BECTU response to consultation on proposed Working Holidaymaker Scheme

11 October 2002

BECTU response to the UK Home Office Immigration and Nationality Policy Directorate consultation on the Working Holidaymaker Scheme.

1. BECTU is the trade union for workers in the audiovisual and live entertainment sectors. In particular, we have thousands of members working as freelances in film and television.
2. Our response to the consultation on the Working Holidaymaker (WHM) Scheme focuses on the Entry Criteria and Employment Restrictions (paragraphs 7-14) and is prompted by a particular set of concerns:
   • Among the many areas in which our members work, the area of sports outside broadcasting is a significant source of employment, especially during major international events such as Wimbledon.
   • We have noted a trend in recent years for some broadcasters covering such events to bring in their own technical staff for temporary engagements from Commonwealth countries (especially Australia, New Zealand, South Africa). Since the posts in question are not senior or managerial, there seems no reason why they should not be undertaken by skilled technicians available from the UK's own freelance labour pool. If normal work permit criteria were applied we doubt whether such individuals would be granted entry.
   • We believe the individuals brought in may in fact have permanent jobs with the broadcasters in their countries of origin and yet are presenting applications for entry to the UK based on patriality or on Working Holidaymaker status. We accept that patriality is not in itself the subject of the consultation but we see this as a linked issue.
   • We believe this to be an abuse of the current system, to the detriment of freelance technicians in the UK who are thereby deprived of employment.
3. We are therefore concerned at the proposals for a further loosening of the WHM Scheme - both because we believe that the current scheme is already being abused and because a looser WHM regime can establish a climate in which further abuse of patriality-based applications can be made.
4. For those reasons we would be opposed to a further loosening of the WHM regime in the following respects (until such time as the loopholes identified above can be dealt with):
   • We do not believe the maximum age criteria should be extended to 30. (paragraph 8.3)
   • We do not believe the period permitted for full-time work should be extended (paragraph 11.6)
   • We do not believe the WHM scheme should be extended to all types of employment (paragraph 12.3). As indicated above, we already believe the system is being exploited to the detriment of skilled UK workers.
5. We further suggest that WHM applications should only be allowed if applicants can satisfy the UK authorities that they do not already have permanent jobs in their home countries.
6. We hope you will take note of over views. We accept that our focus is on a very specific area. However, this represents an immediate, practical problem which in our view deserves a specific address within the overall review of the WHM scheme.