Twenty-seventh Report
Instruments Drawn To The Special Attention
of The House
The Committee has considered the following instruments
and has determined that the special attention of the House should
be drawn to them on the grounds specified.
A. Jobseeker's Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity
Scheme) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/688)
Date laid: 14 March 2011
Parliamentary Procedure: negative
Summary: Although there is a considerable amount
of paper attached to this instrument the information it contains
is very vague. Subsequent questions asked by the Committee have
produced little more clarity. Given that the sanction on the individual
claimant for failing in any element of the Mandatory Work Activity
Scheme to which they are referred is the loss of 3 months' benefit,
the content and operation of the Scheme should be much more clearly
set out. The degree of flexibility and discretion built into the
arrangements causes the Committee to question how it can be delivered
with any degree of consistency. Unlike its predecessor, the Work
for Your Benefit Scheme, this is not a small pilot exercise but
will be implemented nationally from May. The SSAC report on the
proposal highlights a number of concerns, in particular the lack
of clarity about whether the scheme is intended as training or
punishment. The Committee considers it unacceptable that
the House has been given insufficient information to understand
the policy objective of the scheme; to determine how the scheme
will work; and effectively to assess whether the outcome will
help claimants to improve their prospects of obtaining employment.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House and they may imperfectly
achieve the policy objective.
1. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
has laid this instrument under the Social Security Contributions
and Benefits Act 1992, the Social Security Act 1998 and the Jobseekers
Act 1995 (as modified by the Welfare Reform Act 2009) along with
an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). A report by the Social Security
Advisory Committee (SSAC), a statutory consultee has been published
with the instrument ("the Act Paper").[1]
The Committee also sought further evidence from the DWP. Their
response is printed in Appendix 1.
2. The instrument sets up the Mandatory Work
Activity Scheme. This is defined in Regulation 2 as "a scheme
within section 17A (schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment:
"work for your benefit" schemes etc.) of the Act ...
that is designed to provide work or work-related activity for up
to 30 hours per week over a period of four consecutive weeks
with a view to assisting claimants to improve their prospects
of obtaining employment". These Regulations also provide
for Jobcentre Plus personal advisers to have discretion to require
that a Jobseeker's Allowance claimant participates in the Scheme
and sets sanctions for those who fail to participate without good
cause. Claimants will still be required to be actively seeking
work during their time on the Scheme which is one of the conditions
of receiving Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).
Purpose of the scheme
3. This is not stated clearly or consistently.
Paragraph 2 of the EM says:
"This scheme is aimed at those who require extra
support to help them re-focus their approach to job search and
gain work-related disciplines. The purpose of the Scheme is to
provide work or work-related activity with a view to assisting
the customer to improve their prospects of obtaining employment."
But the Departmental Memorandum to the SSAC
states:
"Jobcentre Plus advisers have clearly identified
a small number of Jobseeker's Allowance customers who may be doing
only the very bare minimum to comply with the requirement that
they actively seek work. Advisers have made clear that a programme
that allowed them to actively intervene at an early stage with
these specific customers could have a positive impact.... This
small minority requires active engagement though a mandatory programme,
in order to reorient their mindset and change their approach to
their search for work" (para 2.2)
4. The SSAC's letter to the Secretary of State
included in the Act Paper states explicitly the concerns of consultees
that the scheme appears to be a punishment rather than a way to
help people improve their skills and help them back into work
(paragraphs 4.4 & 5.2). This view is underpinned by the very
strict sanction régime - failure to participate fully in
the 4-week scheme without good cause results in a 3-month benefit
sanction. Failure to participate following a second referral to
a scheme would result in loss or reduction of JSA for 6 months.
Unusually, the claimant cannot avert the penalty by re-engaging
with the scheme, and the first sanction is more severe than for
other circumstances where the length of an initial penalty for
failing to meet particular requirements is more normally 2 weeks'
loss of benefit.
5. The DWP disputes this, stating in their response:
"the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is not a sanction or
a punishment but has been developed in recognition that some customers
require additional support." (paragraph 16, Act Paper). DWP
go on to argue that "after their four week placement, they
will be better placed to re-assess their approach and engage more
effectively with the requirements of seeking work and the other
support offered by Jobcentre Plus" (paragraph 21, Act Paper).
The Committee asked DWP to provide evidence to support this assertion
and they responded "Mandatory Work Activity is a new scheme
and therefore we have limited evidence." The Department did
express its intention to collect evaluation data but current plans
are imprecise and no timetable is given.
Content of the scheme
6. The SSAC is sceptical that the Scheme will
improve claimants' prospects of obtaining employment in line with
the provisions of the Act. "Published evidence is at best
ambivalent about the chances of 'workfare' type activity improving
outcomes for people who are out of work" (SSAC letter, paragraph
4.2). The Department's own research on similar schemes overseas
indicates that "there is little evidence that workfare increased
the likelihood of finding work" unless conditions are as
close to work as possible.[2]
The effectiveness of the Scheme may therefore depend on the nature
of the activities, but material in the EM and the Act Paper gives
very little indication of what claimants on the scheme might actually
be asked to do. Given that the Departmental tender for providers
went out on 14 February and the scheme is intended to commence
on 25 April, the Committee asked DWP officials if they could provide
some examples of actual schemes. DWP said:
"The contracting process for Mandatory Work
Activity has not yet been completed, contracts will be awarded
in April 2011.
We have not asked bidders to specify the placements
that they propose to find for customers; instead we will rely
on their ability to source appropriate placements throughout the
life of the contracts. This is in keeping with changes across
the Department, which focus on allowing as much flexibility as
possible to consider what will best support customers.
However, all the placements that the providers find
must offer people the opportunity to gain fundamental work disciplines,
as well as being of benefit to local communities. The Department
has stipulated that each provider will be expected to have placements
available across a range of sectors."
The House may wish to press the Department for
further detail.
7. These Regulations bear similarities to the
Work for Your Benefit regulations which the Committee considered
last year,[3] although
they were not actually implemented and the current Regulations
revoke that scheme. One of the key concerns at that time was that
providers should not exploit participants as a source of cheap
labour and that participants would gain relevant skills from the
experience. These concerns remain for the replacement Scheme set
out in the current Regulations. The Work for Your Benefit Scheme
differed in that it was based on a randomised selection process
and was a small pilot scheme with a clear evaluation plan aimed
at examining whether mandatory work activity had demonstrable
benefits. That evidence was not obtained but the Mandatory Work
Activity Scheme is being introduced nationally from the start
of May 2011.
Selection of participants
8. Whatever the Department's intention, a key
factor in the way the scheme will work in practice is the way
in which a customer can be selected for participation in the scheme.
The Departmental Memorandum in the Act Paper indicates that although
under the Regulations advisers will be able to send a customer
to Mandatory Work Activity at any point in their claim, they expect
most referrals will be for customers who do not find work quickly
and have been unemployed for 13 weeks or more, but this will normally
not include people actively participating in other elements of
the Work Programme such as Work Club or Work Experience (paragraph
4.1). DWP estimate that the Scheme will initially deliver around
10,000 placements per year[4]
but expects that this number will increase because "the competition
to deliver Mandatory Work Activity asked bidders to maximise the
number of places that they offer". No evidence is provided
to explain how this scale of provision has been assessed to meet
the expected level of demand or need for the scheme.
9. Detailed criteria on the basis for referral
to a Mandatory Work Activity are not included in the Regulations
as DWP's intention is to allow Jobcentre Plus advisers discretion
in deciding when a referral is most appropriate. The Departmental
Memorandum in the Act Paper indicates that the Adviser will be
required to consider whether the particular activity is reasonable
for the individual customer and to take into account any circumstances
that may affect a customer's ability to participate in the Scheme
(for example childcare responsibilities).
10. The Committee has commented before on the
great responsibility placed on the individual Jobcentre Plus Adviser.
We welcome the intention stated at paragraph 30 of the DWP's response
to the SSAC that, as an additional safeguard, once a personal
Adviser has identified that a customer may be suitable for the
Mandatory Work Activity Scheme they will be encouraged to discuss
the appropriateness of the referral with their Adviser Manager
who will decide whether to approve the referral. However we note
that this safeguard is indicated as recommended best practice
rather than a statutory requirement.
11. As the Guidance to Advisers is an important
element of understanding how the Scheme will work the Committee
asked to see the extract from the guidance that sets out how Advisers
will identify claimants as being suitable for referral to mandatory
work activity. DWP replied:
"The Department is currently in the process
of finalising the guidance for Jobcentre Plus advisers, and so
is unable to share an example of the Guidance with the Committee.
However, we are able to share the high level principles that will
be used to identify suitable customers.
Jobcentre Plus advisers will consider evidence
demonstrated by the customer against a set of standards to make
constant judgements about whether the customer would benefit from
the Mandatory Work Activity support. These standards will be underpinned
by indicating behaviours associated with the disciplines that
are key requirements of finding, securing and retaining employment.
Customers who consistently fail to demonstrate a number of these
indicators over a period of time will be considered for a
referral to Mandatory Work Activity.
Some of the indicators Jobcentre Plus advisers may
include:
- tends to take no personal responsibility for
job search activity, waits to be organised/contacted;
- reluctant to make speculative approaches, follow
up advice or job leads;
- regularly fails to attend appointments and interviews
on time;
- has little or no recent work experience;
- limited awareness of the types of support
available to help them with their jobsearch; and
- has no realistic appreciation of employer attitudes
or requirements."
12. We are concerned that the EM attached to
the instrument mentions that this Guidance to Advisers will be
issued via the intranet. To reduce the likelihood of appeals and
to ensure that the guidance is applied with transparent fairness
it would be appropriate for it to be made available to the public.
Conclusion
13. Although there is a considerable amount of
paper attached to this instrument the information it contains
is very vague. Subsequent questions asked by the Committee have
produced little more clarity. Given that the sanction on the individual
claimant for failing in any element of the Mandatory Work Activity
Scheme to which they are referred is the loss of 3 months' benefit,
the content and operation of the Scheme should be much more clearly
set out. The degree of flexibility and discretion built into the
arrangements causes the Committee to question how it can be delivered
with any degree of consistency. Unlike its predecessor, the Work
for Your Benefit Scheme, this is not a small pilot exercise but
will be implemented nationally from May. The SSAC report on the
proposal highlights a number of concerns, in particular the lack
of clarity about whether the scheme is intended as training or
punishment. The Committee considers it unacceptable that the
House has been given insufficient information to understand the
policy objective of the scheme; to determine how the scheme will
work; and effectively to assess whether the outcome will help
claimants to improve their prospects of obtaining employment.
B. Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(HC 863)
Date laid: 16 March 2011
Parliamentary Procedure: form of negative procedure
Summary: this Statement makes a number of significant
changes to the Immigration Rules, including giving effect to the
full migrant caps under Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points Based System
("the PBS") relating to Highly Skilled and Skilled Migrants
respectively. The Committee has restricted its analysis to the
changes to Tiers 1 and 2. The Committee has followed the development
of the Government's migration cap policy, having taken oral evidence
from the Home Office Minister Baroness Neville-Jones last Summer
and drawn two earlier Statements to the special attention of the
House. The policy objectives for the changes are challenging,
and have evolved since the interim migration cap was introduced.
When the Government laid an earlier Statement effectively closing
down the old Tier 1 (General) category to persons applying from
overseas, the Committee expressed its disappointment to the Government
about the level of supporting information. Despite the Committee's
request for this to be rectified when the full migration limits
policy was introduced, the Government have still not published
a comprehensive explanation of the findings from the consultation
on Tiers 1 and 2. This makes it difficult to know stakeholders'
views or understand why the Government have made the policy decisions
they have. The UK Border Agency has published an Impact Assessment
in support of the changes and this is available on the UKBA website.
Whilst this IA provides some useful information, the Committee
considers that there remain significant evidence gaps which appear
to have a direct bearing on whether the Tiers 1 and 2 changes
will achieve their policy objectives.
This instrument is drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House and may imperfectly
achieve its policy objectives.
14. This Statement of Changes in Immigration
Rules ("the Statement") makes a number of significant
changes to the Immigration Rules. The Statement was laid on 16
March with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) and was accompanied
by a Written Statement from Baroness Neville-Jones (Minister of
State, Home Office) [HL Deb 16 March 2011 WS13-15]. The UK Border
Agency ("UKBA") has published an Impact Assessment (IA)
with Annexes on its website[5].
The UKBA has also placed a Statement of Policy[6]
for the Tier 1 changes in the Library of the House. Although the
EM lists twelve substantive changes to the Immigration Rules as
the purpose of the Statement (EM paragraph 2.1), the Committee
has restricted its analysis to the changes to Tiers 1 and 2 of
the Points Based System ("the PBS").
15. The key changes to Tier 1 are as follows:
- To close Tier 1 (General) category in-country,
other than for extension applications from migrants who are already
in the UK in this category, or one of the categories, now closed
which preceded it before the introduction of the PBS;
- To create a new category in Tier 1 of the PBS
for exceptionally talented economic migrants with a limit of 1,000
grants of entry clearance in the first year of operation; and
- To implement changes to the Tier 1 categories
for Entrepreneurs and Investors, including provisions for accelerated
settlement (see EM paragraphs 7.4 to 7.9).
16. The key changes to Tier 2 are:
- To implement changes to Tier 2 (Intra-Company
Transfer) category, including differing requirements for transfers
depending on whether they are to be for more or less than 12 months;
and
- To implement changes to the Tier 2 (General)
category, including a limit of 20,700 overseas applicants who
can be sponsored under this category in the first year, and revised
minimum skill, salary and English language thresholds (see EM
paragraph 7.10 to 7.12).
Background
17. In Her Majesty's Speech to both Houses of
Parliament at the State Opening[7]
on 25 May 2010, it was announced that the Government would limit
the number of non-European Union economic migrants entering the
United Kingdom. The development of this migration cap is one of
the more significant developments in immigration policy since
the Immigration Act 1971 came into effect. The Government's general
approach has been to put in place interim limits pending the development
of the policy for the full limits for Tiers 1 and 2. There have
been a number of other notable Statements of Changes of Immigration
Policy since the policy was announced, including:
- HC 59 Statement of Changes in Immigration
Rules ("HC 59"): this provided
for the application of an interim limit on applications approved
under Tier 1 (General) of the PBS, and increased the number of
points required to qualify under Tier 1 (General). The Committee
issued a Call for Written Evidence when HC 59 was laid, and took
oral and written evidence from Home Office Minister Baroness Neville-Jones.
The Committee reported HC 59 on the ground that it gave rise to
issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House
[4th Report, HL Paper 17]; and
- HC 698 Statement of Changes in Immigration
Rules ("HC 698"): this closed
Tier 1 (General) interim category to persons applying from outside
the UK, and specified the level of the Tier 2 (General) interim
limit in the Immigration Rules in response to a recent Divisional
Court decision. HC 698 was also reported to the House by the Committee
[17th Report, HL Paper 80].
18. On 23 November 2010 the Home Secretary announced[8]
the scope of the full limits for Tiers 1 and 2 which would take
effect from April 2011. There has been a significant amount of
media coverage both before and after this announcement.
Parliamentary Scrutiny
19. The parliamentary scrutiny process for this
type of instrument is unusual but is explained in the Committee's
4th Report (paragraphs 12 and 13). With any policy changes of
this importance, the Government should always be aware of the
need to allow the House full opportunity to scrutinise the changes.
The Committee was critical of the lack of information presented
to Parliament to explain why HC 698 effectively ended Tier 1 (General)
to overseas applicants (see 17th Report, HL Paper 80, paragraph
10). As a result, the Committee wrote to Damian Green MP (Minister
for Immigration) saying that we would have expected to see an
evidence based explanation as to why the Government was changing
Tier 1, some measurement of the impact of the changes, and a more
comprehensive explanation of the findings from the consultation
on which the changes were based. The Committee also asked for
assurance that a better package of supporting information be provided
when the full migration limits are introduced in April (see 19th
Report, HL Paper 19, Appendix 2).
20. It is disappointing that, despite the Committee's
letter, the Government have still only made very limited information
available from the outcome of the consultation into this policy.
The EM says that the changes to Tiers 1 and 2 have been developed
following a full public consultation, "Limits on non-EU economic
migration", which ran from 28 June to 17 September 2010;
and that a summary[9] of
the findings is published on the UKBA website (EM paragraph 8.1).
The summary shows that there is a high level of interest in the
development of the policy as 3,201 responses were received to
the questionnaire during the consultation period; and that these
were received from a range of organisations, including: accountancy
firms, manufacturers, telecommunications, universities, transport,
retail, the media, the health sector, third-sector organisations,
unions and professional bodies, as well as private individuals.
However, the summary is limited to a two and a half page numerical
breakdown of the responses with a few unattributed suggestions,
and an Annex providing a list of the 571 responding organisations
which provided their details (but unfortunately no information
about the rest of the respondents - the great majority). The Committee
considers that this does not provide a sufficiently detailed account
of what has been learnt from the consultation exercise and therefore
allows only a limited understanding of the resulting decisions.
Policy Objectives
21. The IA lists the policy objectives for the
design and implementation of measures to apply limits on the number
of economic migrants and tightening settlement criteria as being
to:
- Contribute to the Government's target of lowering
net migration to the tens of thousands;
- Reduce any adverse social impacts of immigration;
- Augment the selectivity of the system so that
the operation of the limit does not exclude the brightest and
the best;
- Achieve the right balance between admitting those
with the greatest potential benefits to the UK and the immediate
need of employers to fill specific vacancies;
- Ensure that the limit operates in a way that
is fair and, so far as possible, offers certainty to businesses
and other users of the system; and
- Incentivise the skills system and encourage employers
to give priority to the training and recruitment of resident workers
to meet skill needs.
It is noted that by including the changes to tighten
the settlement criteria, these objectives go beyond just the migration
cap.
22. Given the combination of immigration and
employment objectives, as well as high level social and economic
objectives, this is a very challenging set of policy objectives.
When the Committee was considering HC 59, we were given assurances
that the interim limits would be kept under constant review to
assess whether they are meeting the objectives outlined and to
monitor any unintended consequences (4th Report, Appendix 3, page
42). The policy objectives above have developed significantly
from those identified in the IA for the interim limits, which
were: to reduce net migration; to reduce any adverse social impacts
of immigration; and to continue to attract the brightest and the
best people to the UK (4th Report, paragraph 3). Although this
is presumably as a result of the ongoing review, it is not immediately
clear to the Committee why the objectives have evolved as they
have.
Impact
23. The challenging nature of the policy objectives
means that the IA has an important role in providing reassurance
that the migration cap policy is based on solid evidence. The
Committee is particularly alive to this issue as the responses
to the Committee's earlier Call for Written Evidence demonstrated
the complexity of the possible impacts from any migration cap
(see 4th Report, Appendix 2).
24. The IA considers the impacts of the Tiers
1 and 2 migration cap, as well as a 'do nothing' option and non-regulatory
options. The IA looks at the impact on migration volumes, costs
and benefits, wider economic impacts, public services, and risks.
The Annexes to the IA cover the Post Implementation Review (PIR)
Plan, the statutory equality duties, net migration, the migration
cap policy proposals, costs and benefits, wider economic impact,
public services and other wider impacts, and occupations affected.
There are a number of findings and assumptions in the IA which
the Committee wishes to highlight to the House. These are:
- Lowering net migration: the volume impact of
the 'do nothing' option and the migrant cap option receives a
significant focus in the IA (IA pages 13, 14 and 15, and Annex
3). This is to be expected given the Government's target of lowering
net migration to the tens of thousands;
- Social impacts: the IA provides some analysis
of the impact of the changes on demand for healthcare, social
work, social care and housing, as well as some limited analysis
of public opinion and social cohesion (IA pages 24 to 26). Annex
7 expands on this, although the analysis of the impacts on public
opinion and social cohesion is still very light. Although the
IA cites a lack of academic research into the relationship between
migration and cohesion (Annex 7, page 71), the Committee would
have liked to see more evidence of the possible impacts of the
changes in this regard, possibly with the consultation used to
bring this out;
- Augment the selectivity of the system so that
the operation of the limit does not exclude the brightest and
the best: the IA includes some analysis of the productivity levels
of Tier 1 and 2 migrants and the economic effect of the policy
on trend growth (IA, page 19 and 20). This is expanded in Annex
6 of the IA. The Committee welcomes this analysis which draws
heavily from Labour Force Survey statistics and academic research.
However, the Committee would have liked to have seen more evidence
from the consultation to enable us to form a view as to whether
or not the policy will achieve this objective;
- Needs of employers: the Committee's earlier Written
Call for Evidence highlighted a number of concerns about whether
the Tier 1 interim cap would allow employers to get the staff
they require (4th Report). The Committee therefore welcomes the
analysis in the IA of the impact of the changes on the various
employment sectors (IA pages 21 to 25). The Committee also notes
that the UKBA has previously provided statements from the Confederation
of British Industries and the British Chamber of Commerce to support
the changes (see 17th Report of this Session, page 7). During
the Committee's earlier oral evidence session, Baroness Neville-Jones
said that they were mindful of the need to consult on the scope
of the full migration caps and that the Government was not going
to ignore the fact that groups of employers were concerned about
the potential impact (4th Report, page 39). It is disappointing
therefore that although the IA acknowledges that the proposals
will not affect migrant workers uniformly, creating greater difficulties
for some sectors and occupations than others (IA page 21), there
is very little evidence from the consultation showing exactly
where the risks are likely to be;
- Potential benefits to the UK: this objective
is of particular importance given the current economic situation.
The Committee notes that the Home Secretary[10]
had used the fact that at least 30% of Tier 1 migrants were either
not working, or working in low paid jobs, as a reason for closing
the old Tier 1 (General) route. In explaining the Tier 1 policy
decisions, the Committee would have expected to see some analysis
of the contribution made by the other Tier 1 migrants; and
- Fairness: one of the objectives of the policy
is that it operates in a way that is fair. The House may wish
to note the findings from the Specific Impact Tests at Annex 2
which show the percentage breakdown of Tier 1 and 2 visas in 2009.
This shows that 55% of Tier 2 visa issues were for Indian nationals,
and 39% and 18% of Tier 1 visa issues were for Indian and Pakistani
visa nationals respectively (IA page 30 and 31). The IA also says
that the changes to intra-company transfers would impact on Indian
nationals, and the changes to Tier 2 (General) criteria will impact
on specific occupations for which, typically, migrants from the
Indian sub-continent and the rest of Asia have previously been
admitted under Tier 2 (IA page 30 and 31). The IA however is silent
on how the Government will manage any perceptions of unfairness
as a result of the changes.
Review
25. The EM says that all the changes made by
this Statement will be monitored on an on-going basis as part
of the review of progress towards meeting the Government's commitment
to reduce annual net migration from the level of hundreds of thousands
to the level of tens of thousands (paragraph 12.2). The PIR Plan
(see Annex 1 of the IA) says that there will be a review of the
policy before April 2012, and the success criteria will include:
a reduction in PBS numbers; the UK economy continues to perform
well; firms up-skill their workers; businesses adjust to the new
equilibrium; and perceptions of immigration as a negative factor
decline. However, the House may be interested to note that there
are also review clauses at the beginning of the Statement which
require the Secretary of State to review the operation and effect
of the changes, and lay a report before Parliament, within five
years after these changes come into force and within every five
years after that.
Conclusions
26. This is an important instrument introducing
a significant change of policy for the UK immigration system.
The Committee recognises the challenges of introducing the migration
cap. However, although the Government has produced some useful
supporting information, the Committee considers that this falls
short of what we would expect for such an important policy change.
This is particularly disappointing as the interim caps have been
in place since last summer and should have provided a basis for
a thorough assessment of the impacts of the policy. On consideration
of this instrument, the Committee believes that the gaps in the
evidence presented by the Government are sufficient to create
a measure of doubt as to whether the Statement will achieve its
policy objectives.
1 On the official documents website:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/9780108510403/9780108510403.asp
Back
2
Richard Crisp and del Roy Fletcher Department for Work and Pensions
Research report No 533: A comparative review of workfare programmes
in the United States, Canada and Australia http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf Back
3
Draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Work For Your Benefit Pilot Scheme)
Regulations 2010 (Made as SI 2010/1222) - see 13th Merits Committee
Report of Session 2009-10 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldmerit/84/8402.htm
Back
4
This represents less than 1% of the 1.45million people claiming
Jobseeker's Allowance at March 2011. Back
5
'Migration Permanent Limit (Points Based System Tier 1 and Tier
2)' - available at: www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/ia/ Back
6
'Statement of Policy: changes to the Tier 1 of the Points Based
System - March 2011' Back
7
Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to Both Houses of Parliament:
Delivered on Tuesday 25 May 2010 Back
8
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/parliamentary-business/oral-statements/limits-statement/
Back
9
'UKBA Consultation on limits on non-EU economic migration: 28
June to 17 September 2010' Back
10
Home Secretary statement of 23 November 2010 Back
| 
