It should be said, at the outset, that there is NO amnesty. This is not to say that there is no case for one.

It has been widely reported that our new Prime Minister, Mr Boris Johnson, is open to the idea of an immigration amnesty. When asked about his stance he was noted to reply:

“But I have to say I do think that our arrangements in theoretically being committed to the expulsion of perhaps half-a-million people who don’t have the correct papers and who may have been living and working here for many, many years without being involved in any criminal activity at all … I think that the legal position is anomalous and we saw the difficulties that kind of problem occasioned in the Windrush fiasco.”

He continued: “We know the difficulties that can be caused and I do think – yes, I will answer her directly – I do think we need to look at our arrangements for people who have lived and worked here for a long time unable to enter the economy, unable to participate properly or pay taxes without documents.

“We should look at it and the truth is, the law already basically allows them an effective amnesty, that’s basically where we have settled now.

“But we should look at the economic advantages and disadvantages of going ahead with the policy that she described, and which I think she and I share.” (The Scotsman 25 July 2019)

Immigration is an emotive issue which often makes a debate polarised. It can be very difficult to consider the topic dispassionately, but this does not mean that we should not, at least, try. A good starting point is “the economic advantages and disadvantages of an amnesty”.

The possible tax contribution of legalising migrants is often cited by pro amnesty advocates as a reason in favour of such policy. Those against amnesty retort that the additional costs to the United Kingdom’s infra structure (additional housing, NHS care) would outweigh the fiscal benefit. The abstract basis (unknown number of migrants and their taxable income) makes any calculation so inaccurate that I doubt it is useful to either camp.

What is not in dispute is the shortage of workers in certain occupations, especially in the care industry. Age UK have stated that:

“Social care in the UK is already in a fragile state. Recent research shows that 130,000 new care workers are needed each year just for the social care workforce to cope with current levels of demand. Right now, there are around 110,000 unfilled care jobs in the UK, and more than 3 in 10 care staff leave their jobs each year.”

There is a desperate shortage in the healthcare industry. This is echoed by the UK Government’s own advisor, the Migration Advisory Committee. MAC is tasked to provide independent advice to the government on immigration policy, and particularly on the Shortage Occupation List (SOL).

Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) in its May 2019 report stated:

“The demand for workers to fill vacancies in healthcare occupations is set to continue to grow as the demand for healthcare services continues to grow. Migration has made an important contribution to the sectors workforce and no doubt will continue to do so. However, the rise in vacancies and concern over lack of staff has occurred under freedom of movement and during a period when many health occupations have been on the SOL. Ultimately it will take more effective workforce planning and efforts to increase the flows into health professions (and decrease flows out) to meet growing demands.”

MAC’s summary was based on evidence provided by organisations in the Care industry including the Independent Care Group (ICG) a Membership organisation representing independent care providers across North Yorkshire and York. Their evidence presented to MAC in January 2019 stated:

“Care workers are the biggest risk. The ICG and others have campaigned for these essential workers to be classified as such and deemed as skilled workforce. Without care workers, the much needed home and domiciliary care in the UK could not be provided.”

“There has been a 1.6million increase in the number of people working in adult social care since 2009. By 2035, it is forecast that a further 59% growth or 950,000 roles will be needed to respond to demand. Given the sector has 8% vacancies at any one time and annual staff turnover of 30.7% it is clear from employment and education trends that this demand cannot be met solely from the domestic workforce.”

It should not be presumed that those regularised by an amnesty will all go on to work as carers, but many may. Any amnesty can also prioritise applicants who have such skills or are willing to work in Social care. An amnesty can therefore mean that there is an immediately available workforce. Such workers are already in the country, are familiar with life here and of great importance to the Care industry many already have experience in Social care. In regularising their status, the UK will have a ready, willing and able pool of people who will be able to fill the large gap of carers which Age UK states to be over 100,000.

Whilst Immigration continues to be an emotive issue, the government should not dismiss the opportunities an amnesty also present. As Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated: “all I will say is we should look at it” (6 of July – ITV news).