in the box below.

Answer:           We would agree that based only on the two options presented in the consultation, as they were described, the pool system appears to be the fairer in terms of applications being decided more on merits, rather than on “timing”. However, the pool system is fundamentally still unfair as to a large degree it will equate to a “lottery” for individual applicants. The success or failure of an individual’s application (as well as the speed at which it is approved) will depend partly on a very “unknown quantity”: the strength of other people’s applications submitted at around the same time as their own. This is hardly the fair and predictable system promised when the Points Based System was introduced (or indeed being promised now by the coalition Government and MAC). As an aside, it is clear that if applications were only selected from the pool only once every three months this would create massive uncertainty and very significant delays for applicants. In the New Zealand system, applications are selected from the pool every two weeks.

3. Do you agree that operating a first-come first-served system for skilled migrants available to individual sponsor employers will be the fairest and most effective approach? Please select one answer only.

Answer:           No.

4. If you have answered yes or no to the previous question, please give your reason(s) in the box below.

Answer:           We are not in favour of this. Based only on the small number of problematic options that have been presented, the “first come first served” choice seems the fairest: it could still allow for decisions to be made according to consistent and predictable qualifying criteria.

Against only the two alternatives mentioned, the “first come first served” option seems to be the least unfair. However, we are still opposed to it and we are opposed to the very idea of a rigid limit on immigration under Tier 2. Any limit on migration through Tier 2 will inevitably result in unnecessary and harmful restrictions and delays for British businesses, who will be forced to put their urgent staffing needs on hold, whichever one of the 3 options is implemented: for example, while they wait for the next CoS allocation to become available, while they wait to see if and when a candidate will be selected from a pool, or while they wait to discover that they have been unable to obtain their CoS quota through an auction.

5. Do you believe that where a quarterly quota is filled applications that have not yet been considered should be rolled over to the following release?

Answer:           Don’t know.

6. If you have answered yes or no to the previous question, please give your reason(s):

Answer:           Although we have answered “don’t know” we need to make further comment. We’ve answered “don’t know” because we believe the question is meaningless at this stage. We believe that this question relates to tier 2, although the question itself doesn’t make this clear. This question concerns a detail that probably can’t be sensibly decided on until more fundamental issues have been decided on. For example, the level at which the Tier 2 limit is going to be set, and the level to which this limit is likely to fall short of demand. If the limit will significantly and regularly fall short of demand, and if applications are allowed to roll over repeatedly, then this could create a huge, impenetrable backlog. However, if the limit and demand are more closely matched, employers should not have to apply again following a one-off month of high demand. There are more pieces of information that would be needed in order for this question to be answered. For example, would the quota be relevant at the stage of issuing CoS’s, or when visa applications are being considered? Would the limit be applied to initially “available” CoS’s, or CoS’s actually used? If the CoS quota was made available to an employer at the start of a period, would it be guaranteed to be available for the whole period, or could it disappear if demand was high from other employers? If the quota would be relevant at the stage of issuing a CoS, would employers would be able to see at the time of trying to issue a CoS that none were available within their quota? If so, there would probably be no need to roll over anything – the employer would be able to see at the time of trying to issue a CoS that they should just try again at the start of the next period. The whole question of carrying over a CoS request will surely depend on some sort of system where employers are able to apply for a CoS to be issued “pending quota availability”. No such system has been discussed. There are countless unanswered questions. The question asked here in the consultation cannot be sensibly answered with a yes or a no based on the information available currently. It is a non-question.

7. Do you think the Government should consider raising the minimum criteria for qualification under Tier 1 of the Points Based System?

Answer:           No.

8.  If you have answered yes or no to the previous question, please give your reason(s)

Answer:           We believe that the current qualifying threshold is roughly correct in terms of allowing people to enter who are likely to engage in highly skilled work and contribute to the economy, based on our own anecdotal experience.  If we had to comment on this further we would have to say that there is perhaps too much emphasis placed on previous earnings rather than provable skills and relevant experience. A good number of individuals with skills that are badly needed in the UK do not qualify currently purely because their previous earnings aren’t high enough. The amount of previous earnings, in the current system, seems to be given unduly high importance.

9. Do you think the Government should provide for additional points to be scored for the following factors?

Higher level English Language Ability?   (Don’t know.)

Skilled dependents?                                         (Yes.)

UK experience?                                                 (Yes.)

Shortage skills?                                                  (Yes.)

Health insurance?                                            (No.)

10. Do you think that there are any other factors that should be recognised through the Points Based System?

Answer:           We don’t have any additional factors to suggest, but we would like to comment on the ideas raised in the consultation:

Higher Level English Language Ability:

We support the inclusion of a stringent and demanding English Language requirement for Tier 1 (general), as we believe that adequate English Language skills are important for professional success in the UK and integration into British society. We believe that this should be closely monitored and that potentially alterations may need to be made to this area.

Skilled Dependents:

We believe that in some cases, where a dependant has provable skills, perhaps in a shortage area, there would be merit in awarding points in recognition of this, with the valid aim of  encouraging and facilitating the arrival of people with skills that the country genuinely needs.

UK Experience:

Points are already awarded under this area. There are valid reasons to continue: rewarding people who have already paid UK University fees to study here or who have contributed to the economy through tax on their UK earnings, and also in recognising the degree to which these people will have already integrated into British society. We think however that the importance / relevance of this factor will vary according to the stringency of the English Language requirements.

Shortage Skills:

In our view it makes sense to recognise shortage skills under the Tier 1 (general) route, and take advantage of this category to more effectively relieve skills shortages.

Health Insurance:

We believe that the idea of factoring in private health insurance is completely unnecessary and unfair in the context of all of the existing and proposed measures of an applicant’s suitability to enter the UK under this category. Private health insurance is extremely expensive. We are also sure that in anything like its current form, Tier 1 (General) will not be a route used for “health tourism”.

11. Do you agree that tier 1 Investors should be excluded from the annual limit?

Answer:           Yes.

12. If you have answered yes or no to the previous question, please give your reason(s)

Answer:           We oppose the introduction of a rigid limit for tiers 1 and 2, and so we welcome any and all relevant subcategories being exempt.

13. Do you agree that Tier 1 Entrepreneurs should be excluded from the annual limit?

Answer:           Yes.

14. If you have answered yes or no to the previous question, please give your reason(s)

Answer:           We oppose the introduction of a rigid limit for tiers 1 and 2, and so we welcome any and all relevant subcategories being exempt.

15. How could the UK make itself more attractive to investors and entrepreneurs who have the most to offer in terms of driving economic growth?

Answer:           As well as making the rules and management of these subcategories more flexible, a significant amount of benefit could be achieved through the active overseas promotion of the UK as being a good place to do business / base a business. The effect of any such message however will be significantly weakened in many cases by the very limits on skilled migration being discussed here. Investments in education and infrastructure are other obvious suggestions. In response to the suggestions for revising the requirements for the Entrepreneurs sub-category, we do think that there is probably some merit in this. It may make sense for applications based on proposed businesses in growth areas to be treated more favourably than those where the market in the UK is saturated. The consideration of applicants who have secured staged funding should be considered very carefully as these provisions could be subject to abuse.

16. Do you agree that the Intra Company Transfer route should be included within annual limits?

Answer:           No.

17. If you have answered yes or no to the previous question, please give your reason(s)

Answer:           Firstly, we believe that the claim (as put forward in the consultation document) that Intra Company Transferees are likely to claim public funds is highly questionable. Most intra-company transferees are highly paid and responsible professionals, and would not do anything to contravene the rules covering their stay in the UK. We do not support ICTs being affected by the limit, especially while this is the only clear argument to include them.

In the system as proposed, we would hope at least that there would be the option of extending the stay of transferees who were initially brought in for less than 12 months. In the case of urgent ICTs, we envisage employers bringing people in initially for less than 12 months (to avoid refusals or delays due to the limit) and then being forced to process repeated subsequent extensions, adding to costs and bureaucracy for their business.

As with the issue of dependents, it looks very much as though this may not be a question for real consultation. The MAC has been instructed already to “work on the basis that” ICT’s are to be included in the limit. It looks very much to be a foregone conclusion that they will.

18. Do you agree that dependents should be included towards the limit?

Answer:           No.

19. If you have answered yes or no to the previous question, please give your reason(s)

Answer:           We disagree with the limit itself affecting individual applicants, but if dependants are to count towards the limit, then the situation will be potentially made even more unfair. To use a simplistic but logical example, it could lead to a situation where one business is penalised (left unable sponsor somebody they need) because a migrant worker who is going to work for another business has a large family. We expect that with the data that is available on tier 1 and 2 workers, it must be possible to work out the average number of dependents for each main applicant. This “average” number of dependents can then be factored into the calculations leading to any final limit figure, assuming that the limit is going to be implemented despite stakeholder opposition.

There seems to be little point in the Border Agency having asked this question as part of the consultation. The UKBA have already instructed the Migration Advisory Committee to recommended figure for a limit to include dependents. This clearly and seriously discredits the consultation process. The parameters of the discussion have already been set so tightly as to make the process appear almost meaningless, and with the government asking direct questions they have clearly already decided the answer to, the supposed consultation begins to look like nothing more than an empty public relations exercise.

20. Do you believe that the Shortage Occupation and Resident Labour Market Test route should be merged in this way (as described in the consultation document)?

Answer:           No.

21. What, if any, do you think would be the advantages of merging the Shortage Occupation and Resident Labour Market test routes?

Answer:           We cannot say that there would be any advantages, unless harmful restrictions being placed on businesses are what the Government is seeking.

22. What, if any, do you think would be the disadvantages or merging the Shortage Occupation and Resident Labour Market test routes?

Answer:           Our view is that combining the shortage occupation list and the resident labour market test is totally unnecessary and that it will definitely harm business in the UK. This idea could only ever begin to work if based on a consistently flawless shortage occupations list that would take into account every regional and local trend and situation at every moment in time – and that is clearly unrealistic.

The very point behind needing to demonstrate a resident labour market test is supposed to be that employers show that they have tried in practice, and failed, to recruit a suitable resident worker. If an employer has advertised (in a suitable way, to hit the most relevant target audience), and has still been genuinely unable to recruit, this in itself surely demonstrates that there is a need for the employer to look further afield. If the system cannot cover such a situation, then it will not meet the needs of businesses and this will be another step that will make the UK a less attractive place from which to base a business.

The Government has stated its ongoing support for the principle of sponsorship for UK organisations employing migrant workers. We suggest that the Government/UKBA focuses on the long promised / threatened matter of enforcement. We believe that the current resident labour market test rules, in combination with the Sponsor’s Duties, actually work perfectly well at preventing unnecessary sponsorship of migrant workers, if only they are adhered to. We suggest that the Government/UKBA focuses on checking and ensuring the current guidelines are followed. One simple step that could be taken would be to check that advertisements used by employers do indeed meet the basic published requirements.

Basic checks should be made when Certificates of Sponsorship are issued by employers, and clearly it should be noticed if the employer enters clear descriptions of inadequate advertising. We have become aware of situations where employers (not  those receiving advice from the matter on us) have literally informed the Government in this way (using the Sponsorship Management System) that they haven’t conducted a proper recruitment search, yet an individual then goes on to be sponsored under Tier 2. How easy would it be to put an automated system in place that would flag up any situation where the phrase “jobcentre” hasn’t been used in the relevant field (and for that matter other approved media depending on the code of practice that is selected)?

From our own experience / knowledge, an insufficient amount of compliance activity, so far, has taken place, to allow employers to really understand the importance of their responsibilities regarding the resident labour market search. Compliance activity seems so far to have been misdirected into other, far less important activities, but we suggest that this is what is needed, rather than an effective ban on all non-shortage sponsorship.

Combining the resident labour market test and the shortage occupations list would be incredibly damaging for British businesses, and unworkable. We suggest instead that the Government/UKBA focuses simply on making sure that the perfectly adequate rules regarding the resident labour market search are actually adhered to.

23. When do you think this change should be implemented?

Answer:           More than 12 months.

24. What consideration should be given to advertising requirements?

Answer:           Firstly we should clarify that the above selection was only made in the absence of the option “not in the foreseeable future”. We assume that this question  (24) should be taken just as it reads (not assuming that advertising would need to be carried out in addition to having a position match a recognised shortage occupation). We believe, as stated previously, that the advertising requirements are basically adequate. One possible area for improvement (as well as the issue of compliance mentioned above) may be that the guidance does not make clear enough what situations do and do not merit an employer sponsoring a migrant worker.

25. Do you believe that the Government should extend sponsor responsibilities in these ways (as described in the consultation document)?

Answer:           No.

26. If you have answered yes or no to the previous question, please give your reason(s)

Answer:           We do not support the ideas regarding expanding the sponsor’s duties. The idea of an employer demonstrating a “practical commitment” sounds like one that would only amount to extra compliance-related paperwork and bureaucracy being placed on employers, with an onerous responsibility to “practically” demonstrate something that often goes without saying or is futile or irrelevant to the positions for which the employer needs to recruit sponsored migrant workers. It seems that the Government may want to ignore the fact that employers don’t endure the cost, hassle and delays of recruiting migrant workers just for the fun of it. We have given our views earlier about the genuine relevance of a private health insurance requirement for these skilled tiers.

27. Do you think that the Government should raise the English Language requirement for Tier 2?

Answer:           Yes

28. If you think that the Government should raise the English language requirement for Tier 2, to what level do you think it should be raised?

Answer:           Intermediate

29. If a supply of migrant workers is no longer readily available, what action will you take to train and source labour from the domestic market?

Answer:           Given the significant costs, hassle and responsibility already involved in recruiting migrant workers, it already makes much more sense for UK businesses to source and train staff from the domestic market wherever possible. UK Employers will surely continue to source suitable resident workers wherever possible, without the need for any heavy handed and harmful cap or limit on skilled migration.

Immigration limit and consultation: Our comment

The new coalition Government has recently announced its intention to introduce a limit on skilled migration and is currently carrying out a consultation on the issue. Before the official limit comes into effect in April 2011, the Government has announced a temporary limit, which will take effect from mid July.

We believe that this development will represent the most significant obstacle in the last decade and more to the ability of UK employers to recruit skilled migrant labour. The impact will vastly exceed that of the introduction of the Points Based System in 2008.

The full consultation document (less than 10 pages of main text) can be found here along with methods to respond, either online, or by completing the following template:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/consultations/limits-on-non-eu-migration/

We will share the content of our response to the consultation, so that anyone who shares our views can quickly and easily forward a fitting response to the UKBA/British Government.

UK Work Permits Ltd is opposed to the limit. We believe that this announcement is more of an effort to be seen to be doing something radical, than a truly workable idea to sensibly control immigration.

A simple headline including “immigration limit” may appear to many members of the public to indicate a real effort to control immigration and therefore reduce any negative consequences of uncontrolled immigration. However, we believe this initiative will do virtually nothing to reduce overall numbers, and it won’t touch on any of the real causes of concern among the British public.

Rather than controlling the categories of immigration that actually cause a strain on public resources, this move seems aimed at grabbing headlines and gaining favour with less informed members of the public.  The proposals do not address the issues of EU immigration (which the Government can do little to change, short of pulling out of the EU), the student visa path (as an apparently lower priority, this subject is due to be visited later in the year), or the controversial issue of uncontrolled “chain migration”.

Instead, these changes (the first of supposedly many) specifically target those people most likely to contribute to British society, and those least likely to be a drain on public resources. Perhaps more importantly, these changes will inevitably stifle the ability of employers in the UK to bring in much needed skills and expertise.

Non-EU nationals entering the UK for over 1 year for the purposes of work amounted to only 17% of non-British inflows in 2008 (this number is sure to have declined significantly already). “Study” amounted to nearly 28%. EU inflows accounted for 39% according to the International Passenger Survey. For tiers 1 and 2 to be at the top of the Government’s “hit list” makes no sense at all. They appear intent on “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut” that doesn’t even exist, while ignoring areas far more obviously deserving of attention.

The idea of a “first come, first served” system for Tier 2 of the Points Based System, inevitably means that in many cases, the timing of an application will influence the immediate ability of UK employers to address their human resource requirements, as much, or more than any objective eligibility criteria.

The Government, with the Migration Advisory Committee, has agreed and declared that they will adhere to the principles of

• Fairness
• Predictability
• Selectivity
• Operability

However, many of the suggestions made in the consultation document appear to be totally at odds with those principals.

For those without the time to read the consultation document, we have listed some of the main ideas raised below, along with our comments where relevant. We will be responding to the consultation document imminently (and we will share or publish our response), and we advise all of our clients to also make their views known. With regards to all of our licensed sponsor clients, we also would recommend that you contact your Consultant in the very near future, to make any request with regards to CoS quotas, as soon as possible.

A list of some of the ideas raised in the consultation document, and our comments, follow below.

Main Limit Mechanism

Tier 2 Limit Mechanism

Consultation content includes the following:

• Main choice is presented between the “first come first served” option or the “pool” system.
• In this case, the UKBA favours the “first come first served” option.
• The system suggested is one where a quota would be released / confirmed on a quarterly basis, which will supposedly provide businesses with “the greatest certainty”.
• Another option being touted (previously floated a few years ago under the Labour Government) is the idea of using “auctions”. Under this system, licensed sponsor’s would “bid” for a quota of Certificates of Sponsorship. Under this system, literally the Government would be selling the right to bring in migrant labour “to the highest bidder”.

UKWP Comment

We agree that from the two main options presented, the “first come first served” option seems the fairest: it will still allow for decisions to be made according to consistent and predictable qualifying criteria.

The pool option would indeed provide less certainty to employers. They might desperately need an individual, and try to rely on the system to allow them to recruit that person, but could find that during the allotted time period (e.g. 6 months or perhaps even more) he /she has failed to be selected from the pool because other applicants being sponsored by other employers happen to score more points overall (including, quite possibly, points awarded for factors that are of little importance compared to the employer’s urgent needs). The pool system would lead to a lot of uncertainty and inconsistency, both for sponsors and for individual applicants.

The auction system would mean the ability to recruit migrant labour was not based on a measure of an employer’s “need”, but based on the ability to pay the highest price. Inevitably small companies and those with restricted funding and cashflow would unduly suffer.

Against these two alternatives, the “first come first served” option seems to be fairer. However, we are still opposed to it and are opposed to the very idea of a rigid limit on immigration under Tier 2. Any limit on migration through Tier 2 will inevitably result in unnecessary and harmful restrictions and delays for British businesses, who will be forced to put their urgent staffing needs on hold: while they wait for the next CoS allocation to become available, while they wait to see if and when a candidate will be selected from a pool, or while they wait to discover that they have been unable to obtain their CoS quota through auction.

Tier 1 (General) Limit Mechanism

Consultation content includes the following:

• A choice between a “first come first served” option and a New Zealand style “pool” system.
• In the pool system, applications meeting general eligibility criteria will sit in a “pool”, and at regular intervals, a number of the highest scoring applications will be selected to be invited to apply for visas.
• After a set period (say 6 months) in the pool, applications are removed from it.
• The UKBA favours this New Zealand-style pool option.

There have been suggestions in the media that applications would be selected from the pool on a quarterly basis.

UKWP Comment:

We agree that based on the information presented, between the two options presented, the pool system appears to be the fairest to all applicants in terms of applications being decided based on merits, rather than on “timing”. However, the pool system is fundamentally still unfair as to a large degree it will equate to a “lottery” for individual applicants. The success or failure of an individual’s application will depend partly on a very “unknown quantity”: the strength of other people’s applications submitted at around the same time as their own. This is hardly the fair and predictable system promised when the Points Based System was introduced (or indeed being promised now by the coalition Government and MAC). Furthermore we argue that the idea of applications being selected from the pool only once every three months would create massive uncertainty and very significant delays for applicants. In the New Zealand system, applications are selected from the pool every two weeks.

Tier 2: Other Proposed Operational Changes

Tier 2 General

Consultation content includes the following:

• There should be a limit on Tier 2 (General) according to the mechanism described above.
• There should be moves to help employers to up-skill resident workers and reduce the need for them to recruit migrant workers.
• One suggestion to help manage /implement the new limit would be to combine the shortage occupations list with the resident labour market test – so that both requirements have to be met before a Certificate of Sponsorship can be issued under Tier 2 (General).
• The new Government supports of “the principal of sponsorship” under Tier 2 of the Points Based System.
• Sponsors duties affecting Tier 2 Sponsors could be extended.
• Sponsors could be required to demonstrate a “practical commitment” to up-skilling British workers.
• Sponsors could be forced to hold health insurance for their employees.
• The question of raising the English Language requirement for Tier 2 has also been mentioned.
• Ministers of Religion and Elite Sports people are to be excluded from the limits.

UKWP Comment

Our view is that combining the shortage occupation list and the resident labour market test is totally unnecessary and it definitely will harm business in the UK. This idea could only ever work if based on a consistently flawless shortage occupations list that would take into account every regional and local trend and situation at every moment in time. This is clearly unrealistic.

The very point behind needing to demonstrate a resident labour market test is supposed to be that employers show that they have tried in practice, and failed, to recruit a suitable resident worker. If an employer has advertised (in a suitable way, to hit the most relevant target audience), and has still been genuinely unable to recruit, this in itself surely demonstrates that there is a need. If the system cannot cover such a situation, then it will not meet the needs of businesses and this will be another step that will make the UK a less attractive place from which to trade.

The Government has stated its ongoing support for the principal of sponsorship for UK organisations employing migrant workers. We suggest that the Government/UKBA focuses on the long promised / threatened matter of enforcement. We believe that the current resident labour market test rules, in combination with the Sponsor’s Duties, actually work perfectly well at preventing unnecessary sponsorship of migrant workers, if only they are adhered to.  We suggest that the Government/UKBA focuses on checking and ensuring the current guidelines are followed. One simple step that could be taken would be to check that advertisements used by employers do indeed meet the basic published requirements.

Basic checks should be made when Certificates of Sponsorship are issued by employers, and clearly it should be noticed if the employer enters clear descriptions of inadequate advertising. We have become aware of situations where employers (not  those receiving advice from the matter on us) have literally informed the Government in this way (using the Sponsorship Management System) that they haven’t conducted a proper recruitment search, yet an individual then goes on to be sponsored under Tier 2. How easy would it be to put an automated system in place that would flag up any situation where the phrase “jobcentre” isn’t used in the relevant field (and for that matter other approved media depending on the code of practice that is selected)?

From our own experience / knowledge, an insufficient amount of compliance activity, so far, has taken place, to allow employers to really understand the importance of their responsibilities regarding the resident labour market search. Compliance activity seems so far to have been misdirected into other, far less important activities, but we suggest that this is what is needed, rather than an effective ban on all non-shortage sponsorship.

Combining the resident labour market test and the shortage occupations list would be incredibly damaging for British businesses, and unworkable. We suggest instead that the Government/UKBA focuses simply on making sure that the perfectly adequate rules regarding the resident labour market search are actually adhered to.

We do not support the ideas regarding expanding the sponsor’s duties. The idea of an employer demonstrating a “practical commitment” sounds like one that would only amount to extra compliance-related paperwork and bureaucracy being placed on employers, with an onerous responsibility to “practically” demonstrate something that often goes without saying or is futile or irrelevant to the positions for which the employer needs to recruit sponsored migrant workers. It seems that the Government may want to ignore the fact that employers don’t endure the cost, hassle and delays of recruiting migrant workers just for the fun of it. The second point regarding health insurance, even more than the first, appears to be more the result of PR / communications advice, than a genuine interest in making the system work more effectively.

We do see an argument (based only on our own anecdotal evidence / experience) for reviewing the minimum English Language requirement (or some of the accepted/approved tests) from its current level in relation to Tier 2 (General).

Dependants

Consultation content includes the following:

• The idea has been mentioned that dependants should, in some way, be recognised in relation to the proposed limit.

UKWP Comment

We believe that this is a difficult question and should be considered separately and aside from the wider question of introducing a limit. While we disagree with the limit in general, if dependants are to count towards the limit, then the situation will be potentially made even more unfair. To use a simplistic but logical example, it could lead to a situation where one business is penalised (left unable sponsor somebody they need) because a migrant worker who is going to work for another business has a large family. We expect that with the data that is available on Tier 1 and 2 workers, it must be possible to work out the average number of dependents for each main applicant. This “average” number of dependents can then be factored into the calculations leading to any final limit figure, assuming that the limit is going to be implemented despite stakeholder opposition.

There seems to be little point in the Border Agency having asked as part of the consultation whether stakeholders agree that dependents should be included or recognised within the quota. The UKBA have already instructed the Migration Advisory Committee to recommended figure for a limit to include dependents (see the MAC Consultation doc, 1.5 & 1.6). This clearly and seriously discredits the consultation process. The parameters of the discussion have already been set so tightly as to make the process appear almost meaningless, and with the government asking direct questions they have clearly already decided the answer to, the supposed consultation begins to look like nothing more than an empty public relations exercise.

Intra Company Transfers

Consultation content includes the following:

• ICTs account for 45% of Tier 2 entry clearance visa applications.
• The government recognises the importance of the ICT route to businesses, and the free trade treaties that force the UK to keep this route open,
• The Government claims however that there is a significant risk of longer term transferees drawing on public funds (even though this is prohibited).
• Perhaps the ICT route could be included within the limit but anyone coming to the UK under the ICT route for less than 12 months could be excepted.

UKWP Comment

Firstly, we believe that the idea that Intra Company Transferees are likely to claim public funds is highly questionable. Most intra-company transferees are highly paid and responsible professionals, and would not do anything to contravene the rules covering their stay in the UK. We do not support ICTs being affected by the limit, especially while this is the only clear argument to include them. In the system as proposed, we hope at least that there would be the option of extending the stay of Transferees who were initially brought in for less than 12 months. In the case of urgent ICTs, we envisage employers bringing people in initially for less than 12 months (to avoid refusals or delays due to the limit) and then being forced to process repeated subsequent extensions, adding cost and bureaucracy for their business. As with the issue of dependents, it looks very much as though this may not be a question for real consultation. The MAC has been instructed already to “work on the basis that” ICT’s are to be included in the limit. It looks very much like a foregone conclusion that they will.

Tier 1: Other Proposed Operational Changes

Tier 1 (General)

Consultation content includes the following:

• Raising the minimum criteria for qualification under Tier 1 (General), and indeed, the interim measures will see them raising the total points “pass mark” by 5 points to 100 (from 19^th July).
• Also the idea of introducing the following factors into the Tier 1 (General) Assessment:

• Higher Level English Language Ability
• Skilled Dependents
• UK Experience
• Shortage Skills
• Health Insurance

UKWP Comment

We believe that the current qualifying threshold is roughly correct in terms of allowing people to enter who are likely to enter highly skilled work and contribute to the economy, based on our own anecdotal experience.  If we had to comment on this further we would have to say that there is perhaps too much emphasis placed on previous earnings rather than provable skills and relevant experience. A good number of individuals with skills that are badly needed in the UK do not qualify currently purely because their previous earnings aren’t high enough. Our response regarding the other points is below.

Higher Level English Language Ability

We support the inclusion of a stringent and demanding English Language requirement for Tier 1 (general), as we believe that adequate English Language skills are important for professional success in the UK and integration into British society. We believe that this should be closely monitored and that potentially alterations may need to be made to this area.

Skilled Dependents

We believe that in some cases, where a dependant has provable skills, perhaps in a shortage area, there may be merit in awarding points in recognition of this, with the valid aim of  encouraging and facilitating the arrival of people with skills that the country genuinely needs.

UK Experience

Points are already awarded under this area. There are valid reasons to continue: rewarding people who have already paid UK University fees to study here or who have contributed to the economy through tax on their UK earnings, and also in recognising the degree to which these people will have already integrated into British society. We think however that the importance / relevance of this factor will vary according to the stringency of the English Language requirements.

Shortage Skills

In our view it makes sense to recognise shortage skills under the Tier 1 (general) route, and take advantage of this category to more effectively relieve skills shortages.

Health Insurance

We believe that the idea of factoring in private health insurance is completely unnecessary and unfair in the context of all of the existing and proposed measures of an applicant’s suitability to enter the UK under this category. Private health insurance is extremely expensive. We are also sure that in anything like its current form, Tier 1 (General) will not be a route used for “health tourism”.

Investors and Entrepreneurs

Consultation content includes the following:

• These subcategories of Tier 1 of the PBS will probably be excluded from the limit (also the Post Study Work category is due to be reviewed separately at a later date).
• The UK should do more to encourage eligible individuals overseas to migrate to the UK under these categories.
• Ideas for this include:
• changing (lowering) the current required investment amount for the Entrepreneur sub-category,
• considering staged funding situations,
• setting different thresholds for individual sectors,
• extending access to more than one entrepreneur where this is relevant

UKWP Comment

As UKWP generally opposes the limit in tiers 1 and 2, we support any and all sub-categories being exempted from it. In terms of revising the requirements for the Entrepreneurs sub-category, we do think that there is merit in this. It may make sense for applications based on proposed businesses in growth areas to be treated more favourably than those where the market in the UK is saturated. Staged funding should be considered very carefully and these provisions could be subject to abuse.

Interim Limit – Tier 2 (General) Scheme

From Monday 19^th July 2010, the UK Border Agency will be introducing a limit to the number of applications under the Tier 2 (General) scheme. It is worth noting that, for the moment at least, all other sub-tiers of Tier 2 (including Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfers) are exempted from this limit. This is an interim limit being introduced to stop a ‘rush’ of applications before a permanent cap is introduced in April 2011.

It is not yet completely clear how this interim limit will operate, although it is apparent that it will centre on the granting of Certificates of Sponsorship quotas to Licensed Sponsors. In order to sponsor an individual under Tier 2, a company must hold a Sponsor’s Licence and have a quota of unused Certificates of Sponsorship. It appears that over the coming months (at least until April 2011), the UK Border Agency will tightly monitor and control the granting of these quotas, with priority going to the following:

• New sponsors who have not yet sponsored any migrant workers;
• Sponsors who wish to extend an employee’s existing Work Permit or Tier 2 visa;
• Sponsors who wish to employ migrant workers to perform Shortage Occupation roles.

The UK Border Agency has stated that it will be publishing details regarding the exact way in which sponsor’s quota requests are handled on Monday 19^th July 2010.

As the limit is going to work around the issuing of Certificates of Sponsorship, it appears that once an employer has a specific quota of Certificates, it is free to issue these as it wishes, and the individuals concerned will not face any further difficulties in obtaining their visas. Likewise, any individual currently holding an assigned Certificate of Sponsorship will not be affected by the limit. This being said, it is important to note that if a Certificate of Sponsorship is issued incorrectly or a visa application is unsuccessful, the Certificate will often be rendered ‘used’. From the 19^th July it may be harder to obtain a new Certificate to replace the ‘used’ one.

Contrary to the supposed objectives of this policy, this limit will affect those applying for Tier 2 (General) visas from within the UK in exactly the same way as it will affect those applying from outside of the UK.

The UK Border Agency has not yet confirmed the exact number to which they will be limiting the issuing of Certificates of Sponsorship under the Tier 2 (General) scheme, although this is thought to be around 5% less than the equivalent period last year.

We would advise all employers holding Sponsor’s Licences to immediately request a sufficient number of Certificates of Sponsorship to see them through the 12 months that the allocation is valid. Similarly, we would advise all employers who are considering sponsoring a migrant worker in the next year but who do not currently hold a Sponsor’s Licence to apply for a Licence as soon as possible. Although this limit may seem severe, it is likely that the permanent limit to be introduced in April 2011 will be even more so.

Immigration rules amendments:

On the 1^st October 2009, several significant changes to the immigration rules will come into place. The changes will affect the Sole Representatives category, Tier 1, and various other categories of the Points-Based System.

Changes to the Sole Representative category

A replacement category for Sole Representatives entitled ‘Representatives of Overseas Business’ will be introduced. The major change will be a new English Language requirement similar to the test already in place for Tier 2. There will be three different ways to fulfil the requirement. Applicants can either provide an English language test certificate, hold nationality of a majority English speaking country, or hold a degree level qualification taught in English. The changes will also require the new business in the UK to be concerned with the same type of business activity of the overseas business, and will reintroduce representatives of overseas media organisations back within the immigration rules after it was removed in 2008.

Changes to Tier 1 of the Points Based System

Under Tier 1, provisions for periods of study leave to be taken into account when calculating points for previous earnings have been deleted. The effect of this is that individuals can no longer claim points from earnings made prior to a period of full time study. The UKBA intend to make decisions based on an applicant’s recent work experience and earnings capability in order to establish a more current representation of ability to contribute to the UK’s labour market.

The list of circumstances under which a Tier 1 migrant is permitted to undertake certain work is being extended by the UKBA. Instructions agreed with the Department of Health mean doctors can be admitted onto the Foundation Programme or in to speciality training where their previous leave was not subject to conditions restricting their employment.

The Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) category will also be amended slightly to include migrants who have previously studied for an eligible qualification whilst in the UK in categories that did not prohibit studying. It had previously only been available to those in the UK as a Tier 4 migrant, on a student Visa, or family member visa. The Post-Study Work category will also acknowledge the eligibility of the Professional Graduate Diploma in Education.

Further amendments are being made to the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) category which replaced the Business Person category in 2008. Those on the previous Business Person visa who wish to extend their stay in the UK will be automatically awarded 10 points for the English language requirement under Tier 1 and will not need to demonstrate their English language ability.

Changes to Tier 2 of the Points Based System

Various changes are being made to Tier 2 of the Points Based System, the majority of which are minor amendments.

With regards to the new category mentioned above, migrants in the new Representatives of Overseas Business category will be able to switch into Tier 2 from within the UK. The time spent in this category will also count towards the qualifying period of six months’ experience with a company for the purposes of applying for a Tier 2 Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) visa.

Under Tier 2 (ICT), the restriction preventing a migrant from owning more than 10% of his/her sponsor’s shares has been removed.

When applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain as a Tier 2 visa holder, the requirement to issue a further certificate of sponsorship to indicate a migrant is still needed by their employer has been removed. Written notification will be sufficient for the UK Border Agency which should be cheaper and more convenient for the employer.

The policy whereby Leave to Remain dates are calculated has been amended. An applicant’s sponsor will be able to request specific dates of leave, rather than the dates corresponding to when the application was decided. Further leave of up to three months can be granted to ensure the leave does cover both the dates of decision and the dates requested by the sponsor.

Maternity, paternity and adoption leave will be taken into account when considering migrants switching into Tier 2 (General) from the Tier 1 (Post Study Work) category and a new English language requirement, in line with the rest of Tier 2, will be introduced for Members of a Religious Order and Ministers of Religion.

Tier 4

Changes to Tier 4 are taking place to pave the way for the launch of the electronic Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS).For a short while however, the visa letters of acceptance will continue as an alternative to CAS. The requirement that course related work placements must not exceed half the total length of the course will no longer apply if a longer placement is required by UK statute. In addition, Tier 4 migrants will be linked more closely to their sponsor by an amendment preventing studying at any institution other than that of the sponsor.

All of the above changes will be taking place on 1^st October 2009. For further details on any of these changes or information on how these will affect you, please contact us.

Today UK Work Permits Ltd can confirm that as of 21^st July 2009, The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration bill became law and made numerous amendments to the British Nationality Act 1981. It also enlists provisions to introduce “Earned Citizenship” in the summer of 2011.

How will earned citizenship work?

The new system will consist of three distinct routes: Work, Family and Protection:

1. Highly skilled individuals and those in skilled positions (Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points Based System);

2. Family members of British citizens and permanent residents; and

3. Refugees and migrants who have been given humanitarian protection

All will be eligible to begin the three stage process of earning British citizenship. For each route the process then consists of three clear stages, all of which must be completed in order to gain British citizenship.

Stage 1: Temporary residence

At this stage, migrants must spend a minimum amount of time within the UK obeying the law, working within the conditions of their visa, and will have to pass a test to prove their English language skills and/or knowledge and awareness of life in the UK. There are also certain requirements relating to the separate routes. Continual employment and paid taxes will required for the Work route, ongoing relations with family members will be required for the Family route and continued required international protection will be needed for the Protection route.

Stage 2: Probationary citizenship

This stage is for Migrants to demonstrate that they have earned the right to become a British citizen. Those who take up charity or community work or who seek to advance the education, health, arts, culture, sports or other community-oriented sectors will potentially be able to gain British citizenship up to two years earlier than those who do not. However, all candidates are required to:

Have obeyed the law during this probationary period;

Have continued to remain self sufficient and maintain themselves without recourse to public funds; and

Have met the specific requirements for the route they are pursuing.

It is important to note here that any migrant that has spent five years at this stage will be required to move forward onto the final stage, or leave the UK.

Stage 3: British Citizenship or permanent residence

Migrants earning British citizenship will, at this stage, be fully entitled to all right and benefits. ‘Permanent Residence’ will remain available to migrants who choose not to, or are unable to become citizens (i.e. dual nationality issues). It will almost certainly take longer for probationary citizens to qualify for ‘Permanent Residence’ than for Citizenship.

The UK Border Agency plans to implement these provisions in July 2011.

The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act has also introduced one further route to British Citizenship. Those born overseas to a parent in the armed forces, and those who have a British mother and were born before 1961 will automatically be entitled to British citizenship.

For further information on these changes or the current rules for Permanent Residence or Citizenship applications, please contact us.

UK Work Permits Ltd today publishes information on a growing trend of fraudulent scams aimed at vulnerable individuals overseas.

There has been a continuing increase in activity by fraudsters who promise individuals from overseas well paid work in the UK, then extract payments from them on the basis of work permit fees, accommodation charges, and other bogus expenses.

The standard modus operandi is as follows:

1. The Fraudsters place bogus advertisements for UK “jobs” in the press overseas or in foreign recruitment websites.

2. Applicants are selected very quickly and “approved” for the position, with little or nothing in the way of an interview or any reference checks. The applicant is usually offered an unrealistically high salary / or rate of pay for the work involved.

3. The applicant is referred on to a “visa / work permit agency” (part of the same organisation), and told that this agency / advisor must be paid an amount of money in order to organise the work permit.  This payment will usually be requested via Western Union (or other similar) money transfer service.

4. The applicant may also be referred onto an “accommodation / lettings agent” (part of the same organisation of fraudsters or perhaps the same person with a pseudonym). The applicant will then be asked to make a payment for accommodation (their first months deposit). This payment (and any others) will also usually be requested via Western Union (or other similar) money transfer service.

5. The applicant may be milked further for things like criminal record checks. As long as the applicant is willing to continue paying, the fraudsters will try to find new ways to extract their money.

6. The work permit, and the job, will never materialise.

Most or all of the communication in these cases takes place via the internet. The Fraudsters quickly and easily set up websites and email addresses for their bogus employers, bogus work permit agents, and bogus lettings agents.

The above scenario is being acted out on innocent individuals with alarming frequency. As a private immigration consultancy (a commercial organisation), UK Work Permits Ltd cannot invest resources in helping individuals to investigate, track down, or pursue a claim against anyone they believe may have defrauded them.  Anybody in this situation however is welcome to contact the OISC, and make a complaint to them. The OISC’s role is to police those claiming or promising to provide UK immigration related advice. Victims may also wish to contact the police in the area of the UK in which the fraudsters are believed to operate.

The following may be signs that a job offer / offer of a work permit is not genuine:

• The job offer may be issued without any significant effort on the part of the applicant, without interview, without the checking of references.
• The salary offered for the position may be far higher than average (individuals can use UK job boards to check the normal salaries offered for the position in question).
• When searching the internet it may be hard to find any record of the relevant employer at the address given.
• The email address given for the employer may be a webmail address, rather than an email address at the domain name of the company (e.g. “@therelevantcompany.com”). If the employer is supposed to be a well established or large organisation then they will most likely have their own domain name and the email addresses will be “@thatdomain.com” rather than @yahoo.com, @hotmail.com etc.
• The telephone number for the employer may begin “00 44 7″ indicating that it is only a mobile number. These are used by the fraudsters usually, but some are starting to use landline numbers.
• The precise name of the company / organisation (work permit visa agency) will not be listed as a registered organisation by the OISC (or any other appropriate regulator such as the Law Society). The fraudsters will often claim to be registered with the OISC, but they are of course not actually registered.
• The explanation given of what visa is being applied for, the process and the costs, may appear inconsistent / jumbled. It is worth checking the UKWP site, or other reputable site to familiarise  yourself with the current relevant schemes and processes, and making sure that the advice given falls in line with that.
• The telephone number given will be a mobile number in the UK (It will begin 00 44 7) and / or where a landline number (beginning 00 44 1 or 00 44 2) you will reach an automated service and you will be unable to speak to a staff member.
• The applicant will probably be asked to make payment by Western Union (or other similar) money transfer service.

If any of the above apply to an individual who has been offered a position and / or work permit in the UK, we would only advise that you exercise extreme caution before making any payment or any further payment. Ultimately however, individuals must make their own checks and make their own decisions. The presence of one or more of the indicators above does not mean that a job offer, or an immigraiton advisor, is not genuine. SImilarly the absence of any of the above indicators does not mean that a job offer, or the immigration advisor is genuine.

We repeat that we are not able to offer help or guidance to people wishing to investigate or retrieve funds from anyone who they believe has defrauded them.

Latest comment on the upcoming changes – 31st March 2009

UK Work Permits Ltd is now able to clarify some further pieces of information regarding the imminent changes affecting:

• Tier 1 (General)
• Tier 1 Post Study Work
• Tier2

Of the UK Points Based System.

Tier 1 (General)

It has been confirmed from several sources, including from the Border Agency (in writing) that the new revisions to Tier 1 (General) will not apply for individuals currently holding HSMP status looking to extend their stay under Tier 1 (General). As of 31st March 2009 however, for all those seeking entry clearance or (“first permission”) leave to remain under Tier 1 (General) it will not be possible to claim points for Bachelor’s degrees, or for earnings at a level less then £20k (or the adjusted overseas equivalent).

Tier 1 (Post Study Work)

It has been confirmed that, as of 31st March, it will no longer be possible for individuals to claim points under Tier 1 (Post Study Work) for Postgraduate certificates and diplomas, except in the case of UK Postgraduate Certificates of Education (PGCE).

Tier 2

It has been confirmed by the Border Agency that advertising via JobCentre Plus will become mandatory for all positions before a Certificate of Sponsorship can be issued. This requirement will apply to positions where the salary exceeds £40k p.a, although the position will only need to be advertised for a period of one week.

Other changes

A number of other changes have also been announced in a statement of changes issued by Phil Woolas, the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration:

• Allowing nurses and midwives to switch between Tier 5 and Tier 2 following full registration with the NMC;
• Allowing footballers to switch from Tier 5 to Tier 2;
• Further clarification being issued regarding activities that are permitted under the Business Visitor category;
• Deleting some existing provisions which allow exemption for Knowledge of Life (in the UK) for ILR applicants.

The work permit arrangements have today been replaced by Tier 2 of the Points Based System.

Like the work permit arrangements, Tier 2 covers skilled workers with a job offer from a UK employer. Instead of an employer making an application for a work permit, as they would have done under the old system, they will now issue ‘certificates of sponsorship’ which will enable individuals to apply for a visa.

Although many of the requirments are the same, the following are the main changes that Tier 2 has introduced:

• Employers must have a sponsor’s licence to sponsor migrants under this Tier. Please see the Tier 2 page for more information.
• This licence will be granted on the basis that the employer meets certain Home Office requirements on HR practices.
• A much greater level of trust will be awarded to employers, who will issue certificates of sponsorship without certain evidence being checked by the Home Office at the time of issue (although it can be checked at any time while the person is sponsored).

Employers interested in obtaining a sponsor’s licence should contact UK Work Permits for information on how we can help. We can also help employers who have already obtained licences, to manage their affairs under the new system.

For more information about Tier 2, please visit the Tier 2 pages or contact us.