Sorted by skill, sealed by skill: The principle of selectivity

Anticipating proposed changes to the immigration related settlement policy, most of my last week was spent awaiting the Immigration Minister’s announcement. Even though the announcement remains pending as I write, the speech he delivered instead, reaffirms the ‘skill divide’ in the immigration policy, which I set out to discuss in the previous part of this blog.

Speaking about the ‘development of the principle of selectivity’, Damian Green reiterated that

We need to know not just that the right numbers of people are coming here, but that the right people are coming here. People who will benefit Britain, not just those who will benefit from Britain.

It is in the shadow of this ‘principle of selectivity’ that Overseas Domestic Workers (ODWs) await their fate.

A step backwards

The Home Office launched a consultation in June 2011on the employment related settlement of Tier 5 and ODWs. One of the proposals set out here was to consider abolishing the route for overseas domestic workers, or consider restricting leave to a 6 month period as a ‘visitor’, or 12 months where accompanying  ‘skilled’ migrants (i.e. Tier 1 or Tier 2 migrant), with no right of extension or to change employer.

Such a proposal is a step backward. In the absence of the currently offered protections, which enable ODWs to change employers, bring cases to the employment tribunal and provide the right to settle in the UK, the immigration status of the ODW will become inextricably linked to their specific employer. Not only shall this arrangement lead to increased cases of exploitation, maltreatment and abuse but ODWs, who would leave their abusive employers, would end up as undocumented workers with no recourse to justice and rehabilitation. On the other hand, abusive employers would face no sanctions for their actions.

While the PBS desires to ‘choose carefully’ the ‘best and the brightest’ to the UK, it simultaneously endangers the employment rights of the ‘unskilled workers’ without any qualms. The consultation document goes a step further in the wrong direction by proposing to categorize ODWs on a six- month leave to remain as ‘visitors’, not even recognizing their labour as work.

The case of India

One of the countries, from where the highest number of ODWs come to the UK is India. According to Kalayaan, nearly 30% of its registered clients are Indian Citizens. Despite repeated attempts to solicit support towards the ongoing campaign against the proposals from the government of India, there has been no response. On the other hand, the visit of Prime Minister David Cameron to India in July 2010 was overshadowed with voices from New Delhi suggesting that the cap on non- EU ‘high skilled’ migration will have an "adverse" impact on UK’s trade engagement with India. Faced with such a warning, the UK government, in a ‘spirit of humility’, proposed to grant India ‘a direct say’ in its (high skilled) immigration policy.

Therefore, the rights of the ‘low skilled’ migrant workers continue to be undermined. Despite international conventions and safeguards, the skill selectivity in immigration policy entrenches the vulnerability of the ODWs. In his speech last week, the Immigration Minister suggested that the government pays respect to ‘our international legal obligations’. It is perhaps in the same spirit that the government chose to strategically abstain in a voting at the International Labour Organization (ILO) on a Decent Work for Domestic Workers Convention in June 2011, the same time it set out the consultation on the proposed changes!

The struggle of the ODWs and of the supporting organizations has confronted the government on various occasions. One such occasion was the ceremony for the Anti Slavery International Award 2011 organized at the House of Lords. Marissa Begonia from Justice for Domestic Workers, recipient of the award, presented the Immigration Minister with an ‘awkward’ moment when she said:

I need to ask why the government is considering removing a visa that has been proven to significantly reduce the abuse and exploitation of domestic workers?  

The question is yet to be answered.