Policy on the ICRMW in the United Kingdom

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511811272.011

11 - Policy on the ICRMW in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2010

Bernard Ryan

Edited by

Ryszard Cholewinski ,

Paul de Guchteneire and

Antoine Pecoud

Show author details

Ryszard Cholewinski: Affiliation:
International Organization for Migration, Geneva
Paul de Guchteneire: Affiliation:
UNESCO, Paris
Antoine Pecoud: Affiliation:
UNESCO, Paris

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter reviews the policy debate in the United Kingdom concerning the ICRMW. The first section argues that non-ratification by the United Kingdom is a consequence both of the Convention's implications for immigration policy and of the United Kingdom's desire to avoid international commitments with respect to immigration policy. The second section shows the growth in support for the Convention among trade unions, NGOs, members of parliament and others. One implication is that the Convention has the potential to influence public policy in the United Kingdom, even in the probable absence of ratification.

The migration context in the United Kingdom helps to explain the interest in the Convention. The years after 2000 saw public policy favour inward labour migration at all skill levels and a significant increase in the number of migrant workers actually admitted. The Highly Skilled Migrants Programme, introduced in January 2002 to enable those with high earnings and qualifications to take employment or self-employment, led to over 6,000 successful applications by June 2004. The total number of work permits issued or extended rose from 54,000 in 1997 to a peak of 153,000 in 2003. Quotas for temporary, low-skilled schemes also increased – from roughly 10,000 places in agriculture from 1997 to 2000, to roughly 45,000 places in 2003, made up of 25,000 in agriculture, 10,000 in hospitality and 10,000 in food processing.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Migration and Human Rights
The United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers' Rights
, pp. 278 - 294

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811272.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, B. and Rogaly, B. 2005. Forced Labour in the United Kingdom. Oxford, UK/London, Centre on Migration Policy and Society (COMPAS)/TUC.Google Scholar

Black, R., Collyer, M., Skelton, R. and Waddington, C. 2005. A Survey of the Illegally Resident Population in Detention in the UK. (Home Office Online Report 20/05.) Available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsdr2005.pdf [last accessed 12 May 2005].

,Citizens Advice Bureau (UK). 2004. Nowhere to Turn: CAB Evidence on the Exploitation of Migrant Workers. London, Citizens Advice Bureau. Available at www.citizensadvice.org.uk [last accessed 23 April 2009].Google Scholar

,Department for International Development (UK). 2003–2004. House of Commons Select Committee on International Development. Migration and Development: How to Make Migration Work for Poverty Reduction. London, DFID. (HC Papers 79-II.)Google Scholar

,Green Party. 2005. Real Progress: Real Choice for Real Change. Manifesto. Available at www.greenparty.org.uk [last accessed 23 April 2009].Google Scholar

,Home Office. 2002. Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain. London, UK Government.Google Scholar

,Home Office. 2005 a. Controlling Our Borders: Making Migration Work for Britain. London, UK Government.Google Scholar

,Home Office. 2005 b. Selective Admission: Making Migration Work for Britain. London, UK Government.Google Scholar

,Home Office. 2006. Working in the UK, Outcome of Review of Sectors Based Scheme. London, UK Government.Google Scholar

,Home Office/Department for Work and Pensions/HM Revenue & Customs/Department for Communities and Local Government. 2006. Accession Monitoring Report May 2004–June 2006. London, UK Government.Google Scholar

,House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs. 2005–2006. Sixth supplementary memorandum submitted by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, Immigration Control, 2005–06, pp. 358–59. (HC Papers 775-III.)

,House of Commons Select Committee on International Development. 2003–2004. Migration and Development: How to Make Migration Work for Poverty Reduction, Vol. I. (HC Papers 79.)

,Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (UK). 2006. Recognising Rights, Recognising Political Realities: The Case for Regularising Irregular Migrants. London, JCWI.Google Scholar

Lawrence, F. 2004. Not On the Label: What Really Goes Into the Food on Your Plate. London, Penguin.Google Scholar

Levinson, A. 2005. Regularisation Programmes in the United Kingdom. Oxford, UK, University of Oxford/COMPAS.Google Scholar

,Liberal Democrats. 2006. Rights and Responsibilities at Work: Employment and Trade Unions Policy Paper. Paper for the Federal Conference, March 2005.

McKay, S. and Rivers, A. 2005. Migrant workers and employment law. Ryan, (ed.), op. cit., pp. 79–104.

Ryan, B. 2004. The United Kingdom. Hailbronner, K. and Higgins, I. (eds), Migration and Asylum Law and Policy in the European Union. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 403–26.Google Scholar

Ryan, B.. (ed.). 2005 a. Labour Migration and Employment Rights. Liverpool, UK, Institute of Employment Rights.

Ryan, B.. 2005 b. Legal migration: the right to work in Britain. Ryan, (ed.), op. cit., pp. 43–8.

,Trades Union Congress. 2003. Overworked, Underpaid and Over Here: Migrant Workers in Britain. London, TUC.Google Scholar

,Trades Union Congress. 2004 a. Gone West: Ukrainians at Work in the UK. London, TUC.Google Scholar

,Trades Union Congress. 2004 b. Propping up Rural and Small Town Britain: Migrant Workers from the New Europe. London, TUC.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.