 | Onslow-Cole: delaysThe government ordered a top-to-bottom review of the immigration system in April, and the Conservative party has just announced its own solutions, not least a plan to limit the UK’s intake of refugees to a quota voted on every year by Parliament.
But never mind the politicians. How would the people really in the know – the lawyers who deal with the immigration process and all its quirks on the ground, day-in, day-out – reform the system?
Alison Stanley, chairwoman of the Law Society’s immigration law committee, maintains that the best way to deal with illegal immigration is to open up access to legal employment. She says: ‘The key is to liberalise the routes to legal working, so that people can work here legitimately – and that will keep money out of the pockets of people smugglers. The government’s managed migration programme, which applies to highly skilled workers and workers in certain sectors, has been a good start. But why not extend it more widely? For a start, we could extend the two-year working holiday permit that we already offer to under-30 year-olds from Commonwealth countries, to other countries.’
Nicholas Rollason, a partner at City firm Kingsley Napley, agrees. He says: ‘The government has got the right idea with its sector-based schemes offering short-term work permits in areas where we need labour, such as catering, and fruit-picking where there is a seasonal agricultural scheme. That is a good way forward.
‘The main problem with illegal immigrants is that we don’t know how many there are, and that leads to claims by the right-wing press that the numbers are huge. In Australia, they have such tight exit controls that they can tell at any time exactly how many people have overstayed their visa. It provides a factual basis for immigration policies, though I’m not sure how workable that would be in the UK.’
He adds: ‘We should not forget it is the employers who are generating the market for illegal working by their demand for cheap labour. There have been very few prosecutions of employers so far – the government needs to ramp up its efforts and make a point of prosecuting those who break the rules.’
For Mark Phillips, a partner at Tyndallwoods in Birmingham, the biggest problem with the present immigration system is the fact that people on the street do not understand it – and they are not going to have any confidence in something they do not understand. He would like to see a simple points system for entry – an idea shared by Mr Howard.
Mr Phillips says: ‘At the moment, there is no consolidated set of rules. We’ve had a succession of immigration acts, with concessions made by parliamentary statement and correspondence sent to law centres and MPs all forming part of the law. Most people have no idea what the law is.’
He continues: ‘We need a straight-forward model where people who want to come to the UK accrue points through economic wealth, skills, age, contact rights or family ties, and if they reach the minimum level of points, they get a visa.’
However, most lawyers see talk of a points system as a distraction. Julia Onslow-Cole, a partner at City firm CMS Cameron McKenna, says: ‘We already have what is effectively a points-style system for highly skilled workers, where workers must prove they have skills the UK needs. But lack of resources at the Home Office has led to massive delays – at the moment, senior executives are having to wait up to 20 weeks before they can start work.
‘I think the standards set by the highly skilled programme are too low, leading to too many applications and forcing the Home Office to bring down the numbers by nit-picking. I would set the threshold higher, with a higher pass-rate, to allow highly skilled applications to be processed more quickly. You could then have a different kind of category for less skilled applicants.’
Ms Onslow-Cole adds: ‘There has been very little investment in research on the benefits of current immigration policies. The Home Office is not tracking at all what those who obtain highly skilled work permits are going on to do, and what benefits they are bringing to the economy. We need more evidence rather than making policies on the hoof.’
One of the most unpopular aspects of the current system – and the one that lawyers would most like to change – is the way that decisions are reached in asylum cases. Most solicitors think Home Office decisions are rushed, and made by caseworkers who lack the necessary experience.
Ms Stanley says: ‘I would like to see initial Home Office decisions being made by people who are competent and senior enough to deal with them. Right now they are just too junior, and their decisions reflect that.
‘If you take the figures for Somalia, adjudicators are overturning 44% of appeals. That means that nearly half of Home Office decisions in Somalia cases were just plain wrong. If that were happening in any other area, there would be an uproar at that level of failure.’
Chris Randall, executive committee member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, adds: ‘The quality-control systems are not working properly – we need to find a more efficient and competent system.’
Katherine Henderson, an assistant solicitor at Browell Smith & Co in Newcastle, says: ‘We should be following Canada’s example, where there is an independent unit that produces country information. I have just dealt with a case where the Home Office quoted from its own report on Iran claiming that the country is growing more liberal – ignoring the fact that reformists were not allowed to stand in the most recent election.’
Mr Phillips agrees: ‘Because there is no independent source of country information at the moment, lawyers have to trawl through information to create their own reports – a stupendous waste of time and money.’
Solicitor Tauhid Pasher, legal policy adviser at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, is looking for a more fundamental change in the way asylum cases are dealt with. He says: ‘To have a fair and effective system, we need an independent processing body deciding asylum claims, not the Home Office. It should include independent experts, people from a judicial background, and some members of asylum seekers’ representative bodies. This is very important for fairness.’
He adds: ‘The number of asylum applications in Britain is actually falling as the situation in countries such as Afghanistan improves. We need to restore asylum seekers’ right to work when they arrive in the UK, to ease the burden on funds, instead of being concerned that this is a pull factor drawing people to the UK.’
Immigration lawyers may not all agree on the best way to change the system, but there is one issue that unites them in a single voice – quotas. Solicitors contend that the Conservative proposal would be a disaster.
Of course, the US has its green card system, but Ms Onslow-Cole explains that it is hardly an example to follow. ‘It is impossible to get the numbers right. The quota is filled up after three months and Congress has to keep voting on raising the cap.’
|
|
|
|
No comments yet