The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its review of Professionals in IT and Engineering. The MAC is an advisory body – it advises the UK government in its policy-making direction on immigration.
The findings will come as no surprise to immigration lawyers who have to deal with the realities of the shortages in the UK labour market. It found that immigration is proportionately used by these sectors and that immigrants in these occupations have a positive fiscal impact on the UK economy
The report was commissioned in August 2024 and was delayed to allow the MAC to take account of the Immigration White Paper (published on 12 May 2025). The White Paper is a political animal, arguably pandering to people the Government thinks it should be pandering to. The MAC report deals with the realities of the UK labour market
It finds that while the IT and engineering sectors are among the top users of the immigration system (Engineering professionals account for 3% of all Skilled Worker visas, while IT professionals account for 9%), their reliance on international recruitment is proportionate to their size.
The report makes no formal recommendations, but notes that addressing skills shortages in these sectors requires a multifaceted approach. It emphasises the need for sustainable funding models for Higher Education and Further Education, increased employer investment in training, and long-term efforts to improve gender diversity. The report also discusses the challenges of aligning immigration and skills policies without creating undue complexity or unintended consequences.
IT professionals utilise the immigration system more extensively than Engineering professionals, largely driven by large firms, particularly Indian multinationals, concentrated in London. Engineering professionals, by contrast, are more geographically dispersed. The report emphasises that international recruitment addresses skill shortages and attracts top talent, even though the majority of new hires in these sectors come from the domestic workforce.
The report suggests that skills investment should be pursued for its broader benefits, such as improving domestic workers’ employability and earnings, rather than solely to reduce migration.
The government’s proposal in the White Paper to condition access to skilled migration on sector-level skills investment plans is also addressed. The report warns of the risks, including administrative complexity, enforcement challenges, and potential free-riding by employers. It suggests that such an approach would require careful consideration and robust implementation mechanisms.
It also identifies significant challenges in the domestic skills pipeline, and the issue of ‘lag’ between identification of shortage and the implementation of measures to address it (particularly where there are rapidly developing markets, such as IT).
The report indicates the MAC’s view that changes to skill policy alone will not guarantee reductions in net migration, if there is no change to immigration policy. It does not recommend the reintroduction of the Resident Labour Market Test for professional roles, citing its ineffectiveness and administrative burden. It also supports the abolition of the Immigration Salary List, noting that its impact on IT and Engineering occupations was limited.
The Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) is another area of focus. The report expresses scepticism about whether ISC revenue is fully reinvested in skills training and calls for greater transparency and alignment of ISC funds with their intended purpose of addressing skills gaps. It also notes the decline in employer investment in training and calls for reforms to the apprenticeship levy to better support STEM training.
We wait to see how these findings of the MAC are addressed by the government.
Tom Redfern tredfern@redfernlegal.com
