Summary

The Migrants’ Rights Network (MRN) and the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) brought together representatives from over 40 organisations to discuss the potential impact in Scotland of the UK government’s recent immigration policy strategies.

In March 2007 the UK government launched 'Enforcing the Rules' -its strategy for ensuring compliance with immigration regulations. Its key ideas are:

  • The creation of 'Immigration Crime Partnerships' involving local government, primary care trusts and other public services, and the Borders and Immigration Agency.
  • 'Shutting down the privileges' of life in the UK to migrants considered to be in breach of regulations.
  • New data collection procedures and the creation of 'constant feedback' to the public on enforcement measures.

In May 2007 a consultation on the prevention of illegal working was announced seeking to implement the new powers under the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act.

Purpose of the roundtable

This MRN/STUC roundtable was organised to provide an opportunity for service providers, NGOs and community-based organisations to consider and discuss the likely impacts of this strategy on their work. It sought to provide a forum were organisations working with different aspects of migration and dealing with the various impacts of migration could exchange information and perspectives. The roundtable also intended to allow attendeesto consider how a more extensive public discussion might be organised.

Roundtable attendees were drawn from a wide range of agencies including representatives from BME and migrant community organisations, trades unions, NGOs, governmental and non–governmental service providers and the CRE. We were fortunate to have the afternoons discussions kicked off by four lead discussants well-placed to provide insights on the impact of the strategies in Scotland. These were:

  • John Donaldson, Head of Immigration and Emergency Services, GlasgowCity Council
  • David Moxham, Assistant Secretary, Scottish Trades Union Congress
  • Peter Kelly, Director, Poverty Alliance
  • Michael Collins, Manager, New Migrants Action Project, Positive Action in Housing

Report of the Discussion

Kicking off the discussion David Moxham, STUC noted that from the trades union perspective the content of the strategy documents was mixed. Some of it was to be welcomed, particularly the concern to prevent exploitation and trafficking. However, looking at these issues solely through the prism of illegal workers was a step too far. Exploitation in the workplace is a wrong that needs to be dealt with outside the issue of immigration status.

In addition concerns about trade union access were flagged up as access to services would be made subject to immigration status. Even requesting information on immigration status could have a deterrent effect on the uptake of trade union membership and the use made of trade union membership. There is concern that trades unions should remain open to all workers regardless of immigration status.

The STUC will be promoting further discussion of these issues through a second MRN/STUC Roundtable in September 2007. The roundtables will allow for preliminary discussions of the illegal working and enforcing the rules strategies in the run-up to an STUC conference that will take these issues further within the trades union context.

John Donaldson, Glasgow City Council,noted that the strategies amounted to an extension of the use of destitution as a policy lever from asylum to a broader category of overstayers and undocumented migrants. However, research funded by the Home Office has shown that the use of destitution to ensure compliance within the asylum system was not effective. He pointed out that the use of destitution as an instrument of policy in Glasgow had been unpopular and its detrimental effects on social cohesion unwelcome. Furthermore, he expressed concern that the measures suggested would discourage service uptake among many hard-to-reach groups.

He posed the question of how Scotland’s culture and values could be better reflected in immigration policy noting that many of Scotland’s objectives in relation to migration were different to those of England. He raised this as an issue that MSP’s and other elected representatives needed to engage with. There were areas where working more closely with both the UK government and other agencies such as NGOs was desirable – for instance in combating trafficking. But there were also areas were the strategies raised the potential for conflict between authorities managed by the Scottish Executive such as police and public services and those managed by the Home Office. Mr Donaldson said that more consultation with the Scottish authorities would be necessary to determine how these strategies would be implemented. He also believed judicial challenges to the measures proposed would be forthcoming and suggested that growing awareness of human rights legislation could lead to more test cases being brought in the Scottish courts against the proposed measures.

Peter Kelly, Poverty Alliance,suggested the need to look at the new policies through a social justice lens and ask whether a specific policy will work towards a more socially just society or would work instead to entrench inequalities. From this perspective it was clear that the current proposals would do little to promote social justice. He suggested a framework of questions around the appropriateness of this that take into account scale of the problem being tackled and the existence of alternative policy solutions.

Mr Kelly commented on the vagueness of the enforcement strategy in spelling out exactly what ‘shutting down privileges’ would entail. He pointed out that the links between the proposed measures and their desired outcomes remain tenuous. For instance, it is not clear that ‘shutting down privileges’ would reduce the systemic pull of migration, help promote community cohesion, boost public confidence in the immigration system or allow for fair competition and prevent the undermining of the minimum wage as claimed in the strategy paper. Some of the proposals may in fact achieve the opposite effects. Furthermore, many aspects of the proposals have consequences that are in conflict with other government policy aims such as poverty reduction and social inclusion. He rounded off by noting that the current policy appears to be more concerned with sustaining the perception of tough immigration system, rather providing practical solutions to the problems people face.

Michael Collins, Positive Action in Housing, saw the strategies as part of a dangerous and deteriorating situation where policy is being made in response to public concern about migration without taking into account the reality of migration. He singled out the broad use of harm as resulting from all types of irregular migration as dangerous - fuelling discontent and racism. In his view the ‘shutting down of privileges’ meant the shutting down of rights, posing a threat to the universality of rights as migrants are shut out of free access to services and employment.

Noting the reliance of the ‘enforcing the rules’ strategy on public service and social care workers to apply the new rules, he highlighted the role of those workers and their unions in opposing previous destitution policies targeting asylum seeking familiesand called for more solidarity with migrants facing similar threats. He suggested that we need to look at the most effective ways to support the on-going campaigns and awareness raising work being undertaken in support of migrants and migrants’ rights.

General Discussion

During the days’ discussions it was noted that the sheer scope of the strategies and the breadth of their impact across multiple policy areas make it difficult to organise a response. There are several aspects of the strategies that are open to critique but it is difficult to co-ordinate a response to such wide-ranging changes.

Concerns about the strategies included their potential impact on race relations and community cohesion. Many participants feared divisive outcomes, not only among the wider migrant community but also for minority ethnic groups and society in general. A number of participants thought that the immigration debate needed a change of political rhetoric and attitudes, rather than increased focus on enforcement. Several participants pointed out the positive steps that had been taken in Glasgowcreating a more asylum seeker- and refugee-friendly city. They stressed that this showed not only what was possible in terms of engaging and changing public attitudes, but also that achieving such changes in attitudes required effort and consistent messages – messages that this policy threatened. Educating the public about immigration and providing migrants with incentives to comply with the rules were seen as more effective and desirable policy mechanisms than diverting more resources into enforcement. The point was made that before the immigration system could be rigorously enforced it should be made consistent and fair and the quality of decision-making improved.

Participants were sceptical about the potential or benefits for technological innovations or legal simplification to make enforcement easierand allow for the policing of entitlements across the range of public services. Others were worried that regulating entitlement to services would make it more difficult for service providers to provide services for hard-to-reach groups.

Several participants expressed concerns about the conflict between a ‘shutting off privileges’ approach and human rights standards. Similar concerns were voiced regarding conflicts with professional codes of conduct, particularly in the sphere of health and social care. Trades union spokespeople wanted to see a primacy accorded to other legislation such as the Children’s Act and the Housing Act over immigration rules. However, responses the suggestion that public service workers could operate a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ campaign refusing to take details on immigration status when migrants presented themselves at services were met with caution. Many were keen that public service providers and other bodies register their reservations before the policy is implemented.

Many participants saw the strategies as introducing a level of policing and control over public services and the inspection of workplaces that was out of step with Scotland’s needs and the kind of society they thoughtScotlandwished for. Many suggested that this was an issue to take up with elected representatives, both as organisations and individually. In addition, participants were unclear about how the enforcement strategy sits alongside the devolutionary settlement as many of the proposed enforcement mechanisms and institutions have their functions devolved to the Scottish Executive. They were keen for more clarity to be given on which administration was responsible for the formulation and implementation of specific policies.

Further reading:

Hargreaves, S et al (2006) The identification and charging of Overseas Visitors at NHS Services in Newham: A Consultation, available at:

Home Office (2007a) Enforcing the Rules: A strategy to ensure and enforce compliance with immigration laws, London: Home Office, available at:

Home Office (2007b) Prevention of Illegal Working: Consultation on the implementation of new powers to prevent illegal migrant working in the UK, London: Home Office, available at:

Home Office (2007c) Simplifying Immigration Laws, London: Home Office, available at:

MRN (2007) Enforcement Policy: The heart of managed migration? An MRN briefing paper, available at: