😠 Certificate of Common Sponsorship

Westminster Hall

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

Migrant care workers face severe exploitation due to the UK’s visa system, which ties them to their employers, leaving them vulnerable to poor working conditions and threats of deportation. MPs debated the introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship to allow workers to switch employers within the sector without risking their visa status, aiming to reduce this exploitation. The government acknowledged the issues but emphasized broader immigration reforms over the proposed certificate, though they are taking steps to support affected workers and crack down on rogue employers. The debate highlighted the urgent need for systemic changes to protect migrant workers and improve the care sector.

Summary

  • Vulnerability and Exploitation of Migrant Workers: Neil Duncan-Jordan highlighted the vulnerability of migrant care workers in the UK, particularly under the current visa system where their employment and residency are tied to a single employer. This setup leaves them at risk of exploitation and with limited ability to challenge poor working conditions.

  • Impact on Migrant Care Workers: The care sector’s high turnover and precarious nature exacerbate the workers’ vulnerability. Migrant care workers face the risk of deportation if they lose their job and cannot find another sponsor within 60 days. They are also often victims of high recruitment fees and other exploitative practices.

  • Need for Structural Reform: Both Duncan-Jordan and other MPs, such as Chris Hinchliff and Jayne Kirkham, stressed the need for structural reform in the care sector. They suggested moving towards a national care service and addressing workforce insecurity through better regulation and public ownership.

  • Certificate of Common Sponsorship Proposal: Duncan-Jordan proposed the introduction of a sector-wide certificate of common sponsorship, which would allow migrant workers to move between employers without affecting their visa status. This would reduce the power imbalance and protect workers from exploitation.

  • Support from Other MPs: Various MPs, including Sarah Russell, Carla Denyer, Steve Witherden, and Jim Shannon, supported the proposal, citing evidence of widespread abuse and the need for systemic change to protect migrant workers and improve care standards.

  • Personal Stories of Exploitation: MPs shared stories of migrant workers facing low wages, unreasonable demands, and threats related to their visa status. Examples included workers paying back large recruitment fees and being charged for administrative costs by employers.

  • Government’s Response: Minister Seema Malhotra acknowledged the issues and outlined existing and planned measures to support migrant workers, including regional support hubs and stricter action against rogue employers. However, she did not commit to supporting the certificate of common sponsorship.

  • Calls for Further Action: MPs urged the government to consider additional reforms, such as the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for a single enforcement body against exploitation and changes to the visa system to make it more worker-friendly and less reliant on high migration to fill care sector gaps.

  • Conclusion: The debate concluded with a call for the government to recognize the economic and social benefits of introducing a certificate of common sponsorship to better protect migrant care workers and improve the overall care sector.

Divisiveness

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the proposed solution of a certificate of common sponsorship rather than on the underlying issue of exploitation of migrant care workers. Most of the contributors to the debate, including Neil Duncan-Jordan, Chris Hinchliff, Sarah Russell, Carla Denyer, Steve Witherden, Jayne Kirkham, and Jim Shannon, showed support for the principle behind the certificate of common sponsorship, emphasizing the urgency and necessity of protecting migrant workers from exploitation through this measure.

However, disagreement is evident in the interventions and speeches from the Conservative side, particularly from Katie Lam and indirectly from Nick Timothy’s question to Lisa Smart. Katie Lam expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the certificate of common sponsorship, arguing that it would not address the fundamental issues of underfunding and underpayment in the care sector. She criticized the previous government’s approach to migration and suggested tighter rules instead of loosening them through new sponsorship certificates, indicating a clear divergence from the supportive stance of other MPs.

Additionally, Nick Timothy’s intervention to Lisa Smart about the Liberal Democrat policy on dependents for care workers adds another layer of disagreement, reflecting different views on the broader immigration policy.

While the disagreement is present, it is not pervasive or highly contentious, as most speakers, despite their party lines, aligned on the need for better protection of migrant care workers. The dissent primarily comes from the Conservative side, particularly from Katie Lam, who is more critical of the proposed solution and focuses on broader immigration and economic issues.

Examples of disagreement: - Katie Lam’s opposition to the certificate of common sponsorship, arguing it would not solve the root issues of underpayment and underfunding (17:06:00). - Nick Timothy’s challenge to Lisa Smart regarding the Liberal Democrat plan to reverse the ban on bringing dependants, showing a clear policy disagreement (17:06:00).