Coronavirus: China's tech fights back

Disinfecting robots, smart helmets, thermal camera-equipped drones and advanced facial recognition software are all being deployed in the fight against Covid-19 at the heart of the outbreak in China.

President Xi Jinping has called on the country's tech sector to help battle the epidemic.

Healthcare tech is also being used to identify coronavirus symptoms, find new treatments and monitor the spread of the disease, which has so far infected more than 90,000 people worldwide.

But is it up to the job?

Robots to the rescue

Several Chinese firms have developed automated technologies for contactless delivery, spraying disinfectants and performing basic diagnostic functions, in order to minimise the risk of cross-infection.

Shenzhen-based Pudu Technology, which usually makes robots for the catering industry, has reportedly installed its machines in more than 40 hospitals around the country to help medical staff.

MicroMultiCopter, also in Shenzhen, is deploying drones to transport medical samples and conduct thermal imaging.

Meanwhile, advanced AI has been used to help diagnose the disease and accelerate the development of a vaccine.

Alibaba, the Chinese e-commerce giant, claims its new AI-powered diagnosis system can identify coronavirus infections with 96% accuracy.

Its founder Jack Ma has just announced that his charity, the Jack Ma Foundation, will donate $2.15m (£1.6m) towards the development of a vaccine.

"In the battle against Covid-19, emerging technologies have stood out by making immense contributions in an unexpected, creative and amazingly responsive way," said Lu Chuanying, a senior official at Shanghai-based Global Cyberspace Governance.

They have helped "arrest or contain the spread of the deadly virus, thus becoming one of the most reliable and trustworthy means of combating Covid-19," he wrote in an article for state-run China Daily newspaper.

But is all this just for show?

"The state media apparatus, even under normal circumstances, takes every opportunity to send a message about China's technological sophistication, even if a story has little substance to it," notes Elliott Zaagman, who covers China's technology industry and co-hosts the China Tech-Investor podcast.

"I suspect that most of the stories we see about disinfecting robots, drones, etc, are mostly just performative gimmicks. However, tech's 'less-sexy' role in controlling this outbreak should not be dismissed," he told the BBC.

'Era of big data and internet'

Beyond robots and drones, China has also mobilised its sophisticated surveillance system to keep a tab on infected individuals and enforce quarantines.

Facial recognition cameras are commonplace across China, and now companies are upgrading their technology to scan crowds for fever and identify individuals not wearing masks.

Several Chinese firms have come up with AI-enabled fever detection systems

SenseTime, a leading AI firm, says its contactless temperature detection software has been deployed at underground stations, schools and community centres in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen. The company also claims to have a tool that can recognise faces, even if they are wearing masks, with a "relatively high degree of accuracy".

Another Chinese AI firm, Megvii, boasts a similar product, which has been deployed in Beijing.

"During this challenging time, we see this not as an opportunity, but our responsibility to do our part to tackle Covid-19 using our technology," a SenseTime spokesperson told the BBC.

Chinese newspaper Global Times reports that officials in Chengdu city, Sichuan province, have been issued with smart helmets that can measure the temperature of anyone within a 5m radius, sounding an alarm if they are found to have a fever.

As Chinese citizens slowly return to work despite the virus outbreak, mobile phones have also emerged as a key tool to track the spread of the coronavirus.

An app called Alipay Health Code assigns individuals the colour green, yellow or red, depending on whether they should be allowed into public spaces or quarantined at home.

It uses big data to identify potential virus carriers, according to its developer Ant Financial. It has already been adopted in more than 200 Chinese cities.

Tencent, the company behind popular messaging app WeChat, has launched a similar QR-code-based tracking feature.

The "close contact detector" app notifies the user if they have been in close contact with a virus carrier.

• China launches coronavirus 'close contact' app

• Coronavirus: Technology giants join China shutdown

• Tech Tent: Is social media spreading the virus?

"In the era of big data and internet, the movements of each person can be clearly seen. So we are different from the Sars time now," Li Lanjuan, an adviser to the National Health Commission, said in an interview with Chinese state TV.

"With such new technologies, we should make full use of them to find and contain the source of infection."

Privacy issues

While these new surveillance tools may be considered efficient - and perhaps necessary during a health crisis - they have prompted concerns about privacy.

Many of these health apps require users to register with their name, national identification number and phone number. Authorities have also sourced data from phone carriers, health and transport agencies and state-owned firms.

There is little transparency on how the government plans to cross-check the data, and there have been reports about personal health data being leaked on the internet.

• Chinese worry about rise of facial recognition

• China due to introduce face scans for mobile users

• Chinese city 'shames' public pyjama wearers

A report by the New York Times, for example, said that Alipay Health Code also appears to share information with the police.

As the apps become more popular, there's the added fear that it could exacerbate paranoia and lead to discrimination against coronavirus patients.

Chinese citizens are using apps to track the spread of coronavirus

Critics say China could use the health crisis as a justification to expand its already vast surveillance system, which human rights bodies have described as dystopian.

"If there's one lesson that Chinese authorities are learning here, it's where the 'weak spots' are in their surveillance apparatus," notes Mr Zaagman.

"Privacy was already becoming a thing of the past in China. An outbreak like this will only expedite that process".

Article Source : https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51717164

Technology Will Soon Give Us Precise Control Over Our Brains and Genes

This is a story of another time, of a plausible future 30 years from now, give or take, in which the human experience of life and health (and perhaps even of who we are) will unfold unlike anything known before. The citizens of this future will learn early in life – through some combination of next-next-next-generation genetic testing and intelligence gleaned from their smart accessories – whether they are heading toward disease: depression, dementia, diabetes, what have you. More importantly, they will be offered an exit strategy.

Some future citizens will take a familiar route: medications, behavioral therapies, or lifestyle modifications. But for others, the path to well-being will require novel interventions. For example, those genetically predisposed to certain disorders might opt to get any risky DNA snipped out of their genes or rewritten. Those with neurological diagnoses, meanwhile, might be prescribed a brain implant – a clingwrap-like electrical film laid on the brain’s surface, perhaps, or a network of thinner-than-hair wires snaked within its anatomy, to keep its neural circuits firing properly. 

One might think, assuming these procedures have been shown to work safely and well, that future societies will have everything to gain and little to lose. Who wouldn’t divert the course of their own health, or their children’s, to avoid suffering down the road? And yet our neurons and our DNA are more than the origins of illness. They are also the substrates of our being: our identity, our humanity, arguably consciousness itself. Once we begin to manipulate these elements for medical purposes, do we not risk altering who we are?

If a gene therapy or brain implant erased, say, a person’s propensity for depression, would it also erase possibly related facets of their personality, such as introversion, pensiveness, or melancholia? Would they recognize strange thoughts or behaviors as side effects or mistake these changes for a “new normal”? And if they chose not to have these treatments, or couldn’t afford them, would they be passed over for jobs, for health insurance, for social acceptance? Who would they be? Would they still be themself?

The Bionic Human

Since before the first Homo sapiens walked the Earth 200,000 years ago, we humans have been shaped by our own inventions. Fire control, stone tools, eyeglasses, the cotton gin, electricity, antibiotics, the atom bomb, the heart transplant, in vitro fertilization, the internet – for better or for worse, technology has long fashioned us as individuals, as societies, and as a species. Still, there is something exceptional about the prospect of gaining mastery over our brains and genes.

These devices are part of an evolution of thinking about the bionic human.”

Edward Chang

First, consider brain implants. In the past couple of decades, surgeons have installed them in hundreds of thousands of patients with epilepsy, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and movement disorders, including Parkinson’s. The implants relieve symptoms like seizures or tremors by sending electrical pulses to culpable brain areas – a technique known as deep brain stimulation. Many experts believe its use will only expand as implants get smaller and more sophisticated and as implantation surgeries become less invasive. “I wouldn’t be surprised if, in 20 or 30 years, such devices will be as ubiquitous as cardiac pacemakers,” says Edward Chang, MD ’04, a professor of neurological surgery and the William K. Bowes Jr. Bio-medical Investigator at UC San Francisco. He and some of his colleagues have even begun to refer to implants in the brain as “brain pacemakers.”

Unlike heart pacemakers and other synthetic body parts, however, brain implants could challenge the typical ways we think about human augmentation. “There’s no question these devices are part of an evolution of thinking about the bionic human – how we can modulate and tinker with ourselves to replace or restore functions,” says Chang, who, together with UCSF colleagues, is now testing several applications for the technology, including whether it can help treat mental-health problems and restore movement and speech to patients with paralysis. “But now we’re talking about directly interfacing with the brain, which is much more salient than something like a hip replacement or an artificial kidney, because it has to do with the mind.”

Edward Chang
professor of neurological surgery and member of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences

Gene therapies, too, carry a special philosophical weight, bearing upon not the human mind but our genome – the complete set of DNA whose molecular code, and how it’s expressed, give rise to a singular life. These therapies insert or modify DNA in human cells to overcome genetic disease or turn cells into living drugs. Since 2003, regulatory agencies in China, Europe, and the U.S. have approved fewer than a dozen gene-therapy products, including those for certain cancers and disorders of the blood, eye, and neuromuscular system. But the technology holds promise for countless cures.

“Within 30 years, it will probably be possible to make essentially any kind of change to any kind of genome,” says Jennifer Doudna, PhD, a professor of chemistry and of biochemistry and molecular biology at UC Berkeley. She became world renowned in 2012 for her work on a genome-editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9 and now co-directs the Innovative Genomics Institute (IGI), a partnership between UCSF and UC Berkeley that explores potential uses of genome-editing and its societal implications. “You could imagine that, in the future, we’re not subject to the DNA we inherit from our parents,”she says, “but we can actually change our genes in a targeted way.”

Such on-demand editing could be done, as it is today, in diseased tissues like retinas, nerves, or, one day, even brains. But it could also apply, controversially, to reproductive cells and embryos. This latter approach, called germline engineering, would enable genetic changes, therapeutic or otherwise, to be passed on to future generations. “Does that mean directing our own genetic destiny?” Doudna asks. “I say it does.”

Does that mean directing our own genetic destiny? I say it does.”

Jennifer Doudna

Given the enormity of this power, many experts, including Doudna in 2015, have called for a moratorium on germline engineering in humans. The latest outcry came this past fall, after a scientist in China claimed to have created twin girls from embryos edited to prevent HIV infection. Although the IGI takes an official stance against the current use of the practice, Doudna thinks it can’t – and perhaps shouldn’t – be stopped indefinitely. Families of children with heritable diseases awaiting cures have changed her mind, she says. “So many parents have emailed me saying, ‘Please help.’ I feel a responsibility to at least explore what it would it take for the science and ethics to be at a place where this kind of editing is safe and responsible.”

The further we explore gene therapies and brain implants, however, the more we will confront the question of what it means, as Doudna puts it, “to control the very essence of who we are.”

Beyond Therapy

Ethicists ask whether these technologies could turn someone into a different person. The concern is not unfounded. Scores of studies show it’s possible to genetically engineer mice to dial up or down just about any behavioral or cognitive trait: aggression, compulsion, sociability, learning, memory, etcetera. Likewise, certain changes to the human brain – traumatic injury or neurodegeneration, for instance – can induce dramatic changes in character, such as emergent criminality or creativity. Even antidepressants go “beyond treating illness to changing personality,” making the shy bold or the solemn cheerful, as psychiatrist Peter Kramer observed in his 1993 bestseller Listening to Prozac.

Jennifer Doudna
professor of chemistry and of biochemistry and molecular biology at UC Berkeley

It’s unlikely that today’s gene therapies would have serious psychological or metaphysical side effects. They typically act on only one gene out of a possible 20,000 in a fraction of a patient’s cells, such as retinal cells or immune cells. But genome editing might one day treat or prevent disorders that involve up to hundreds of genes, including obesity, heart disease, and psychiatric illness.

If and when we use this technology to control such complex health conditions, Doudna speculates, we may inadvertently influence complex personal traits. Genes, after all, don’t work alone but in networks; they often serve multiple functions, which scientists are still uncovering. “In the future, if people are able to edit their children’s genomes,” she asks “to what extent does that alter the nature of the child?”

As for brain implants, ethicists debate the extent of their psychic risks. A minority of patients who have received such implants have said they identify with their device (“It became me”) or feel controlled by it (“You just wonder how much is you anymore”). Do these impressions reflect a distorted sense of self? The answer is murky, says neuroethicist Winston Chiong, MD ’06, PhD, an associate professor of neurology who studies the ethical and policy implications of brain diseases and therapies. “Sometimes these quotes are questionably interpreted,” he explains. In a recent paper, for example, Australian ethicist Frederic Gilbert, PhD, points to a case in which a patient receiving deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease reportedly told her interviewers, “I feel like an electric doll”; some ethicists misquoted the comment as “I am an electric doll.” “While the latter quote may involve a psychotic (delusional) episode,” Gilbert writes, “the former could simply represent a playful and moody remark.”

In other rare instances, patients with implants have become hypersexual, impulsive, or depressed. However, the cause may not necessarily be their device, says Simon Outram, PhD, a research specialist in UCSF’s Program in Bioethics. As part of a two-year study being run in partnership with Baylor College of Medicine and the University of Florida, Outram is helping conduct patient interviews and surveys to examine how brain implants impact autonomy, personal identity, and risk-taking. “It’s very difficult to separate the progress of the illness from the effects of the treatment itself,” he says.

The fear that a brain implant may threaten one’s personhood “maybe isn’t bearing out as we collect more data,” Chiong says. Nevertheless, he adds, “it’s an issue we should keep checking in about,” particularly as researchers pursue technology able to treat mood disorders and other psychiatric conditions.

Winston Chiong
neuroethicist and member of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences

Meanwhile, implants are getting smarter, with artificial intelligence playing an ever-greater role, Chiong notes. “We’re talking about devices being developed now that can monitor someone’s brain function and make adjustments on the fly,” he says. Such AI-controlled implants may present ethical quandaries that previous interventions, such as pharmaceutical drugs, do not.

Chiong offers an example: “We’re all familiar with alterations in our brain function from things that we ingest, whether it’s a pill or a cup of coffee,” he explains. “We might feel a little strange or act a certain way, but then we might think, ‘Well, I wouldn’t have acted that way normally – maybe it’s the medication or the caffeine.’” People may lack this intuition if an intelligent machine controls the dosage, he says. “Oftentimes, a patient may not even be aware of what the device is doing and when it’s active.” Such scenarios, Chiong says, raise questions about human agency and who – or what – is responsible if things go awry.

Ultimately, the rise of gene therapies and brain implants suggests the possibility of recasting parts of ourselves we once accepted as elemental or fixed. Given this new biological liberation, Chiong says, “we’ll face a choice we didn’t face before: Do we want to remain the way we are, or do we want to change?”

Article Source : https://www.ucsf.edu/magazine/control-brains-genes

B-schoolers prefer tech roles to investment banks!

Well-paying consulting and technology companies are now on the top of the preference list for fresh graduates of Indian Institutes of Management and other business schools.

Investment banking that has long been the first choice for B-school graduates no longer enjoys that status, according to placement data and experts.

In fact, much of the India campus recruitment by banks also is now focused towards tech talent — they are hiring from colleges like Indian Institutes of Technology as well as B-school graduates with an engineering background.

Sections of investment banking, such as mergers and acquisitions, are doing well, but areas like trading have been upended by automation, said executives at global banks. This means, demand has slowed for investment banking roles, but increased for tech jobs
"Markets in Europe, the US and China are challenging,” said Kanwal Kaul, a director and the head of group resourcing at Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) in India, attributing this to the economic downturn and trade wars.

RBS’ B-school hiring this year is in line with last year, he said. At HSBC, its head of human resources in India Vikram Tandon said that while hiring from B-schools had increased, that for investment banking roles had been similar to the past two years. HSBC has doubled hiring of tech grads in the last two years. RBS has a programme specifically for B-school grads with a tech background.

Banks and NBFCs are getting increasingly disrupted by fintech and ecommerce companies. They too are building or strengthening their own platforms to deal with the challenge and need people with technology skills to drive these initiatives, said industry executives.

“We have emphasized as a company to have a much stronger software engineering discipline,” Lori Beer, the global chief information officer at JPMorgan Chase, told ET during a recent interaction. “The way we build technology today is pivoting back to having small teams and being deeply technical with our solutions.”

Technology now underpins everything a bank does, said Kaul of RBS. At the bank, tech graduates account for 60% of entry-level hiring, he said.

But competition for this talent is stiff, from companies like Google and Amazon that pay “twice or thrice” as much as banks, said a recruiter, who asked not to be named. “Tradeoffs have to be made based on what you can pay and what is the right thing to pay.”

Batch size at B-schools has been increasing every year, but hiring of investment bankers has not been increasing as fast. At IIM-Ahmedabad, the number of people hired per company in the investment banking, private equity and markets sector (which the institute separates from the BFSI Sector as a whole) has reduced, said placement coordinator Amit Karna.

However, the overall share of this sector in campus hiring this year has increased, because the institute has attracted a larger number of recruiters.

Top institutes are able to attract a bigger number of recruiters due to their pull and brand name. IIM-Calcutta’s chairperson of placements, Abhishek Goel, said the institute had seen more offers from the BFSI sector because it had attracted new companies. There are more recruiters hiring, but the numbers for most are fewer than last year, he said.

The dean of placements at Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, Kanwal Kapil, said based on early trends, he expected no improvement in the job offers from banks, compared with last year’s 25.7% share in the final placements.

Toshiba's Newly Developed Technology Can Detect 13 Cancers With One Drop of Blood

A new, safe, and quick method for detecting 13 different kinds of cancers has been developed by Toshiba Corporation.

To add more good news to the matter, the company said on Monday that the technology they've created has a 99% accuracy rate, and only requires one small drop of blood for the process.

The diagnosis method was developed alongside the National Cancer Center Research Institute and Tokyo Medical University. 

When will this technology be ready for public use?

It'll take a few more years before Toshiba's diagnosis technology is being used in public institutions. According to the teams working on it, it should be commercialized in several years' time and begin trials next year.

The hope is to use this method to promote treatment for cancers from an early stage.

The method works by examining the types and concentration of microRNA molecules that are secreted into the bloodstream from the cancer cells.

The device Toshiba Corp. designed. Source: Toshiba

It has to be noted that other companies also use this method of diagnosing cancers from blood samples. However, "Compared to other companies' methods, we have an edge in the degree of accuracy in cancer detection, the time required for detection and the cost," said Koji Hashimoto, a chief research scientist at Toshiba's Frontier Research Laboratory. 

Which cancers will the technology detect?

The 13 different cancer types Toshiba's method will be able to detect are gastric, esophageal, lung, liver, biliary tract, pancreatic, bowel, ovarian, prostate, bladder and breast cancers as well as sarcoma and glioma.

Toshiba Corp. says Monday it has developed a technology to detect 13 types of cancer from a single drop of blood with 99 percent accuracy.https://t.co/1rLCnVwhTw#Toshiba #Toray #cancer

— Kyodo News | Japan (@kyodo_english) November 25, 2019

What's even more impressive than discovering 13 potential cancers from just one drop of blood is that the company's small chip and device can conduct the diagnosis within a mere two-hour timespan. Moreover, the cost is only 20,000 yen ($180). 

Article Source : https://interestingengineering.com/toshibas-newly-developed-technology-can-detect-13-cancers-with-one-drop-of-blood

UK Government announces its proposals for a post-Brexit UK immigration system

On 19 December 2018, the Government published its white paper setting out its plans for a post-Brexit skills-based immigration system which will introduce a new single immigration system and end EU free movement.

Quick links

Overview

The white paper confirms that, from 1 January 2021, everyone except British and Irish citizens will be required to obtain immigration permission if they want to live, work and / or study in the UK. The paper emphasises that the future immigration system will apply in the same way to all nationalities, except where there are objective grounds to differentiate, for example, if specific concessions are granted to certain nationalities as part of a trade agreement with a particular country or group of countries or on the basis of risk.

The white paper also confirms that the Government intends to accept almost all the recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), the independent body which advises the Government on immigration policy.

Visiting the UK

EU nationals, in common with other non-visa nationals, will not be required to obtain a visit visa before travelling to the UK. They will also be able to continue to use e-gates, which will come as a relief to those EU nationals who were concerned about the possibility of long queues at the UK border following Brexit.

Visitors to the UK will be permitted to switch immigration status in-country into Tier 2 sponsored employment, which will be a significant change from the current rules which only allow this switch in a few specific and exceptional circumstances.

When the Government last routinely allowed in-country switches from the visitor category, it resulted in situations where a number of “visitors” started to work for a UK employer before their work immigration permission application was approved. This led to the UK Government introducing the current policy and we can see this cycle repeating itself if this proposal is introduced and not properly policed.

In addition, the Government is considering expanding the range of permitted business activities that visitors may undertake in the UK. If the Government does proceed with this, it will need to ensure that this does not lead to individuals undertaking work for which they should be sponsored by a UK employer.

An Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) scheme for those who do not need to obtain a visa before travelling to the UK for a visit will be introduced. This system will be similar to the US ESTA scheme and will involve completing an on-line form which will enable the Government to conduct security checks before an individual travels to the UK. The EU intends to introduce a similar scheme, called ETIAS, for third country nationals visiting the EU, which is likely to apply to UK nationals once the UK leaves the EU.

Working in the UK

Skilled workers

Tier 2 (General), which is the category for migrants hired to undertake permanent positions in the UK, will be opened up to medium skilled workers (it was previously only open to the highly skilled) by lowering the skills threshold for this category from Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) level 6 to level 3. This will essentially bring the skills level for Tier 2 (General) back to where it was before April 2012.

However, the RQF level 6 skills threshold will be retained for the Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) (ICT) category, which is the route that companies can use to transfer to the UK individuals who work for the company overseas.

Furthermore, the Resident Labour Market Test (RLMT) requirement for Tier 2 (General), which involves advertising the vacancy for 28 days to demonstrate there are no suitable local workers, will be abolished. The purpose of the RLMT is to ensure that employers are not undercutting the local labour market by employing migrants where there was a ready supply of local workers. However, the MAC found that the RLMT did not achieve this and only served to delay employers in accessing the skills they needed to fill vacancies. Instead, the MAC was of the view that the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC), which has to be paid by employers for each migrant they sponsor under Tier 2, provides the required protection of the local labour force. Consequently, this charge will remain in place for all Tier 2 migrants and it will be interesting to see whether it is raised to incentivise UK companies to employ local workers.

Confusingly, elsewhere in the white paper, the Government seems to imply that it will only abolish the RLMT for occupations at RQF Level 6 or above as it states that it will consult on whether it should introduce a “light touch” RLMT for jobs in the RQF levels 3-5 bracket.

The cap that applies to the majority of Tier 2 (General) migrants who are applying overseas will also be removed to ensure that the brightest and best are encouraged to come to the UK so that employers have access to the skills that add most value to the UK economy.

In addition, the Government is looking to lower the annual salary threshold for Tier 2 (General) which is currently £30,000. The MAC advised that it should remain at this threshold since this is the level of household income where an average family of migrants starts to make a positive contribution to public finances. However, following concerns from business that this is not reflective of wages paid to skilled workers in some sectors, the Government has agreed to consult with employers and representatives before setting the threshold.

The Government is also aware that some start-ups need to employ talented staff to help their businesses grow, but may not be able to pay them high wages at the outset, instead offering equity stakes in their businesses. It therefore intends to explore options to support such start-ups, which, presumably, may include taking into account equity stakes when deciding whether a role satisfies the minimum salary requirements.

Unfortunately the Government has said that, in line with the MAC’s recommendations, it will still not consider introducing separate immigration policies on a regional basis. Furthermore, there is no mention of changing the minimum salary for Tier 2 (ICT) applicants, which is currently £41,500 per year.

The MAC will also be asked to review the Shortage Occupation List (SOL) – the list of roles that require skills which are recognised as being in short supply in the UK – to include roles which require skills at RQF levels 3-5. Currently, where an employer wishes to sponsor an individual to fill a role on the SOL, the employer is not required to comply with the RLMT requirements and the application is given priority under the current Tier 2 (General) cap. However, once the RLMT and the cap are abolished, there does not appear to be any reason to continue to have a SOL, unless being on the SOL will secure other advantages, such as roles on the list being subject to a lower salary threshold or being exempt from the ISC.

Another potential outcome of the abolition of the RLMT and the cap is that this removes two of the main reasons why, when transferring an individual from a company entity overseas, a UK company would choose to sponsor the individual under Tier 2 (ICT) rather than Tier 2 (General), since Tier 2 (ICT) does not lead to indefinite leave to remain (also known as permanent residence or settlement), unlike Tier 2 (General). Since the Government's policy is not to make it easier for individuals coming to the UK to eventually settle, it will be interesting to see whether the Government introduces any new restrictions on Tier 2 (General), such as a requirement that the individual must be on UK payroll or apply a higher ISC, or makes any concession to the Tier 2 (ICT) category, such as broadening the types of allowances which can be taken into account when deciding whether the role satisfies the relevant salary threshold or removing the ISC, to encourage employers to use the temporary Tier 2 (ICT) route.

Sponsorship

The Government believes that the Tier 2 sponsorship system works well in its current size. However, it is aware that many more businesses will have to engage with the system to sponsor EU nationals following Brexit.

Consequently, the Government intends to streamline the system, looking to use the data it already holds, for example, in HMRC, Companies House etc., when deciding whether a company satisfies the requirements to be issued with a sponsor licence and, once it has been issued with one, is complying with its sponsor duties. This will presumably lead to the Home Office doing more “desktop” reviews, involving cross-checking records across numerous Government departments.

The Government also plans to bring in a system to address the needs of small businesses which only need to sponsor a small number, or even just a single, migrant. In that situation, the company may not even need a licence but may be able to apply directly to the Government for permission to sponsor the migrant. If this system is introduced, it would be similar to the one in operation before the introduction of the current system in 2008.

Low-skilled workers

The Government agrees with the MAC’s recommendation that there should be no dedicated route for low-skilled labour. However, it recognises that some sectors rely on lower skilled workers from the EU and that businesses in these fields will require a period of time to adjust. In addition, there are some situations where a skilled individual will only be required in the UK for a short period, for example, in order to fulfil a temporary contract.

The Government therefore proposes to introduce a temporary immigration route for a transitional period to allow workers of any skill level from certain low risk countries to come to the UK for a short period.

Successful applicants will be granted entry for a maximum of 12 months and, at the end of their stay, they will be subject to a 12 month “cooling off” period during which they will not be permitted to re-apply to enter the UK under this category. Individuals entering under this route will not be able to bring their dependant family members and the category will not lead to settlement. This route may be subject to an annual cap.

The route will be subject to an annual review by the MAC and amendments may be made to ensure that it is not being abused. Although, depending on economic and compliance factors, the route could be closed at any time. A formal review of the category will be undertaken in 2025 to see whether it should be retained.

The Government also recognises the particular challenges faced by the agricultural sector so will introduce a seasonal agricultural work scheme, on a pilot basis, in 2019. This will be open to a wider range of nationalities.

Youth mobility

The Government intends to expand the Youth Mobility Scheme, which allows nationals from certain countries aged between 18 and 30 to come to the UK for two years for work or study, to EU countries. Although individuals who enter the UK under this category can do highly skilled work, the Government is of the view that many undertake low skilled work so expanding this scheme should assist in addressing any low skilled labour shortages. However, the Government has stated that it will only introduce such a scheme if a reciprocal arrangement is agreed with the relevant country.

Self-employment and self-sponsored routes

Routes for investors, entrepreneurs and those with exceptional talent which allow individuals to undertake self-employment in the UK will be retained. Plans to make changes to the Tier 1 (Investor) route to address concerns that the route is being abused have already been announced. In relation to the Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur) category, the Government intends to launch a replacement “start-up” visa route which will enable business people to apply for a visa following endorsement by a university or an approved business sponsor. For more experienced candidates, it intends to replace Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) with a new “innovator” category, which will also require endorsement by a business sponsor who will assess the applicant's business ideas for their innovation, viability and scalability.

One major concern for EU nationals is that, currently, they can undertake self-employment in the UK without making any investment in a UK business. However, the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) category requires an investment of either £50,000 or £200,000 to be made, depending on the circumstances. In addition, in order to qualify under the Tier 1 (Investor) category, they are required to invest £2m in the UK. Since a significant number of EU nationals enter the UK to establish successful businesses, it will be interesting to see whether the Government reduces the investment requirements when it introduces the new start-up and innovator categories. If it does not, there is a danger that there will a huge drop in successful EU nationals entrepreneurs coming to the UK to undertake self-employment.

The Government has also stated that it intends to expand the numbers permitted to enter the UK under the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) programme.

Study in the UK

All graduate and post-graduate students, who have completed their degrees in the UK, will be granted six months’ post-study immigration permission during which time they will be able to look for permanent skilled work and undertake temporary work. Those who have completed a PhD will be granted a year. Currently, bachelor’s and master’s students are normally given an additional four months’ immigration permission after they are due to finish their course, during which time they may undertake temporary work. It is therefore not clear whether the proposed six months immigration permission will be in addition to the four months which is normally granted to students. This change goes some way to reversing the 2012 decision to abolish the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route, which enabled those who had graduated with a minimum of a bachelor’s degree from a UK institution to work in the UK for two years post-study.

Currently those in the UK with student immigration permission studying at bachelor’s level or above are able to switch into sponsored employment once they have completed their degree. The Government intends to extend this by allowing these students to apply to switch into sponsored employment up to three months before the end of their course in the UK. Those applying from outside the UK will be able to “switch” into sponsored employment, up to two years after graduation. This should mean that these students will be able to continue to benefit from the lower, new entrant salary threshold for sponsored workers which normally only applies to recent graduates.

Conclusion

The Government’s proposals as set out in the white paper purport to follow the MAC’s recommendation that, when the UK leaves the EU, the current UK immigration system should apply to EU nationals. However, the white paper, in fact, contains substantial changes and introduces a number of new categories to the current system. The changes include applying some of the rules in slightly different ways in certain circumstances, for example, small businesses that only need to sponsor one or two individuals may not be required to obtain a sponsor licence. There is therefore a danger that this new system will become even more complex and tricky to navigate and it will be difficult for companies and individuals to know which rules apply to them.

On the other hand, the white paper arguably represents the biggest liberalisation in UK immigration policy this century, reversing a number of restrictions which have been implemented in the last 10 years. It is also introducing, for the first time, albeit temporarily, an immigration category which will allow people of all skills levels to work in the UK on a short term basis. It will therefore be important that the Government introduces suitable processes to ensure that individuals and companies comply with what, on the face of it, are more generous rules. What UK business does not want to see is yet another "boom and bust" cycle of liberalisation followed by progressive tightening which has been a depressing characteristic of the immigration system since the start of the century.

Throughout the document, the Government emphasises its intention to consult with stakeholders over the next 12 to 18 months to ensure that the new system meets the needs of UK business and the country as a whole. It is to be hoped that the Government genuinely engages with the users of the system to ensure that the system is as straightforward to understand and operates as efficiently as possible.

Article Source : https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=19fb05cf-5bce-4bf6-9713-76a087662aca