Britian Highly Skilled Migrant Programme: Making a case for a rethink March 20, 2007 |  Olayiwola Ajileye (Archives)

UK Revised Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP): Making a case for a rethink

By Dr Olayiwola Ajileye and Dr Tonye Sikabofori

 

It is the prerogative of any government to make laws that promote the welfare of their citizenry, protect the collective interest of the people and support their policies in various respective spheres of national life. Such is the effort of the British government through the Home Office in designing fit-for-purpose immigration rules and updating its contents to accommodate the changing realities of time. In recent times, the emphasis has been on illegal immigration in the UK and how to manage effectively the consequences without jeopardising the interest of the British government in their efforts in respect of Managed Migration of Skilled productive workforce. The government is doing a fantastic job in difficult circumstances in this respect

 

Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP)

The HSMP is one of these policies of the Labour government designed to achieve this novel objectives, to encourage legal migration. This system has helped to attract skilled, law abiding and professional workforce from all over the globe (particularly from the sub-continents of India and Africa) to the UK to support the system where there are skill gaps.

 

However, recent revised HSMP immigration rule which took effect on the 8^th of November, 2006 has raised a lot of moral and objective concerns as to the plans and intention of the British government for these crops of highly skilled professional, who are now living in the UK. Many cases have gone to courts for many reasons in respect of this revised rule.

 

From 8^th of November, 2006, in order to extend your leave to remain in the UK after you have been granted 1-2 years (depending on when you initially applied) of living and perhaps, working in the UK under the HSMP, an applicant will require minimum of 75 points aggregate spread over a number of what is known as point scoring criteria. You will have to pay £335 to have your documents assessed. The new system gives emphasis to your education, previous earnings over a period of one year, age, experience in the UK and English language proficiency.

 

Large proportion of these points is allocated to your education and previous earnings where maximum points of 30 and 45 respectively are allocated. Bearing in mind that in order to be eligible for an extension, you need a minimum of 75 points under the new system. One cannot but wonder whether this is a realistically attainable point for majority of HSMP holders applying for an extension of their further leave to remain (FLTR).

  

Journey to a far Country: Analysis and Concerns

Let us not forget some basic characteristics of any single HSMP holder. Firstly, these are people who have left their highly paid jobs and careers in their respective countries based on the information given by the HSMP guideline.

Secondly, these are people who have been made to sign that once they migrate they have chosen to make UK their home and are not encouraged to be out of the country for more than 90 days at any one time. After 4-5 years of living and working in the UK, the system promises that they will be entitled to permanent resident status.

 

Thirdly, these are people who have left their families and friends, to perhaps relocate to a strange country with their dependants.

 

Fourthly, these are migrants who have arrived in the UK with no guaranteed job or any official system of support other than their hard earned cash, God-given skills and possibly mother luck to restart a new life from the scratch with the hope that the traditional British hospitality would be accorded them to settle in and become productive for the system as they once were in their respective countries of origin.

 

In order to integrate into the system, some of these people need to retrain, go to school, and invest on learning new appropriate skills that puts them in a competitive stead in the British labour market.

 

Narrowing the Goal Post: Revised HSMP Immigration Rule

Looking at the revised HSMP rule, it appears that in addition to all these challenges facing these people, the new rule is by far the greatest barrier to their settling down and integration in order to achieve the lofty objectives they have set for themselves and also in order to meet the aspirations of the UK government in designing such a laudable programme. I suppose the pertinent question would be how on earth could this constitute a barrier?

 

The above questions can best be answered by simple illustration of the practical issues tied to this extension of leave to remain and also the experiences of vast majority of HSMP holders who have applied for an extension unsuccessfully based on this revised rule or its controversial retrospective implementation.

 

If we focus on the Previous Earning point scoring criteria for example; to earn the full 45 points, the new rule expects an HSMP holder to have earned £40,000+ in the previous one year. Bearing in mind that you need a minimum score of 75 points to qualify, then one can only wonder aloud how realistic is it for a migrant with just one year of living experience in the UK as an HSMP holder with no pre-arranged job attain an annual income of £40,000+! According to the UK National Statistic data, for the tax year ending 5^th April 2006 the median gross annual income for full time employees for both sexes in 2006 was £23,600 and £22,900 in 2005 (First Release: 2006 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ashe1006.pdf).

 

The question one would like to ask the government or the proponent of this revised rule is:

·        What is the annual income of a Senior Science Teacher in the British Schools?

·        What is the annual income of a Senior Nurse or Biomedical Scientist in the NHS?

·        What is the annual income of a Hospital Manager or Bank operatives, Accountant or Senior Lecturer in the University?

·        What is the annual income of a chartered physiotherapist or pharmacist in the UK?

 

If these professionals with high level of individual skills have to put in minimum of 10-15 years of meritorious service in the UK to attain this annual income bracket, how realistic or attainable therefore, can it be for an HSMP holder with roughly one year UK job experience?

 

If these professionals cannot earn this much, should the proponent of the revised HSMP rule be demanding such an unattainable, and unrealistic earning criteria across board from the HSMP people?

 

Is it morally right therefore on the part of the government to base an extension of LTR on these criteria for the very people the system should be seeking ways and means of supporting towards settling down and integrating in the economic affairs of the country, bearing in mind that they have no recourse to public fund?

 

If on that basis, their application failed, what consequences does this have on them considering that they have left their careers and jobs in their countries and migrated to the UK with their family? Their existing LTR will simply run out and legal migrants by default become illegal migrants, with no prospect of jobs or consequent job losses and all its attendant psychosocial consequences.

 

If these criteria were to be applied to the entire workforce in the UK, or a cross section of the senior workforce, how many of them would meet up with these set standards? It would be very difficult to have 20% of the workforce in the UK in a salary bracket of >£40,000. Yet people who manage to earn one third or half of this are deemed productive economically by any standard of the world and credit is accorded to them in what they do. Why is it not the same for the HSMP holders? Why set an unattainable earning standard when infact very few jobs pay that much in the UK labour market in which the HSMP holder will be competing?

 

It is unfair to define immigrants’ engagement in economic activities by their annual income earned over their first year of arrival in their adopted home. For example, a pharmacist with HSMP status would have to spend the first one and half years upon arrival in the UK, studying in the University to gain registration as a practitioner and the same goes for a medical doctor regardless of your level of experience. In the meantime, their economic activities would consist of any jobs to make ends meet and pay their ways through their education and retraining programme.

 

There is no way they can then earn enough to merit 45 points or meet up to 75 points required for extension of stay as HSMP holders. Lets be realistic and humane about this, all their investment in their career is what will yield the economic productivity on a longer term as desired by the British government.

 

Failed Applications: No more Room in the Inn

Without being too analytical, based on the above illustrations one would argue for a rethink by the British government about the whole concept of Managed Migration under the revised HSMP scheme.

 

Is it really an unfair system to set unattainable points criteria for continued stay in the country when people have resigned their jobs in their country? Should the government be taking responsibility for ruined careers and aspirations of HSMP people whose bid to extend has failed recently? If they have once been pronounced highly skilled under the UK immigration rule, is it not a case of double standard on the part of the government to now pronounce them unskilled or unqualified once they have migrated because there have no jobs for them to take up or there no jobs that can offer them what the new rule expect them to earn.

 

Obviously, people’s income will vary regardless of qualifications, in view of that, is it then fair to generalise that all applicants for extension should score 75 points, with 45 points forming substantial chunk of the points system?

 

One would think that if there are no criminal records of any sort, the government should allow the HSMP holder the time and space to settle in, find a job, integrate in the system and support them to achieve their maximum potential.

 

With all due respect, the British government reserves the right to review their law anytime, however, in this particular instance of the revised HSMP rule, without a shadow of doubt, it makes migrants feel targeted and as if they are set up to fail. It also calls to question the intention and genuineness of the government about the HSMP scheme. Are they really welcome or is there a policy shift to force them out without taking responsibility for their woes? Or is it a case of diminished return on the part of the government having let in so many more than the system can accommodate? If the latter is the case, then should the government not be thinking of terminating the programme altogether, abolish the law in the best interest of prospective applicants and allow those who are already in the country or who have been granted the status but not yet in the country, the time and space to find their feet and achieve their maximum potential?

 

Disclaimer

This article is not at all an attempt to castigate, malign or unduly criticise the good intention of the British government through the Home Office activities in making Britain a better place for all. It is intended to stimulate a debate on the revised HSMP rule in the light of growing numbers of failed applicants who have petitioned the Prime Minister (www.petitions.pm.gov.uk/HSMPDoctors) and have understandably developed very reactionary negative opinions of the fairness of British system, ways of life and hospitality.

 

 

Conclusion

Our honest view is that Britain should go the way of Australia, USA and Canada’s managed migration system by tightening the initial qualifying criteria, using realistic and objective standards and allowing people who made it to carry on with their livelihood with no recourse to public fund, in the best way they know without having to be subjected to periodic assessment based on unattainable criteria.

 

HSMP holder wants to work, they are not lazy bunch, if they are given the chance, they will prove it, if indeed they possess the right skill. If not, it is a matter of natural law that the unskilled would fall by the way side.

 

The challenge should be thrown open for them without putting difficult barriers which further causes psychological disorganisation and hopelessness. This is what the Home Office need to know!

 

Dr Ajileye and Dr Sikabofori are Psychiatrists, writes from West Midlands

drajileye@hotmail.com, sikabs@yahoo.com