Constructive Feedback on the Home Office Findings

• The fact that the Home Office’s own assessment flags a potential loss of £2.2 billion to £10.8 billion over five years (central estimate ~£5.4 billion) shows the government is being transparent about trade-offs. The Standard+2Business Standard+2
• Acknowledging that there may be “unquantifiable benefits” — e.g. boosting domestic workforce training and raising skills — is in principle positive: it signals that the reforms are not just punitive but tied to a long-term strategy of investing in UK labour. The Standard
• The drop in visa issuance (visas for care, skilled workers) may encourage employers and policymakers to re-examine dependence on migrant labour and perhaps accelerate domestic hiring, training, and retention efforts. The Standard+1

So: the assessment invites honest reflection — it does not hide the potential downside, and that transparency is a strength.

💡 What Could Be Done — Positive Solutions

If I were advising policymakers (or civil society) in light of this assessment, I’d suggest the following steps to mitigate risks and maximise benefits:

1. Launch a robust upskilling & training programme for domestic workers, especially in sectors facing shortages (care, health, hospitality, IT). That way, the “upskill domestic workforce” goal is not just a slogan but delivers real capacity.
2. Use transitional visas or phased reductions, to avoid sudden labour shortages. For example, allow a certain quota of migrant care workers while domestic hires are ramped up — preventing care gaps for disabled and elderly dependents.
3. Provide incentives for retention and training — tax breaks, grants, or training subsidies for employers who commit to hiring and upskilling UK workers, especially for roles historically filled via migration (care, hospitality, etc).
4. Monitor & publish data on workforce needs, vacancy rates, public-service pressures — rather than rely on assumptions. This helps to evaluate whether the loss in revenue is compensated by improved wages, better domestic employment, lower exploitation.
5. Ensure fair, accessible migration for high-skill or specialised labour where domestic labour cannot meet demand — especially for global industries like tech, science, health, where shortages can undermine growth and innovation.
6. Cross-department collaboration, especially between Home Office, Departments of Health, Education and Work & Pensions: to align immigration policy with labour planning, public-service needs, and long-term demographics. This was a key concern raised previously when visa routes were relaxed quickly. UK Parliament Committees+1

📝 Why This Balanced Approach Matters

• Immigration restrictions may meet political aims of reducing net migration and “prioritising UK jobs” — but without planning and investment, such restrictions risk damaging sectors reliant on migrant labour, public services, and long-term growth.
• By combining honest economic assessment (as the Home Office has done) with strategic planning and support for domestic labour, the reforms could — in theory — achieve a sustainable balance: fewer low-paid migrant roles, but a stronger, better-paid domestic workforce.
• It also avoids a binary “migrants are bad / no migrants” narrative. Instead — acknowledges complexity: the country needs both skilled global talent and domestic upskilling, plus a stable, fair system.