Promigration Policies
We’re in the midst of planning a webinar on the Future of International Business with the Government’s Global Entrepreneur Programme (GEP), which helps high-growth overseas companies relocate to the UK. I’ll share more details next week, but I bring it up now because in an essay for The New Atlantis, tech policy expert Caleb Watney calls for something along the lines of the GEP for the United States.
In his essay, Caleb references our article, which makes the case for promigration policies. You can be forgiven for wondering what “promigration” is – Anton Howes, our Head of Innovation Policy, made it up to describe governments “proactively identifying and persuading skilled workers to settle in the country”. It’s not enough to remove barriers, we should actively try to attract the best innovators to move here.
As well as the GEP, we also have the Innovator, Start Up, Global Talent, and Investor visas, which to some extent involve the government – or organisations – proactively trying to convince talented people to move to the UK. However, none really capture the ambition of what Anton and Caleb are aiming for. For example, Caleb calls for a Department of Promigration and Anton suggests the Government could bring the most exceptional people into the country by actively hiring them.
I think we should go even further. As well as proactively attracting established talent, we should be much more actively trying to bring in latent talent. Evidence from the International Math Olympiad shows that the talents of many young people in developed countries is currently going to waste.
We already have the structure with Tier 5 (don't worry, it's got nothing to do with lockdowns) visas, which aim to give young people the opportunity for work experience in the UK, but these aren’t actively promoted by the government, with neither business owners nor international students knowing much about them. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve told entrepreneurs about this route when they've wanted to get someone in for a supernumerary role.
It might seem odd to be thinking about global talent when we’re all locked in our homes. However, with more positive news on vaccines and the UK’s rollout going well, it’s not inconceivable that we could look more like Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and other countries, while mainland Europe and the US lags behind. Of course, this would require strict quarantine measures to keep virus variants out – something the UK Government and too many commentators have yet to come to terms with – but the UK could soon become a very attractive option.
In normal times, the UK is a coveted place to migrate to. Top AI researchers across the world, for example, want to live in the US or UK. In contrast, AI researchers generally only want to work in countries like China or France if they were born there.
It’s time to make the most of this goodwill by souping-up our promigration policies to ensure we have the very best talent to bounce back from this pandemic.
Hefty bill
As Sam Dumitiru writes, we don’t often comment on national security legislation. But the National Security and Investment Bill threatens to have a chilling impact on investment for entrepreneurs. Sam builds on some of the points made by former regulator supremo John Fingleton in his excellent Financial Times comment piece.
As Sam explains: “Under the new law, any investment worth more than 15% of a company’s value in a “strategic industrial sector”, of which there are seventeen, including many that have as much or more civilian applications as military like artificial intelligence, energy and transport, can be blocked on national security grounds by the Investment and Security Unit (ISU), a soon to be created regulatory body.”
This risks slowing down and killing deals, with vested interests lobbying to hold back competitors. For entrepreneurs, fewer and more uncertain deals will mean a lower chance of exit and more risk. Starting and scaling a business is a risky enough endeavour – having the sword of the ISU dangling over your head will make it whole lot less attractive.
Drones on
While governments love calling for red tape challenges and bonfires of regulation, I think the best way of actually reforming regulation is to really get into the weeds with startups who are trying to disrupt established industries.
For example, it’s only by talking to entrepreneurs that meant we could identify the regulation of income share agreements, which is preventing entrepreneurs from disrupting university funding. (Indecently if you're interested in education, you should sign up to our Eduction Entrepreneurship Monthly Newsletter.) The latest thing to pique our interest is the regulation of drones – inspired by entrepreneurs at the coalface getting in touch with us to explain how existing regulation isn’t fit for purpose.
If you’re a drone entrepreneur with insights to share, get in touch with Sam. Also reach out to him if you have any areas of regulation you think need reform. It’s not that the government is maliciously trying to hold you back – often they don’t know what’s going on on the ground and it’s our job to make sure they do.