19. Memorandum submitted by the Independent
Race Monitor
COMMENTS ON THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RACE EQUALITY
OF THE PROPOSED POINTS BASED SYSTEM IN "MAKING MIGRATION
WORK FOR BRITAIN"
This memorandum is in addition to my 2004-05
Annual report.
1. The consultation document, "Making
Migration work for Britain" argues for simplification
and transparency in the admissions process. I agree that a single
system, with objective/verifiable criteria would be an improvement,
particularly if it removed the subjectivity of the current system
in relation to intentions. It is also necessary for the new system
to be fair and non-discriminatory. I suggest that the objectives
of the new system should explicitly state that it will have "no
unnecessary racially adverse impact".
2. I accept the need for public confidence
in immigration control, but this should not be the main reason
for changes, as the public is generally not well-informed, and
is influenced by negative media campaigns. Public opinion is also
by influenced by the tone of political discussion. If politicians
use language which implies that immigration is a "threat"
to be "controlled", this will reinforce negative perceptions.
3. The wider context is missing from the
proposals. The UK has long-established links with the Commonwealth
and recent immigration patterns reflect these links. A fair immigration
system should recognise that there are family and cultural/social
links in existing ethnic minority communities with the "traditional/old"
migration routes. In defining ease of integration as a criterion
for the points system, diversity should be taken into account.
New immigrants with family/kinship links with existing ethnic
minority communities will find it easier to integrate than would
new immigrants without such links. The proposals see integration
as an economic phenomenon, and there is no reference to existing
diversity and the role of different diverse communities in integrating
newcomers.
4. There should be recognition of the UK's
responsibilities to the developing world. Some low skilled migration
must be possible for those from developing countries or from unstable
regimes. If there are no routes for any legal low-skilled migration
from such countries, this will encourage more clandestine migration.
There is clear evidence of pressure to migrate from developing
countries, for example Bangladesh and in Africa, and remittances
are an important source of income, sometimes the only source,
in some poor areas.
5. Rights to settlement should take into
account social and family interests. It seems unfair and unnecessary
to deny any route to settlement to Tier 3 migrants. It would have
a negative impact on social cohesion as there would be no reason
for these migrants to integrate. It would also undermine diversity
policies.
6. The criteria proposed in a points-based
system will affect some racial groups more than others. The specific
implications for race equality for each tier are as follows:
TIER 1
7. It could favour migrants from western
developed countries, particularly English speaking countries.
They will find it easier to satisfy the educational and vocational
requirements. Educational and vocational training institutions
in poorer less developed countries have fewer international links
and are less able to demonstrate that they meet UK equivalent
standards. Criteria such as ease of integration could be interpreted
mono-culturally and again would favour migrants from western developed
English speaking countries.
8. It will be important to assess the criteria
for awarding "points", for potential adverse impact
and not set language levels too high. A fair transparent system
for rating equivalent qualifications should be available and applicable
to all applicants' countries, open to anyone, as in Australia
TIER 2
9. I am not in favour of auctions. The historic
connotations are negative, and it gives the wrong message about
immigrants—they are a purely economic, "saleable"
commodity. There must be a race equality impact assessment of
any criteria.
TIER 3
10. The proposals for a separate stream
with no possibilities for settlement or of changing tiers would
create a group of "guest-workers". There would be no
incentive for these workers to integrate, and no incentive for
employers to provide training and development. There are proposals
for time-limited restrictions and compulsory remittances. This
creates a group with inferior status and rights, which will not
be good for community or workplace cohesion. Enforcement is always
a difficult matter.
11. Sponsors should have positive obligations
too. For example they should be required to provide induction
courses on life in the UK, and on-the-job language training.
TIER 4
12. A test of whether the primary intention
of coming to the UK is to study is subjective. Bias and cynicism
in relation to applicants from high risk countries are possible.
This has race equality implications because such applicants will
have to satisfy a higher standard to establish their credibility.
Bonds
13. There is a proposal that applicants
from high-risk countries with high numbers of immigration breaches
should be required to deposit a bond.
14. If an individual is adversely affected
because he or she is from a nationality with a poor immigration
record, this would be unlawful discrimination. A person would
be less favourably treated because of their racial group, and
would not be treated on their individual merits. (See the House
of Lords decision in the Prague Airport case).
15. It is also contrary to equal opportunities
practice to have some immigrants who are marked out as a "problem"
and have an added financial burden. There should be careful consideration
of the race equality implications, especially if there is to be
any withholding of repayment.
Systematic decision making and risk assessment
16. In the section on decision making reference
is again made to risk assessment. The same comments apply as in
paragraph 3 and 14 above. If an individual applicant is treated
less favourably, for example by being refused or by having to
satisfy an additional requirement, because of his or her nationality,
and not considered on his or her merits, this would breach the
Race Relations Act. Such discrimination could only be done through
the use of ministerial authorisations. This would greatly extend
their use in scope and scale, and would legitimise substantive
racial discrimination. In my view this would be disproportionate
and not justified by current levels of immigration abuse.
Illegal working
17. The race equality implications of the
new penalties referred to in the consultation should be reviewed.
If employers find the checks onerous some may be tempted to refuse
all "foreigners" or those they perceive to be "foreign",
which could result in unlawful discrimination against British
ethnic minority jobseekers.
Mary Coussey
28 November 2005
| 
