Forward Together? Exclusionary immigration policy and the UK's social care sector
The UK’s restrictive immigration policy, which simplistically focuses on the economic worth of “skilled” vs. “unskilled” migrants, does not, in fact, take into account certain needs of the economy. In the social care sector, “unskilled” migrants are needed to take care of an ageing population. Restrictions may backfire and undermine the quality of care in the UK. Not acknowledging this need for “unskilled” immigrants concedes ground to the reoccurring argument that immigrants are pricing out indigenous workers from “good honest labour,” which is misleading in the case of social care work.
In recent years, the issue of immigration has come to the forefront of political debate in the United Kingdom. During the 2015 election, the mainstream parties seemed to have reached a consensus that immigration was “getting out of hand”, and that the country needed tougher immigration policies prioritising high-skilled migrants. Both the Conservative and the Labour Party called for increased immigration controls in 2015, with the latter even printing “Controls on Immigrations” on a mug. While the Labour Party changed its stance under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, this sentiment is still reflected in the 2017 Conservative manifesto:
Thanks to Conservatives in government, there is now more control in the system. The nature of the immigration we have – more skilled workers and university students, less abuse and fewer unskilled migrants – better
suits the national interest.
It is apparent that “unskilled” foreign workers are viewed as undesirable additions to the country’s population, as “they” steal “our” jobs. However, this image of unskilled migrants is unfounded. Given the ever-growing population of elderly British citizens, the country is relying on migrant workers, in conjunction with increasing female labour market participation, to handle the care sector. A 2016 report found that almost 1 in 5 of the English social care workforce (18.4%) was born outside the UK, and non-EU migrants make up the greatest proportion of migrants working in adult social care. Yet, even with this large population of migrant social care workers residing in the country, the International Longevity Centre-UK (ILC-UK) predicts that the adult social care sector could “face a shortfall of one million workers in the next 20 years” in case of a zero net-migration scenario (where the number of immigrants is equal to the number of emigrants).
Immigration Policy: a help or a hindrance?
Despite the substantial need for social carers, the UK’s migration rules define many care workers as unskilled, making it hard for such migrant workers to enter the country (Williams 2012, 372). As Anderson (2011, 51) highlights: “There is an ostensible mismatch […] between immigration policies which have taken little account of the implications of its emphasis on the ‘highly skilled’ and the demand for low waged, flexible workers from the social care sector.” The contradictions in government policy is actively endangering the quality of care in the UK.
Because of increasingly strict immigration policy, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA), which consists of EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, have become the main group of foreign social carers entering the UK in recent years, constituting over 80% of new entrants. Still, these workers by themselves do not make up the numbers of carers needed to meet the UK’s demand for care. Even more problematic, however, is the impending exit of the UK from the European Union. Although it remains unclear how exactly Brexit will impact EU nationals currently residing in the UK, it is highly likely that it will become harder for migrants from EU states to enter the UK’s job market in future.
What can be done?
In light of the gap between supply and demand in the adult social care sector, and given the restrictions on migrants who could fill this gap, it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable. One possible solution requires major changes in the organisation and regulation of employment relations, along with a reduction of restrictive immigration policy including the redefinition of the term “unskilled migrant.” An alternative is for the government to attract more native workers to the social care sector. The latter could be done through a greater role of state-provided care services, which could increase working conditions and wages, but would likely (due to the long-term issues of an aging population) be a short-term solution. It is, therefore, time to start seeing “unskilled” migrants as indispensable members of British society.
References
Anderson, Bridget. 2011. “Who Needs Them? Care Work, Migration and Public Policy.” Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales 30(1): 45–61.
Conservatives.com. 2017. “Forward Together: The Conservative Manifesto.” Available at www.conservatives.com/manifesto. Accessed February 03, 2018.
ILC-UK. 2016. Brexit and the Future of Migrants in the Social Care Workforce. https://www.independentage.org/policy-and-research/research-reports/brexit-and-future-of-migrants-social-care-workforce.
Williams, Fiona. 2012. “Converging Variations in Migrant Care Work in Europe.” Journal of European Social Policy 22(4): 363–76.
About the Author
Inga Steinberg is a Jenkins scholar pursuing an MSc in Comparative Social Policy. Prior to Oxford, she completed a BSc in Liberal Arts and Sciences: Global Challenges at Leiden University College in The Hague. Her bachelor’s thesis explored the relationship between ability grouping in mathematics classes and its effects on the gender mathematics gap in educational achievement. She will further investigate related topics in her research at the DSPI, and wishes to go into a DPhil after graduating.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect any editorial policy.