370,000 migrants on the dole. Really?

Got this piece sent in today that makes an interesting reading. It lends credence to the article I wrote and shared with you on this Blog last week with the headline “Bashing the Immigrants”. Please read on and feel free to send in your comments on it.

“For those of you who’ve awoken to today’s misleading article by the Telegraph entitled ‘370,000 migrants on the dole‘, and the equally bad piece by Chris Grayling, we thought we’d get out a quick post to try to clear up some of the poor reporting around this issue.

1. The DWP report counts British citizens amongst the 370,000 figure. As such the real figure for numbers claiming benefits is likely to be far LOWER (p.3 of the report). Indeed if you read on in the report the suggestion is that the figure could be cut by over a half  (p.11) thus giving a more accurate actual figure of 199,800 i.e. out of the 5 and 1/2 million people claiming benefits that would work out at around 3.2% of total claimants.

2.  The percentage of what is classified as ‘non nationals’ for benefit purposes shows that  migrants actually proportionally claim far  LESS in the way of benefits than UK nationals. The rate for so called UK nationals is 16.6 % and for foreign nationals it’s 6.6 % (see page 4 of the report).

3. The report and statistics are not confined to  ’dole’ benefits’ and instead also cover Disability Living Allowance, Carers Allowance, Bereaved (widow’s benefit), Pension Credit, and others, so that yet further lowers the figure for so called ‘dole claims’.

4. The report shows that there’s a staggering LOW Fraud for benefit claims by ‘foreign nationals’ (p.11) in the region of around 2%.

5. Non- EEA migrants are not generally entitled to ANY non-contribution based benefits, and Brits in the EU have reciprocal entitlements to benefit claims in those countries. Moreover, why shouldn’t migrants who’ve worked and contributed to the UK through taxation on their income be it as salaried or self employed people, claim benefits when they fall upon hard time just like anyone else?

6. Statistics from various  research reports   tend to show that migrants are NET CONTRIBUTORS to the PUBLIC PURSE

7. More generally migrants also bring in a load of other benefits to the UK including the relocation of large companies. Indeed the Migration Advisory Committee previously found extensive evidence from Japanese companies such as Hitachi, Honda and Mitsubishi that if these companies were prevented from recruiting workers from Japan; they would have to scale back their UK operations significantly. On average, for every one Japanese national, these companies employ 73 UK residents.”

Feedbacks: Readers are free to send feedbacks on topics discussed on Migrants Watch, their experience on immigration matter or topics they would like to appear on this page by emailing: migrantswatch@hotmail.co.uk

BASHING THE IMMIGRANTS

Immigrants have been bashed by a certain section of the society these days so much to that they have apparently become punch-drunk.

Immigrants are seen by certain people as the devil incarnate to the point that they are quick to blame them for every ills of the society. When the sun fails to shine on time it’s the fault of the Immigrants. When their dog barks continuously, it is the fault of the Immigrants. Even when they went on their usual binge drinking and wakes up with a hangover the next day, yes you’ve guessed it, Immigrants are to blame.

What I find rather confusing is the fact that Immigrants that are meant to supposedly be taking up jobs meant for the lazy work-shy of the society are also being blamed for milking the welfare system. What an oxymoron!

How a set of people who are perceived as taking over most of the jobs meant for the populace are at the same time being accused of choosing not to work and living off the state is beyond logic.

A section of the media ran a headline last week screaming “One British job is lost for every four Immigrants”. It attributed its story to a survey carried out by the Migration Advisory Commission. Yet, in the same report, Migration Advisory Commission confirms what most sensible people had believed all along that Migrants pay more in tax than they use in services.

The following day, the same media ran a story about some graduate suing the government for having ‘the audacity’ to force them to work at Poundland. This is the same type of jobs Immigrants are being accused of taking off British “jobseekers”. Jobs that the “Brits” considered beneath them to take up. Any wonder then that “One British job is lost for every four Immigrants”?

I have read many statements from employers, people that know better concerning the issue of the so-called “One British job (that is being) lost for every four Immigrants” that the reason for this is simply about work ethics.

Immigrants are habitual hardworking people. Their motive is simply to work hard to earn their living in order to take care of their family (home and away). And employers (I believe) rightly recognise this trait in them. I also believe firmly that anyone that travels thousands of miles to a foreign land to earn a living will display similar trait; else their journey will turn out fruitless.

It is a known fact, whether some people believe it or not, that Immigrants do contribute a lot to the economy of this country and it is high time we all wake up to this reality and stop this xenophobia permeating the fabric of our society.

History is littered with facts of how in the 1950s the Government actively encouraged immigration to help rebuild the UK after the 2nd World War.

Britain even invited large numbers of Immigrants from the West Indies and Ireland to help rebuild Britain after the Second World War.

It is also a well known historical fact that Protestant Huguenots from France came to Britain to escape religious persecution in the 16th and 17th Centuries.

A large number of Jewish Migrants also came to the United Kingdom between 1880 and 1910 to escape violence at home.

And in the 1970s, Britain admitted approximately 28,000 of Indian Migrants fleeing war in Uganda and about 22,000 of Refugees from South East Asia.

What I am saying is that Britain is - and has always been - proud of its tradition of providing a safe haven for people fleeing persecution and conflict.

All the people mentioned in the historical facts above are Immigrants. Which begs the question: If Immigrants were good and essential for this country then, why not now?

On the flip side of the coin however, many corporations in this country have outsourced many of their jobs abroad to places like India and the like. These Immigrant bashers don’t seem to see anything wrong with this policy and the attendant loss of revenue in taxes. Yet it is Immigrants who are working and paying taxes into our economy that is being maligned.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research - a highly respected institute charged with the responsibility of researching into the Economic and Social activities of this country - finds in its research that immigration has little or no effect on unemployment, yet some people still believe the crazy and illogical theory that reducing immigration is the antidote to reducing the inherent high level of unemployment. How bizarre.

If there is one thing this country is known for around the globe, it is its hospitality and tradition of providing a safe haven for people fleeing persecution and conflict. Its ability to embrace peoples of different Race, Culture, Religion, Ethnicity etc. That is why London, for example, is the most cosmopolitan city in the world. It is a shame however, that this is now in danger of being eroded by this new found culture of Immigrant bashing.

I think it is high time that all well-meaning people of this great country rise up to defend the very tradition that this country is known for and put a stop to this Migrant bashing nonsense forever.

Feedbacks: Readers are free to send feedbacks on topics discussed on Migrants Watch, their experience on immigration matter or topics they would like to appear on this page by emailing: migrantswatch@hotmail.co.uk

European Court of Justice holds that EU Charter of Fundamental Rights binding on UK

The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark judgement that is bound to set a precedent for the future. Migrants Watch UK is reproducing the judgement hereunder for your attention.

"This briefing provided by Sonal Ghelani
The Migrants' Law Project Doughty Street Chambers
http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered its judgment in the landmark case of Saeedi/NS (C411/10) deciding fundamental questions about Member States' obligations under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and whether the Charter binds the UK. 13 Member States intervened along with the European Commission, UNHCR, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International/AIRE. An Irish reference, ME, was joined with NS.

The case concerned a challenge by Mr Saeedi to his transfer to Greece under the Dublin Regulation which enables Member States to transfer asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered. The Court observed that According to [Mr Saeedi], the Greek authorities detained him for four days and, on his release, gave him an order to leave Greece within 30 days. He claims that, when he tried to leave Greece, he was arrested by the police and was expelled to Turkey, where he was detained in appalling conditions for two months. He states that he escaped from his place of detention in Turkey and travelled from that State to the United Kingdom, where he arrived on 12 January 2009 and where, that same day, he lodged an asylum application. (para 35)

Mr. Saeedi challenged his removal to Greece by judicial review relying on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Administrative Court accepted that Greece did not comply with EU law and would detain him in bad conditions and/or leave him destitute without offering an effective examination of his asylum claim. However, it considered itself bound by previous UK and Strasbourg caselaw to dismiss the claim. He appealed to the Court of Appeal which referred it to the CJEU due to the difficulty and importance of the case.

The Grand Chamber's ruling was handed down on 21st December 2011 deciding a number of fundamental issues.

No UK 'opt out' from the Charter The UK along with Poland had negotiated a Protocol to the Lisbon Treaty (which made the Charter binding) that then Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed was an opt-out. At the summit which agreed the Lisbon Treaty, the BBC reported: "The four essential things that we in the UK required in order to protect our position have all been obtained," said Tony Blair at the end of his last EU summit as British prime minister. "Those were first of all to make it absolutely clear that the charter on fundamental rights was not going to be justiciable in British courts or alter British law."

EU leaders agree on reform treaty http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6232540.stm

The Grand Chamber held that "Article 1(1) of Protocol (No 30) ... does not intend to exempt the Republic of Poland or the United Kingdom from the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Charter or to prevent a court of one of those Member States from ensuring compliance with those provisions." It said there was no need to rule on the interpretation of Article 1(2) of the Protocol as that applied only to Title IV of the Charter which was not relevant to the present case.

The safe third country deeming provision is incompatible with EU Charter The Grand Chamber has also held that the controversial safe third country deeming provision in UK primary legislation is incompatible with EU fundamental rights and therefore contrary to EU law. The deeming provision prevented UK courts from declaring unlawful and quashing the removal of asylum seekers to other EU Member States on the basis that defects in other EU states' asylum systems created a real risk of expulsion from the receiving state in violation of the Refugee Convention and EU law. (In Nasseri, the Court of Appeal and House of Lords had reversed the declaration of incompatibility granted by the Administrative Court under the Human Rights Act in relation to the deeming provision.)

UK may not apply conclusive presumption that other Member States respect fundamental rights
The Grand Chamber decided that Member States' duties under the Charter override principles of mutual trust between Member States. Member States were therefore not entitled to apply a conclusive presumption (based on principles of mutual trust between Member States) that other Member States complied with fundamental rights.

The Court observed that: At issue here is the raison d'être of the European Union and the creation of an area of
freedom, security and justice and, in particular, the Common European Asylum System, based on mutual confidence and a presumption of compliance, by other Member States, with European Union law and, in particular, fundamental rights. (para 83)

It accepted that: as stated by N.S., were Regulation No 343/2003 to require a conclusive presumption of compliance with fundamental rights, it could itself be regarded as undermining the safeguards which are intended to ensure compliance with fundamental rights by the European Union and its Member States. That would be the case, inter alia, with regard to a provision which laid down that certain States are 'safe countries' with regard to compliance with fundamental rights, if that provision had to be interpreted as constituting a conclusive presumption, not admitting of any evidence to the contrary... (T)he mere ratification of conventions by a Member State cannot result in the application of a conclusive presumption that that State observes those conventions... In those circumstances, the presumption underlying the relevant legislation, stated in paragraph 80 above, that asylum seekers will be treated in a way which complies with fundamental rights, must be regarded as rebuttable. In the light of those factors, the answer to the questions referred is that European Union law precludes the application of a conclusive presumption that the Member State which [is responsible for examining an asylum claim under the Dublin Regulation] observes the fundamental rights of the European Union. (para 100-105)

Some of the Member States that intervened at the hearing had objected that they were in no position to assess the risk that other Member States would breach fundamental rights but the Court rejected their claim. It held that they could use the same kind of country information as the European Court of Human Rights in order to assess the functioning of the asylum system in the Member State responsible, making it possible to evaluate those risks. (para 91)

It concluded that Article 4 of the Charter (which is equivalent to Article 3, ECHR) precluded the transfer of asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulation where systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in that Member State amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of that provision. As the European Court of Human Rights had, since the Court of Appeal made the reference, found that such deficiencies existed in Greece, it was now clear that the UK would violate Article 4 of the Charter if it transferred asylum seekers to Greece and the other articles of the Charter relied upon by Mr Saeedi did not lead to a different answer (paras 112-114)

The Court emphasised that where a Member State such as the UK could not transfer an asylum seeker to the responsible state, here Greece, then it must ensure that it does not worsen a situation where the fundamental rights of that applicant have been infringed by using a procedure for determining the Member State responsible which takes an unreasonable length of time. If necessary, it must itself examine the application.

The legal team for N.S. (Mr Saeedi) are Dinah Rose QC, Mark Henderson and Alison Pickup of counsel instructed by Sonal Ghelani of the Migrants' Law Project at Islington Law Centre. Mr Saeedi was previously represented by Roopa Tanna at Refugee and Migrant Justice until it went into administration in June 2010 due to legal aid cuts and then by Sheona York at Immigration Advisory Service Prior until that organisation too went into administration due to legal aid cuts in July 2011.

---

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

* Dignity / * Freedoms / * Equality / * Solidarity / * Citizens' rights / * Justice

Summary

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, a political declaration agreed in 2000 and then in a slightly amended form included in the Constitutional Treaty, was not incorporated in the Treaty of Lisbon but has been by the EU institutions and then referred to in the Lisbon Treaty.

The adoption of the Charter as a legal text represents an important change in the EU's human rights framework but the effects of its adoption may not be as extensive as some have suggested. The United Kingdom and Poland obtained the agreement of the other Member States to a further protocol to the Lisbon Treaty which seeks to restrict the interpretation of the Charter by the European Court of Justice and their domestic courts (this is sometimes mistakenly described as an "opt-out").

This briefing explains the history of the Charter, identifies its key provisions, considers the effects of its adoption and explains the British and Polish additional protocol.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feedback: We welcome your feedback on topics discussed on Migrants Watch UK or your experience on immigration matter. To send us your feedbacks please E-mail: migrantswatch@hotmail.com

Third Country Returns

Here's an interesting case about the 'Third Country Returns' between an Immigrant and the Secretary of State.

I find it interesting and thought I should share it with you. Please read on.

"Medhanye, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 3012

Facts

The claimant was an Eritrean national who claimed asylum in the UK. Inquiries by SSHD revealed that the he had previously claimed asylum in Italy. The Italian authorities had accepted, pursuant to the Dublin II Regulation, that they were responsible for dealing with his asylum application.

The claimant was informed in December 2008 that he would be returned to Italy, and in 2009 SSHD certified his human rights claim in relation to return to Italy as ‘clearly unfounded’. The claimant sought permission to challenge SSHD’s maintenance of those decisions in the light of subsequent material that had been submitted in relation to the claim, whilst also seeking a stay pending determination of NS.

The challenge was on two grounds. Firstly, it was asserted that return would violate EU law - specifically Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). Secondly, it was argued on the basis of MSS principles that return would violate Article 3 ECHR because of the conditions encountered on return to Italy.

Held

1. The ECJ has yet to issue judgment in NS on whether CFR applies to decisions under Dublin II, and if so, the nature of the relationship between Article 1 of CFR (right to dignity) and Article 3 ECHR. Permission is therefore granted on this basis, and judgment is stayed pending the ECJ’s judgment;

2. In relation to Article 3 ECHR arguments, the material adduced by the Claimants in relation to ECHR risks was not sufficiently strong to meet the KRS test - KRS states that in the absence of proof to the contrary, there is a presumption that state parties to Dublin II will abide by ECHR obligations.

Analysis

This case has obvious implications for returns by the UK to Italy under Dublin II given this stay of judgment pending a ruling by the ECJ in NS.  As the Court puts it, ‘it is probable that no returns to Italy can be made until the ECJ issues its judgment.’

In relation to Article 1 CFR arguments, the Court seemed skeptical that the ambit of Article 1 could be any wider than Article 3 ECHR. It was also concerned that the ECJ may not even specifically address this discrete point if they adopt the Advocate General’s opinion in NS. At Para 45 the Court states:

'I do not see the basis upon which it could realistically be held that the returnee’s right to “dignity” had nonetheless been infringed. Ex hypothesi, the returnee would have been treated in a manner that was humane, that did not degrade him or her, and that accordingly respected and protected his or her “dignity”. To postulate some form of humane and non-degrading treatment that nonetheless violated a right to “dignity” would both create intolerable uncertainty as to precisely where the line should be drawn, and would also tend to trivialise what the framers of the Charter no doubt intended to enumerate as undisputed and generally recognised “fundamental” rights. No doubt quite a lot of day to day conduct on the part of public authorities affronts, or could be perceived as affronting, an individual’s “dignity” in a broad sense. But to classify such conduct, when it could not properly be regarded as inhumane or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR, as a violation of a “fundamental” human right would seem to do no more than fortify that school of critics who continue to see force in Bentham’s celebrated aphorism regarding such rights'.

The judgment is also important as it highlights the high evidential burden that will apply in ECHR challenges in cases where return is contemplated to an ECHR contracting state.

When addressing evidence about Italy in this case, the Court emphasizes at Para.24, by reference to MSS, the need for ‘numerous reports from reputable organisations which all agree that there are serious deficiencies in Italian asylum practice.’   It notes:

The Courts have consistently held that evidence of aberrations does not demonstrate that a country is unsafe, so long as it has –

 ”a system which will, if it operates as it usually does, provide the required     standard of protection for the asylum seeker. No country can provide a system which is 100 per cent effective. There are going to be aberrations.” (See R v Home Secretary ex p. Adan (CA) [2009] 3 WLR 1274 at pages 1293-1294).

Following KRS, the existence of such a system is to be presumed. It is for the Claimant to rebut that presumption, by pointing to a reliable body of evidence demonstrating that Italy systematically and on a significant scale fails to comply with its international obligations to asylum seekers on its territory.

The Court also highlights in particular, the weight that will be attached to the views of the UNHCR and the European Commissioner for Human Rights in ECHR challenges of this kind.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feedback: We welcome your feedback on topics discussed on Migrants Watch UK or your experience on immigration matter. To send us your feedbacks please E-mail: migrantswatch@hotmail.com or follow our Blog at: http://migrantswatchuk.blogspot.com

Extension of employment restrictions for Bulgarian and Romanian nationals

Another update was announced by the UK Border Agency on Wednesday 23rd Nov. 2011. Reas on:

Controls to restrict how Bulgarian and Romanian nationals access the UK labour market will be extended until the end of 2013, Immigration Minister Damian Green announced today.

This means Romanian and Bulgarian (EU2) nationals seeking to work in the UK will continue to require permission from the UK Border Agency before they can work in the UK.

The minister said:
'Maintaining these controls will make sure migration benefits the UK and does not adversely impact on our labour market. The government is radically reforming the immigration system, and has already announced an annual limit on work visas and tough new rules for students to ensure net migration is reduced from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.

'The Migration Advisory Committee has made a clear case for extending the existing restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians. This government has also made clear that we will always introduce transitional controls on all new EU member states as a matter of course.'

The decision supports the government's commitment to reduce employers' dependence on migrant workers, particularly for lower skilled jobs. This will help the unemployed to find their way back into work and help the domestic workforce to acquire the skills the economy needs.

A report from the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) looked at the impact on the domestic labour market if the transitional controls were removed. It found that lifting the current restrictions could cause more EU2 nationals to come to the UK to work, particularly in lower skilled occupations where there is greater risk of displacement of resident workers and a negative impact on wages.

Permission to work will normally be given only where the worker has a specific job offer and the work is in skilled employment for which the employer has been unable to find a suitably qualified resident worker. There are also quota-based arrangements for lower skilled jobs in the agricultural and food processing sectors which will stay at the same level for 2012 and 2013.

The extension of the restrictions does not affect the position of those who have already been authorised to take employment in the UK.

The Migration Advisory Committee's report into EU2 (Bulgarian and Romanian) nationals was released on 4 November 2011 and can be found under the 'see also' section on the right side of this page.

UK Border Agency publishes Common Travel Area report

Here's another update from the UK Border Agency.

"The UK Border Agency has today published a report reviewing the new border arrangements at Northern Ireland sea ports.

In November 2010, we ended the secondment of 3 police officers from Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, when responsibility for identifying illegal migrants travelling between the West of Scotland and Northern Ireland sea ports transferred to our local immigration team in Northern Ireland.

The report outlines the emerging findings from our initial review of the new arrangements, and assesses their impact over the period 1 January and 30 April 2011. It concludes that the new arrangements have been successful in increasing the number of immigration offenders detected by both agencies, although further development is needed.

Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary have been consulted on the report and its recommendations. Since the review, both agencies have agreed a 10-point plan of action to improve coordination and liaison. The measures will be introduced during August and September 2011.

The report recommends (and both agencies agree) that a further assessment should be conducted and reported on early in 2012.

Phil Taylor, our regional director for Scotland and Northern Ireland, said:
'I am pleased that the new system has resulted in a marked increase in the detection of immigration offenders, with significant numbers of these cases being detected in Northern Ireland. In the 4 months from January to April 2011, a total of 102 immigration offenders were detected at Scottish and Northern Ireland sea ports. That represents a 65 per cent increase on the same period in 2010.'"


Feedbacks: Readers are free to send feedbacks on topics discussed on Migrants Watch, their experience on immigration matter or topics they would like to appear on this page by emailing: migrantswatch@hotmail.co.uk

UK opens its doors to exceptionally talented migrants

Migrants Watch UK is bringing to your notice another update from the UK Border Agency.

"The government has today announced the way that it will encourage exceptionally talented leaders in the fields of science, humanities, engineering and the arts to come to the UK.

The new Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) category will open on 9 August 2011.

This new category will facilitate not only those who have already been recognised but also those with the potential to be recognised as leaders in their respective fields. There is a limit of 1,000 places in the first year of operation. There will be 500 places available between the 9 August and 30 November and a further 500 places available from the 1 December to 31 March 2012. The number of places will be reviewed at the end of March 2012.

• Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) will be overseen by world-renowned 'competent bodies', which will advise the UK Border Agency on these 'exceptionally talented' migrants to ensure that they are the brightest and best in their field:

• The Royal Society, a fellowship of the world's most eminent scientists, will be able to nominate up to 300 places;

• Arts Council England, the national development agency for the arts, will also be able to nominate up to 300 places;

• The Royal Academy of Engineering, Britain’s national academy for engineering, will have up to 200 places to nominate; and

• The British Academy, the national academy for the humanities and social sciences will be able to nominate up to 200 places.

Immigration Minister Damian Green said:
'The UK is a global leader in science, humanities and engineering and we are a cultural centre for the arts: we will continue to welcome those who have the most to offer and contribute to our society and economy.

'Our new exceptional talent route, available for up to 1,000 applicants, will ensure that we continue to attract the brightest into the UK and keep the UK a global leader.

'This comes at a time of major reform of the immigration system to bring net migration back down to the tens of thousands, tackle abuses and make sure that the immigration system meets the needs of the country.'

Migrants seeking entry to the UK under Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) will not need to be sponsored by an employer, but will need to be recommended by one of the competent bodies.

Alan Davey, Chief Executive of Arts Council England, said:
'We welcome the launch of this special visa scheme, which will enable the very best artists of international standing to live and work in the UK.

'The international exchange of artists enriches their art, and I’m sure audiences will welcome the opportunity to experience the finest artistic talent from across the world.'

It will be for each competent body to select those who will qualify for recommendation, and we have also published the criteria for their endorsement.

The President of the British Academy, Sir Adam Roberts, said:
'The Humanities and Social Sciences are flourishing in the UK and attract many excellent scholars from overseas.

'The British Academy is ready to play its part in identifying those outstanding scholars for whom Tier 1 is the appropriate visa category.'

While the government has allotted a number of places to each body, it will be open to the bodies to transfer additional places to those with more demand if this becomes necessary.

The President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, said:
'The UK is a global leader in science because we can attract the best minds from around the world to work with our own home-grown talent.

'The government has listened to the science community’s concerns about jeopardising our international leadership by restricting the immigration of scientists and the Royal Society will play its part in ensuring that the very best international talent can continue to come to the UK to work.'

Those admitted under Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) category will initially be granted permission to stay for 3 years and 4 months. They will then be able to extend their stay for a further 2 years, and settlement may be available after 5 years’ residence in the UK.

President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Sir John Parker FREng, said:
'In order to safeguard the UK's future competitiveness, we must ensure that it remains an attractive destination for world class engineers.

'I am confident that this new visa route will help to encourage global excellence to come to the UK.'"