THE KIRKHOPE COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION

BUILDING A FAIR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

September 2004

building a fair immigration system

2 building a fair immigration system

CONTENTS Foreword by the Chairman 4

Executive Summary 5

Preamble 7

Encouraging high-skilled economic 10 migration

Reinstating border controls and internal 17 reporting

Family reunions and chain migration 22

Additional proposals 28

Appendix 1: Membership 32

Appendix 2: Meeting dates 34

Appendix 3: Evidence 35

Appendix 4: Asylum Commission 39 Recommendations

3 building a fair immigration system

FOREWORD At the beginning of the year, I was asked by the Shadow , The Rt Hon David Davis by Timothy MP, to continue the work carried out by the Asylum Kirkhope MEP Commission in 2003 (see Appendix 4) by this time looking into Britain’s immigration policy. The members of the Commission are shown in the Appendix and I should like to thank all of them for their valuable contributions.

The Commission met on ten occasions in London and took oral and written evidence, as well as carrying out a thorough review of the present situation and the potential action required by an incoming Conservative Government.

This report attempts to provide some solutions to the present immigration crisis but it is not a complete overview of UK immigration – there are many books, pamphlets and other contributions that meet this objective. It is a set of recommendations which we believe would, if implemented, assist in improving Britain’s immigration system.

I should particularly like to thank Matthew Elliott who has acted as Special Adviser to the Commission. I am also grateful to those who have contributed in other ways to our work. I hope this report will form a significant part of the future immigration policy of the Conservative Party.

Timothy Kirkhope MEP September 2004

4 building a fair immigration system

EXECUTIVE The Commission recommends the following: SUMMARY Encouraging high-skilled economic migration

Recommendation 1 Simplify the current overcomplicated work permit schemes

Recommendation 2 Reinstate the higher skills threshold and introduce minimum salary requirement for work permits

Recommendation 3 Abolish in-work benefits for immigrant workers

Reinstating border controls and internal reporting

Recommendation 4 Biometric data, visa type and travel information must be recorded before embarkation to the UK

Recommendation 5 Internal reporting to be introduced

Recommendation 6 Embarkation controls to be reintroduced

Recommendation 7 Zero-tolerance approach to overstaying

Family reunions and chain migration

Recommendation 8 Minimum income requirements for sponsoring spouses

Recommendation 9 Citizenship requirement for sponsoring spouses

Recommendation 10 Higher age requirement for sponsoring spouses

Recommendation 11 Restriction of right to sponsor parents

5 building a fair immigration system

Additional proposals

Recommendation 12 A Cabinet-level Minister for Migration and Integration to coordinate policy

Recommendation 13 Compulsory medical examination before embarkation to UK

Recommendation 14 Language requirement for permanent residency

All the recommendations in Building a Fair Immigration System were unanimously agreed to by the Commission with the exception of Recommendation 9, which Philip Barth dissented from.

6 building a fair immigration system

PREAMBLE “Britain is full.”

This is the view of a growing number of people. Whether or not that assessment is completely fair, Britain is certainly one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It is twice as densely populated as France and three times as densely populated as Spain. Our island nation is not like America in the 1880s, with new frontiers and uninhabited land to settle. Britain is a small island with a large population and immigration to the UK is increasing (see graph below).

Density of population has a direct effect on quality of life. More people occupying a finite space can result in greater levels of anti-social behaviour and crime; deteriorating mental and physical health; overcrowded classrooms and expanding waiting lists; traffic jams and over-crowded buses. This overcrowding concerns not only the recipients of public services but also the providers – the front line staff who keep our public services running.

Immigration affects some areas more than others, with Greater London and the South East being particularly affected. This effect is most readily seen in the housing shortage, where the Government’s very own projections estimate that two million new homes will be needed by 2021 for immigrants alone (Browne 2002, page 38). Increasing property prices and overcrowding are caused by the growing demand for housing. Insufficient property and increased immigration have both contributed to this.

There is also a disproportionate effect on public services in London and the South East, for example, where water companies have voiced their

7 building a fair immigration system concern that the water supply and sewage disposal system cannot meet the growing demand from the Government’s house building programme in the region. With London absorbing a population the size of Leeds every three or four years (Harris 2003, page 25), the metropolis is rapidly becoming a city in severe crisis.

Immigration also has a cultural dimension. At low levels, immigrants are easily integrated into communities. But with high levels of immigration, as we have seen in recent years, cultural differences lead to divided communities. Of course, as rightly said in his Burnley Speech in February 2004, “We are a stronger and better country, rich in our cultural diversity, because of the immigrant communities that have settled here.” This is right, but for change to be comfortable, it must be progressive, not radical. Our culture must always develop through well managed integration. Rising immigration has not been matched by a corresponding emphasis on community cohesion.

For these reasons, we believe that the unquantified migration of low-skilled, low-paid workers and family members, encouraged by this Labour government, must now stop. The business community may benefit from cheap labour, especially in the short term, but low paid, low-skilled British workers, many of whom are British-born from settled immigrant communities, lose out from fresh immigration. According to migration expert Anthony Browne, who gave evidence to the Commission: “The unskilled are four times as likely to be unemployed as the skilled. Ethnic minorities in Britain are twice as likely to be unemployed as white people, with some communities such as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis suffering unemployment of around 50 per cent.”

8 building a fair immigration system

We agree with him.

Britain should not need more low-skilled workers when there is a more than adequate supply to meet the requirements of our business community in the combined labour markets of the European Union.

UK immigration policy must balance the interests of immigrants, would-be immigrants, the host country and the taxpayer. At present, this policy is disproportionately weighted against Britain’s low- skilled workers. It must be changed – and quickly.

Entry clearance applications granted, 1992-2002

1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: Home Office (November 2003) ‘Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002’

9 building a fair immigration system

ENCOURAGING Immigration policy should be predominately an economic question. The British economy needs HIGH-SKILLED and has always benefited from the work of highly ECONOMIC skilled immigrants. However, it does not need to import low-skilled workers when people from MIGRATION across the 25 member states of the European

Union are now freely able to work here.

David Blunkett asserted in November 2003 that

there was “no obvious limit” on the number of

immigrants who could settle in the UK. The Home

Secretary believes that large scale immigration of

both low and high skilled workers is economically

beneficial to the UK.

Having looked thoroughly at the economic

consequences of immigration the Commission

concludes that whereas high-skilled, high-income

immigrants should be welcomed, low-skilled, low-

wage immigration should be discouraged. This is

in line with Chancellor Gordon Brown’s continued

emphasis on making Britain a high-skilled, high-

productivity economy.

Doesn’t Britain have a declining workforce?

Supporters of mass low-skilled immigration often

assert that Britain has a declining workforce and

that the economy needs extra workers of all skill

levels. This is patently not true. The Government’s

very own Actuary Service predicts that, with zero

net immigration, the workforce will grow by 1.2m

by 2020, as the data below illustrates.

10 building a fair immigration system

UK workforce with zero net immigration (millions)

Year 2000 2010 2020 2031 Workforce (millions of people of working age) 36.89 37.39 38.13 36.82 Workforce as % of total population61.7% 62.2% 63.2%

61.2%

Source: Government Actuary Service, 2000-based projections, natural change only variant.

Britain is not suffering a shortage of low-skilled workers. With over four million people in the UK wanting to find a job, and with freedom of movement within the newly expanded EU, we do not need any more low-skilled immigrants.

Isn’t Britain facing a demographic time-bomb?

Supporters of mass immigration also assert that Britain faces a demographic time bomb with ever fewer workers having to support ever more dependents. Again, this is incorrect. The Government Actuary Service predicts that the number of children and pensioners per thousand people of working age will fall from 620 in 2000 to 583 in 2020. As David Goodhart, Editor of the centre left monthly magazine Prospect argues: “Managing an ageing society requires a package of later retirement, rising productivity and limited immigration” (2004, page 34; emphasis added).

Low-skilled, low paid workers lose out from immigration

The vociferous proponents of mass low-skilled immigration are some members of the business community together with the Confederation of British Industry. They support mass immigration

11 building a fair immigration system because they say they want a large pool of cheap workers. Increasing the supply of labour in this way drives down wages, benefiting businesses in the short term at the expense of the low-skilled.

As Labour Peer Lord Layard, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, has written: “there is a huge amount of evidence that any increase in the number of unskilled workers lowers unskilled wages and increases the unskilled unemployment rate.” Low-skilled, low- paid workers are definitely not best served by mass immigration.

David Goodhart (2004, page 35) backs this up: “Large-scale immigration of unskilled workers does allow native workers to bypass the dirtiest and least rewarding jobs but it also increases inequality, does little for per capita growth, and skews benefits in the host population to employers and the better-off.” We agree.

If mass low-skilled migration was restricted, the wages paid to low-skilled workers would increase and the differential between high-skilled and low- skilled workers would diminish. Without a ready access to cheap labour, businesses would be forced to increase competitiveness in other ways, such as increasing mechanisation, providing more training and improving quality. This would be good for Britain’s economy.

Two good examples of the consequences of mass low-skilled immigration are:

The fact that there are 100,000 fully-trained nurses in Britain not working in nursing because of poor pay and conditions and the chaos in the system, yet the NHS is

12 building a fair immigration system

employing tens of thousands of foreign nurses, some of whom require expensive medical treatment themselves

High unemployment in the Asian communities of the Midlands and the North. When these groups arrived in the UK, they kept Britain’s manufacturing base competitive in the short term by working for low wages but they are now unemployed in large numbers since the temporary benefit of cheap labour failed to stave off industry’s decline

The case for high-skilled immigration

Defenders of mass immigration like to cite the Home Office statistic that the 8.4 per cent of the British population not born in Britain contribute £2.5billion more in taxes than they consume in public goods. High-skilled work permit holders from all around the world working in high-paid specialist jobs, most notably in the City and the IT sector, pay much more than their fair share. Low- skilled, low paid workers , on average, pay less.

These two distinct groups – high-skilled and low- skilled workers – should not be lumped together. There is no reason why Britain should import economic migrants who will live in poverty.

The Commission concludes that the Government has focused too much on increasing the labour pool rather than increasing labour productivity. Lower per capita productivity, brought about by importing low-skilled labour, lowers our standard of living. Britain should instead follow the Canadian example and encourage highly-skilled, highly- educated people to live in the UK rather than

13 building a fair immigration system

creating a poor alienated underclass by accepting low-skilled, uneducated people.

The Commission has three proposals to encourage high-skilled migration and discourage mass low-skilled immigration:

Recommendation 1 Simplify the current overcomplicated work permit systems

The current work permit systems are too complicated. Britain does not need a Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme and a Sectors Based Scheme for low-skilled workers when there is now freedom of movement for the 450 million people who live in the 25 member states of the European Union.

There is also evidence that the current work permit councils which determine entry criteria have been ‘captured’ by special interests that put the interests of their sector before those of the British economy or existing workers.

The Commission has concluded that the best way forward is to simplify the work permit system to focus on the high-skilled, high-income workers that Britain needs. This could be achieved by a combination of reinstating the higher skills threshold abandoned by the Labour government and introducing a minimum salary test for the vast majority of work permits alongside a special scheme for exceptional cases.

14 building a fair immigration system

Recommendation 2 Reinstate the higher skills threshold and introduce minimum salary requirement for work permits

Work permits should only normally be granted for high-skilled jobs which pay more than the average salary (currently £25,000 per annum). We suggest that a fair minimum salary level should be above the average salary, with possible exceptions for sectors where even highly qualified workers tend to receive lower than average salaries.

Unskilled workers in the UK are currently four times as likely to be unemployed as skilled workers, suggesting a surplus of unskilled workers and the European Union has nearly 20 million unemployed. There is plenty of surplus labour – of all skill sets – for British business and the public sector.

Importing low-skilled, low-wage workers is not economically beneficial to the UK. Cheap labour simply encourages employers to avoid taking the necessary measures to improve competitiveness such as mechanization, adding value or improving quality. Those on low incomes also pay the least in tax and tend to consume more of the services provided by the public sector. If there is a genuine shortage of available workers in the EU, this rule would have to be revisited. But at present there is no need for mass low-skilled immigration and a minimum income requirement is the simplest determinant of skill.

In exceptional cases, the Minister for Migration and Integration (see Recommendation 12) should have the power to grant special work permits but in the

15 building a fair immigration system

vast majority of cases the higher skills threshold and minimum salary requirement should apply.

Recommendation 3 Abolish in-work benefits for immigrant workers

Assuming that work permit holders have come to the UK to benefit the economy, it is commonsense to say that they should not be entitled to in-work benefits such as income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit or council housing. Economic migrants should not be supported by the British taxpayer.

There are already restrictions in our present immigration system on those with permission to work receiving in-work benefits, but not for workers from the EU who are entitled under EU law to the same benefits as UK workers, on the ground of non-discrimination on the basis of national origin.

British public services are increasingly vulnerable to being exploited on this front because benefits are given on the basis of need not on the basis of previous contributions, unlike, for example, Germany. Introducing a requirement that immigrant workers are only entitled to in-work benefits and council housing if they have accumulated, say, five years of National Insurance contributions might solve this problem.

16 building a fair immigration system

REINSTATING Lack of confidence in Britain’s immigration system is rooted in a lack of information about how many BORDER illegal immigrants are residing in the UK at any time. CONTROLS There is a common perception that there are a great AND number of people residing in Britain illegally and the work permits scandal in Spring 2004 suggests that INTERNAL the public’s lack of confidence in the immigration REPORTING system and Government-produced statistics is justified. Home Secretary David Blunkett has admitted that he does not know how many people are living in Britain illegally but Mayor Ken Livingstone has estimated that in London the figure could be as high as five percent of the population.

Fifty thousand people were detected trying to enter the country clandestinely or on forged documents in 2002, so, assuming that our border controls are not 100 percent effective, it is fair to assume that there are a significant number of people living in Britain illegally. No one knows the true figure as there are simply insufficient checks on whether people, who enter the country legally, leave as intended, or continue staying here illegally.

Introducing such checks would give the Government and the public a better idea of how many people are here illegally, and this in turn would engender greater confidence in our whole immigration system.

Taken together, the proposals in this section would give the Home Office, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the police the necessary information and processes they need to prevent illegal residence in the UK. Some of the proposals are modelled on the new Dutch immigration system.

17 building a fair immigration system

Recommendation 4 Biometric data, visa type and travel information must be recorded before embarkation to the UK

The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation obliges the authorities in the illegal immigrant’s country of departure to readmit him or her for investigation if he or she has been refused entry into another country (Paragraph 3.63 of Annex 9). The longstanding difficulty is that some passengers destroy their travel documents before even arriving at UK passport control.

To avoid this problem, the 2003 Asylum Commission proposed extending the British Carriers’ Liability Act to statutorily oblige international travel operators to make copies of the documents of all non-EU/EEA passport holders embarking for entry to the UK and log them on an immigration control database (see Asylum Commission Recommendation 3 in Appendix 4). When this system was introduced in the Netherlands in 2000, the number of undocumented aliens from Lagos alone fell from 149 in 1997 to 11 in 2003 (DGIAI 2003, 13).

The Dutch Directorate-General for International Affairs and Immigration are now combining the requirement for airlines to make copies of travel documents with the use of similar scanning technology to record biometric information. This enables the immigration authorities to identify the travel documentation – and hence the point of departure – for passengers who mislay their documents before reaching passport control in the host country.

The financial implications of such a scheme would have to be examined in greater detail, but a special

18 building a fair immigration system

tax relief for British airlines to cover expenditure on such facilities could be considered. The cost of this to the Exchequer would undoubtedly be less than the current cost of illegal immigration to the UK.

Recommendation 5 Internal reporting to be introduced

A common problem throughout the immigration system is that although there are many good measures on the statute book, they are sometimes not implemented. For example, the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration (Registration with Police) Regulations 1972 covers police registration of immigrants but these requirements apply to the national of only approximated 40 countries and are rarely enforced.

The Commission believes that people residing in the UK on a visa for an extended period of time should be required to register their presence, possibly with a local police station, to ensure that the records of the immigration control database are fully up to date. Immigrants should register on arrival to the UK and register every subsequent change of address or change in material circumstances (to be defined and listed). Failure to comply with the registration scheme would constitute a violation of a visa. Serious and persistent breaches should be dealt with by removal.

A major cause of illegal immigration to the UK is people overstaying from a legitimate visa. A registration scheme, combined with the biometric data and travel information recorded before embarkation to the UK, would give the immigration authorities the information they need to identify illegal immigrants.

19 building a fair immigration system

Recommendation 6 Embarkation controls to be reintroduced

Earlier this year, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis rightly said: “The reduction of immigration officials at UK ports is making it easier for illegals to slip through” (Mail on Sunday, 15 February 2004). Proper passport checks on both entry to and embarkation from the UK are now essential for strong border controls.

Passports are currently not checked when people leave the UK (at least by the UK authorities themselves), so the Immigration and Nationality Directorate do not know whether or not someone has left the UK. The problem has been compounded by the Government’s policy of increasing the number of people and categories of workers allowed to move temporarily to Britain without having any means of ensuring that they are then leaving.

If there were a proper immigration control database which recorded an immigrant’s information and visa terms when they arrived in the UK and their address whilst in the UK, embarkation controls would allow the authorities to note when they have left the country and to follow up overstayers who are still in the country illegally.

The Government suggests that embarkation controls are impractical because 90 million people come through Britain each year and it would be impossible to check everyone. However, when EU and EEA citizens and those transiting through the UK are eliminated from this number, the quantity is quite manageable.

Australia, Canada and the United States have effective embarkation controls so it is not

20 building a fair immigration system

unreasonable to think that Britain could follow their lead. The Immigration Advisory Service supports this policy.

Recommendation 7 Zero tolerance approach to overstaying

To rebuild confidence in the immigration system it is essential that the Government has a zero tolerance approach to people overstaying.

With a proper immigration control database, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate would know for certain which country an illegal immigrant came from. This would overcome the current difficulties of proving which country illegal immigrants have come from and where they should be deported.

People will only deem Britain’s immigration system to be fair if they believe that everybody in the country is residing here legally. As Michael Howard said in his Burnley speech: “People want to know that immigration is controlled.”

Amnesties for illegal immigrants are not the solution. Legitimising illegal residence in the UK by granting permanent residence suggests to potential migrants that they should live in Britain illegally and simply wait for the next amnesty.

In contrast, a zero tolerance approach to overstaying would improve public confidence in the immigration system and enhance race relations.

21 building a fair immigration system

FAMILY The largest category of immigrants settling permanently in the UK is not people seeking work REUNIONS but people coming here for the purposes of ‘family AND CHAIN reunion’. This category covers the sponsoring of MIGRATION partners, parents and other family members to come over to live in the UK and is also known as

‘chain migration’.

The Home Office statistics below show that in 2003,

65,805 people, nearly fifty per cent of those granted

permanent residence, did so for ‘family reunion’

purposes.

Reasons for Granting Permanent Settlement in the UK, 2003

Wives 30,745 Children 8,900 Husbands 17,345 Other dependents (parents etc) 8,815 Refugees 20,975 Work related reasons 19,385 Commonwealth citizens with UK grandparent 7,215 Other & Unknown 23,290 Total 139,670

Source: Control of Immigration: UK Statistics 2003 (Home Office)

Commission members agreed that the basic

principle for family reunion immigration should be

that both the sponsors and the applicants must be

self-sufficient. They cannot be reliant on public

funds.

Family reunion immigration is the biggest source of

the low skilled workers that depress GDP per

capita, which is a significant, even if not the sole,

contributor to our quality of life. As previously

noted, the overall positive fiscal contribution of the

immigrant community comes from the high-income,

22 building a fair immigration system

high-skilled workers.

Immigrants from all over the world who come in on work permits do pay their way. Immigrants who come in through family reunion are usually subsidised by the UK taxpayer. The Government should therefore welcome high-skilled, high-income immigrants whilst urgently revisiting the immigration rules on family reunion.

The primary purpose rule

The primary purpose rule (PPR), introduced in the 1980s and scrapped in 1999, was designed to prevent arranged marriages being used as a vehicle for avoiding immigration controls. There is evidence to suggest that the PPR was effective although it was disliked by many on the Commission. According to Migration Watch, in 1999 the number of admissions of wives, husbands and fiancé(e)s from all countries rose to 30,000 compared to 21,000 in 1996, an increase of 50 per cent.

However, the PPR was not without its problems in implementation: its reliance on a subjective decision by an Immigration Officer made it difficult to operate. We really need a more objective means of decision-making in such cases. The Commission has concluded that the following proposals, some of which were suggested by Commission witnesses, are good preliminary guidelines for future policy.

Recommendation 8 Minimum income requirements for sponsoring spouses

The Commission believes that no one in receipt of state benefits should be able to sponsor an immigrant spouse. At present, sponsors have to demonstrate that they can support their spouse and

23 building a fair immigration system that such spouse will not become a burden on the taxpayer, but these rules tend to be very liberally interpreted, often simply being a requirement that sponsors cannot be living solely off state benefits.

However, many sponsors are on low incomes and therefore also receive in-work benefits such as income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. If they are not fully able to support themselves, it is highly unlikely that they will be able to fully support their spouses without additional state aid.

The UK is unusual in having such lax requirements. In Canada, the sponsoring spouse has to prove that they can support their husband or wife for at least ten years. The US and the Netherlands have minimum income requirements for the sponsoring spouse related to the level of their minimum wage; for example, sponsors must earn the equivalent of one and a half times minimum wage before being allowed to sponsor a spouse. Another approach, favoured by the Commission as a possible ‘stepping stone’ to one of the above alternatives is that anyone being supported by the taxpayer cannot demand the taxpayer also supports a spouse they want to bring into the country.

If the sponsor insists that their spouse would support them – for example, a low-skilled UK resident suggesting that their high-skilled foreign spouse can support them – the spouse should be required to apply for a work permit on their own account. The British taxpayer should not have to support low-skilled migrants who cannot contribute to the British economy.

24 building a fair immigration system

Recommendation 9 Citizenship requirement for sponsoring spouses

Another possible approach is that people who have ‘permanent residency’ but who are not yet ‘British citizens’ should not be entitled to sponsor spouses. It is a legal absurdity that non-citizens have the effective ability to confer on their spouses eligibility to apply for British citizenship. If they are committed to living in the UK – as the desire to sponsor a spouse suggests – they should become a British citizen.

The UK is again unusual in having such lax requirements. There have been cases of citizens of other EU member states circumventing their immigration procedures by moving to the UK to import their spouse into the EU before moving back to their member state.

The current rules devalue citizenship by conferring on permanent residents the same rights as British citizens, which must remain a distinguishable ‘category’. This change would reinforce citizenship and put Britain in line with the rules of other countries.

Recommendation 10 Higher age requirement for sponsoring spouses

The Commission also believes that the minimum age for any sponsor for an incoming spouse should be raised to 21 years old. Thanks to the persistent lobbying of the Labour MP for Keighley, Anne Cryer MP, the Home Office recently raised the minimum age for sponsoring a spouse from 16 to 18. Cryer has lobbied the government to raise the age to 21 because many girls under this age are still dependent on their parents and so less able to resist pressure to marry someone from their

25 building a fair immigration system

parent’s home country. As Cryer told the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, “Asian girls who are brought in as wives are frequently abandoned by their husbands and in-laws, the people who arranged the marriage then don’t want to know.”

At the age of 21, many have completed university and are therefore in a stronger position to act and think independently. This age is not high by international standards and we believe would be supported by most originating states. The Netherlands and Denmark have both, for instance, raised the minimum age to 24.

As well as protecting vulnerable girls from coerced arranged marriages, raising the age requirement would also assist social cohesion. In the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, around 70 per cent of marriages are internationally arranged marriages, involving bringing over spouses from the ‘home country’. While there is nothing wrong with international arranged marriages ‘per se’, there are problems of social cohesion for newly arrived wives who have no knowledge of Britain and British society, and don’t speak English.

Home Secretary David Blunkett MP has urged people from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities to try and find more spouses from within their own communities in Britain. The Netherlands and Denmark demonstrate that raising the age limit for sponsoring spouses is far more effective than simple exhortation. The Commission therefore agrees with Anne Cryer’s proposal to increase the minimum age requirement to 21.

Recommendation 11 Restriction of right to sponsor parents

As the figures at the beginning of this section

26 building a fair immigration system demonstrate, a substantial proportion of people granted permanent settlement in the UK are the parents of immigrants. When there was a concern in Australia that settled immigrants were sponsoring their elderly parents to reside in the country so they could have access to free health care rather than to reunite families, the Australian Government brought in a law that only allowed people to sponsor their parents if the parents had more children in Australia than in any other countries.

If parents, for example, who have three children in Pakistan, move to live with one of their children in Australia, this is actually splitting up families rather than reuniting them. In the UK, parents can only come to live here if the sponsor can show that they will not claim benefits, but this rule is loosely enforced and the parents automatically have access to the National Health Service.

The Commission believes that British taxpayers should not be expected to pay the very costly old age medical and long term care for the parents of immigrants, whose tax contributions only cover their own medical need, not that of their parents.

27 building a fair immigration system

ADDITIONAL The Commission also proposes three additional measures to improve Britain’s immigration system. PROPOSALS

Recommendation 12 A Cabinet-level Minister for Migration and Integration to coordinate policy

The Commission believes that Britain’s immigration and asylum system is in crisis and that public confidence in the Government’s ‘ad hoc’ handling of the issue is at an all-time low. The measures outlined in this report would, we believe, begin the long process of restoring confidence in the system but institutional changes are also required to show that the Government is serious in its commitment to change.

Creating a cabinet-level position of a specific Minister for Migration and Integration would highlight the importance of the issue. Just as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury sits in the Cabinet and oversees departmental spending for the whole of Government, the Minister for Migration and Integration would work from the Home Office and be responsible for coordinating action in this area.

As well as overseeing Britain’s immigration and asylum policies, the Minister would coordinate housing, welfare benefits and healthcare for migrants as well as ensuring good race relations and successful integration into our communities. Creating a cohesive society with strong and good race relations is the most important facet of migration policy and it is critical that both roles are combined into one heavyweight portfolio (see Recommendation 19 of the Asylum Commission report in Appendix 4).

28 building a fair immigration system

This recommendation would not increase the size of government because there is already a Minister of State for Citizenship, Immigration and Nationality and a Parliamentary Under Secretary for Race Equality. Combining the posts and making it a cabinet-level position would give the office-holder the power to implement an effective immigration system and highlight the importance of this issue.

Recommendation 13 Compulsory medical examination before embarkation to UK

‘Health tourism’ is now seriously undermining public confidence in our long accepted notion of a National Health Service free at the point of delivery. The public is rightly annoyed when they or their relatives – who have worked and paid taxes throughout their working lives – are put on waiting lists whilst they read about ‘health tourists’ who receive expensive medical treatment without having paid any tax in the UK. This feeling is a natural, human reaction to the situation and criticism of those who express such feelings fundamentally misunderstands a need for justice and equity.

In order to restore public confidence in the NHS, the Commission concludes that Britain should join all other countries of primary immigration in requiring all those applying to live in the UK for six months or more to pass a compulsory medical examination before embarkation to the UK.

The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all require compulsory medical examinations and they are seen as simply pragmatic and are not at all controversial. Canada and New Zealand have recently added HIV tests as part of the medical screening. Britain is the only

29 building a fair immigration system

country, apart from Israel, that encourages primary immigration without making any attempt to screen between the seriously sick and the healthy.

Of course, failing a medical examination should not mean that someone is permanently denied entry to the UK. If they are successfully treated for their medical condition and pass a second medical examination, their entry should not then be barred.

These medical examinations should be paid for by aspiring immigrants and should be carried out by a doctor accredited by the UK Government. In Australia and Canada, which use this system, there have been no substantial cases of abuse reported.

The overriding principle should be that the pressured NHS is not a free healthcare service for the world. It is essential, therefore, that the issue of health tourism by both long-term and short-term visitors is addressed.

Recommendation 14 Language requirement for permanent residency

Earlier this year, an Editorial in The Spectator urged the Government to end “the absurd and vicious policy of providing every immigrant with pamphlets and forms in their own language” because “it is one of the means by which they are turned into clients of bureaucrats and bureaucracies.” There is a great deal of truth in this statement. Some people in Britain’s immigrant communities, particularly for people in the Bangladeshi community, are cut off from the wider community by not being able to speak English, nor have any prospect of learning it. They are therefore consigned to second-class status which is frankly unacceptable.

The Labour Government, supported by

30 building a fair immigration system

Conservatives, has begun to address this issue by making evidence of learning English a requirement of the ‘Britishness’ tests for those applying for citizenship. This is a step in the right direction but the Commission believes the Government should go much further.

Speaking English is a necessity for interacting with the wider community and for working in Britain. In fact English is now accepted as the major language in Europe and most of the World. Being able to understand it and converse in it is a distinct advantage.

Knowledge of English is so important to integration that the Commission has concluded that there must be a basic language requirement before granting permanent residency in the UK. In the United States, aspiring immigrants must be able to read, write, speak and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Australia annually invests $100m to provide up to 510 hours of English language tuition to new arrivals and Canada puts a heavy emphasis on speaking English or French before a person is allowed to live there.

31 building a fair immigration system

Appendix 1: CHAIRMAN: Timothy Kirkhope MEP CV: Conservative European Parliament spokesman, Justice Membership and Home Affairs (1999-); Vice President of the European Democrats (2004-); Conservative Party representative on the European Convention (2002-03); Home Office Minister for Asylum and Immigration and Race Relations (1995-97); MP for Leeds North East (1987-97); Solicitor

Annesley Abercorn CV: Political Researcher to the Rt Hon MP (2004- ); Parliamentary Assistant, the Hon Bernard Jenkin MP (2002- 03); Conservative Future National Executive (Political events & Policy); Chairman, London West Conservative Future (2003-); Vice Chairman, Conservative Friends of Gibraltar (2003-); Brent East Conservative Association Executive (2002-)

Philip Barth CV: Solicitor; Admitted 1982; Partner Mishcon de Reya (1998- ); Philip is a recognised expert in all aspects of UK Immigration and Nationality law and practice (apart from asylum) and all relevant European law issues with particular reference to economic migration; Convenor of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association ("ILPA") sub- committee on economic migration (1995-); Treasurer and member of Executive Committee of ILPA (Nov 1997 to Nov 2000); Special Adviser in the House of Lords on passage of section 8 Asylum & Immigration Act 1996 (Employer sanctions); member of Home Office Business User Panel (1999-) - among other issues arising in this forum, assisted in the development of the Innovator Scheme and proposed and secured changes to certain aspects of the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.

Lord Caithness CV: Member House of Lords EU Select Committee on Immigration; Minister of State, Home Office (1986-88), Department of Environment (1988-89); Paymaster General and Treasury Minister (1989-90)

32 building a fair immigration system

Elizabeth Campbell CV: Senior Researcher to Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP (2002-); Member of Kirkhope Commission on Asylum (2003).

Christina Dykes CV: Special Adviser, Shadow Home Affairs Team, Community Cohesion & Civil Society (2003-); Director of Development, Conservative Central Office (2001-03); Director of Candidates (2002-03); Special Adviser, Health (1986-87); Conservative Research Department (1982-88)

Dr Peter Gilbert CV: Research Fellow, University College London (1993-); Adviser, (1987-92)

Sheila Gunn MBE CV: Camden Councillor; Visiting Lecturer on Structure of Government, Department of Journalism, City University; Associate Director, GPC International; Political Press Spokesman, Rt Hon John Major MP (1995-97); Senior political correspondent and columnist, The Times (1983-95)

Linkson Jack CV: Home Office (2003-04); Research Assistant to the Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP(2002-03); Research Assistant to Mr Peter Ainsworth MP (2003); Policy researcher at the CBI (2003); Deputy Chair of Governors Coston Primary School, Greenford (2002-)

Humfrey Malins CBE MP CV: Recorder of the Crown Court (1996-); Conservative spokesman on asylum and immigration (2001-); Member, House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (1997-); PPS to Tim Renton as Minister of State, Home Office (1987-89); MP for Woking (1997-) and Croydon North West (1983-92); Chairman of Trustees, Immigration Advisory Service (1993-96)

33 building a fair immigration system

SPECIAL ADVISER: Matthew Elliott CV: Political Secretary, Timothy Kirkhope MEP (1996-97 & 2001-); European Foundation (1998-2001); London School of Economics (1997-2000)

34 building a fair immigration system

Appendix 2: Monday 29th March 2004 Monday 5th April 2004 Meeting dates Monday 12th April 2004 Thursday 6th May 2004 Thursday 13th May 2004 Thursday 20th May 2004 Thursday 3rd June 2004 Thursday 17th June 2004 Thursday 24th June 2004 Monday 28th June 2004

35 building a fair immigration system

Appendix 3: ORAL EVIDENCE:

Evidence Keith Best (Chief Executive, Immigration Advisory Service)

Anthony Browne (Author, Do we need mass immigration?)

Sir Andrew Green (Chairman, Migration Watch)

Ruth Lea (Centre for Policy Studies)

WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

Working Paper 1: Current Immigration Policy - Arabella Thorp (22 January 2003), ‘Immigration policy since 1997’, House of Commons Library - Ross Young & Matthew Whittaker, ‘International migration’, House of Commons Library - Michael Howard (19 February 2004) ‘A new approach to immigration and asylum’, Speech in Burnley - David Davis (15 February 2004) ‘Labour’s refusal to tackle illegal immigration is hurting everyone’, Mail on Sunday - House of Commons statement (23 February 2004) ‘EU Enlargement (Free Movement of Workers)’, Hansard - Editorial (14 February 2004) ‘Make them legal’, The Spectator - Andrew Simms (16 February 2004) ‘The new serfs’, New Statesman - Policy Report (Winter 2003) ‘Exploding the myths’, Fabian Review - Christian Dustmann et al. (2003) ‘The impact of EU enlargement on migration flows’, Home Office - Migration Watch UK (27 July 2003) ‘The impact of EU enlargement on migration flows’ - Mervyn Stone (July 2003) ‘Prediction of future migration flows to the UK: Technical exercise, honest study, or convenient obfuscation?’ - Anthony Browne (November 2002) ‘Do we need mass immigration?’, Institute for the Study of Civil Society (Executive Summary) - Michael Dummett, (2001) ‘On Immigration and Refugees’, Routledge

36 building a fair immigration system

Working Paper 2: Immigration and the Economy - Arabella Thorp, Steven Kennedy & Wendy Wilson (2 July 2003) ‘EU enlargement: working, claiming benefits and receiving housing assistance in the UK’, House of Commons Library - Arabella Thorp (20 February 2004) ‘Illegal workers’, House of Commons Library - Devesh Kapur & John McHale (November/December 2003) ‘Migration’s New Payoff’, Foreign Policy - Jagdish Bhagwati (January/February 2003) ‘Borders Beyond Control’, Foreign Affairs - John Laughland (14 March 2004) ‘Immigration is turning Britain into a sweatshop’, Mail on Sunday - Gabrielle Garton Grimwood (31 October 2002) ‘Immigration: Who can work in the United Kingdom?’, House of Commons Library - Arabella Thorp (30 December 2002) ‘Immigration: The Work Permit Scheme’, House of Commons Library - Arabella Thorp (17 April 2003) ‘Immigration: the working holidaymaker scheme’, House of Commons Library - Anthony Browne (November 2002) ‘Do we need mass immigration?’, Institute for the Study of Civil Society (Extracts)

Working Paper 3: Immigration and Society - David Goodhart (February 2004) ‘Too diverse?’, Prospect - Editorial (1 March 2004) ‘Why the Little Englanders are wrong’, New Statesman - Bobby Duffy (February 2004) ‘Free Rider Phobia’, Prospect - Jessica Yonwin (2 December 2003) ‘Public Attitudes to Asylum and Immigration’, House of Commons Library - Gil Loescher & James Milner (May 2003) ‘The missing link: the need for comprehensive engagement in regions of refugee origin’, International Affairs - Anthony Browne (November 2002) ‘Do we need mass immigration?’, Institute for the Study of Civil Society (Extracts)

Working Paper 4: Immigration Policy in Other Countries - Belgium’s Immigration Policy Brings Renewal and Challenges, Marco Martiniello & Andrea Rea, Migration Information Source - Germany: Immigration in Transition, Veysel Oezcan, Migration Information Source

37 building a fair immigration system

- The Netherlands: Tolerance Under Pressure, Joanne van Seim, Migration Information Source - Japan: From Immigration Control to Immigration Policy?, Chikako Kashiwazaki, Migration Information Source - A New Century: Immigration and the US, MPI Staff, Migration Information Source

Working Paper 5: Working in the UK - Home Office: Work Permit arrangements - Home Office: Information about the Sectors Based Scheme - Home Office: Seasonal Agricultural Workers' Scheme - House of Commons Library: Who can work in the UK? - House of Commons Library: The Work Permit Scheme - House of Commons Library: Immigration - Spouses and Partners - House of Commons Library: Immigration - Dependent relatives

Working Paper 6: US and Canadian Immigration Systems - United States - Work visas and certification http://www.visa2003.com/visa/immigrant/employimmig.htm - Visas for spouses of an American citizen http://www.visa2003.com/visa/immigrant/k3visa.htm - Visas for family members of US citizens http://www.visa2003.com/visa/immigrant/family memb.htm - US immigration statistics for 2002 http://www.visa2003.com/immigration/stat2002.htm - Overview of immigration statisics http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/index.htm - Naturalisation http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/index.htm - Naturalisation requirements http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/general.htm - Naturalisation test http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/NatzTesting.pdf - Canada - Official Immigration website http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html - Work visas permits http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/guides/5487e.pdf - Jobs exempt from work permit requirements http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/exempt-1.html

38 building a fair immigration system

- Immmigration statistics http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/facts2002/immigration/immigra tion_1.html - Becoming a Canadian citizen http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/becoming-howto.html - Citizenship test http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/look/look-21e.html - Australia - From Population Flows: Immigration Aspects, 2002-03 edition, published by the Australian Government - Chapter 1: Population Growth and International Movement - Chapter 5: Temporary Entry - Chapter 7: Citizenship, Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services

Working Paper 7: Immigration Statistics - Home Office (November 2003) ‘Control of Immigration: United Kingdom Statistics 2002’ - National Statistics (May 2004) ‘Persons granted British Citizenship: United Kingdom 2003’

Working Paper 8: Dutch Immigration System - Directorate-General for International Affairs and Immigration (November 2003) ‘Measures for a more effective implementation of Dutch policy on return’ - Dutch Lower House of the States General (2002-03) ‘Illegal Resident Policy Document’

39 building a fair immigration system

Appendix 4: Asylum The recommendations as below were contained in the Commission Kirkhope Asylum Commission report of September Recommendations 2003.

Recommendation 1: The Government should publish accurate statistics on the level of migration in and out of the UK.

Recommendation 2: The Conservative Party should restate Britain’s opt-out from Schengen.

Recommendation 3: Documents should be photographed or scanned before international journeys to the UK.

Recommendation 4: People should be allowed to apply for asylum in British Embassies and Consulates.

Recommendation 5: Application Centres should be established in “safe” neighbouring countries and supported from our Overseas Aid budget.

Recommendation 6: Consideration should be given to establishing one or more off-shore Application Centres in the British Isles.

Recommendation 7: The ‘white list’ should come under the joint control of the Home Office and the Foreign Office.

Recommendation 8: Like Germany, Britain should only accept state persecution as a legitimate reason for granting asylum.

Recommendation 9: The Government should establish an Independent Application Board whose remit would be controlled by Parliament.

Recommendation 10: The application system should not involve the normal UK judicial processes or judicial reviews.

Recommendation 11: The application system should not involve legal aid or

40 building a fair immigration system

appeals to the European Court.

Recommendation 12: Successful asylum applicants should initially be granted temporary asylum.

Recommendation 13: Any quota on the number of people granted asylum should be interpreted as a maximum quota, rather than a rigid quota.

Recommendation 14: The database of fingerprints of unsuccessful asylum seekers should be improved and shared with other countries.

Recommendation 15: Asylum seekers should sign a Contract of Obligations when temporary asylum is granted.

Recommendation 16: Britain should encourage further discussion and work on the introduction of Europe-wide biometric ID cards.

Recommendation 17: The Overseas Aid budget should be repatriated from the European Union, and should become a major resource in Britain’s asylum system.

Recommendation 18: Britain should not unilaterally withdraw from international Treaty obligations.

Recommendation 19: Race relations and asylum and immigration should be a combined portfolio.

Recommendation 20: The Conservative Party should continue to oppose the emerging European Union asylum policy.

41