Migration Advisory Committee Call for evidence - impact of ending freedom of movement on the adult social care sector: Scottish Government response

Section 6: Conclusion

The timing of this consultation means that the full impact of the ending of free movement on the social care sector is somewhat unclear. Ending free movement in the middle of a global pandemic severely limits the capacity of stretched social care providers to engage in surveys on the issue and significantly muddies the water as to the attribution of impact. This extremely unclear picture is yet another symptom of the UK government's misguided approach of pushing ahead with Brexit in the way that it has.

As mentioned above, two key studies, the Scottish Government's survey on the impact of the ending of free movement and the SSSC/Care Inspectorate Staff Vacancies report, are likely to yield further evidence of recent trends towards the end of 2021 or the beginning of 2022. The Scottish Government will endeavor to provide this evidence to the MAC at the earliest possible time and we urge the MAC to make every effort to accept these data in their final report and in shaping immigration policy more generally in the coming months.

Nevertheless, the above evidence paints a clear picture of a Scottish social care system which was already under workforce strains prior to the ending of free movement and the impact of the global pandemic. At this time, the arrival of EU workers provided a vital source of workforce, allowing for the provision and expansion of essential services to some of the most vulnerable in Scotland's society. SSSC's data demonstrates a declining EU workforce after the Brexit referendum and anecdotal evidence from key stakeholders highlights a speedy decline in EU workers in recent months, leading to an acute labour shortage in the sector. The most recent data from Scottish Government/COSLA work on myjobscotland job vacancies and the surveys done by Scottish Care and CCPS all demonstrate increased difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff in recent months. Scotland's general demographic trends reinforce this finding, with an aging population and low birth rate which has a more significant effect than the rest of the UK. Reductions in migration are likely to have a knock-on effect to the general workforce and demand for adult social care services.

The Scottish Government recognises that changing the immigration system is not the only answer to the issue of workforce shortages and we have outlined the significant steps that the Scottish Government and its partners are taking to attract and retain workers from the UK and abroad. This includes major steps towards professionalisation, career progression and improved pay and conditions. While the Scottish Government continues to be committed to improving social services and the quality of care, and are clear that attracting and retaining the right people, developing them in their roles and raising the status of the sector as a valued workforce is key to delivering this, steps so far have not remedied the loss of workers that was experienced as a result of the UK leaving the EU. It is vital that the MAC's review recognises these significant distinctions in the Scottish system compared to the rest of the UK, including ensuring that the right expertise is brought in to advise it on the appropriate policy response.

The UK government has, as yet, failed to recognise the urgency of the situation and the impact that the ending of free movement is having on the social care system. As many social care roles fall short of the skills threshold for the skilled worker route and Health and Social Care Visa, the main UK visa route for the majority of shortage social care worker roles continues to be for high earners sponsored by an employer, with almost no route at all for so-called 'low-skilled' workers. Scotland urgently needs people to contribute at all levels of social care.

This situation is no longer tenable. Not only is there a need to take urgent steps to alleviate shortages in the social care sector (as well as other sectors), the UK government must re-assess how it defines "skills" in the immigration system and how it prioritises and incentivises recruitment for occupations in shortage in the UK labour market. This should take account of, for example, the requirement for Scottish social care workers' to qualify to RQF3 standard within five years of joining the workforce. Limited, short-term changes to the immigration system such as those introduced by the UK government for HGV drivers would be highly inappropriate and would not go close to remedying the difficulties of the sector.

The Scottish Government also recognises, however, that long-term economic and demographic variations across the UK mean that the required changes to the immigration system may not be evenly spread across the four nations of the UK. There is, therefore, a need for the UK government to enter into reasoned discussion towards a tailored immigration system for Scotland to meet these distinctions.

We, therefore, make the following recommendations:

• The UK Government must make emergency changes to the UK immigration system to combat acute post-Brexit skills and labour shortages exacerbated by the pandemic. This should include:
  • Revisiting the previously proposed 12 month temporary worker route that was intended to prevent a post-Brexit 'cliff-edge' for employers who rely on free movement. This visa must be extended to 24 months to afford individuals a fair opportunity to switch onto other visa once they have arrived and obtained employment.
  • A route modelled on the UK Government's previous European Temporary Leave to Remain Scheme should be implemented immediately. This will allow EU citizens to stay and work in the UK for up to three years and encourage further positive contribution to our communities, economy and society.
• The UK Government must immediately scrap the immigration skills and health surcharges and reduce additional fees which are often an insurmountable barrier for both workers and employers.
• Given changes to the UK Immigration system, the role of the SoL must be reviewed so that there is clarity as to its purpose and the benefits of including roles on the List. The system of identifying and incentivising recruitment for occupations in shortage should align with the essential labour needs of all four nations, recognising fundamental differences in the way that devolved services are organised, and set up in such a way as to include a wide range of skill levels with a more streamlined and responsive process for adding and removing roles from the list. This should include recognition of the need for social care roles at all levels as essential.
• The UK government must engage in a rational, evidence-based way on immigration needs recognising that current immigration policy fails to address Scotland's distinct social, demographic and economic needs with a view to introducing a tailored approach to immigration for Scotland. Further, the immigration system must recognise the regional nature of labour shortages, and be open to imaginative ways of dealing with these including the need for initiatives such as rural migration pilots. This will allow Scottish Ministers to address issues such as those raised in this response directly and in a way that is most appropriate for Scotland.

We hope that the evidence and findings of this paper are helpful to the MAC's review of the impact of the ending of free movement on adult social care.