研究報告

Chinese Community Consultation Meeting on "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain" White Paper, February 2002

Friday 15th March 2002, 2:00 to 4:30p.m. Chinese Community Centre, 28/29 Gerrard Street, London, W1D 6JP.

Organised by:
The Chinese Takeaway Association (UK), Chinese Community Centre, The Chinese in Britain Forum, London Chinese Community Network and Chinese Information and Advice Centre.

Supported by:
The Chinese Civil Rights Action Group, Central London Community Law Centre, the Monitoring Group and the National Civil Rights Movement.

Number of participants - 25

Purpose of the meeting

The Home Secretary, Rt. Hon. David Blunkett MP, introduced the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven- Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain" for public consultation in February 2002. The White Paper has eight chapters and sets out the Government's proposals and policy on citizenship and nationality, working within the UK, asylum, tackling fraud and people trafficking, illegal entry, illegal working, border controls, marriage/family visits and war crime.

This meeting was to give the Chinese community an opportunity to discuss and respond to these proposals and thereafter to prepare a collective response to the Home Office.

The proposals from the White Paper were summarised and presented to participants by Stanley Hui (The Chinese in Britain Forum), Katy Chen (Chinese Information and Advice Centre) and David Tang (solicitor).

The meeting was chaired by Thomas Chan (The Chinese Takeaway Association UK). Jabez Lam (The Chinese Civil Rights Action Group) was also a member of the panel.

The following points have not been scrutinised but a true reflection of the discussion from participants.

Citizenship and Nationality

• Welcome the key measures, particularly on speeding up the process of acquisition
• Celebrating the acquisition of citizenship is a positive measure
• Reservation on preparing people for citizenship by promoting English language. Certain groups of people may find it difficult to acquire the language, such as the Chinese elders, young single mothers who have already struggled with other duties may not find time to study, people who work long hours (e.g. catering trade)
• ESOL classes are already over-subscribed. The current structure would not allow for more enrolments
• English test isn't a new measure. It was seldom carried out in the past to refuse application
• Concerns about the education of British culture and identity. There is no strong consensus of what defines British culture. It is very wrong of the Government to use the disturbances taken place in northern part of England as a reference to justify this measure. Those involved in the disturbances were young Asian who command good English and were born and brought up in this country. The causes of the uprising (not riots) were poor housing, unemployment, poor education and racism. The Cantle Report recommended an open debate on Common values, civic culture, shares of common goals and core social values. The citizenship proposals in the White Paper are taking the opposite direction. All elements of a fragmented community identified by Cantle Report exist in the Chinese community, English test for nationality and new Oath of allegiance cannot address the causes of a fragmented community. Instead, it will only create further division.
• The use of English test is an excuse to exclude non-white immigrants. It is a regressive proposal.
• Knowing English and British culture are ways to achieve integration. However, integration is a two-way process. Not only do immigrants have to learn the British systems, local people have to respect newcomers. Integration will take place when racism is being tackled. Educating local people at all levels on diversity and the advantages of living in a multiracial community is required. People can receive such training and information in the work place as well. Legislation may be required to reinforce the tackling of racism.
• The proposal of modernising the oath of allegiance is unreasonable. Local born citizens have never been asked to do so. Research has shown that 50% of the population would not swear loyalty to The Queen. Certain members of the Royal family sometimes make negative comments about ethnic groups that are insensitive.
• The use of deprivation of citizenship procedure needs to be monitored carefully and must not be abused or used to segregate citizens at different levels. It creates a second-class citizenship.
• Whether the government can fulfil the promise to reduce waiting time is questionable. It failed last year, i.e. the waiting time was 12 months instead of 6 months as promised.
• The whole package was a direct transfer from the Canadian practice that fails to reflect the situation of British society.

Working in the UK

• The point system is inequitable. Income level is disproportionately high as criteria eligible to obtain application forms and discriminates against people from 3rd world countries where the average income is much lower than in developed countries.
• Asking employers to pay a fee applying for a work permit is unfair. In a way it is a penalty to employers who are unable to find someone from the local labour market.
• Welcome the proposal on switching postgraduate students to employment.
• The proposal to encouraging postgraduates to switch to employment is not base on recognising the movement of people. The professions listed are all recognised vital services that have experienced difficulties in recruitment, i.e. teachers, nurses, doctors, the so call Key workers. This proposal is just to entice these professionals from the third world to fill posts that the government failed to pay local people a proper income. This is exploitation to 3rd world countries by taking away these professionals' contribution to their own countries. The British government should pay a 20-year fee to compensate countries losing out on these professionals.
• The Government fails to address the problem of low-skilled employment. It does not help farming or catering industries. It is a discriminatory policy to low skilled workers who can only work for short period of time in this country.
• 90% of the uptake of Working Holidaymaker is from Commonwealth countries with a predominantly white population such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Other non-white Commonwealth countries were discouraged to apply and very often their applications are refused. The Home Office needs to instruct visa officers to practice this scheme in a fair way.
• Questioned the relevance of English proficiency of ministers of religion while their main duty is to help people from their ethnic background speaking their native languages.
• Welcome the proposal to regulate the advice and services in respect of work permit.
• Welcome The White Paper setting out clearer and more transparent procedures for work permits
• More consideration should be given that reflects the need in terms of employment within minority ethnic communities
• This proposal does not benefit the Chinese community. Chinese catering businesses experience difficulties in recruiting staff, many small shop owners reaching retirement age but unable to retire due to the shortage in second generation willing to inherit the small family business. Family run business are often relatively low skills and long working hours, the Chinese community requires relaxation in low skills work permits to enable the community's economic base to continue and develop.
• In 2000/01, there were 60,000 vacancies in hotels and restaurants in the UK. Among these only 132 cases of work permit were approved, 5% of the total Chinese work permit applications for the same period
• There are currently 170,000 vacancies, according to government statistics and 10% is from hotel and catering industries. However the Government deliberately ignores an estimate of 20,000 people who are working illegally in this country. It will alleviate the shortage of low skilled manpower by granting them the right to work, to pay tax and to induce them all to the British system
• The proposal of working in the UK is a step to the right direction, but still discourages non-white, lower skilled immigrants.
• There are people working in this country without permission, these people are filling the gap in labour shortage in small Chinese catering businesses, but the Government has not put forward any proposals to deal with this issue. There is a suggestion to the Government to regularise these workers without permissions to stay in this country.
  Asylum, Tackling Fraud, Border Control and Marriage/family visits and war criminals

Proposal on Asylum is a trick from the Government to reduce the number of non-white applicants

• The real issue is that the Government did not put sufficient resources to assess applications resulting in backlog and failed to give proper consideration on every application
• It is wrong of the Government to assume all applications are fraudulent or for economic reasons. It is a step backward policy.
• It is insensitive for the Home Secretary to state openly that the majority of asylum seekers were non-political. It is also wrong of the British Government to criticise the Chinese government's poor human rights record on the one hand year after year but refused applications from asylum seekers who claimed political oppression on the other.
• It is a concern that the Government is using the quota system for removals. Any assessment should be based on merit and not to satisfy the number allocated for removal for a certain period of time
• All measures seem to be based on addressing asylum as a problem rather than fulfilling UK's commitment towards the 1951 Convention. Asylum seekers must have the right to be assessed carefully and clearly.
• The setting up of centres, no matter what they are called, remains a violation of the individual's civil rights.
• A conflict of interest will arise when the Home Office provides legal advice to asylum seekers in the different centres. It is questionable whether asylum seekers receive fair and neutral advice. Information and advice are different from legal representation.
• The proposal fails to face the problem for those who over-stay. These people are stateless and cannot support themselves through employment. The Government ignores the fact that they exist.
• The Government should allow those who have already arrived in this country to stay permanently, such as those from Fujian province, China.
• The use of ID card is infringing on the civil rights of the individual. This is a move by the Government to introduce the scheme for the rest of the population.
• Increasing the penalty for the people who organise trafficking is ineffective because the extra cost will be transferred to the illegal immigrants. Whilst the meeting recognised the criminal exploitation in the trafficking of human being, for people who were being persecuted these are likely to be the only route available to them to escape. The experience of the Vietnamese Chinese in the late 1970's witnessed people give all their possession/life saving to traffickers just to get on a sampan/boat that could take them into the rough sea. The root problems are where there are war, political persecution, abuse of human rights; people seek to leave in search of better life.
• To increase the probationary period of leave from one year to 2 years in marriage is unreasonable whilst not many British couples' marriage last for more than 2 years.

Overall comments

It was commented that the period for consultation period was extremely short. Communities did not have enough time to organise extensive and in-depth discussions. It seems the Government wants it this way.

The chair responded by stating that the Government will be asked to allow for more time for consultation in the future, particularly on important issues such as this one. Positive steps should be undertaken by the Government to solicit views and responses from black minority ethnic groups likely to be affected by the new legislation.

***Ends***

回到報告索引