CONCLUSION
this has for both entry and subsequent extensions of the right to remain in the UK. Age and potential disability discrimination have been raised by stakeholders, but not sexual orientation or religious belief. It is possible that several forms of discrimination, such as age and gender, may interact with each other but this has not been analysed. Equality duties need to be properly applied to immigration legislation, and procedures and appropriate criteria developed (both individual inequalities and their interaction) to measure and monitor the potentially discriminatory outcomes of such legislation both at point of entry and for continuing residence in the UK. There is evidence of increasing racial harassment against migrants and of direct and indirect discrimination against them. However, current forms of monitoring for race discrimination (ethnic monitoring) entirely ignore discrimination on the grounds of nationality, which is also illegal under the 1976 Act. Changing the guidance on monitoring to include nationality would enable those who are monitoring to develop a more sophisticated understanding of how discrimination takes place in the UK now, and to have a defence against possible actions of discrimination. The context in which this is to be introduced needs to be accompanied with strong recommendations on how such monitoring can be distinguished from eligibility and immigration enquiries. Tackling discrimination requires good statistical evidence and appropriate monitoring. This means improving the information included in a range of national surveys, such as the British Crime Survey on victims and perpetrators, the General Household Survey, and expanded ethnic and national categories in the forthcoming Census in 2011. Some categories may be of more use in some local authorities than in others, so flexibility needs to be built in. While the case for better collection of data via surveys is clear, developing more detailed information on migrants and their intentions via regularly collected administrative data might raise serious concerns of privacy and data protection and, more generally, have implications for the expansion of a surveillance state with serious consequences for the lives of individual migrants. As noted above, even monitoring information will be difficult or impossible to collect unless there is a relationship of trust between those providing data and those collecting it – an issue to which attention needs to be paid. It is notable that stereotypes and mistaken assumptions already seem to underlie some policymaking and decisions, and this needs to be tackled in the context of a reasoned and informed debate about the best methods of collecting data and its consequences for all concerned. The interplay between human rights and discrimination is a relatively recent area of study, and concern in the UK about the treatment of migrants, especially by public 147