Domestic Workers in the Points-Based system
The UK government has set out a timetable for implementation of a new Points-Based system whereby those who wish to come to the UK to work must select a particular tier of the system in which to apply and score a certain number of points in that tier to quality to come to the UK.
One aspect of the proposals that has caused particular controversy is the proposal to change the rules covering domestic workers who come to the UK to work in their employers’ households. Under the current immigration rules a person who comes to the UK as a domestic worker can extend their stay here and ultimately apply for settlement in the UK if they wish to do so.
The UK government proposes that under the Points-Based system domestic workers from outside the UK will only be able to stay for six months after which time the employer must replace them with a UK or European national. These proposals will not affect domestic workers in diplomatic households, to whom separate rules apply because of the UK’s obligations under international treaties.
Many people have expressed concern at not being able, for example, to ensure continuity of care for their children if they cannot bring their children’s nanny to stay with them in the UK for as long as they are here or at not being able to bring with them a person who has worked in the family home for decades.
There have also been many expressions of concern that the proposals reverse government policies designed to protect migrant domestic workers from exploitation: the right to change employers and to qualify for settlement if the work in the UK for five years or more.
The UK government’s Action Plan on Tackling Human Trafficking, which uses the language of ‘domestic assistants’ rather than recognising domestic workers as workers, offers little comfort on this subject. It promises research on domestic workers and that migrant domestic workers will have better rights once the UK implements the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, although no timescale for this implementation has been given.
So far, over 90 members of the UK parliament, from all political parties, have signed ‘Early Day Motion’ (a form of petition for members of parliament) 860, called ‘Proposed Changes To Domestic Worker Visa’ which states:
That this House recognises that Home Office proposals to change the domestic worker visa to a business visitor visa, removing the right to change employer and restricting the maximum stay to six months, are a complete reversal of previous government policy, which was intended to protect this category of often exploited and abused workers; notes with concern that the proposals will dramatically increase the power of abusive employers, and will make it impossible in practice for migrant domestic workers to access UK employment law, effectively legalising trafficking and domestic slavery of vulnerable workers; and therefore calls on the Government to retain the domestic worker visa giving the right to change employer, to renew a visa and to apply for settlement after five years.
Lawyers, meanwhile, are keeping a close watch on what is happening in other countries. On 30 March 2006, the Supreme Court of Israel allowed Case 4542/02, Kav LaOved et al. v The State of Israel et al. and ordered the state to form a new employment scheme which would allow migrant domestic workers to resign from their jobs without losing their legal status. The court said that if a worker cannot resign without losing their legal status then the worker has no bargaining power and loses dignity and freedom. The Court relied on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Israel, like the UK, is party and also cited recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
Criticisms of the government's proposals have been voiced by people who value and respect domestic workers they employ and do not wish to replace valued and trusted members of their households with new staff and by migrant domestic workers themselves. Criticisms have been voiced by those working with migrant domestic workers who are exploited by their employers, who see this as one of the first real tests of the strength of the UK governments commitment to tackle trafficking in human beings. Taken together, these criticims amount to substantial pressure upon the government to change its proposals.
Alison Harvey, Gherson and Co.
