The themes of the Laeken summit befit the majesty of its setting in the royal grounds of the Belgian kings: progress in all the major European projects of the moment are on the agenda.

Europe’s ability to work together in foreign policy will take a step forward as the rapid reaction force officially comes into operation. The so-called area of freedom, security and justice will become more defined with the agreement of a number of measures, including a European arrest warrant and a common definition of terrorism. And there will be the grand proclamation of the Laeken declaration – a document establishing the guidelines for the “deeper and wider debate” about the future of Europe. This is expected to set up a new body, the Convention, which will comprise MPs, MEPs, government and European Commission representatives.

Unfortunately, in parallel with these worthy aims, there are also a number of national prestige issues that will be negotiated. There are no fewer than 10 decentralised agencies up for grabs – European institutions devoted to a particular area of research or policy, which are traditionally parceled out between the member states. This time round, they range from the EU Police College to the European Maritime Safety Agency. In the one-upmanship of European vanity, no member state can afford to be without one of these bodies. There is also one major job at stake, the presidency of the Convention on the Future of Europe, and three candidates lining up for it.

The genuine desire to see progress in Europe’s ability to resolve problems that governments acting alone cannot answer is likely only to be achieved if these questions of national one-upmanship have been adequately satisfied along the way.
The result is normally the European compromise: a grand declaration with an underlying web of negotiation and compromise. On foreign policy and justice policy, the usual combination of brinkmanship and peer group pressure has worked its magic. The rapid reaction force almost foundered against Turkey’s refusal to allow the sharing of Nato assets. And the European arrest warrant was resisted until the last minute by the Italian Government.
However, the trade-off between prestige and practicality has not yet been resolved around the Convention on the future of Europe. It is an imaginative initiative, which aims to set up a whole new way for Europe to engage different constituencies in its debates. There is a chance that this method might provide a forum to explore the difference between what people expect from Europe and what they feel that they are getting from it.

The Convention’s president will play a key role in this. A good candidate will drive the agenda forward, will stand up to the governments who want to push their own narrow agendas at the expense of the collective agenda, and will mediate the conflicting interests of the participants in the debate. So far so good. But who is the right candidate? And how will they be chosen?

Former French President Giscard d’Estaing, former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari and former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato all want the job. However, Helsinki, Lille and Parma all want the European Food Authority. The French also want their man to take over at the European Central Bank next year, and the Italians already have their man as president of the European Commission. The Finns would prefer the permanence of the European Food Authority than the transitory benefits of a former politician in a position of influence. Each of the front-runners is therefore compromised by his own government. Some pundits suggest the best way through this amoral maze is to appoint a compromise candidate, Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok, who is both unavailable and unwilling to take on the job.

One thing is sure. The Laeken declaration will sound good, and will be proclaimed against a suitably grand historical background. What is less sure is how the declaration lives up to its presentation.

“I refused to get involved in horse-trading,” said the Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, as he looked back on the disarray of the Laeken Summit, supposedly the high-point of Belgium’s presidency of the European Union. Two days of negotiation led to some historic advances, notably in the setting up of a convention to negotiate Europe’s future. However, the impression left was one of disarray and disunity, a high-minded Europe brought down by the low-minded national aspirations of some of its constituent members.

The pettiest arguments were over the location of 13 decentralised agencies of the European Union. These are specialist bodies, devoted to tracking a given policy area. In theory, they should streamline the Union by providing a locus for excellence in that particular area. In fact, they provide a vehicle for national prestige: no self-respecting member state should be left out in the cold without an agency of its own.

The package deal – clearly no horse-trading here – developed by the Belgian presidency saw no fewer than four of these, of varying importance, go to France. This was resisted by the smaller member states, who had already seen the choice of Valery Giscard d’Estaing as president of the convention foisted on them by a gang of big states – France, Germany, Italy, Britain and Spain. No decision could be made, and all was postponed until the next summit in Barcelona in March. Clearly a key decision, then.

The same proposed deal would have set up the new European Food Safety Authority in Helsinki. This, though, did not allow for the intransigence of Silvio Berlusconi. Mr Berlusconi cut his teeth negotiating in business, where diplomatic niceties are treated in a rather different way. His claim that the Finns were unsuitable because of their lack of affinity with prosciutto may not have been of the same order as his recent claims about the superiority of the Christian world over the Islamic: but they reinforced the atmosphere of pork-barrelling that dominated the later stages of the summit.

There was one decision, though, taken at Laeken where the bargaining process may come to be regretted – Mr Valery Giscard d’Estaing’s appointment.

The convention is a forward-looking initiative, and, if handled right, could provide the answer to the question that has bedevilled Europe for 50 years -: how to connect to the citizens and engage all constituencies in a wide-ranging debate about a collective political future. The convention needs to capture the zeitgeist, and really make people believe that this is a way that everyone can have a stake in developing Europe’s future.

Mr Giscard d’Estaing might do a very good managerial job, but the appointment of a septuagenarian politician, retired for 20 years, and in power during a particularly sclerotic period of European policymaking in the 1970s, does not necessarily send out the right symbols. As Portuguese Foreign Minister Jaime Gama put it, he comes across as “a personality of the past, not of the future.” That said, none of the candidates were particularly beguiling. They were all of one stamp – ex-premiers with integrationist hearts. And now, thanks to the Laeken compromise, there are three of them as a Holy Trinity managing the debate on Europe’s future.

It also leads to a rather worrying thought: if the more sceptical states – Britain, Scandinavia and Austria – are prepared to allow the convention to be chaired in this way, how seriously will they treat the outcome of the convention around June 2003? There may be trouble ahead.

Laeken showed to fine effect the paradox of the summit system. The success stories are dull – it is only the stories of disunity that are interesting. The powers that do feel that stories of disunity harm the European project, so do their very best to cloak these problems in a mirage of unity, a la Verhofstadt. In fact, though, it is possible that what the European Union needs is a more open political culture. Until there is a culture of opposition within the Union, we will be left with the mixture of above-the-counter pompousness and under-the-counter disarray that have characterised the last few days in Laeken.

Thursday, 10 January, 2002

It was never going to be easy for Silvio Berlusconi.
Even before his election as Italian prime minister in May, his coalition was condemned as a marriage of convenience between separatists, post-fascists and pragmatists.
The same three-party combination lasted all of seven months during its last outing in 1994, before Umberto Bossi – dishevelled leader of the separatist Northern League – turned violently on his coalition partner and the government fell.
The one thing that reassured the international community this time round was the presence of a trusted, reasonable figure in the Farnesina, the Italian Foreign Ministry.
Surely Renato Ruggiero, the widely respected former head of the World Trade Organisation, would restrain the more extremist instincts of the Berlusconi government? At least there would be one man to do business with inside the Council of Ministers.
Ruggiero resigned on 4 January, after a long running contretemps with other members of the government over Italy’s traditionally supportive policy on Europe – what Bossi called the “great powers” policy.
Warning bells
Throughout Europe alarm bells have been ringing. Without Ruggiero, what kind of partner will the new Italian Government be within the structures of the European Union?
The one thing that can safely be said about the Italian Government’s conduct of EU policy over the next months is that it will be unpredictable.
Berlusconi’s major actions within the European arena have already shown uncharacteristic, and rather whimsical, Italian intransigence.
Since acceding to power, he has delayed agreement of the European arrest warrant for seemingly trivial reasons – some suggested he personally feared arrested under the new conditions – and has denied Helsinki the European Food Authority on the grounds that Finns know nothing about prosciutto.
Without Ruggiero’s moderating presence in the Farnesina, we can expect more of the same to come.
This is particularly sensitive given the importance of some of the decisions facing Europe over the next two years.
Once normal business is allowed to resume – after the French and German elections this year, and once the second Irish referendum on Nice is safely negotiated – the EU will have to deal with its plans for enlargement.
Challenges ahead
Deals will have to be made on the Common Agricultural Policy and the distribution of structural and cohesion funds in a larger Europe.
And Italy, with the presidency of the EU in the second half of 2003, bears much responsibility for finessing these deals, so that enlargement happens smoothly and on schedule before the European Parliament elections in 2004.
Even if Berlusconi had not taken on the foreign minister’s portfolio, he would have had a difficult job on his hands reconciling the competing interests of his coalition partners, and forging a united policy on the EU.
Bossi’s separatist rhetoric is often anti-EU, and members of Gianfranco Fini’s post-fascist party have been known to protest long and hard about the rights of the Italian minority in pre-accession Slovenia.
It was an impossible task for Ruggiero, and will be no easier for Mr Berlusconi, burdened as he is with countless other affairs of state, and his personal business empire.
Expect the unexpected.

Tom Arbuthnott runs the European programme at the Foreign Policy Centre

Introduction
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today about Canada’s integration policies and programs. I would like to start by stressing the significant role that integration plays in Canada. It is key to social cohesion in a country built on multiple identities. In most countries, social cohesion arises from a shared identity, a long history of shared ethnic or community kinship. However, in Canada, we do not share as individuals, a common history. We share Canada’s history, a story of immigration and a changing environment. We share values of freedom, respect and belonging. Our linguistic duality, regional and cultural diversity, challenging geography and proximity to the United States make us unique.

Integration fosters relationships of trust that enable Canadians to take joint and collective action and peacefully resolve conflicts. Canada’s integration policies build mutual respect amongst immigrants, refugees and native-born Canadians. Integration is the basis of our social cohesion.
Allow me to quote our Prime Minister:
“Every Canadian is called upon to make a contribution to building our country. To ensure that the promise of Canada becomes an even greater reality in the 21st century. And to ensure that our Canadian Way remains the best example of what is possible when women and men of every race and creed come together in community in search of a better future.”

Overview
Our experience shows that an effective and efficient immigration program works best when supported by a comprehensive legal framework, a liberal democratic tradition and programming to ensure immigrants have a level playing field with native born Canadians. Canada has been and continues to be built by immigrants who represent a significant and growing part of the Canadian population and labour market. Highly skilled immigrants are essential to meeting the Canadian Government’s skills and innovation priorities. But Canada’s immigration program is more than just a quest for highly skilled workers. It is a balanced program that takes into account economic, family and humanitarian issues and that promotes social inclusion. Integration is achieved over a long period of time, perhaps generations. For immigrants the first step to integration is when they feel that they belong and become full citizens of Canada.

In today’s presentation, I shall describe our integration framework and present some employment related challenges that remain to be overcome. For example, Toronto is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world. It has a very low crime rate, a vibrant economy and a high degree of social harmony. On the surface, it is a good example of integration. However, Toronto also faces absorption or capacity challenges daily.

Our system is not perfect – it continues to evolve and will, I hope, be able to overcome the faults in the Canadian social fabric that appear with time.

Our legal framework
Immigration has always played a central role in Canada’s history. However, immigration was not always open to everyone. In the early 1900s, Canada’s legal framework supported a shared identity, based on ethnic or community kinship that excluded diversity. Pre-1960, immigration policies favoured Britons and other Europeans. Whenever the majority felt threatened, laws were adjusted to limit access to the country. For example, because there was a concern that Chinese would not assimilate to “Anglo conformity”, Chinese immigration was curtailed in 1902.

In response, business leaders brought in Japanese and Indian labourers. This led to the 1907 anti-immigration riots in Vancouver followed by a further curtailment of non-white immigration through the1910 Immigration Act.

There was always a tension between the need for labour and fears that immigrants would undermine the “British character” of Canada. In Quebec, immigration was seen as a potential threat to the already tenuous status of the French in Canada.

The 1960s and 1970s witnessed the launch of the modern phase of Canada’s immigration policies. Several factors came together to push Canada toward the creation of a non-racial immigration system:
1. Canada’s wish to play a more prominent role in international affairs, especially at the United Nations and within the Commonwealth;
2. Quebec’s desire to play a more active role in the recruitment of immigrants;
3. passage of a Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960;
4. a new Immigration Act in 1976;
5. the beginnings of Canada’s current policies on bilingualism and biculturalism; and
6. the recognition of the multicultural fact of Canada.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted. It is a crucial element to our non-racial legal system. And this year on June 28, 2002, we will promulgate a new modern immigration law, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

But the legal framework is not enough, we still have to achieve a level playing field for true social and economic inclusion.

Changing immigration flows.
With non-discriminatory policies, immigration has been drastically different from what it had been prior to 1960. Immigration levels rose dramatically in the 1990s. Over 2.2 million immigrants arrived in that period. Now just over 5 million, or 18% of Canada’s population of 30 million are foreign- born. The mix of immigrants has also changed from family class predomination to more people being admitted under the economic category. And, about two-thirds of immigrants now come from so-called non-traditional source countries primarily in the Asia-Pacific region.

In 2000, out of a total of about 227,000 immigrants, 60% were admitted under the economic category, 27% family class and 13% refugees .

While there is no probability that the “traditional” European residents of Canada will be outnumbered, it is projected that “visible minorities” will constitute 20% of the Canadian population by 2016. “Canada’s ‘mosaic’ now includes most races, religions and cultures. It is expected to become more diverse with time.

Definition of Integration in Canada.
So how does one celebrate diversity, promote social inclusion, and live in respect and peace. This is not an easy objective. In Canada, our integration policies are intended to help us attain this goal.

The term “integration” is defined as “a two-way process of accommodation between newcomers and Canadians”. It encourages newcomers to adapt to Canadian society without requiring them to abandon their cultures or to conform to the values and practices of the dominant group, as long as adherence to their cultures does not contravene Canadian laws. While at the same time, Canadian society and its institutions are expected to change over time to reflect the new Canada that is constantly in evolution.

Canadian integration policy promotes the acquisition of citizenship. It consciously welcomes all immigrants into the Canadian family and strives to ensure their full participation across the important economic, social, political and cultural dimensions of our country .

Managing in Partnerships.
Integration in Canada is managed in partnership with all jurisdictions, non-governmental associations and the public. Through bilateral agreements some provinces design, deliver and administer selection and settlement programs. These agreements vary considerably. The provinces’ interests differ depending on the levels of immigration to their regions. Those receiving smaller numbers want more immigrants and focus on dispersion issues, while those receiving larger numbers seek more funding of integration programs. A major integration issue of provinces is the cost associated with second language training of children.

The voluntary or not-for-profit sector would like more control over program design and more services for refugee claimants. The regulatory and licensing bodies want to ensure standards are met and are leery of losing control. The employers are not well enough informed about foreign work experience and bridging programs are insufficient or non-existent.

Municipalities would like to be more involved in policy decisions on immigration levels that impact on their infrastructure, especially housing and community services.

To complicate matters even more, the public has to be accepting of immigration. This requires a high level of confidence in the integrity of the immigration program. September 11, 2001 shook that confidence and placed much of the blame wrongly on our refugee asylum system. We must ensure that overall confidence in our immigration system is strong if our integration model is to continue to be successful.

The Integration Model.
The model is a continuum beginning with information provided to immigrants overseas, orientation and adaptation services in Canada, to the acquisition of citizenship after a relatively short period of time. All three categories of immigrants – skilled, family class and refugees – are eligible for settlement services. Skilled immigrants integrate more quickly and are seen as immediately helping to build the nation. Immigrants who come under family reunification criteria take longer to integrate economically but form the core needed for social integration. Refugees are admitted for protection and it is accepted that they may need additional assistance to settle and integrate. As long as the public feels that the immigration program is well managed, the cost of integration is viewed positively.

Information overseas and on arrival
Immigrants and refugees when asked what can be done better have told us that more information on life in Canada is needed before they come to Canada. “Canadian Orientation Abroad” was developed to do this. Orientation sessions are delivered by non-governmental organizations in Kenya (with outreach to surrounding countries), Pakistan, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and soon expanding to Syria. Information is provided on topics such as education, climate, housing, cost of living, and employment.

Other sources of information include:
1.“A Newcomer’s Introduction to Canada” distributed by visa offices at time of visa issuance;
2. a “Welcome to Canada Kit” provided to newcomers at five major entry airports that includes information on how to access services and resources in local communities; and
3. In-person reception services provided by ‘service-provider organizations’ to government-assisted refugees arriving at major airports (Ports of Entry).

Programs in Canada
As stated earlier, program delivery is mostly done by the not-for-profit sector. Programs are in place to help immigrants and refugees to orient and adapt to life in Canada. These programs also seek to battle xenophobia by dispelling myths. Integration programs in Canada attempt to address cultural awareness, foreign credential recognition, prior work and learning experience, and other factors that would lead to better understanding and respect.

For example, upon arrival government assisted refugees are met at the airport to ensure they have proper clothing and that they are able to travel to a reception house. There, they will receive temporary accommodation and basic orientation services for up to 6 weeks. This allows them to find more permanent housing, enroll their children in schools and start a new life. Government assisted refugees receive income support for a specified period, usually one year, through the “Resettlement Assistance Program”.

“Private Sponsorship” is another avenue for refugees to gain access to Canada. Groups in Canada provide the necessary financial and emotional support for resettling refugees from abroad. These groups promote respect of immigrants by learning about their cultures and helping refugees to learn about Canadian values.

All immigrants and refugees are eligible for services under the “Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program”, the “Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada” and the “Host Program”. These programs provide social and economic bridging through orientation sessions to local community services, trauma counseling, job hunting clubs, translation and interpretation services, language instruction for adult newcomers in English or French, transportation and child-minding to participate in language courses, and a Buddy-type program which matches newcomers with an in-Canada host to support settlement and integration. This Host program is a good candidate for expansion into schools and with employers. Host exemplifies the two-way exchange to build respect and trust that is at the core of integration.

Dispersion
Segregation and ghettos are signs that tell us that integration may not be occurring. There are no such signs in Canada at present. Immigrants are free to settle anywhere in Canada. And clearly, Canada’s immigrant and refugee populations prefer large urban centres. Immigration today is a largely urban phenomenon with more than 85% of immigrants settling in cities compared with 57% of the Canadian-born. Over three-quarters of all immigrants go to three major cities: Toronto, Vancouver and Montréal.

Canada destines resettled refugees. They are for the most part sent to medium and large communities across the country taking into account such elements, as special service needs, family connections, skills, and presence of similar ethnic community. Some communities in Canada receive only refugees resettled from abroad, as this is the only group for whom Canada plays a role in selecting a community of final destination. In spite of all good planning, many refugees leave their original destination for the major urban centres that provide more employment, educational and cultural opportunities.

First generation immigrants tend to settle together initially but integrate into the broader communities with time. Issues related to access to housing, health care, schools, and other infrastructure inadequacies sometimes exacerbate discrimination or expressions of intolerance. Whenever absorption capacity is exceeded, the majority has a tendency to fear the pressures of immigration.

Many communities and provinces seek a more even distribution of immigrants across Canada. To achieve such a goal will take enhanced community involvement to ensure employment opportunities and a welcoming environment.

Population on the decline.
All developed countries, including Canada, are facing slowing population growth and aging workforces. By 2031, all population growth in Canada will be due to immigration. We are not in danger of a population explosion through managed migration.

It is important to be aware of our context because it points out how important immigration is to Canada and therefore the significance of effective integration.

Labour market.
The level of importance of immigration to the labour market is growing. In 1996, immigrants accounted for 19% of the Canadian labour force and 71% of Canada’s net labour force growth for the previous five years. By 2011, labour force growth is likely to depend solely on immigration.

By 2004, over 70% of new jobs created are expected to require at least some Post-Secondary Education and immigrants are particularly well set to meet those requirements. In 1999, over 42% of the Canadian working age population had a post-secondary degree while 57% of working age immigrants at landing had a post-secondary degree.

Employment rates
One of the measures we use to monitor economic integration is labour market performance. Labour market performance includes factors such as attachment to the labour market, wage scales, recruitment, retention and promotion rates. Where effective economic integration is occurring we would expect to find rates of employment that match the Canadian-born and rates of remuneration that match levels of experience and training. We would also expect to find that newcomers are hired, retained and promoted at rates that match the Canadian-born.

Employment rates are discouraging:
1. Gap between Canadian-born men and recent immigrant men grew from 6% in 1986 to 13% in 1996
2. Gap between recent immigrant women and Canadian-born women grew from 7% in 1986 to 22% in 1996

Employment earnings
Research has shown that, in spite of higher average education than the Canadian-born, recent immigrants are taking longer to catch up to the wages of their Canadian educational and experiential peers than previous immigrant cohorts. Researchers have also detected significant underemployment and wage inequity in the Canadian labour market as they affect newcomers:
-Immigrants with university degrees take approximately 9-10 years to catch up to the earnings of Canadians with university degrees;
-Immigrants with university degrees earn less than half of the amount earned by the average Canadian with a university degree one year after landing;
-Family immigrants and refugees take 15 years to catch up to the Canadian earnings average; and
-Immigrants with no knowledge of either official language at landing take 15 years to catch up to Canadian earnings average.

Risk of exclusion
The percentage of recent immigrant families falling below low-income cut-off increased significantly from 1985 to 1997, from 23% to 39%. This increase did not occur for more established immigrants nor for native born Canadians.

Major issues facing newcomers
So we know, as illustrated on the previous slides, that integration is not happening as effectively as we would like. The question is why. Is it due to systemic or structural barriers – is it linked to discrimination? Is it just a result of economic changes, new needs of a knowledge economy and a period of recession? No matter what the cause, there is broad consensus that certain barriers to integration must be addressed in order for immigrants to make the transition to full participation.

Language barriers
Immigrants must have the necessary skills to find jobs and effectively participate in the labour market in any occupation. Current integration programs provide basic language skills to newcomers. In today’s knowledge economy, occupationally specific language training and higher levels of language fluency are essential to maximum performance both in the labour market and in one’s community.

Labour market access
The higher their level of education, the better immigrants perform. The issue in Canada today is a fragmented system of foreign credential and experience recognition. There is no one consistent process to ensure that qualified immigrants can practice in regulated or licensed occupations. We need to systematize, across provinces and territories, the recognition of foreign educational and professional qualifications, as well as experience. When credentials and experience are evaluated, it is necessary to have programs in place to fill the educational, qualification and experience gaps. Immigrants should not be required to complete an entire degree program when only one course is missing. Prior learning assessments combined with practical work experience should be available to ensure that, for example, an experienced and skilled plumber does not have to restart his or her career at the entry level.

Relevant labour market information on the Canadian workplace and employment services is key for immigrants. This allows them to make better choices about where to reside in Canada, as well as to equip themselves prior to arrival in Canada. Although the information and services provided under the Canadian Orientation Abroad program are a good start, this is an area where the level of information could be improved.

Public / Employer Attitudes
Public and employer attitudes are key to promoting rapid inclusion and integration into the society and economy. Lack of knowledge often results in rejection or fear of the unknown. Expanding the range of our Host program to match more youth, as well as employers with immigrants and creating more bridging type programs would help Canadians to be even more accepting of immigrants. Public education programs may also be required where discrimination is suspected. A good example of our efforts in this area is the development of cultural profiles for sharing with service providers, police officers and university education faculties.

Multicultural citizenship
Whether immigrant or refugee, the ultimate Canadian policy objective is full citizenship within an officially bilingual and multicultural polity. Canada encourages newcomers to adopt Canadian citizenship as an official symbolic act of allegiance and attachment. About 85% of immigrants take this step. Accession to official citizenship is not seen as the end of the journey, however. It is recognized that integration may require a lifetime; indeed, research shows that full integration sometimes requires a couple of generations.

Becoming a citizen
I will not go into the details of becoming a citizen of Canada. However, there are some clear requirements including language and knowledge acquisition. The person must learn about rights and responsibilities, voting procedures, the political system and Canada as a nation; be 18 years of age, a permanent resident, and must have lived in Canada for at least three years. The grant of citizenship is normally done during a formal citizenship ceremony where the individual swears the oath of citizenship.

Becoming a Canadian citizen means accepting common values and respecting Canadian laws. Becoming a Canadian citizen also means exercising the right to vote. When asked at citizenship ceremonies, the most important aspects of becoming Canadian, most immigrants respond – I am now free to vote, to practice my religion, to express my views, to participate in politics. My children, boys and girls, will grow up to be whatever they would like to be!

Canadian values
As a liberal democracy, Canada espouses certain core values to which it expects all its citizens to adhere. Values such as mutual respect, the rule of law, equality and the peaceful resolution of disputes are seen as non-negotiable minimum expectations. In return, Canada guarantees such basic human rights as individual autonomy, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc. It is clear that there are some things that Canadian society will not tolerate, such as the subjugation and abuse of women and children. Changes to fundamental values can only occur through the democratic process.

To be part of that process, one must vote and some must be more politically active. Running for elected office is a valid index of integration. Here we find that immigrants tend to participate in governments at rates slightly below or equal to the levels of the Canadian-born. In federal politics, power is still firmly in the hands of politicians of British or French origins. However, about 33% of federally elected politicians can claim some minority background and many of these politicians are immigrants.

A stable multicultural society depends upon the cultivation of a “common sense of belonging” among all citizens, not just those who govern. This sense of belonging cannot be ethnically based since Canada is such a diverse society. Instead it must be political and “based on a shared commitment to the political community.” Such a commitment to Canada’s continuing existence and well being, implies that one cares enough for our country and its system of government not to harm its interests or undermine its integrity.

The sense of belonging must be fostered by according equal citizenship to both newcomers and the Canadian-born. This means that all citizens must know that there is a real chance that they can influence the evolution of Canadian society; in a sense, they must feel not only that they belong to Canada, but that Canada belongs to them.

A sense of belonging
In addition to targeted settlement programs, Canada depends on its educational system to impart citizenship values to newcomers as well as the Canadian-born, because if substantive citizenship is our goal, then all Canadians must be “integrated” in a real sense. Labour market ministries also develop programs to assist Canadians to develop an attachment to the labour market while ministries of citizenship and heritage conduct public education campaigns and support initiatives that foster pride and respect for Canadian institutions and cultural products. Special programs are also in place to encourage new Canadians to vote.

We attempt to create a welcoming attitude toward diversity by teaching the value of diversity in our schools, through public campaigns such as my department’s “Canada: We All Belong” initiative and through diversity promotion and anti-racism campaigns conducted by our sister department of Canadian Heritage.

Our success
Canada remains a cohesive society with low rates of inter-ethnic conflict and low rates of crime. Our long history of integrating immigrants and our recent history of welcoming immigrants without regard to race or ethnicity has been a successful experiment. Canadians are not complacent, however. We recognize that societal stability is ensured only by constant vigilance and sensitivity to the potential fault lines that might divide us. Canada’s multicultural experiment remains a work in progress.

I came to Britain as a refugee: my family were part of the large influx of South Asians expelled from East Africa in the 1960s. The government of the day had little time to manage our migration. We were received into temporary camps and then found housing mainly in areas where there was already a large Asian population. My family settled in Shepherds Bush, where we bought a newsagents shop and became, like so many other South Asian immigrants, successful retailing entrepreneurs.

Issues of Integration
Even as long ago as the 1960s there were aspects of our situation that are common to refugees and immigrants today. For example,
-We were in a situation where our skills and training were not utilised. My family had owned extensive business interests and property in East Africa. We were allowed to take only £2,000 to Britain with us, and in Britain, rather than finding an opening at the level he had left, my father had to start again at the beginning.
-Progress towards integration was hampered by factors such as unfamiliarity with how Great Britain plc actually functions, and basic literacy: my mother did not know how to write a cheque, and there were no South Asian language-speakers in our local banks.
-There were no effective systems in place for identifying skills and placing immigrants into roles where those skills could be utilised.
Of course our situation was largely due to the fact that the government priority, for such a large influx as ours, had to be the basic needs of food and housing. Occupational skills analysis came a long way down the list! But today, with immigration much reduced and refugee entry to the UK limited, managing migration is rightfully becoming a government priority, for the reasons we have already heard. How can we turn the refugee/immigration issue into an asset, rather than a problem? How do we create pro-active, constructive agendas, instead of aiming to stabilise the status quo and deal with arrivals on an ad hoc basis?
These are issues much in the mind of government in 2002, and indeed this is the mission of The Employability Forum, of which I am very pleased to be a Trustee. The Employability Forum assists newcomers to the United Kingdom – newcomers, typically displaced by conflict or natural disaster in their own countries – to prepare for and obtain employment.
Most important in this, especially in view of Lord Cairns’s comments on today’s competitive skills market, is the identification of the skills resource that immigrants and refugees represented. It is estimated that by 2003, Britain will be short by 620,000 IT professionals – a field in which the South Asians, Chinese and Nigerians have strong skills.
The contribution of the UK ethnic communities to the NHS is well known – just under half of applicants for training in dentistry in 1994-97 were from the ethnic communities – but an increasing number are looking abroad for work. And the recent report from the Liverpool John Moores University predicting the failure of the ubiquitous Asian corner shop makes gloomy reading when you consider that around three-quarters of all independent retail outlets are owned by members of the ethnic communities. Whatever the future of this sector, the Government cannot and must not be uninvolved.

All too often the skills of immigrants and refugees are quickly buried on arrival in the UK – and all too often fail to re-appear. Why? Well, imagine the following. You arrive in the UK as a South Asian unable to speak very much English. Your priority will be to find a community that speaks your language. You will look for work in a workplace where English is not essential. You will probably end up in an Indian restaurant. The fact that you might be a qualified chartered accountant or academic in your home country will not enter into the practicalities of the situation.
I could give you many examples of this.
Here’s one: in the Sri Krishna Restaurant in Tooting (a strongly South-Asian area) I was served my Masala Dosa by a young man who recognised me from my campaign in the London Mayoral Election and asked my advice. He was studying at night for a postgraduate MBA and he possessed IT skills. He was a classic example of the entrapped migrant, caught in a linguistic trap, a financial trap and – when it came to job hunting – a visibility trap. How many employers do their IT hiring from restaurants?
And that is a key issue. In Geneva, an Ethiopian refugee arrived one day at our church. He was a qualified Electrical Engineer, looking for appropriate work. I mentioned him to the personnel director of the company for whom I worked and he was just not interested in pursuing this lead. Having met Fetuyi and talked with him at length I took up his case. He was eventually appointed to a position in one of our supplier companies – a company where he has proved invaluable and is still a senior member of the staff there. But the point is that it needed somebody from the corporate world to look at somebody like that and see not a problem but an asset.
Another key issue is language improvement.
One aspect of LANGUAGE IMPROVEMENT is that it’s easier with the higher skills: somebody who has mastered HTML programming skills can usually improve his or her fluency in English relatively easily. But the Government – admirably – intends to identify all skills, and a skilled carpenter may require more sustained teaching to develop good language skills. However, in either case, language skills are not an optional extra. In the professions and in business, a grasp of English is not only desirable; it is essential if work is to be done well. I like the example of Hampshire Constabulary’s Positive Action Team, who separate skills from language ability, and will arrange for an applicant who they recognise as an able potential recruit to have language teaching for a period, after which they resume the application process.
Of course we don’t want immigrants and refugees to forget their own languages, and not only for reasons of cultural heritage: in today’s global business world, the huge variety of languages spoken in the UK (an estimated 275 in London alone) is a very valuable (and often ignored) business asset indeed. But with an estimated 1.5 million UK residents unable to speak English to a standard adequate for everyday mainstream work, language skills are a priority.
I suggest that several things need to happen if we are to achieve the mission of The Employability Forum – successful integration of refugees.
Here’s a start.
-We need to create much improved procedures for identifying skills, right to work, and illegal workers. The difference between Exceptional Leave to Remain and Indefinite Leave to Remain needs to be clarified for employers. I was recently approached, for example, on behalf of a young Turkish immigrant who was a qualified graphic designer and whose language skills were acceptable – but his work permit application was proceeding so slowly that he had no continuity in his work and valuable integration time into the British system was being lost.
-We need to improve tracking systems so that our understanding of the overall picture and also of the impact of migrant programs on the economy can be properly assessed. We cannot make a case to the corporate world that integration of migrants should be actively welcomed, if we cannot demonstrate a business benefit accruing from it. The example of the Australians and the Canadians is impressive here: I have been particularly impressed, for example, by the way that the Canadians have constructed a new vocabulary of immigration so that new patterns of thought are easier to develop along with a new terminology.
-We need to constantly review the infrastructure of business support agencies, from Business Link through Chambers of Commerce to entrepreneurial advisory agencies like The Prince’s Trust and many more. There are still many, many members of the ethnic minority business communities who are unfamiliar with basic mainstream concepts such as P & L, tendering and British conventions of contract.
-We need also to grasp the sometimes controversial nettle of standards in literacy. Refugee professionals will require high-level English. The medical profession recognises this and has clearly set a standard – the IELTS test. Other professions, for example teaching and nursing, should follow this example. Job-seekers whose first language is not English must accept the need for these objective standards: too many people submit CVs describing themselves as ‘fluent’ when their English is not up to scratch. Employers and professional bodies can help here by making it clear what is expected.
-If the Home Secretary wants the English language to be a centrepiece of his integration strategy, he will need to persuade his colleagues that the current system for teaching English is inadequate. Part of the problem is lack of awareness. I am sure that if I asked this audience how many of you know about TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language), a good number of hands would be raised. I doubt whether very many would go up, however, if I asked how many of you have heard of ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages). Yet there are over 6,000 ESOL teachers in the UK. I hope that the White Paper will be a wake-up call for the ESOL Cinderella
But – and here I end – the most important issue is bigger than any of those. For we must continue to strive for the fair, multi-cultural, multi-skilled Britain that so many have spoken of and worked for. There is no point in attracting and identifying Filipino nurses to be the backbone of the NHS wards, or South Asian IT technicians to feed our skills shortage, if once they are working in Britain they find a culture of glass ceilings, intolerance and ethnic prejudice.
As a refugee myself I am immensely grateful for all I have received from Britain and I am enthusiastic about the current initiatives – fast-tracking and so on – that the Government has introduced. I look forward with great interest to the forthcoming White Paper, too. But we must take care not to miss sight of the wood for the trees. We must build bridges – but we must also tear down walls.

Well firstly I think you will be very pleased to hear that I agree with the latter points you’ve made and it is very clear indeed that deep-seated intolerance, prejudice and racism need to be rooted out and it is little to do with whether someone actually speaks English and a lot to do with all the multiplicity of things which we are endeavouring to overcome. I just want to say I am pleased to be here this morning and to be able to make a contribution. My apologies for not hearing all the speakers, particularly to my colleague from the Netherlands, who I would like to have heard. I was very pleased to hear the Director of Integration from Canada. I would like to thank the Canadians because two of the three best friends I had at school now live in Canada. One of them is married to a second generation Japanese Canadian and the other is married to an indigenous, as far as it goes, Ontarian, if that’s the right phrase, so I owe Canada a debt of gratitude for being welcoming. The other friend of mine lives in Maidenhead so he’s migrated there rather than anywhere else.

I am very painfully aware that we need to set what we are doing in this country in the context of what is taking place globally and we do need to develop a nationality and immigration and not simply an asylum policy. Those who are from outside this country will not be aware that there is an obsession over recent years in Britain with asylum rather than with the inward and outward migration with the issues that create a diverse culture and an economically dynamic nation and we are trying to set both hard headed policies that work, and I take the point that has just been made that policies need to be well managed and they need to be seen to be working within the wider context of what is needed for individuals who are escaping from persecution. But also what makes up a truly dynamic country where we can both take pride in our own culture and welcome the diversity, and the mix, and the ingredients that make up the context of the change which has taken place in this country over centuries. And it’s in that spirit that I want to say a few remarks today, I will shortly say a word or two about Zimbabwe. I think the press and media are desperate that I should but I want to say one or two other things first.

We are about to publish a nationality and immigration White Paper, a policy paper at the beginning of February, followed by whatever necessary legislation we need to bring in in the Spring. We want to do so to try and settle once and for all where we are going – the framework and the structure within which we are working – not because that will in any way settle the issues, but it will provide the back-up, the support, and the context in which we then all have to work together to ensure that we have a future to be proud of. And it may well be that other people can say things that I would say and it would be heard differently, but it is important that that debate and dialogue takes place, because if we are to root out the worst that we see around us then we have to face it down by both have coherent policies that make sense to people, the building of trust in which people know that the administration and the system works, and a very robust political stance on being intolerant of intolerance and of seeing out prejudice and racism.

The White Paper will seek to set in the context of what is taking place globally the measures that we need to take. Firstly, and Bill Clinton spelt this out at a recent Dimbleby Lectures, the tremendous changes that have taken place in what is now described as globalisation, some bringing great good, some bringing considerable disruption and danger. Some being of benefit to many people and others being exclusive to those who are already in a beneficial position. That’s why the whole issues that we are debating are not about Home Office policy in this country but about the departments and agencies, the NGOs and the interest groups that make up the dynamism that we have in the politics that we are dealing with. And within that globalisation to recognise some of the historic factors, I haven’t got time to do this today but I just want to touch on very briefly the fact that we are caught in our history. I don’t just mean the recent but going back a very long way in terms of those who first embarked on exploration leading to the traders and merchants of the immediate Renaissance period, the trade routes, the economic links that were built before colonisation and the terrible harm that was often done to indigenous populations by that process. But they were economic and not just nationalistic. They were about genuine pushing of boundaries and exploration as well as economic exploitation. And then of course the bite back, as we might describe it, with those links, those historic developments and contacts leading to inward migration to the original colonising countries, whether it was UK or France or Portugal, whatever. And the way in which we need to see that in the context of a very big change in globalisation, which because of greater mobility, because we have moved from the railroad to the airlines, because we have moved from the telephone to the Internet, the communication as well as mobility has led to much greater movement, greater aspirations and therefore greater desire to escape from the poverty and disadvantage, sometimes relative, sometimes absolute, that inspires people to want to move across the world. Who can blame anyone to want a better life for themselves and their family? In coping with it we have to have managed migration and inward migration policies that work for those seeking a better life or escaping persecution and manageable within the context of social cohesion within the country. And the difficulty that we face is that if you were escaping persecution, the only way you could actually be able to claim a place in this your new home and ours as well, was actually to do so clandestinely or to use another route which you intended then to jump when you got here.

So offering alternative routes, it seems to me, is the prerequisite to getting the rest of the programme right. Partly in terms of economic migration and we have over the last two years, and Jack Straw and Barbara Roche did a lot to help and foster this, improved enormously the economic migration routes into the country. I had responsibility for the work permit when I was in charge of Education and Employment. And now we have integrated it into the Home Office in my new jurisdiction. It seems to me that it makes sense to have it there and over the last two years we have doubled the number of work permits issued to just under 150,000 last year. It will exponentially rise as we develop our new programme. Later this month the new highly skilled programme will come on stream. We are looking to dramatically change the opportunity of people who have already been here under other programmes to be able to stay, whether they are able to switch as students into work, or whether they are able to stay on programmes that have been in place for some time. We are reviewing and hoping to modernise very rapidly the programme for those who came from the Commonwealth on holiday programmes, little known but substantially used programmes, to try and reflect the modern era. We are looking to expand the economic routes so that we can within sectors, including seasonal working, again make more sense of the programmes and providing better welcomes, better security and care for those who are coming in.

We need to actually ensure that we also take account of the lesser skilled areas. Of course, and I would have said this when I was in charge of Employment and Skills, of course we need to skill the indigenous population. We don’t want people feeling, experiencing or having the perception imposed on them that someone else is taking their job, so we need to skill, encourage, provide impetus to the welfare to work programmes within our country. But we also need to recognise that in London 70% of basic catering jobs are filled by migrants and the difficulty that we as a government and we as a nation set pace, is without the appropriate routes for entry we will have a situation where clandestine working as illegals is tolerated because it actually continues to stimulate and sustain the service economy. There has to be another way of doing that if we are to clamp down on the exploitation which illegal working inevitably brings as gangmasters and traffickers rent their way on the most vulnerable from across the world. And I just want to announce today that as part of the development of broader policy the Proceeds of Crime legislation that’s in Parliament at the moment in terms of those who are making large sums of money out of organised crime, the smugglers and traffickers who cause misery to literally hundreds of thousands of people who exploit need in whatever form for their own benefits, that we need to start getting much tougher with them.

I am therefore intending to legislate to expand the penalty for smuggling and trafficking from 10 to 14 years to send a signal to those who actually feel that there is nothing evil about the way in which they take and use the lives of others, often exploiting them when they’re here, having got them here illegally, claiming neither nationality or asylum status. But in the end of course we will have to accept as well that we need out of country routes for those who are seeking to escape from persecution, torture or death. We need therefore to work with the UNHCR and others in providing a gateway for those who have a claim to be able to do so without having to hang under Channel Tunnel trains or get into container lorries crossing the Channel itself. And we need to do so in a fashion that builds security and understanding within our country so that people themselves are not afraid. It’s why, and again I haven’t got time to go in detail, I did the interview with the Independent on Sunday which was entirely in line with, if I can just give a plug to it, everything I’d written in “Politics and Progress”, which I published at the end of September. But it was little noticed for all sorts of reasons, not least the proximity to the 11th September at the time, and although the interview was truncated and although the headline was incorrect, the interview itself I stand by. The interview spelled out that I do believe that it is critical for our future that we are able to work together on integration with diversity, that we make up the ingredients together of the country that is our home and will be our home in the future. And that whilst it won’t solve all our problems for people to be able to speak English at home as well as second generations being able to speak it at school, it will make a difference to the way in which people can access education and employment understand the social and economic context in which they work. And of course those who teach, like mothers, who if they have a grasp of English and of a modern British society, will help to interpret their religion and culture within the context that those young people are living in today, not centuries ago. And that is something that I think we just need to face up to.

So there are complex pasts and presents to deal with but I think building trust and confidence both for those who are coming into our country and for those who are fearful of those coming in, fearful of change, fearful of difference, then we need to be honest with each other about how we do it. And we need to share the task which we would all come together on, and thereby being able to see off those who would exploit it and would use it to create the hate that I think everyone in this room would be committed against.

We often face contradictions. I am very pleased that the main opposition parties and remarkably a whole swathe of the British media have just warmed to the idea that we have obligations to those from across the world. That the language that is being used is very different to just twelve months ago, leading up to the general election. That the perception of having a debate and understanding what is happening across the world is now better informed and it gives us the possibility of having a rational debate and to take rational actions. I refer of course to the remarkable transformation on the road to Damascus of some of our media and politicians in relation to Zimbabwe. We have a history in this country of being able to respond to situations. Yasmin knows better than I do 27,000 Ugandan Asians, men and women came into this country 25 plus years ago and while we may not have managed it very well there was a substantial effort at a welcome. We have from time to time had to deal with immediate extingencies such as in the Republic of Congo, Sierre Leone, or closer to home in Turkey and Bosnia, where we’ve suspended the returns for those who have not demonstrated that they had a valid claim to asylum. Not necessarily they didn’t have a valid claim to economic migration. Last year 2,800 people came into this country on work permits from the country that I am about to speak about where Robert Mugabe is creating terror in people’s hearts and where the presidential election is gradually being eroded. And I have consulted with the Foreign Secretary and taken advice about the changing situation in Zimbabwe. It seems to me therefore that whilst some of the things that have been said over recent days and weeks about the immigration service and its operation are incorrect, there is a moment when it is sensible to pause and draw breath and ensure that we don’t do anything that we might later regret.

The Immigration Service and its process has been working as they normally do in terms of making a judgement about the situation in that country and the relative claim of an individual in those circumstances to the right to remain because they are at real risk. Some of those who are being ……. at the moment in relation to Zimbabwe and claims here may not have come from Zimbabwe in the first place. Some have been here some substantial time before the worst of the situation that we are experiencing at the moment was evident. Some have come very recently. I have three cases that I was looking at last night of people who have arrived since the 1st January and have been through the fast track system and granted the right to remain. One, someone who ran a clinic that has now been closed down, that was subject to the terror of Mugabe, because they had treated leading NBC activists, one a teacher because of what she had been teaching, another a journalist who is the daughter of a very leading journalist and opponent of Mugabe and is crowd, all of whom, just in a fortnight, have had fast track agreement to their right to stay.

We have 106 people who are currently detained waiting removal from the country to Zimbabwe and others who are in the broader process. Because of the worsened situation and because I think it is right to review the position over the weeks ahead, I have taken the decision that we will suspend removals until after the presidential elections in Zimbabwe. We will continue to review what is happening there. But we will also continue to process claims, not least because it is right for those who have a justifiable and proven case to remain here and would be a continuing risk even after the presidential elections. And to be continuing the process of evaluating those cases on their merits. We need to do so partly because it is right and proper that we have a coherent system that works, secondly because those that call for immediate action now will be calling for something entirely different in six months, twelve months, two years time. The contradictions that exist in politics are boundless in terms of people’s ability to change their minds or to simply provide you with contradictory advice in their leader columns.

But above all because this is a fluid situation and that we need to genuinely as government, as to opposition, or columnist to be able to see this in the long term. I hope that that cause will enable us to be able to do that evaluation better and I hope it will also lessen the tensions that exist for those who are here and genuinely fear being returned to the regime. Above all I hope we can bring international pressure to bear using the good offices of Jack Straw and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to bring about change in Zimbabwe because the other thing I wanted to say Yasmin, is that whilst we have duties that we must fulfil, responsibilities that we are prepared to accept in terms of providing a safe haven for those who are at risk, in the end the task of all of us and Tony Blair’s made this clear sometimes to his cost in terms of those who would agree with it but like to use it to have a go at him, in the end changing what is happening in the world, reducing the terror, the persecution, the death of innocent people, changing the minds of those who run regimes that bring about that terror, has to be the way forward for the future. And what we do to welcome people, whatever the route they take, and how we have a more robust and viable and acceptable integration policy, because we haven’t, will be crucial to ensuring that we are in a moral position to be able to speak to others about the actions they take. We need not only an integration policy in terms of those who have sought refuge here. We need it for those who have come through all sorts of migration routes and we need to work that through together with ideas from those here today about how best to do it, not paternalistically, but because it matters to all of us. We haven’t done it well over the years. We have an opportunity to get it right and it doesn’t matter to me in the end whether people are prepared to see this in personal terms, what matters in the medium and long term is that we lay a foundation for which we can be proud and that we are able to see a genuine improvement in the way in which this country responds to its obligations but also welcomes the opportunity, the tremendous opportunity of encouraging and supporting and integrating those who bring great drive, great economic dynamism and great cultural benefit to us all and it is in that spirit that we will go forward this year to try and get that nationality and integration policy right.

IMMIGRATION AND INTEGRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS

Mr. Chair, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

I am honoured to speak to you today about immigration and integration of newcomers in the Netherlands. I thank the Foreign Policy Centre for their kind invitation.

In the Dutch Cabinet, I am responsible for immigration policy at the Justice Department. As many departments are involved in integration policy, in the Cabinet there is a co-ordinating minister for urban and integration policy.

For that reason, and because of the nature of this conference, I will focus on Dutch immigration policy and the way our integration policy relates to it. Admitting newcomers to your country is one thing, integrating them is quite another.

Immigration in the Netherlands consists of roughly three streams, as everywhere in Europe. The most eye-catching stream is, as in Britain, asylum migration. The second stream is labour migration. The third stream is family migration, which follows the other two streams. But, in numbers, family migration is the biggest flow. There is of course a fourth flow, illegal immigration, but as only legally residing migrants are entitled to integration measures, I will not talk about illegal immigration.

To give you an impression of the number of immigrants in the Netherlands:
In 1998, there were about eighty two thousand (82,000) immigrants.
Of these, some seventeen thousand (17,000) were asylum migrants who had been admitted at least temporarily.
A little more than fifteen thousand (15,000) were labour migrants, mostly from EU countries and the United States.
Some thirty seven thousand (37,000) were family migrants, who came to join persons already residing in the Netherlands.
Others came for study or other reasons.

In all, the Netherlands now have about sixteen million inhabitants. Fifty years ago, there were hardly any non-western immigrants in the Netherlands. Now, about nine percent of the Dutch population are persons of non-western descent. People from refugee countries are about one percent of the total population of the Netherlands.

Most immigrants in the Netherlands are admitted because of international obligations or out of humanitarian concern. This means that labour migration – at least from outside the European Economic Area – is quite limited. As the Netherlands are not yet confronted with a rapidly ageing population, we do not consider large-scale labour migration a necessity. In this respect the Netherlands are different from several other European countries.

Labour migration in the Netherlands is being used as a tool to respond to acute labour shortages in several sectors, especially at the higher end of the labour market. The Dutch government wants to ease labour migration in sectors that are highly globalised and that are of particular importance to what we call the ‘knowledge economy’. To that end, admission procedures for people working as IT specialists or in research and development have recently been centralised and accelerated. However, far-reaching policy changes are not to be expected right now.

As I already said, most immigrants in the Netherlands are refugees or family migrants. They are admitted for very different reasons than labour market needs. This can pose problems where integration and employability are concerned. It is of integration and employment that I want to speak now. I will also pay attention to the integration of refugees.

The Netherlands have had an integration policy since about the early 1980s. It was at that time that a minorities policy, as it was then called, first came into effect. It was focused on four migrant groups that had already settled some time before. The first two groups came from Turkey and Morocco. They had come to the Netherlands as labour migrants in the sixties and early seventies. The second two groups were people from the former Dutch colony of Surinam and from the Netherlands Antilles. Although most Surinamese and all Antilleans were already Dutch citizens, and spoke Dutch, they became target groups of the Dutch integration policy because they experienced worrying labour market problems.

People from Turkey, Morocco, Surinam and the Antilles are still the largest immigrant groups in the Netherlands, but since the early eighties the character of immigration has changed dramatically. The growth in the number of asylum seekers that were admitted resulted in many more nationalities that are living in the Netherlands. In 1970, there were not yet thirty nationalities living in the Netherlands. Now, there are more than one hundred and ten (110).

What all this means is that an integration policy focused on four target groups is no longer appropriate. It was also recognised that many ethnic groups still had a disadvantaged position on the labour market. Unemployment among these groups was very high. Integration into Dutch society still left much to be desired, partly due to a lack of knowledge of the Dutch language. The government has addressed this problem in the past few years, as it became more and more clear that changes were necessary.

In September 1998, the Integration of Newcomers Act came into force in the Netherlands. The aim of this act is to promote the independence of newcomers by means of an integration programme. This programme consists of Dutch language training, social orientation and vocational orientation. In addition, newcomers receive social counselling and general programme coaching for support and motivation. The Integration of Newcomers Act also provides for a referral to the employment exchange or follow-up courses.

Newcomers should be able to participate independently in Dutch society as soon as possible. Therefore, they are approached soon after their arrival in the Netherlands. Early attention focused on newcomers may prevent the formation of new disadvantaged groups. For that reason, the Integration of Newcomers Act contains a number of obligations and rules which together should lead to a situation where:
·All newcomers participate;
·Newcomers are offered an effective made-to-measure integration programme;
·Newcomers make optimal use of this programme.
·Municipalities are given enough space to provide a made-to-measure programme;
·There is early referral to further training or the labour market.

Legal obligations apply not only to newcomers, but also to municipalities which have primary responsibility for implementing the Act. The government plays a stimulating and supporting role.

Application for the integration programme is mandatory. After an individual assessment, the municipality decides which parts of the integration programme a newcomer has to follow. Now, the newcomer signs a training contract with an educational institution. The integration programme lasts twelve months and concludes with a test. At the end of the integration programme, the newcomer receives a certificate from the municipality that specifies the programme that has been followed and the results which have been achieved. The municipality helps the newcomer to go on to follow-up training or the labour market.

The Integration of Newcomers Act came into force in late 1998. At this moment, an evaluation of the act is going on. The results of it are not yet known. It is clear, however, that there are a few problems of which I will shortly speak.

First, however, it must be clear that integration policy is more than the Integration of Newcomers Act. Being able to find your way does not necessarily mean that you will find a suitable job or become socially integrated. There are several ways in which we measure the level of integration.

In the first place there is socio-structural integration, measured in for example dependence on social benefits, educational level, the unemployment rate, housing and health.
Socio-cultural integration is more difficult to measure, because it is about norms, values and life-style.
In the third place, there is politico-institutional integration: participation in politics, administration and civil society.

As far as the integration of children is concerned, good Dutch-language education is essential. When children do not speak Dutch at home, they should learn it from the earliest age on. In this respect, the discussion going on in the Netherlands about lowering the school age from five years to four is of special importance.

One aspect of integration is of particular interest for this conference, and that is participation on the labour market.

About a decade ago, unemployment among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands was still quite dramatic. Since the early nineties, it has lowered considerably. In 1998, when the present government was established, it was about sixteen percent (16%). Among the autochthonous population, however, it was only four percent (4%). The government wanted to half this difference by the year 2000, that is bring the unemployment rate among ethnic minorities back to 10%. In this respect we have been quite successful, as the target was indeed reached. However, labour market participation among ethnic minorities is still not proportional. In order to reduce it even further, several measures were taken.

In April 2000, the cabinet signed a covenant with the Netherlands organisation of medium and small-sized businesses and the employment exchanges. The target was to place twenty thousand (20,000) persons from ethnic minorities in jobs in medium and small-sized businesses, within one year. This was to be done by linking the large number of vacancies in these businesses to job-seekers from ethnic minorities. A special project organisation was established. They were so successful that more than thirty thousand (30,000) persons were placed in jobs. For that reason, the covenant has been continued. In 2002, the organisation of medium and small-sized businesses will give notice of thirty thousand vacancies again.

Apart from measures such as the one I mentioned, companies can make themselves intercultural, so that immigrants will find jobs more easily and feel at home in a company. Companies have to report yearly on their intercultural personnel management. This has been a successful measure as well. With about ninety large companies, covenants have been signed on intercultural personnel management. Examples are selection tests, trainee programmes for highly educated migrants, and so on.

One group which demands our specific attention is the group of refugees. Unemployment among refugees and asylees (who have a residence permit) is much higher than among migrant groups which have been longer established. From a review of five new ethnic groups in the Netherlands in the year 2000 it appeared that about thirty four percent (34%) were unemployed and seeking jobs. Many refugees who have a job, are working below their level of education or experience. Labour participation depends to a large extent on the length of stay in the Netherlands, knowledge of the Dutch language, assessment of diplomas, and so on. About sixty percent (60%) of refugees had a secondary or higher education and are quite willing to participate on the labour market.

At this moment, the government is paying particular attention to the problem of highly educated refugees. We are thinking about a task force or a covenant. Investing in assessing diplomas – which is sometimes quite a difficult problem – is also a priority. How, for example, do we assess the skills of a surgeon from Iraq? Information on education and employment has to be collected as soon as the asylum application is filed. This is useful when an integration programme has to start. But it can also be useful when asylum seekers who are not admitted have to return to their country of origin. They can follow several courses as long as their application is being assessed.

In April of last year, a new Immigration Act came into force in the Netherlands. One of our primary objectives is to give asylum seekers a decision on their application within six months. When they are admitted, integration can then start earlier without refugees having to wait too long in our reception facilities.

As you can see, we have taken many measures which facilitate the integration of immigrants and refugees in Dutch society and the Dutch labour market. Our policy measures have certainly had results. I think one important aspect is that measures are tailored to individual needs and experiences of immigrants, which in my opinion leads to the best results.

Thank you for your attention.

In most respects, I am under qualified to speak on Managing Migration. I have two slender claims to any insight on this issue. The first is particularly apt since this event is taking place in Canada House. In the late 1950s, at the age of 18, I set off from Liverpool in the Empress of something, bound for Montreal, clutching an immigration card and with £50 in my pocket. Before returning to university two years later, I probably learnt a great deal more than in the following three. I learnt of the fear of being out of work and of being cold and hungry, but I also learnt of the value of the hospitality and kindness that so many people showed to me when there was no family support to fall back on. I look back on this period with great pleasure, in that it formed many of the values that I have found helpful thereafter. It also has left me with a particular regard for that wonderful country. This is therefore an occasion where I can offer a very belated thank you to Canada.

The second credential is that for much of my working life, I was employed with the banking institution S.G. Warburg, started by two Jewish refugees who came to England just before the war. Within 50 years of the founding of this firm, it had become one of the most important international investment banks in the City, playing a major role to establish the City as the pre-eminent centre of international finance. The international vision of these two founders shook the attitudes of what had been a rather cosy inward-looking clique into a world class competitive force which has created huge value for this country – I have to add that the cosy clique was formed of names like Schroder, Hambro, Lazard, Kleinwort and Rothschild, all themselves immigrants in previous eras. Some of these families came willingly to this country as economic migrants and others came reluctantly as refugees, fleeing from conflict or persecution.

After the Second World War, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees was established as a temporary measure to respond to the consequences of a continent in conflict. It was hard to feel that the 50th anniversary of the UNHCR, last year, was a cause for celebration. If we are going to manage migration effectively, we must consider both the humanitarian and the economic – asylum and immigration.

I now spend much of my life, as it were, looking down the other end of the telescope, as Chairman of CDC, whose job is to provide capital for the developing world.

It will, I imagine, be common ground for everyone here today that for a more prosperous world, capital, labour and technology must move to the point where each can be employed most effectively. This is the factor that has been the catalyst for better living standards as far back as we know. In theory, capital and technology flows should be more mobile than labour, but frustratingly, while capital flows to the developing world, where labour is cheaper, have increased, they have not grown enough to make any real impact on the inequalities of income between rich and poor countries. Capital flows have also been concentrated into a few countries, bypassing Africa, for instance, almost entirely.

With income differentials rising and the cost of travel reducing, it is hardly surprising that labour has become more internationally mobile. Since the number of those living in absolute poverty is huge, the scale of potential migration is vast and the developed world will want to continue to regulate the movement of people. The gap between rich and poor countries cannot be bridged by mass migration – but poverty and conflict are pressures which cause people to want to move. This is, therefore, an issue which will remain vital for the foreseeable future.

Demographic forecasts have to be taken with a certain level of scepticism, but the following influences my own thinking.

The OECD forecasts that the ratio of those over 65 will double relative to those of a working age during the next 50 years, from 25% to 60%. This means that 40% of the adult population will have to create sufficient value to maintain the welfare standards of the aged in the UK, let alone pay for the education and upbringing of the young. If the EU is to stabilise the old age dependency ratio, it needs in-flows of 20 million each year between now and 2050, and I suspect many of us reaching retirement age will have to work much longer.

As an employer, I can only conclude that it’s going to be increasingly difficult to find people born and educated in the UK to perform the tasks that need doing to make UK plc succeed, especially in a world of increasing competition. Levels of immigration to offset our ageing populations raise substantial issues about the willingness of people in advanced countries to share the stock of privileged access to the physical, human and social capital that they enjoy. Such a level of immigration would undermine the current advantages enjoyed by a large proportion of the current population which has skill levels similar to those in abundant supply elsewhere in the world. We have to recognise, therefore, that it will be politically and socially vital to manage migration intelligently and effectively so that we can achieve economic growth and maintain social cohesion.

From an employer’s perspective, whose interest is to provide highly competitive goods and services to a growing range of consumers, it is desirable that we should attract immigrants with relevant skills. It is therefore particularly desirable that we are able to welcome migrants in areas where we have skill or labour shortages. We must recognise the competition between the skills of those who are available and the skills of those who are willing to relocate. We only have to travel to the United States, to universities and businesses, to wonder at the skills of the Chinese community in that country. In our own country, we have countless examples of beneficial consequences from the various waves of immigration to the UK. The Jewish influx over many generations and the more recent Ugandan and Asian inflow spring to mind.

We can also note that that great guru, Alan Greenspan, claimed that one of the key factors helping the United States sustain its economic boom through the ‘90s was the influx of migrants. As an employer, therefore, I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of a new highly skilled migrant programme, which has been described as the biggest relaxation in immigration policy for 30 years.

The growing needs of business for both skilled and unskilled labour is clear. All the evidence shows that immigrants (whether economic migrants or refugees) have a positive impact in a successfully growing advanced country, provided that they achieve integration and, more particularly, employment. The needs of business, the needs of immigrants and the needs of the wider community seem therefore to be aligned. However, this apparent win-win is only possible if certain obstacles can be removed. In the UK there are considerable doubts about how successful we have been at removing them.

Why is this? My sense is that other countries have been better at using immigration to their advantage. The UK is a relatively small country. It has a recent history of imperialism and emigration, not of integration and immigration. Our preconceptions about immigration may be different from those in Canada and Australia, but the practical problems remain the same.

Initiatives to improve the bureaucracy associated with employment of migrants could be helpful to business. Language and more general cultural barriers are real and need to be addressed through training and awareness for both migrants and hosts if successful integration is to be achieved. Basic requirements for successful interviews include proper clothing and contributions to out-of-pocket expenses. More effective systems could usefully be put in place to assess the nature and quality of qualifications from abroad. The obstacle presented by racism is probably the most difficult to address: the public perception that immigrants have a negative effect on economic and social welfare is a primary obstacle to Government initiatives to change immigration policy. Discrimination by employers against immigrants is, I regret, almost certainly an issue. While my own organisation is not typical, I take some satisfaction in the fact that only 40% of our employees are white Britons.

Many employers may place dealing with the employment of refugees in the “too difficult” box because of the practical paperwork, language and cultural difficulties, and it may not be easy to distinguish this from racism or indeed concern about potential accusations of exploitation.

I have some concern that when we seek to import skilled workers from other parts of the world, we will deprive countries whose need for skills is desperate if they are to develop successfully. We have worried about the ‘brain drain’ from our own country and these concerns are raised again in the development field. (I have read several works on this issue and remain uncertain about any ability to generalise) The Scots always hold that when some of them came south across the border, the average skill levels of both England and Scotland improved. I am less confident that we can expect such a certain ‘win/win’ in every case.

Undoubtedly, the value of remittances of foreign exchange offset an initial loss of skills. The importance of non-resident Indians in both investing in Indian technology companies and understanding the full international market applications of that technology, has been of huge benefit to the booming businesses of Bangalore and Hyderabad. I am told that 50 million non-resident Chinese, who have an income equal to 66% of the PRC or $700 billion, provide 70% of inward investment to that country. Nonetheless, as my own organisation, CDC, tries to invest in the poorest countries of the world, it is the management and professional skills, not finance which are so often the key constraint. It may well be helpful for local managers to hone their skills in the developed world, but the need for them to be applied back in their home industries is a critical one.

As employers, what do we wish to see? Firstly – on grounds of competition, we would hope that the most skilled potential immigrants would see the UK as a particularly attractive destination. This is a vital competitive issue and one where the accident of English as a much used language can give us an advantage over many other countries. Secondly, we need a system which deals efficiently with those who apply to enter the UK. (I hear of concerns that we are not very good at this at the moment. I am personally aware of cases which have taken an inordinate amount of time to be processed, but I have too little experience to generalise). Thirdly, out of this process we need to have clear guidelines on who may apply for employment with us, and who has the unequivocal right to work, whether for a limited period or longer. But, above all, we need a much greater acceptance, from all parts of society, that a carefully controlled but substantial level of immigration is to be warmly welcomed; that the benefits to our society and, in particular, to our future economic well-being, are such that we make every effort to facilitate their successful involvement in our affairs. I believe only 3% of our population is foreign born. This is a comparatively low figure. There are good reasons to favour its increase but a lot of work is required to create the right climate for immigrants to contribute to their full potential.

In conclusion, as an employer I want the maximum level of inward migration that our society can absorb without fundamental adverse social consequences. I want the choice of immigrants most appropriate to our skill shortfalls, and the recognition that this is a competition with other countries. I am aware that even more will knock on our door, and that more will try to enter without knocking first, (for what they consider highly compelling reasons). The challenge for us is twofold.

1. To meet our requirements for a successful economy by allowing a judicious inflow – subject to all the social pressures that are a legitimate constraint.

2. To help stem the unwelcome excess flow by promoting the economic development of poor countries so that the incentive for economic migration is reduced. It is only if we improve prospects for those in the poorest countries, that we can develop the kind of long term equilibrium that is surely in everyone’s interest.

I have little doubt that business will want to play its part in meeting both these challenges.

The anti-globalization movement has been given an uncomfortable ride in the media since the events of September 11th. Protestors have been uncharacteristically muted, fearful of the inevitable backlash if their activities are seen as insensitive, unpatriotic, or merely irrelevant to fighting the battle of the moment. Ironically, this new mood comes at a time when the success of NGO campaigns is increasingly apparent. Recent global gatherings in Bonn, Qatar and Ottawa have been largely peaceful and successful in negotiating global rules tailored to the circumstances of developing countries: ratification of the Kyoto Treaty on climate change, agreement on exceptions to TRIPs for patents on essential drugs, and plans for a major increase in foreign aid to underpin a worldwide fight against poverty and the insecurity it creates. Partly because of sustained NGO pressure, there is growing support for structures that allow a wider cross-section of societies and their citizens to make the rules that govern potentially destructive behavior, whether expressed in the form of pollution, trade warfare or global networks of terror. Kyoto could not have happened without the worldwide environmental movement. Northern governments would not have given ground on TRIPs without NGO-inspired successes in Brazil, South Africa and elsewhere that developed into an international campaign to promote access to low-cost medicines.

The reason for these successes is simple: although non-governmental actors cannot replace the functions of elected governments, they do provide ideas, information, pressure for results, and the leverage required to implement solutions on the ground – all of which are necessary to solve global problems. Neither the G8 nor the United Nations can save the world from global warming – only people can do that when they judge that their own environment must be protected from their own actions, business offers them products and services that are energy-efficient, and governments are pressured to enforce new regulations. Acting alone, governments cannot confer legitimacy on global decisions, since legitimacy rests on public trust, and public trust requires a consensus across societies on how to manage the costs and benefits of globalization. In a world of declining state authority, that is impossible to achieve without business and civil society, so further engagement with these non-state actors is inevitable. The only question is how to structure it: but structure it we must if wider participation is to be translated into agreements that will last. Why?

Successful public deliberation doesn’t happen by accident – it must be carefully managed to avoid the gridlock effect of special interest politics and the distortions that flow from governance by those with the loudest voice. This is especially true at the global level, since so few elements of a global polity exist – the consensus-building mechanisms that operate in smaller communities, for example, or the direct links between elected representatives and their constituents that enable the exercise of accountability. Finding better ways to manage participation without eroding the diversity of non-state voices should be a priority for the international community. Instead of sitting on our hands and expecting the worst, now is the time to figure out some concrete answers and try them out in practice. Next year’s G8 Summit in Canada is the ideal place to start, since it is far enough away to make the proper preparations. A forum should be organized well in advance of the meeting so that governments, citizens groups and business can brainstorm solutions to non-state involvement and the dilemmas it creates – ‘who represents who’ in civil society, for example, and how to build consensus across such a diverse range of stakeholders. Travel and capacity-building funds should be made available so that under-resourced citizens’ groups – often those closest to the action – can participate in the summit. Business lobbies and Northern NGOs and should not be the exclusive players this time around.

At the same time, NGOs can do more to ‘put their house in order’. They can sign up to a non-violent code of conduct as a prerequisite to discussion – like the one recently drawn up by the New Economics Foundation – and work harder to bring in voices that are rarely heard. There are encouraging signs in the decision of some Northern NGOs (led by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy) to cede some of their accredited seats at the recent WTO meeting to their counterparts from the South. And – as the TRIPs negotiations showed in Qatar – NGOs can strengthen the legitimacy and impact of their positions by working on a common platform with Southern governments.

Such innovations are important because they challenge any temptation to use legitimacy as a tactic to exclude dissenting voices, rather than to structure a more democratic conversation. The fact that governments may disagree with NGOs doesn’t make NGOs illegitimate. The arguments are there to be won or lost on their merits, in the court of public opinion. But NGOs are more likely to be listened to if they are transparent, accountable, and accurate in what they say and do. This is the future of global citizen action: not gas masks and petrol bombs but a disciplined, democratic commitment to the responsibilities – as well as the rights – of global citizenship.

The early years of the 21st century are witnessing the growing pains of a new world politics, in which the boundaries between direct and representative democracy, and between local, national and global governance, are being tested and rearranged. Where this will end up, no one knows, but the question for governments, business and civil society is already clear: do they have the courage and imagination to work out new answers in partnership together, or only a mindset that sees a new space to be fought over for their own power and profit? The stakes are very high.

*Michael Edwards is the author of Future Positive and co-editor of Global Citizen Action. He is a director of the Ford Foundation but writes here in a personal capacity

As the kidnapping of The Wall Street Journal’s reporter Daniel Pearl reminds us, kidnapping is still a useful tool for holding companies and governments to ransom. In the first article in this series, we examined the kidnapping trends of recent years – who gets kidnapped, where, by whom and why. In the second article, we will address what companies can do to tackle the problem. I will argue that a three-pronged prevention pyramid model of risk assessment, security and advice to allow individuals to take better care of themselves should be at the heart of investment strategies for companies sending employees to the world’s kidnapping hot-spots. But while prevention can help to significantly reduce the chance of kidnapping, companies must also always be prepared for the worst. Making the wrong decision in an on-going case can mean the difference between life and death.

THE PREVENTION PYRAMID
As we saw in the last article, kidnapping is a rational, and often predictable, crime with logical causes. It is possible to map it, to understand how and why the kidnappers act, and therefore to lower your own risk of the crime through an effective prevention strategy.

Risk assessment and management
In 1999 the introduction of the Combined Code on Internal Control, and the subsequent Turnbull recommendations on risk assessment and management, underlined both the inevitability of risk to the business community, but also the need for companies to understand their exposure and act to reduce and manage it accordingly. The boards of companies listing on the London Stock Exchange are now required to report whether or not they have audited their risk and whether they have taken the necessary steps to manage it.

To ensure their broad applicability across sectors and markets, the recommendations stop short of prescribing how companies should manage their risk. Where there are agreed concepts of best practice and minimum standards for risk this is not a problem. But in areas of risk management like kidnapping and personnel security, where these norms are still being developed, more guidance is needed. As a representative from a multinational commented in a survey carried out by Ernst & Young into business risk management, “we want to manage risk, but where are the guidelines? The structures? The tools? The techniques?”

For many companies, the most common tool for managing risk is insurance – and kidnapping is no exception. The kidnap and ransom (k&r) insurance industry has grown rapidly over the past 10-15 years, with reported annual growth rates of 15-20%. Policies cover their holders against the losses of a kidnap, in much the same way that home insurance covers losses such as burglary and subsidence. As well as the ransom payment, such costs might include consultants to advise on how to manage the case, any travel or living costs, the hostage’s wages while they are being held, and any counselling the hostage might need on their return home. While the k&r insurance industry has been accused of encouraging the proliferation of the crime, the coverage could also bring positive benefits. Kidnap and ransom insurance, like all other types of insurance, includes incentives for ‘good’ behaviour and penalties for ‘bad’ behaviour in an attempt to reduce pay-outs. The pricing structure of k&r premiums is then related to the amount of effort that the policy-holder is prepared to make to reduce and manage their risk. Many underwriters also exclusively secure the services of security consultants for their policy-holders to advise on preventative action.

The industry has also taken steps to try to keep pay-outs as low as possible. Firstly, the total insurance coverage is relative to the policy-holder’s ability to pay, and ransoms are only ever paid retrospectively. This means that the insurance recovers the amount that would have been paid without insurance cover. Secondly, policies cover the cost of an expert to handle the case, a role that may previously have fallen on a CEO, or regional manager with no previous experience of handling such a high-pressure incident as a kidnap. As the security manager at a large multi-national commented, “We as a company have a very strong central security and employee security capability. But we haven’t had a kidnap since 1989 so we need the experience of people who have done this.”

Security
Security can, of course, be considered to be one element of an effective risk management strategy to tackle kidnapping. But attention tends to be focused on what measures and techniques need to be employed on the ground. While this is key, and we certainly need to encourage the accumulation and spreading of best practice, there are a number of processes and principles that need to be agreed first.

Firstly, security needs to enjoy a higher profile within companies. Security departments often suffer from an image-problem, brought about because they absorb rather than generate income, and there are often communication problems between them and their boards, who tend to come from different professional backgrounds and have very different ways of quantifying, communicating and managing risk. Since September 11th personnel security has moved up the ladder of corporate priorities. While overseas travel has fallen as a result, the option of “not going” is not feasible for many companies. We must therefore find systemic ways of raising the profile of security and ensuring it stays in focus for boards into the long-term.

Secondly, the relationship between UK companies and the UK government must be more clearly defined. Effective security strategies to tackle kidnapping depend on access to accurate and up-to-date intelligence – about emerging kidnapping trends, the practices of different kidnapping groups, and other political and economic developments that might have a bearing on the geography of the crime. Because national governments tend to be the natural suppositories of this type of information, it makes sense for them to co-ordinate a system that allows companies to access it on a regular basis. At present, all companies can see information within the public domain, but some individuals may be able to obtain more detailed briefings on an informal basis through personal or professional contacts. This creates an uneven playing field. Furthermore, the complicated architecture of government can act as a block to the spread of information to companies. The UK should examine initiatives like the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), set up by the US State Department in 1984. OSAC is dedicated to communicating with US companies on security issues such as kidnapping, and its mandate is from the business community itself. The OSAC model may not be a blueprint for the UK, but it could offer useful ideas to be explored further within the UK context.

Personal Employee Responsibility
While companies and governments have special responsibilities to manage the safety and security of their employees and citizens, the risk of kidnapping cannot be contained within the hours of 9-5. Instead, kidnappers generally take their victims when they are at their most vulnerable and exposed, such as in the car between home and work. Individuals must therefore take a certain amount of responsibility for themselves and their families when living and working in hot-spot countries.

That is not to absolve employers of their duty of care – but rather to add a new layer of responsibility to ensure their staff have the right information and guidance to be able to look after themselves out of office hours. In Brazil, the most common form of kidnapping is ‘express kidnapping’, where victims are temporarily detained and forced to withdraw large sums of money from cash points. In these cases, sensible travel advice and regular briefings on changing trends among criminal groups can generally enable employees to avoid the risk of kidnapping by changing their routine or behaviour. A co-ordinated communication system across a company is a useful way of minimising its risk not only of kidnapping, but many other personnel security problems, too.

However, age, sex, family status and experience of living overseas will all influence perceptions of risk, and companies must therefore find appropriate ways of communicating with different individuals and groups. Research by Paul Barker, Group Head of Security at BG underlines this point. After studies in Brazil and Egypt, he concluded that those who are overseas with their family are more likely to take security seriously and are therefore more receptive to information and advice about how to manage their risks. He summarises this logic as “the more one stands to lose, the more one will actively buy into the protection programme”. Given that the traditional expatriate is now making way for new styles of travellers – international commuters, virtual expatriates, frequent flyers and short-term travellers – this poses significant challenges for companies in communicating risk with their staff.

Having a transparent structure in place to deliver this information is important on two levels. Firstly, it enables employees to take better care of themselves and their families and dependents. Secondly, though, it enables companies to show that they have exercised their duty of care, not just during office hours, but also in free time, too.

CRISIS MANAGEMENT – ALWAYS BE PREPARED
However, even when companies do all of the above, things can still go wrong. Like all business risks, the risk of kidnapping can never be eliminated altogether, which makes it even more important for companies to have an effective crisis response plan in place that can be activated at a moment’s notice. Studies have shown that about 80% of companies without a workable recovery plan will fail within one year of suffering a major disaster. While kidnappings may not equate to a ‘major disaster’ in business terms, their impact can be significant – both financially and reputationally. The complications of a case, and the fact that a human life is on the line, mean that companies will respond far more effectively if they are not also having to invent management systems as they go along.

Secondly, as the nature of business contacts overseas becomes more complicated, with sub-contracting and consortia a common feature of most contracts, kidnappings are also becoming more complex. In a well-known case in Ecuador in 2001, ten individuals were taken at the same time – five Americans, two French (who later escaped), one Chilean, one Argentine, and one new Zealander. Between them they were employed by three separate companies, each of which had their own insurance policies and their own response consultants, and each nationality also brought the involvement of a different home country, too. This case underlines the need to prepare for such complications beforehand and also to co-ordinate well when the case is on-going.

There are no quick or easy solutions to kidnapping – but there are practical steps that companies can take to significantly reduce their risks. Prevention and crisis management plans should form the bedrock of any strategy for companies operating in kidnapping hot-spots. And as we will see in the next and final article in the series, the impact when things go wrong can be significant.

References:
The Reality of Risk Management: Views from Across Europe, Ernst & Young, 1998

Judith Doyle and Max Nathan, Wherever Next? Work in a mobile world, Industrial Society, 2001, pg 5

Home Office, Business as Usual: Maximising business resilience to terrorist bombings, Feb 1999

Jim Wyss and Juan Tamayo, “Exhausted captives describe `terrible’ ordeal in Ecuador”, Miami Herald, March 2, 2001