The CBI welcomed the exclusion of employees earning over £40,000 that are transferred from abroad, who will be allowed to stay for up to five years. John Cridland, CBI director-general designate, said that the rule would "allow firms with international operations to manage their global workforce effectively", making sure that "the UK remains an attractive place to base new projects and investment, which means more jobs for UK workers".
However, Colin Stanbridge, chief executive of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI), said his member organisations were worried by more severe limits on highly-skilled workers: "While we are pleased that the Government has listened to business on intra-company transfers, we are still concerned that the lack of flexibility inherent in a cap will have a detrimental effect on London’s competitiveness and productivity.
"The Government’s decision to reduce Tier 1 to just 1,000 people a year was an unwelcome surprise which will deprive London of some the brightest and best professionals in the world."
The NHS, which is highly reliant on foreign recruitment, reacted with concern, saying that the health service would be disproportionately affected. Karen Charman, head of employment services at NHS Employers, said: "The immigration cap introduces an unreasonable administrative burden on the NHS, resulting in costly bureaucracy, extensive paperwork and delays in recruitment.
"The intra-company transfer route is not available to the NHS and, as such, a 25% reduction has effectively been applied to the supply of visas available."
Elsewhere in the public sector, Universities UK expressed concerns over prospective changes to student visas. Nicola Dandridge, chief executive, said: "We do not think international students should be counted as migrants. They are not here for economic reasons, their time in the UK does not count towards any later application for settlement, unlike workers, and they have no recourse to public funds. International student recruitment is a major success story for the UK. Universities are bringing in highly skilled people, both students and staff, who contribute far more to the UK economy than they take out."
The Association of Professional Staffing Companies questioned how the volume of intra-company transfers would be affected. Chief executive Ann Swain said: "The cap is a blunt tool which could do more damage than good. We need full transparency on the pay and terms of conditions of workers entering the UK via the intra-company transfer route. The current system is far too opaque and is open to abuse. These proposals don’t radically change that."
Reaction from the legal world was largely critical. Linda Beedie, from law firm Bond Pearce, said the measures would fail to serve the needs of British industry and in fact may damage it: "This cap will not only make little difference to immigration but may also damage the UK’s re-emerging economy."
Nick Hobson, from Speechly Bircham, added: "It is hard to envisage how the remarkably low limit of 1,000 applications for exceptionally talented individuals will attract the world's brightest and best stars."
