Tag Archives: migrants

Equal to the task? Addressing racial inequality in public services

Posted on by

huddleCLR

Throughout October, a series of events to promote diversity and equality will take place as part of Black History Month. Although there are many achievements to celebrate, it is an unfortunate fact that many people in the UK today still experience disadvantage due to the colour of their skin.

Over the summer, reports by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), found that racial inequality in the UK was ‘worryingly high’.

In its biggest ever review of race inequality in the UK, the EHRC concluded that:

“while for certain people life has become fairer over the past five years, for others progress has stalled and for some– in particular young Black people – life on many fronts has got worse.”

Audit of racial disparities announced

The government responded quickly by announcing an audit of racial disparities in public services. It promises to ‘shine a light on injustices as never before’.

From summer 2017, Whitehall departments will be required to identify and publish information annually on outcomes for people of different backgrounds in areas such as health, education, childcare, welfare, employment, skills and criminal justice.

As well as enabling the public to check how their race affects the way they are treated by public services, the data is also intended to help force services to improve.

The audit is being called ‘unprecedented’ – and it certainly is – up until now, public services in the UK have not systematically gathered data for the purposes of racial comparison. Indeed, according to the FT, very few countries, if any at all, currently produce racial impact audits.

‘Worryingly high’ levels of racial inequality

The audit will have its work cut out.  The review by the EHRC found that, compared to their White counterparts, people from ethnic minorities were more likely to be:

  • unemployed
  • on low wages and/or in insecure employment
  • excluded from school
  • less qualified
  • living in poverty
  • living in substandard and/or overcrowded accommodation
  • experiencing mental and physical health problems
  • in the criminal justice system
  • stopped and searched by police
  • a victim of hate crime
  • a victim of homicide

Institutional racism

Similarly, the CERD findings into how well the UK is meeting its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) raised serious concerns about the level of institutional racism in UK public services. Omar Khan, of the Runnymede Trust, suggested that the findings would ‘embarrass the UK on the world stage’.

Longstanding inequalities in access to services, the quality of care received and patients’ health outcomes were criticised, as was the over-representation of persons belonging to ethnic minorities in psychiatric institutions.

The committee echoed the EHRC’s concerns regarding higher unemployment rates and the concentration of persons belonging to ethnic minorities in insecure and low-paid work.  They also criticised the use of discriminatory recruitment practices by employers.

In education, there were concerns regarding reports of racist bullying and harassment in schools, and the lack of balanced teaching about the history of the British Empire and colonialism, particularly with regard to slavery.

The committee also concluded that there had been an outbreak of xenophobia and discrimination against ethnic minorities, particularly since the EU referendum campaign.  Indeed, the rise in post-Brexit racial tensions has been widely acknowledged.

Equal to the task?

Although the audit has been welcomed by many, including the EHRC, others have raised concern about the extent to which it will tackle the root of the problem.  Danny Dorling, of Oxford University, remains sceptical, stating that “within two or three years every single one of these audits is forgotten”.

Some have noted that in order to be effective, the audit will also have to capture outcomes for migrant families, and for poorer White people, who also suffer from discrimination and disadvantage.  Others, including Labour’s Angela Rayner, shadow equalities minister, have noted that there is a ‘huge gap’ in the review as it would not include the private sector.

The EHRC have called upon the government to create “a comprehensive, coordinated and long-term strategy to achieve race equality, with stretching new targets to improve opportunities and deliver clear and measurable outcomes.”

Certainly, the data produced by the racial equality audit may well provide some basis for the establishment of such targets.

So while this October there is cause for celebrating the progress made so far, the findings of the EHRC and the CERD underline just how entrenched and far-reaching race inequality remains.  As the EHRC states:

“We must tackle this with the utmost urgency if we are to heal the divisions in our society and prevent an escalation of tensions between our communities.”

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

 

EU referendum – what the think tanks are saying

Posted on by

Euro Flag iStock_000003625536MediumBy Heather Cameron

With just under a month to go until the UK goes to the polls for the EU referendum, we take a look at what some of the major think tanks have been publishing on the debate.

Immigration and the economy have featured heavily in the referendum campaign. Negative attitudes to immigration, and in particular free movement within the EU has been highlighted as the strongest predictor of opposition to UK membership of the EU. And the possibility of a negative impact on the economy in the event of a ‘leave’ vote has been widely highlighted by the ‘remain’ campaign. Obviously, many of the think tanks have a specific agenda or political leaning, and this is reflected in how they are responding to the Brexit question.

What the think tanks are saying

Civitas has published a number of reports on Britain’s EU membership and how an exit from it would not damage the economy the way some would have us believe. Its most recent report on the trade benefits of EU membership has branded the argument that the European Single Market provides huge trade benefits to the UK as a ‘myth’.

Highlighting the example of Switzerland, Civitas has also argued that Britain could have much to gain from leaving the EU in terms of trade as it would be free to organise its own deals without EU restrictions.

Nevertheless, it also implies that retaining free trade with the EU Single Market, similar to the circumstances of Switzerland and Norway, would be important.

Others that appear to back ‘Brexit’ (Britain’s exit from the EU) have also alluded to the potential importance of the Single Market for trade. According to the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), the only viable option for the UK following a vote to leave the EU is joining the European Economic Area (EEA). This involves participation in the Single Market but from a position outside the EU. It allows for the free movement of goods, capital, services and people with the rest of EU.

Research on the referendum by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has also covered the economic impacts of a decision to leave, in addition to immigration and the financial sector.

Unlike Civitas, NIESR has warned of ‘a significant shock to the UK economy’ if there is a vote to leave the EU, assuming the UK will no longer have a free trade agreement. NIESR analysis suggests that the impact would include lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a depreciation of Sterling, reductions in trade and foreign direct investment (FDI), and a potential fall in consumption and real wages.

Similarly, the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) has argued that Brexit would have a negative effect on FDI. It estimates that Brexit would lead to a 22% fall in FDI over the next decade, which could cause a 3.4% decline in real income – about £2,200 of GDP per household.

Also in its analysis, CEP argues that leaving the EU would lower trade between the UK and the EU because of higher tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. It suggests that the UK would also benefit less from future market integration within the EU. And while it acknowledges the economic benefit of a lower net contribution to the EU budget in the event of a vote to leave, it also suggests that incomes would inevitably fall, offsetting any savings from reduced fiscal contributions to the EU budget: “we consistently find that by reducing trade, Brexit would lower UK living standards.”

In terms of immigration, recent NIESR research suggests that there has been relatively little impact on the UK so far but that a vote to leave the EU could dramatically change immigration and its impact. One article looking at the long term economic impact of a reduction in migration found that a significant reduction in net migration would have strong negative effects on the economy by reducing GDP and thereby impacting on public finances.

The Institute for Public Policy Studies (IPPR) has published a range of material on the immigration and free movement issue. Its most recent report highlights the importance of the issue of EU migration in relation to the upcoming vote. The study found that there are concerns around migrants’ access to welfare, pressure on public services, crime and personal security, and wage undercutting. But at the same time, the advantages of free movement were also noted, in particular opportunities for UK citizens to live and work easily in other EU countries and the benefits of EU migrants filling skills gaps.

Similarly, the Fabian Society has also highlighted the importance of the immigration issue, noting that more than half of voters select it as one of their top three concerns when thinking about the referendum. In testing the effectiveness of both arguments, it was found that while the ‘remain’ campaign is slightly ahead and does well on first impressions, the ‘leave’ arguments seem to have more power to persuade.

Final thoughts

Full Fact is attempting to independently check statements made by both sides of the campaign. But whatever the outcome, we are guaranteed that Europe will continue to be a talking point after 23 June.

If you enjoyed reading this, you may also like our previous posts on political participation and the role of social media and voter turnout.

Follow us on Twitter to keep up-to-date with developments in public and social policy currently interesting our research team.

Idox Elections is one of the premier election service providers in the UK, providing expertise and knowledge across all areas of election management.

Migration … getting behind the headlines

Posted on by

By Rebecca Riley

With the impact of refugees, asylum seekers and migration receiving high levels of media coverage at the moment, this blog highlights some of the statistics and recent research into the issues.

Asylum seekers and refugees’ nationalities change as crises hit. Briefings by The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford highlight that Syrian refugees have risen from 5th in the league to 3rd in 2014, and given recent images in the news this position is likely to rise. The year before, Eritrea made first place. In the 12 months to June 2015 there has been a 62% increase in applications across Europe. In 1992/3 there was a surge in applications due to conflict in Kosovo and the Balkans, the last time similar numbers and make up of applicants were seen. In a normal year, 3 out of 4 applicants are men, of working age, as they are more able to make the journey and most likely to be in danger within an oppressive regime. In mass migration this changes dramatically to what we are seeing now, with families and lone children taking the risk in order to survive.

In 2014 59% of asylum applications were initially refused with 28% of them eventually approved. On average (in a normal year) 30% stay and are classed as refugees.

Over the same time period as these averages, the numbers of asylum seekers entering the EU have grown, but the UK share has shrunk in relative terms from 10% to 5%, less per capita than the European average. A report from the Children’s Society found that levels of support have not risen since 2011, representing a cut in real terms of almost 7.5%, pushing asylum seekers below the poverty line.

Underlying this there are complex trends however, with recent rises in applications notably from Nigeria, Ukraine and Iraq. Even without Syrian refugees there is a continuing rise in asylum seekers.

Net migration in the UK is at 330,000 in the year ending March 2015. Foreign born nationals now account for 8m of the population. The number is driven by both EU and non-EU migrants, in almost equal proportions. This proportion is similar across most EU countries. It is worth remembering that students account for a significant proportion of migration figures and (depending on the measure used) can account for half of net migration figures. The Observatory also highlights recent research that found that EU citizens born outside the EU (i.e. someone now a British citizen in London, born in Australia, America or Japan) are more successful at finding jobs, get better paid and are doing more skilled work than the average for EU citizens.

So what further analysis and discussion has there been?

A recent report by Centreforum, proposes reforms to the UK asylum system to ensure it operates in an efficient and humane fashion while maintaining public confidence, including reducing reliance on detention, reintroduction of the right to work and a humane response to women asylum seekers.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has examined the problems facing destitute migrants in the UK and looks at potential solutions, focussing on the legal aspects and the support services in place.

The Institute for Public Policy Research report on a fair deal for migration in the UK, looks at way to recognise the social and cultural impacts of migration, and makes recommendations for integration and an upfront levy for the use of free public services.

The common hypothesis that welfare is a strong magnet for immigrants has been contested by the Centre for European Policy Studies.

Further reading

The move-on period: an ordeal for new refugees

Welfare across borders: a social work process with adult asylum seekers

28 days later: experiences of new refugees in the UK

“What’s going to happen tomorrow?” Unaccompanied children refused asylum