Joint Committee On Human Rights

Joint Committee On Human Rights Written Evidence

10. Memorandum from the Commission for Racial Equality

1. INTRODUCTION

The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the inquiry by the JCHR into human rights issues raised by the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK. Recently the CRE has provided parliamentary submissions on issues relating to asylum issues on several occasions. [12]

The CRE has the following duties under the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA):

— to work towards the elimination of discrimination and harassment;

— to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations between people of different racial groups; and

The CRE's primary goal is to create an integrated society. We have defined an integrated society as being based on three inter-related principles:

— Equality—for all sections of the community—where everyone is created equally and has a right to fair outcomes.

— Participation—by all sections of the community—where all groups in society should expect to share in decision-making and carry the responsibility of making society work.

— Interaction—between all sections of the community—where no-one should be trapped within their own community in the people they work with or the friendships they make.

The 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention provides protection for those fleeing persecution in their country of origin for reasons such as their race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion. Most Member States of the United Nations including the UK have signed and ratified the Convention in recognition of the need to protect persons in such circumstances. The starting point for government policy and practices concerning asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers should be that everyone has the right to seek asylum and that asylum seekers have the same human rights as any other persons.

The CRE has a number of general concerns with the treatment of asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers which link to issues of racial discrimination and promoting good race relations:

— lack of political leadership within central and local government linking asylum issues with race relations;

— the effect of the exception under section 19D of the RRA which permits discrimination by public authorities in exercising immigration functions on grounds of nationality, ethnic and national origins;

— the failure by public authorities with functions affecting asylum seekers (such as the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the Department for Health and the Prisons Service) to properly consider the impact of their policies on race equality and promoting good race relations.

The CRE also has a number of specific concerns within the areas the inquiry is focusing on (healthcare, the use of detention for asylum seekers, treatment by the media) as well as the effect of far right political parties inciting racial hatred. We note that we have not provided any submissions on the areas of accommodation and financial support or the treatment of children as the CRE does not have any specific concerns within the terms of the inquiry relating to those topics at this point in time.

2. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

Political discourse and the manner in which the government provides leadership on asylum issues is, in the view of the CRE, critical in maintaining good race relations in the UK. The need to conceptualise asylum issues in terms of race relations is not only important for the effective formulation and implementation of government policies, but also in the manner in which government, at both national and local level, responds to the media and far right political parties on asylum issues.

Political leadership was recognised as vital in this context by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its last report on the UK government's progress in fulfilling its obligations under the UN International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). [14]At paragraph 14 it states:

"The Committee remains concerned at reports of attacks on asylum seekers. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern that antagonism towards asylum seekers has helped to sustain support for extremist political opinions.

The Committee recommends that the State party adopts further measures and intensify its efforts to counter racial tensions generated through asylum issues, inter alia by developing public education programmes and promoting positive images of ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants, as well as measures making the asylum procedures more equitable, efficient and unbiased."

In 2005 the Home Office produced its strategy to increase race equality and community cohesion in the UK. [15]The CRE submitted a response to consultation on the draft strategy in October 2004. [16]In the response we made a number of recommendations, including that:

— national and local governments need to provide leadership on promoting good race relations and in doing so take into account communities such as asylum seekers;

Despite these recommendations, the strategy does not include any reference to asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers. In addition the Home Office's strategy on integration of refugees[18] does not consider how to integrate asylum seekers. Indeed in the Foreword by Des Browne MP he specifically states that despite receiving submissions that the strategy should include asylum seekers, it is the government's view that "...integration can only begin in its fullest sense when an asylum seeker becomes a refugee."

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has also recognised that the strategy does not deal with asylum issues. It recommended in its inquiry into the government's fulfilment of its international obligations under CERD that:

...the need to counter racial prejudice and discrimination directed against asylum seekers and immigrants...

(as part of the strategy)... media strategies should seek to counter inaccurate and inflammatory reporting of asylum issues."

This means that asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers fall into a lacuna, not being properly considered in the context of race equality, race relations and integration issues in either of the main government strategies on race equality and integration. [20]This also means there is a lack of political leadership on countering or balancing negative and sometimes biased media reporting, nor is there a coherent national and local government response to inflammatory statements by far right political parties.

In addition, we agree with the observations of a number of organisations and the JCHR that recent government legislation, [21]policy[22] and language may actually contribute to the negative perception to asylum seekers. [23]

3. SECTION 19D OF THE RACE RELATIONS ACT

Section 19D was introduced in 2000 as an exception to the provision under section 19B of the Race Relations Act 1976 which required public authorities not to discriminate in the exercise of their functions. The exception permits discrimination on the grounds of nationality, ethnic or national origins in exercising immigration functions, but only where there has been a specific authorisation made by a Minister. In order to monitor the effect of the provision, section 19E provides that an Independent Race Monitor will report on their effect.

A number of authorisations have been made during the last six years which cover a range of immigration functions. Most recently in the year 2004-05 there were nine authorisations in operation with the main ones affecting asylum seekers being:

— prioritisation in the examination of arriving passengers;

— asylum work streaming; and

— directions for removals of failed asylum seekers.

The terms of the inquiry state that the human rights issues raised in asylum procedures and the determination of asylum claims are outside the scope of the inquiry, except insofar as they directly affect the treatment of asylum seekers. The position of the CRE is that section 19D is fundamentally discriminatory and its application does directly affect the manner in which asylum seekers are perceived and treated. The effect of the authorisations may lead to prejudicial, non-objective and therefore discriminatory decision-making. As a result we consider it appropriate and necessary to comment on this provision.

The government's justification for the introduction of the provision has been that it is necessary to allow "... the Immigration Service to focus its resources in a logical way, and to operate an intelligence led immigration control".[24] In practical terms it allows for discrimination in two main situations: the examination of passengers where there is evidence of abuse or adverse decisions against a nationality, or in determining asylum claims, it allows for the fast-tracking of the decision process where significant numbers of claims from a particular nationality are found to be unfounded.

The CRE agrees with the conclusions of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the provision is incompatible with the very principle of non-discrimination and with the recommendations of the Committee, [25]the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance[26] and the Joint Committee on Human Rights[27] that the provision should be repealed. Alternatively, the CRE considers that the exception should be restricted to discrimination on grounds of nationality as no justification for discrimination on based on ethnic or national origins is apparent and indeed the government (for example) revoked such an authorisation on 11 June 2002. [28]

The CRE is concerned that the authorisation concerning prioritisation of examination of passengers will become self-fulfilling in that immigration officers subject priority nationalities to more stringent questioning and do not treat each entry request on its merits. This risk has been expressed by the Independent Race Monitor.[29] It is also of great concern as the effect of having an authorisation in place may become an influencing factor even where the authorisation is not even relied on. In the Prague Airport Case[30] an authorisation existed which permitted discrimination in the examination of Roma seeking to enter the UK, many of which at that time were seeking asylum in the UK. The Respondent indicated that the authorisation was not actually implemented or relied on at Prague airport and claimed that there was no direct discrimination under the Race Relations Act against Roma in the manner in which they were examined. The House of Lords found that there had been direct discrimination contrary to the RRA and international law, as well as emphasising the need to treat each person seeking to enter the UK on their merits. [31]

The CRE also has particular concerns with the authorisation concerning asylum work streaming which have been raised by the Independent Race Monitor in her annual reports: [32]

— that caseworkers indicated that they can become cynical about certain nationalities that are subjects of the authorisation;

— that the creation of the list of nationalities may become "self-perpetuating" as immigration officers may become more likely to reject claims of asylum from those countries and not treat the claim objectively on its merits;

As a result the CRE agrees with her recommendations that there needs to be continued monitoring of grant and refusal rates of asylum by nationality, any variations from the overall appeal rates or high allowed appeal rates should be examined to establish the cause, and independent element should be introduced into the initial decision making process. [35]

4. THE PROVISION OF HEALTHCARE

In 2004 the Department of Health amended the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989[36] so that they obliged trusts to charge those not ordinarily resident in the UK for secondary care, unless they require emergency treatment. It was specified that this would apply to failed asylum seekers. More recently the Department of Health has made similar proposals to restrict access to primary care. [37]The Commission for Racial Equality has a number of concerns regarding this area of government policy.

The CRE also has concerns about the manner in which these policies seem to have been formulated. These polices were developed during a period when there was significant press coverage of alleged "health tourism" of non-residents.

However the CRE is not aware of any research undertaken by the Government quantifying how significant "health tourism" is, beyond the anecdotal. Likewise, there seems to be no evidence that failed asylum seekers are a particularly significant drain on NHS resources, or that they abuse the system. The CRE considers that whilst the Government has a duty to respond to public concerns, it must also make policy informed by a sound evidence base. Where myths exist about immigrants acting as a drain on services, the CRE believes that it is the government's role to counter these myths. Research into public attitudes on asylum, commissioned by the CRE found that:

"Access to the NHS was assumed to be an important driver of immigration. Many people immediately linked health care to immigration and thought that asylum seekers have a detrimental impact upon the NHS. This was the case across all social groups. A total of 45% of respondents thought that asylum seekers had a negative impact upon the health service. Only 17% thought that the impacts might be positive.

Given these perceptions, it is important for the government to provide objective and clear statistics of actual use of the healthcare system by failed asylum seekers.

Evidence exists that failed asylum seekers have been denied access to healthcare as a result of the policy on secondary care outlined above resulting in, for example, women giving birth without medical assistance and cancer patients going untreated. [39]

The CRE considers that to charge for secondary healthcare people who are suffering from serious illnesses or chronic health problems, may lead to a breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, if they are not able to pay for such treatment and therefore are not given the treatment. [40]For example, the prohibition on torture has been held to be wide enough to include suffering which flows from naturally occurring physical or mental illness where it is exacerbated by treatment for which a public authority can be held responsible. [41]This may also then invoke the article 14 right to non-discrimination. Article 14 is non-exclusive in that although it refers to a number of protected grounds such as race, colour and national origins, it also prohibits discrimination on grounds of "other status". The amendments to the Regulations apply to persons not ordinarily resident in the UK and could be construed as constituting a form of status for the purposes of article 14. A difference in treatment will be discriminatory if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or the means used to achieve the aim are not reasonably proportionate. [42]It is arguable that charging for secondary healthcare to all failed asylum seekers, without any consideration of whether or not they have the financial means to pay for the treatment, may mean the measure is not proportionate.

In addition, the CRE considers that these regulations may impact adversely on ethnic minority communities lawfully resident in the UK. There is a very real risk that this policy will create confusion as to who is and is not eligible for charging. This confusion may deter certain communities, particularly new migrant communities, from accessing healthcare to which they are, in fact legally entitled.

Likewise, there is a real risk that NHS staff will conduct document checks, or even deny or charge for healthcare, in a way which is discriminatory. NHS staff are not immune to prejudice, or influence by negative media coverage of asylumseekers and immigration. Moreover, there seems to be a lack of clear guidance for frontline staff on how to go about checking eligibility in a way that is both effective and non-discriminatory. [43]This runs the risk of undermining existing Department of Health initiatives aimed at improving health outcomes for disadvantaged groups, and is likely to have an adverse impact on good race relations. We consider that there is potential for evidence of entitlement to be requested disproportionately from people from ethnic minorities having the right to reside in the United Kingdom.

The CRE considers that both the existing secondary care regulations and the proposed primary care regulations contain policies and proposed policies which are relevant to race equality in the context of the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended ("RRA"). Under Section 71(1) and Schedule 1A of the RRA, listed public authorities have a general duty, in carrying out the functions, to: eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations between persons of different racial groups. In addition listed public authorities have specific duties to monitor existing policies for adverse impact on the promotion of race equality, and assess and consult on the likely impact of proposed polices and publish the results.

The CRE wrote to the Department of Health in 2003 and 2005 requesting that both the policy on secondary care, and the proposed changes to primary care entitlements, be the subject of Race Equality Impact Assessments, in order to examine their impact on particular ethnic groups and to put in place measures to ensure that discrimination does not take place. On the issue of secondary care this was not undertaken.

More broadly, the CRE has general concerns about the Department of Health's lack of progress on its race equality duties, and its failure to undertake Race Equality Impact Assessments on a range of other relevant policies to determine whether they may have an adverse impact on the promotion of racial equality. As a result, in August 2006 the CRE wrote to the Department of Health warning them that it may have to use its formal investigation powers. It is the first time the CRE has enacted its legal powers in this way to tackle failings in relation to policy development. The CRE has since been informed by the Department of Health that it will undertake a Race Equality Impact Assessment on the proposed primary care restrictions, despite their previous reluctance to do so. We intend to monitor this undertaking closely, and to examine what mechanisms the Department of Health intends to put in place to ensure that the proposed policy will not adversely impact on ethnic minorities who are entitled to care.

5. THE USE OF DETENTION AND CONDITIONS OF DETENTION

It is likely that several thousand asylum seekers are held in immigration detention each year. Several hundred of these are likely to be held in prisons.[44].

The policy of detention of asylum seekers has been used by the government since March 2000 and was last updated in February 2006. [45]Detention is used in purported "fast-track" cases where it appears the claim is straightforward and can be decided quickly. Detention can also be used where officials believe an individual is at risk of absconding, where there is a need to establish an individual's identity or for the purposes of removal.

The CRE is concerned that the policy may lead to breaches of asylum seekers' fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the right to liberty under article 5 and the right to non-discrimination under article 14. This issue has been considered in detail very recently by the European Court of Human Rights in the decision of Saadi v The United Kingdom. [46]The case concerned an Iraqi asylum seeker who was detained for seven days under the policy in 2001, despite not being considered at risk of absconding. At first instance in the High Court Justice Collins found that Mr Saadi's rights under article 5 had been breached however this was overturned by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.

On appeal to the European Court of Human Rights found that:

— the detention of the applicant in the circumstances was not in breach of his rights under article 5 as his detention was "to prevent his affecting an unauthorised entry into the country" within the terms permitted by article 5(1)(f);

— the length of the detention was not excessive and arbitrary;

— as a result the court did not need to determine the claim that the policy was also discriminatory.

Despite the above it is important to point out that:

— it was a majority decision of the court (four votes to three) by the barest of margins. The strong dissenting judgment stated that the true reason for the detention was not to prevent an asylum seeker from effecting an unauthorised entry, but was an administrative reason, in order to proceed with the fast track procedure. The minority therefore held that there had been a breach of convention rights;

— Judge Bratza who was in the majority said that although detention for seven days was acceptable, detention significantly in excess of this period would not be compatible with article 5(1)(f);

The CRE therefore considers that the government should strongly consider revoking the policy, where there is no indication that the person is at risk of absconding, or at least limiting the length of time a person will be detained (as there is currently no upper limit). This is particularly important given the Prison Ombudman's enquiries into Yarl's Wood and Oakington detention centres detailed below which indicated widespread racism.

A number of reports detail evidence of widespread racism, and poor management in the area of race equality, in prisons and detention centres over the last five years. These include the Commission's own formal investigation into the prison service, the Zahid Mubarek enquiry, [48]and the Prison Ombudsman's enquiries into Yarl's Wood and Oakington detention centres in 2004 and 2005. [49]

In November 2000, the CRE decided to conduct a formal investigation (FI) into racial discrimination in the Prison Service. The CRE made three general findings of unlawful racial discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976. These covered the events leading to the murder of Zahid Mubarek, the failure to provide ethnic minority prisoners with equivalent protection from racial violence, and the failure to provide race equality in its employment or custodial practices.

Specific failings related to: [50]

(a) The general atmosphere in prisons;

(b) Treatment of prisoners;

(d) Investigation of race complaints;

(e) Correcting bad practice and spreading good practice;

(f) Protection from victimisation; and

(g) Management systems and procedures.

Despite finding that there was evidence of racial discrimination within the Prison Service, the CRE decided to suspend any decision on whether or not to use its enforcement powers. This decision was taken in recognition of the race equality work undertaken by the Prison Service since 2000 and its agreement to work on an Action Plan over a five year period.

Although the Prison Service has made progress since the CRE formal investigation, we are still concerned that the good work being done at the policy level is not being translated into changes at the operational level in establishments.

Reports by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons continue to raise significant concerns about the management and state of race relations in prisons. A number of reports in 2006 by the Chief Inspector of Prisons have highlighted issues relating to the management and state of race relations in some prisons. Of particular concern were reports on Parc, Ford, Styal, Blakenhurst, Northallerton and Swaleside prisons. [51]

The Chief Inspector's reports on Oakington and Yarl's Wood detention centres suggest some improvement in the management of race equality issues at these centres following the Prison Ombudsman's investigations in 2004 and 2005. However, the Chief Inspector's reports on other detention centres published in 2005 and 2006 show that there continue to be failings of varying degrees in some facilities such as Lindholme, Heathrow, Colnbrook, Dover and Harmondsworth. [52]Common failings are inadequate or non-existent mechanisms for the reporting and investigation of racist incidents, lack of race or diversity policies, lack of training for staff in race issues, and lack of interpretation and translation.

The CRE also has concerns with respect to the contracting out of detention facilities to private firms such as GSL UK and Premier Detention Services. The Home Office has a general duty under section 71 of the Race Relations Act, as amended, to have "due regard" to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations between persons of different racial groups in carrying out its functions. Such functions include all procurement functions. [53]This means that the Home Office remains subject to the race equality duty in respect to the actions of its contractors.

If the Home Office chooses to use private providers of detention services then, in order to meet the duty, race equality clauses should be included in the contracts with private providers and there should be systems in place, through the contract monitoring arrangements, for monitoring race equality outcomes. Failure to do this places the Home Office at risk of being in breach of its race equality duty. [54]

6. TREATMENT BY THE MEDIA

The CRE believes that the reporting of asylum issues in the UK press has implications for good race relations, potentially shaping the way in which sections of the public view asylum seekers, refugees, new migrants and even ethnic minorities more broadly. The CRE shares the same concerns about the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK media that were expressed by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in response to the sixteenth and seventeenth periodic reports of the UK and Northern Ireland:

"13. The Committee is concerned about the increasing racial prejudice against ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants reflected in the media and the reported lack of effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to deal with this issue.

The Committee recommends that the State Party consider further how the Press Complaints Commission could be made more effective and could be further empowered to consider complaints received from the Commission for Racial Equality as well as other groups or organisations working in the field of race relations."

The CRE notes that in certain high-circulation newspapers coverage of asylum in recent years has often been disproportionate, inaccurate and hostile. Research commissioned by the CRE in 2004 found that "immigration and asylum have been treated in a negative way (by the press) and constructed as problems or threats, with key themes being the reduction of migrant rights, the burden on the welfare state, and the dishonesty of migrants... A significant finding of research on asylum seekers/refugees and the British media has been the repetitive use of certain terms and types of language. Asylum seekers are described as a `flood' or `wave' and as `bogus' or `fraudulent'".[56]

The CRE notes that coverage has often conflated genuine asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants (regular and irregular) into one category. As one report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) states, "the misuse of terminology is not merely sloppy, it underlines the way in which these papers... view all incomers, of whatever status, as unwanted aliens".[57]

In some respects therefore, coverage of asylum seekers in the press runs the risk of promoting hostility not just towards asylum seekers but new migrants in general, and even established ethnic minority communities.

Although the relationship between press coverage and public opinion on asylum (and immigration more broadly) is complex, research generally indicates that press and media plays a role in setting the political agenda and in influencing attitudes. One of the research reports commissioned by the CRE found: "there is consensus that media discourses on asylum, refugees and immigration... reinforce negative stereotypes and an inflammatory and derogatory vocabulary has become commonplace... Research suggests that media coverage does have an effect on attitudes (and behaviour) towards asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants, but the causal relationships are extremely complex. Media messages are seen to be filtered by the audience. However, in general, hostile attitudes are strengthened in a cycle of reinforcement which needs to be interrupted by addressing both pre-existing attitudes and media messages".[58] These findings are corroborated by other reports. [59]

The effect of negative media reporting on asylum issues has also been pointed out by the Independent Race Monitor in her annual reports on the effect of section 19E of the Race Relations Act 1976. As detailed previously in this submission, it permits discrimination by a person in carrying out immigration functions on grounds of nationality, or ethnic or national origins. She highlighted the biased reporting of tabloid newspapers which she thought encouraged negative views among the general public but also influenced perceptions and engendered feelings of cynicism in caseworkers. This could in turn affect decision-making on individual cases concerning entry and asylum as it makes caution and suspicion more likely. [60]

In relation to the PCC, the CRE is pleased that it has produced guidance on reporting of refugees and asylum seekers in 2003. [61]However the CRE does not consider that the guidance has been sufficient to prevent negative and prejudicial reporting, particularly in tabloid media or that it has been successful in reducing community tensions.

As a result, the CRE notes that it wrote to the PCC on 21 April 2006 asking that the Code of Conduct governing the conduct of members of the press be amended in order to seek to avoid media reporting that inflames community tensions and may discriminate against racial groups. Two amendments were suggested:

— the inclusion of the concept of "gross exaggeration" in the Clause 1 accuracy clause to avoid exaggerated reporting which may increase tensions; and

— an amendment to clause 12 which prohibit discrimination against an individual. The CRE called on the prohibition to be widened to any discrimination against racial, ethnic or religious groups.

The CRE is concerned that there have been a number of complaints made to the PCC in the last five years or individuals that consider groups (such as asylum seekers or gypsies) are being discriminated against in media reporting. The response of the PCC has always been that the non-discrimination provision only protects the rights of individuals that are named in articles, and references to groups are not protected. [62]The PCC has repeated this argument in its response to our letter dated 21 April 2006, refusing to amend the PCC. [63]

The CRE considers that although it is important to uphold the media's right to freedom of expression, the PCC equally has an obligation as the regulator to ensure that media reporting is not only non-discriminatory against individuals but also wider racial or religious groups, particularly where reports may be likely to incite racial or religious hatred.

The CRE notes that there are positive examples of race reporting, some of which are celebrated annually at the CRE's Race in the Media Awards. [64]Moreover, projects can be identified which aim to foster a more informed and positive debate on race issues, including asylum and immigration, at the local level. One such project is run by the Leicester Mercury newspaper, which has formed a group drawn from the local community to give advice on editorial issues. [65]On a national level, the Society of Editors has published a booklet to help those writing about our changing and diverse communities to avoid the pitfalls of stereotyping, inaccuracy and giving needless offence to certain groups. [66]

7. FAR RIGHT POLITICAL PARTIES

Although the effect of far right parties and the response (or lack of) of the government to such parties is not one of the main issues the inquiry has indicated it is focusing on, the CRE considers it to be an important issue affecting the treatment of asylum seekers.

Under article 4 of the UN CERD, parties to the Convention commit to condemn all propaganda and all organisations which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form and "undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination... "

It is the CRE's view that asylum and immigration, as currently debated by the media and political leaders in the UK, is an issue around which extremist opinions and activity can crystallise. Analysis of the May 2006 elections shows that asylum was an issue that was exploited by the far right in order to make electoral gains. The CRE's monitoring of racial tensions through its regional and local networks indicates strongly that hostility to asylum seekers (and new migrants generally) is a significant race relations issue, and that attacks on asylum seekers, refugees and new migrants occur regularly. The CRE considers that political leadership, at both the national and local level, is therefore needed to shift the negative tone of the debate on asylum and immigration and to counter myths and disinformation exploited by extremists.

The CRE also considers that the way in which mainstream political parties debate immigration has implications for good race relations. For this reason, at previous elections, the CRE has written to mainstream political parties to remind them of their obligations under the Race Relations Act and asking them to provide positive political leadership on race issues.

In 2005 the Safe Communities Initiative[67] within the CRE produced a toolkit on Defeating Organised Racial Hatred for local authorities, schools and community organisations. The CRE is concerned that good race relations can be threatened during elections as far-right parties seek to exploit tensions around immigration and other issues. The pack emphasises the role of local government and community groups in countering organised racial hatred. It provides resources to assist local authorities in the use of the law as a tool in combating organised racist groups, and in myth-busting on targeted groups, including immigrants and asylum seekers. It has received positive feedback from local authorities and voluntary groups, who have stressed the value of myth-busting materials for the purposes of promoting good race relations work.

12 For example the written and oral submissions to the JCHR inquiry into the UK government's compliance with the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 14th report of session 2004-05, and the written submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into immigration control, 5th report session 2005-06. Back

13 Section 43, Race Relations Act 1976. Back

14 CERD Concluding observations on the UK government's 16th and 17th reports, 10 December 2003. Back

15 Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society: A government strategy to increase race equality and community cohesion. Back

16 See http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/strengthindiversity.doc Back

17 See pages 9 and 18 of the CRE response. Back

18 Integration Matters: A national strategy for refugee integration, March 2005. Back

19 The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, JCHR 14th report of session 2004-05, paragraphs 54 and 62. Back

20 The same issue means that asylum seekers, and people with forms of exceptional leave, are often not addressed in the context of public bodies' Race Equality Schemes, which they are obliged to produce as part of their General Duty to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations between persons of different racial groups under the Race Relation Act, as amended. Back

21 For example the introduction of the section 19D exception in the Race Relations Act permitting the government to discriminate in immigration functions on grounds of nationality, ethnic or national origins. Back

22 For example the policy of detaining asylum seekers in centres or in some cases prisons. Back

23 Op cit, JCHR paragraph 63. Back