Relación con el impacto de la acción humana

As we discussed earlier, there was relatively little support for reducing the number of skilled migrants and many participants supported migration of doctors, nurses, teachers and other skilled groups. The median value at the stage of recruitment to the focus groups to the question ‘To what extent to do you think high skilled EU migrants are good or bad for the economy’ was 5

Survey respondents were also asked whether they thought there should be changes the number of EU migrants in certain categories. These were Health and Social Care, Agriculture, Hotels and Restaurants, Packing and Distribution. As can be seen from Figure 7, for each of these sectors, about half or more of all of the participants reported wanting numbers to remain the same. The largest share of participants reporting wanting to see an increase was for agriculture (26%). The largest share of participants wanting to see a reduction in numbers was for health and social care (40%).

Health and Social Care Agriculture Hotels and Restaurants Packing and Distribution

Reduce Same Increase

Figure 10. Distribution at pre stage of participants’ responses to the question ‘For each of these sectors, please tell us whether you would prefer the number of EU migrants coming

to live in the UK to be increased, reduced or remain about the same’.

In focus group discussions, there was relatively little discussion about skill as a basis for decisions about the right to live and work in the UK. Instead, discussions about control centred on issues of legality and legitimacy. At the same time, participants had views about the relative value of migrants based on skills criteria. Positive statements were made about highly skilled migrants, in particular doctors, nurses and teachers. But participants also saw a need for skilled workers outside of these occupations, to fill gaps in supply. Skills were broadly defined and included trades. The views of the following participant reflect others:

‘Every single school has got an issue with vacancies. There are carpenters that we’re short of. There are plumbers that we’re short of. They don’t necessarily have to be intelligent, academic kind of highly skilled workers but as long as there’s something that they can contribute… and not claim off the state’

Lower skilled migration was also supported where shortages exist, for example in agriculture. The employment of migrants in seasonal work was raised in ten out of twelve focus groups. It was an issue which generated discussion with many participants saying they or their families had carried out seasonal work. It was generally agreed that the work no longer attractive to British workers because it is now regulated, so that pay has to be declared rather than given by cash in hand, and women are

no longer allowed to take their children to work. Wages were also reported to have fallen, but the seasonality and nature of the work were seen as the principal factors deterring British workers. Therefore, it was seen to be legitimate for farmers to be able to recruit migrants for seasonal work. As stated above, for several participants, the level of skill was a less important factor than the contribution that a migrant makes, seen in broadly economic terms. For many participants, the main criteria for entry was therefore that an individual should make a contribution and be able to support themselves. This general view is represented by the following statement by one participant:

‘If they’ve got the means to support themselves, having a skill and that skill could be landscape gardening or building a brick wall. I can’t do those things but have they got something that they can offer?’

Some participants took this further in expressing the view that almost anyone should be allowed into the UK to work, and that controls should be put in place simply to prevent entry to people who come to claim benefits or who have broken the law. There was some agreement with the statement of one participant, referring to the defence proposal exercise, that ‘if they’re employed and they’re in society I’d happily give them the £200 to work out how to stay’. Her following qualification was also supported by the group:

‘But if they’re sponging off our system, if you’re not paying benefits, if you’re just living on benefits and you’re living in our accommodation then you don’t get it. You’re going home’.

Cultural requirements were also mentioned as important in whether an individual should be allowed to settle in the UK, but raised much less frequently than economic or financial considerations. Cultural requirements centred on the ability to speak English, or willingness to learn, and to integrate into British society. One participant reflected the views of some others in stating:

‘When you can agree that you are going to blend in and integrate with our way of life then come, but if you are going to come over and be arrogant and not learn English, just what to celebrate your own religion and make everyone else suffer for that, that is English, then it is not fair’.

The Australian points-based system was raised as a model of immigration policy in all of the focus groups, though was rarely discussed in any depth. This policy was designed specifically to target migrants who have skills or outstanding abilities and to meet labour shortages: more than two-thirds of all places are allocated to skilled migrants who have to meet requirements for age, English

language competency, qualifications and experience and must either be sponsored by an employer or their occupation must be on an approved list, with numerical caps (Gower, 2016).

Public understanding of the Australian system centres on its focus on the skills needs of the country. Participants referred, variously, to the requirement to have skills, a sponsor in the country and a reserve of money in an Australian bank. The system was seen to have the ability to select migrants with positive motivations and who will not make demands on the state. One participant explained:

‘I don’t get why should we try to accommodate, find jobs or have people coming over without jobs and, to put it crudely, taking benefits and obviously the tax payer paying towards them for them to sit around and do nothing.’

Unskilled migrants were seen as less desirable than those with skills and there was a view that Britain should supply its own unskilled labour. However, some participants made a case for unskilled migration to be continued, though subject to control over numbers. As one participant argued:

‘I would say with regard to their skills we do need some unskilled workers because the people that are unskilled in this country won’t take [the jobs]. They’d rather have benefits because it’s better for them. I think that we should have a limited amount of different skills and unskilled. I think that would be fair. It wouldn’t over-burden the country’.

While the need for lower skilled migrants was acknowledged, there was also concern that such migrants make less contribution and are more likely to be in need of state support.