Author: Eda Yazici
Illegalised migrants are often associated with poverty and deregulated labour markets. In this blogpost, I share the experience of one family to show how poverty is created and sustained by, among others, agencies that are supposed to safeguard workers and provide a safety net from destitution. This research was undertaken under the Horizon funded PRIME project that analyses the role of institutions in shaping the conditions and politics of irregularised migrants in Europe.
The context
In 2011, the UK government introduced a deregulatory drive to cut red tape and unleash economic growth (Gov.uk, 2011). This was alongside massive cuts to public spending, decimating local authorities’ ability to support those most in need and suppressing enforcement agencies like the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority’s capacity to investigate labour market abuses. At the same time, the commitment of successive governments to backing “UK PLC” and creating a so-called ‘bonfire of red tape’ has made it easier than ever to start a business. This has enabled the widespread phenomenon of ‘phoenixing’ (WoRC, 2024). Phoenixing is when a company dissolves having come under scrutiny but quickly re-establishes itself under a new name to continue its exploitative practices. The slashed red tape that allows phoenixing to proliferate denies workers redress or practical access to justice.
Phoenixing is particularly prevalent among care agencies who offer Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) for Health and Care Worker (HCW) visas. HCW visas were introduced in 2021. They tie workers to employers, and if a worker wishes to leave, they must find a new visa sponsor within 60 days or risk deportation. The government sets the cost of applying for a HCW visa at £551 per person for five years. Of the 15 care workers we interviewed for the PRIME Project, the average paid to sponsors was £5000, rising to a maximum of £15,000. Many of the people we met arrived in the UK only to find that the agency who sponsored their visa did not exist, or offered them only a few hours’ work a week, or had phoenixed after having their sponsor licence revoked.
Hameed and Ferhat[1]
Hameed, a data analyst, entered the UK in 2022 on a Skilled Worker visa with his wife, Ferhat, and their two children. Initially, life in suburban southwest London seemed promising and secure, but in late 2023, Hameed was made redundant. This led to the curtailment of his visa, and despite his best efforts, he was unable to secure another visa sponsor for a new job.
Faced with the loss of their livelihood and legal status, Ferhat, who was a primary school teacher in Pakistan, applied for a HCW visa which would allow her to work as a carer, with Hameed and their two children permitted to stay as her dependents. In early 2024, Ferhat found a care agency who promised immediate employment to sponsor her in an Essex town. The family left London, taking a room in a hotel before finding a house to rent. After paying £600 to her new employer to “release the rota”, Ferhat began working as a carer 16 hours a day for 6 days a week. When she complained about the gruelling schedule, the employer threatened her with deportation.
Ferhat’s health deteriorated under these exploitative conditions, and the family faced further obstacles. They could not register with a GP without proof of address and had to visit A&E for medical attention. Despite a sick note, Ferhat was only allowed two days off by her employer before being forced to return to work. The doctor who saw Ferhat did not raise concerns about labour exploitation. Ferhat’s health continued to deteriorate and after several more weeks of working over 90 hours a week, she collapsed at work. Her employer’s response was to summarily dismiss her. The agency who dismissed her has since phoenixed.
In the three months Ferhat was working as a carer, Hameed managed to secure rented accommodation for the family, began applying for school places for their children, and started to look for data analyst jobs. When Ferhat was dismissed, their landlord issued them with a Section 21 or “no fault eviction” notice. Without a new visa sponsor, the family were unable to find alternative rented accommodation and had to return to a hotel. With every penny of their savings spent, and the 60 days to find a new sponsor elapsed, the Citizens’ Advice Bureau advised them to ask their local authority for help.
The local authority reluctantly agreed to support the family under Section 17 of the Children’s Act which places a statutory duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. Section 17 meets children’s basic needs including food, clothing, and housing irrespective of immigration status. The local authority did not agree to house the family until they sold their last remaining asset – their car – for £300 and had spent that on their hotel room. Despite having no legal right to give immigration advice, the family’s social worker advised them to apply for asylum – support for which is funded by central government, not local government. The family was informed there were no secondary school places available in the local authority for their eldest child and despite a statutory duty to admit children of compulsory school age, the social worker and local authority took no action. Instead, Hameed walked the two miles to the nearest secondary school every day to plead for a place for his son. When his son eventually started school, the social worker did not inform them of the local authority’s duty to make a discretionary payment for school uniform or for travel to and from school, forcing Hameed and Ferhat’s son to start school without uniform and walk four miles each day without a proper coat.
At time of writing the family share a room in a hostel provided by the local authority with vouchers to cover food expenses. Hameed has applied for over 200 jobs as a data analyst hoping that one will sponsor him for a new Skilled Worker Visa. Ferhat has been unable to find an alternative sponsor for a Health and Care Worker visa.
The family’s situation shows the devastating confluence of deregulation, austerity, and a hostile visa regime. The bonfire of red tape allowed the unscrupulous agency to rise and rise again. Austerity has made deep cuts to labour market enforcement agencies and the justice system supposed to protect workers and even deeper cuts to local government. This has left them with minimally resourced social care services desperate to cut costs, cut time, and pass the buck to central government. Finally, the hostile environment and No Recourse to Public Funds prevents many from accessing public services, while a tied visa system prevents those who are exploited from speaking out, knowing that they may pay in deportation. While slashed red tape may unleash growth for care agencies, they are part of a wider system that creates, sustains, and entrenches deep poverty. Ferhat and Hameed’s experiences highlight the need for researchers to not view immigration and other areas of social policy such as work and welfare in isolation and emphasise how different areas of policy come together to create, sustain, and entrench poverty.
[1] Names have been changed
References
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/red-tape-challenge
20240627-worc-evidence-submission-low-pay-commission.pdf
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the BPI and the University of Bristol.
