Slavery, education, and inequality. Graziella Bertocchi & Arcangelo Dimico
'Race and poverty
1. North East Child Poverty Commission
Poverty and Ethnicity
23 November 2012
St Aidan’s College, Durham
Ethnicity in the North East Region
Gary Craig
Professor of Community Development and Social Justice, Durham University
Following on from Helen’s presentation, in which she focused on national findings from JRF-sponsored and other research on the associations
between poverty, particularly income poverty, and ethnicity, I want to do three things. First, point to the current highly negative national
policy and political context for debates on ‘race’; secondly, sketch in the picture of understandings of poverty which go beyond income – here I
may briefly emphasise some of the points that Helen has made - and look at issues around access to services which are particularly important
for this audience; thirdly, look at some regional data on ethnicity. I shall have to be brief in all these areas but I have brought flyers about a
recent book I produced with colleagues called ‘Understanding ‘race’ and ethnicity’, in which these issues are discussed in considerable depth;
and also handouts giving a recent picture of the ethnic demography of the region. What I will not do is to reflect on the regional distribution of
child poverty. Jonathan Bradshaw has already done that; he shows that some local authorities, and some areas within them, have very high
levels of child poverty; as far as data allow us to say, minorities have disproportionately high levels of child poverty even within this generally
very deprived region .
First, then, the national policy and political context. The McPherson Inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder marked an apparent watershed
in criminal justice responses to racism, especially policing responses to racially-motivated crimes. Despite legislation (including the Race
Relations Amendment Act [RRAA] 2000) and policy guidance, evidence suggests that the socially-constructed criminalization of Black and
Minority ethnic (BME) communities continues. Minority groups are also disproportionately represented within the prison population but
under-represented in staff roles across the criminal justice system; ethnic monitoring remains work in progress, being uneven and at times,
virtually non-existent.
Cantle’s report following the disturbances of 1995 and 2001, introduced a focus on ‘community cohesion strategies’ in multi-ethnic
communities. Research documents a clear shift away from discourses of multiculturalism and fostering ‘routes across diversity’ towards a
2. concern with issues of security and ‘Islamophobia’, leading to an increase in racist hate crimes. Meanwhile, everyday issues facing minorities,
including racism and racially-shaped disadvantage are fading from public and policy debate. The deracialisation of local policy characteristic of
community cohesion rhetoric and practice, contributes strongly to the growing ‘invisibilisation’ of ‘race’ and ethnicity as significant when local
authorities determine targets for resource distribution.
Britain’s stance towards ethnic minorities has never fundamentally addressed the racism inherent in both immigration and domestic welfare
policies and, consequently, the welfare of Britain’s minorities – measured by outcomes in every welfare sector – has largely been disregarded
by the British state, an argument developed in our book. Despite some liberal initiatives to improve the lot of Britain’s minorities, the racism
inherent in much policy and practice persists. That the general experience of minorities is worsening under the present Coalition regime is
indisputable; reviews of the Third Sector, and of the likely impact of the push towards the so-called ‘Big Society’, suggest that public
expenditure cuts will disproportionately disadvantage BME populations. This approach contradicts government rhetoric whose apparent
commitment to greater support for the Third Sector, for example, makes little mention of the BME sector. Additionally, there is a gendered
dimension: as the North East women’s network recently made clear, women will bear the brunt of the cuts and within that minority women
(and children) will suffer the most.
At the same time, apparently ‘race’-neutral wider policies are having a disproportionate effect on minorities. Although 60% of Black and Asian
people have no savings, the Coalition government has quickly moved to cut two schemes – the Child Trust Fund and the Savings Gateway –
which might have been of particular help to them. The impact of the benefits cap is resulting in many families in London being forced to face
the possibility of being relocated to other cities, characterised by some as ‘social cleansing’ but appearing on occasion more appropriately to
be described as ‘ethnic cleansing’. One landlord was required to evict forty families, all of whom were non-White British. These families were
offered accommodation in Stoke on Trent, a stronghold of the English Defence League and the BNP. This tendency, for apparently even-
handed policies to have a disproportionate effect on minorities is also apparent in multiple exclusion homelessness.
This structural racism and discrimination has been manifest in other ways. Shortly before the merger of the equality organisations into the
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the outgoing chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, indicated that
virtually every government department was open to prosecution for failing to observe the terms of the RRAA, prosecutions which haven’t,
however, materialised. Since Lawrence’s death, around 100 racialised murders have occurred, and the disproportionate use of Section 60 ‘stop
and search’ powers by police continue to target Black and Asian young people. Black people are up to 26 times and Asian people more than six
times more likely to be stopped and searched than White people. The Prevent agenda, widely criticised for labelling all Muslims as potential
terrorists, has also led to Asian people being 42 times more likely to be stopped than white people under the Terrorism Act 2000.
3. It would therefore seem self-evident that the United Kingdom, within all areas of welfare (including football!), has far to go before the problem
of racism has been confronted. The response, however, of major national political parties is in reality quite the opposite. John Denham, New
Labour Communities Secretary, just before leaving office in 2010, argued – despite acknowledging the fact of racial inequality - that ‘it’s time
to move on from ‘race’’, suggesting that ‘race’ was no longer a priority when considering issues of inequality and that we should instead focus
on, for example, questions of poverty. This flies in the face of the kind of wideranging evidence demonstrated by Helen.
The appropriate position, in light of the evidence, should be to argue that the ethnic dimension of all national policy should be prominent,
whatever policy is being pursued. Nevertheless, the Coalition, once in office, took the opportunity provided by Denham further to deny the
salience of ‘race’. Prime Minister Cameron announced (outrageously, in a speech about terrorism) that ‘multiculturalism is dead’, echoing
statements made by Merkel and Sarkozy, and underscoring the pronouncement by Home Secretary May that ‘equality is a dirty word.’ The
recent Communities Department strategic government policy document, tasked to address racial inequalities, fails to mention the issue of
individual or institutional racism at all. A further example of this downgrading of the ‘race’ agenda is demonstrated by the regional BME
networks, established barely ten years ago by the Home Office Active Communities Unit, but losing funding from last March. Similarly, despite
welcoming community cohesion policy, the EHRC – criticised by BME groups for downgrading its attention to ‘race’ – is being stripped of its
responsibilities for promoting social cohesion, and has now removed the two Commissioners having specific expertise in the area of ‘race’. The
Government Equalities Office, responsible for ensuring equalities work within government, has had its budget reduced from £76M in 2011 to
£47m in 2014.
May has removed the requirement (introduced previously as part of the Equality Act) that public bodies take inequalities caused by socio-
economic disadvantage (disproportionately experienced by BME communities) into account when policy-making. Some local authorities are
now dismantling equalities structures, weakening claims by BME voluntary sector organisations (BMEVCS) for enhanced funding. They have
been further encouraged to do so by Cameron’s characterisation of equality impact assessments as ‘bureaucratic nonsense.’ The Office for
Civil Society also undermined historic gains made by the BMEVCS by withdrawing funding in 2011 from all strategic ‘race’-related partners.
National and regional ‘voice’ and infrastructure BME organisations lost all state funding, a decision described by Voice4Change as ‘a
monumental blow to the BMEVCS and the disadvantaged communities they serve’. Other major organisations serving more recent migrants
lost all or most of their funding; the budgets of mainstream organisations with specialist services for minorities, such as CABx, have also been
cut very substantially (with many bureaux closures). Given the fragility of the BME sector, we might have expected that a government
committed to fairness would protect organisations serving them. The evidence points the other way. By early 2012, the EHRC’s budget had
4. dwindled to less than that of the former CRE and continues to decline; a further seven Race Equality Councils recently closed as a result of the
withdrawal of EHRC and local authority funding.
Meanwhile, mainstream media contributions to debates on ‘race’ now focus almost entirely on the so-called ‘problem’ of immigration,
reflecting a view that immigration (with the exception of some high-skilled migrants) is damaging to the economy, to specific groups of
workers and to society more generally; the reality is quite different as much evidence shows. However, changes to the overseas domestic
worker visa enable unscrupulous employers to exploit this vulnerable group of migrants even further and many accounts record the terrible
conditions in which some migrants are now working.
There is little doubt that racism continues to affect the lives and opportunities of minorities disproportionately – this has been shown in our
recent report on the criminal justice system in the region - and thus impacts on the likelihood of minority children being in poverty in various
ways. The Coalition government is creating a policy framework where it is becoming increasingly legitimate to ignore the disadvantage faced
by ethnic minorities and their children because of their ethnicity. The question is what the response of local authorities might be and I remain
to be convinced that the evidence is encouraging. Sadly, even the most recent report by the NE Child Poverty Commission on local authorities,
local duties and local action has no dimension of ethnicity.
This is important because local authorities remain the most important provider of services at a local level for both adults and children; and
they can influence the stance not only of other partners such as health services, but local attitudes to the issue of ethnic diversity. The national
evidence regarding minorities’ access to welfare services is dismaying, and I see little evidence to suggest that local authorities in the region
here are doing better: this is therefore an opportunity for local government in the region to develop good practice and resist the temptation to
fall in behind government’s general hostility to minorities.
What does this evidence show? We now have adequate data to consider the position of most minorities although we remain highly deficient
both in terms of the experience of gypsies and traveller groups, those seeking asylum and more recent migrant groups, issues of considerable
relevance to the region. I will look at a few major divisions of welfare and we have to remember that, whilst the overall picture for minorities is
poor, it is extremely important to acknowledge the sometimes significant variations both between and indeed within minority groups. Thus
minority health workers include both Indian senior hospital consultants and Black African cleaners working night shifts and doing the dirty
jobs. Briefly, we know in terms of:
5. Housing: that ethnic minorities continue to face institutional discrimination in housing allocation; are three times as likely to be homeless as
the population as a whole; that minorities face a loss in precisely that specific social housing provision originally created to meet their needs;
and are being driven into an increasingly exploitative private rented sector beginning to be reminiscent of the period of Rachmanism fifty years
ago.
Health: minorities continue to face marked inequalities in health by a number of measures, both in terms of health outcomes and access to
services; experience substantial levels of institutional racism in health provision; people living in the poorest neighbourhoods –
disproportionately minorities - will die on average seven years earlier than those living in the richest, and more of the shorter lives of poorer
people will be spent in poor health and with disability;
The labour market: minorities suffer disadvantage in the labour market as a result of several factors: lower earnings; higher unemployment
especially amongst young people (young minority unemployment is now about 25% and higher for some groups); reduced access to
educational and training opportunities; crowding in less desirable jobs – with, at the extremes, legal migrants working in forced labour –
modern slavery – conditions.
Social care: BME communities have not been involved in the recent debates about the transformation of social care, including direct
payments, the personalisation of care, and responses to disability, hence are at extreme risk of structural exclusion from the promises of
choice and flexibility; they suffer from a failure of universal policies to recognise the diversity which exists amongst minority populations; and
will fail to receive the kind of support from voluntary and community organisations which policy shifts imply should happen, because the BME
voluntary and community sector is itself under serious attack.
Mental health: minorities have always suffered discrimination in the provision of mental health services with, for example, Black Caribbean
populations being over-diagnosed as schizophrenic, over-admitted to institutions and overtreated with invasive techniques; minorities have
suffered from the failure of epidemiology to develop an adequate theory of ethnicity for informing mental illness treatments; and from the
failure of mental health services to address BME cultural understandings and explanations of mental illness.
I could go on to talk more about education, criminal justice, income maintenance and so on but I think the general message is clear both for
adults and children. What is depressing, at a time of change, is how little these insights have affected those responsible for driving change. For
example, at a recent CCG meeting, their spokeswoman, when asked how they were proposing to address specific issues for minorities,
suggested that absolutely nothing had been done in this area: does this mean, for example, that we shall continue in 2013 to use children to
6. interpret for their parents in confidential GP consultations; or continue to fail to provide female doctors to respond to Muslim womens’ needs;
or understand the specificity of some ailments such as thallasaemia? And as I have found out in several local authorities, the creation of a
Fairness Commission or something like it, as a means of addressing the impact of expenditure cuts, is meaningless unless it places minority
populations at the centre of debates, given that they are the ones which have historically experienced greatness unfairness and will do even
more so at a time of cuts?
Finally, then, let me turn to the region. I have made a handout available for colleagues to take away regarding the changing demography of the
region. If anyone would like an electronic version, please let me know by email. This was based on analysis of the 2009 population estimates
for the region. I had hoped that the 2011 detailed census data would have been available in time for this meeting but unfortunately it is not.
The general picture is clear, however. The data was put together for our recent report on ‘race’, crime and justice which showed that the
response of the criminal justice system in the region lagged far behind these demographic changes and that minorities still experienced
considerable levels of both individual and institutional racism in the area of criminal justice and wider.
In relation to that, I want to apologise for the press coverage of our recent report; not for ourselves but for the media treatment which,
unhelpfully chose to sensationalise and misreport a statement I made. This was reported as ‘North East region forty years behind the rest of
the country in responding to racism’. What I actually said was that because of recent rapid demographic change, the region was now facing
issues which other parts of the country – such as London, Birmingham and Leicester – had faced forty years ago. This can be turned to your
advantage as there is good practice scattered across the country, and a growing evidence base, from which you can learn, for addressing the
issue of the varying needs of ethnic minorities and their children. This is now a pressing issue. When I worked on Tyneside in the 1970s and
1980s as a community activist, the minority population was very small and most organisations therefore played the numbers game, arguing
that it was not necessary to respond to their needs because their populations were small. That was never a justifiable argument – for example
would you ignore those with green eyes, orange hair or spina bifida simply because their numbers were small? – and it is certainly not now.
I recently undertook a study, funded by the Rowntree Foundation, of York and its changing demography: most public perceptions were then of
York as a white anglo-saxon city. My conclusion was that the non-White British population was almost one in eight. This was initially received
with incredulity but the ONS published its own analysis a few months later confirming my figures. Perhaps the data we have gathered for the
North East will be greeted with the same sense of disbelief but I hope that, if you don’t believe us, the ONS data will convince you. In summary
we found (and you should increase these figures by about 5% to allow for increases in the years 2009/2011):
An overall increase in the region’s population from 2001 by about 44,000 (or 1.7%)
7. A decrease within that of the White British population of 57,000
The most significant regional changes within that being an increase in the White Other population by 25,000 (largely refugees); a
doubling of ‘mixed’ categories to 18,000 (the fastest growing ethnic category); a more than doubling of the Indian and Chinese
populations; and an increase by 50% in the Pakistani origin population.
The most spectacular rise (more than tripling) has been amongst the Black African population, presumably the result of having two
refugee dispersal areas in Newcastle and Middlesbrough.
Overall, the White British population is now 92.5%; and the non-White population 5.3% but considerable higher both in some local
authorities and in particular areas within many authorities.
It appears, and this may be of interest to racists, that Easington remains the least diverse settlement in the North East where the
chances of bumping into someone from a different ethnic group were recently computed recently to be just 2%.
At a micro level, as even the 2001 census shows in the maps provided with the handout, minorities can be found in every part of the region
whether urban or rural, with significant concentrations in many parts and that this profile contains within it considerable diversity and
difference. That picture will be emphasised in our analysis of the 2011 census which I will make available in the next month or two. The maps
are illustrations of the highly visual ways in which the distribution of minorities can be portrayed to help with the process of service and
resource planning.
And to return to the issue of children, central to this gathering, most minorities have an age profile considerably younger than that of the
white British population; and some minorities have a higher fertility rate which means that the children’s population will be higher, as your
ethnic monitoring in schools will show. Whilst that may require additional resourcing of schools, before anyone starts thinking of minorities
simply as a burden, let us remember it is they who already and increasingly will staff our hospitals, provide our social care, teach our children
and occupy the dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs that no one else is prepared to do. Let us also remember that the two highest achieving
groups in secondary schools are girls of Indian and Chinese origins; the lowest are boys of Black African and Caribbean origins, the result, in
large part, of racism within schools.
I hope this convinces you that it is long overdue that we faced the issue of responding effectively to diversity and difference in our population
and also that more effective engagement with minorities, through appropriate consultations with organisations representing BME groups of all
kinds, orienting services effectively, and recognising and using their skills and expertise, will lead, in the end to better outcomes for us all.
Thank you.
9. Newcastle - Largest Minority Populations by Ward
Where there is more than one minority listed in a category the percentages of population are equal
OEG represents Other Ethnic Group
Minorities
as per Per cent Second Per cent Per cent
cent total Largest of largest of Third largest of
Ward name ward code population minority population minority population minority population
Benwell 00CJFA 5.78 Pakistani 1.43 Indian 1.18 White Other 0.97
Blakelaw 00CJFB 3.97 Chinese 0.80 White Other 0.73 Pakistani 0.44
Byker 00CJFC 6.19 White Other 1.62 Pakistani 1.05 Indian 0.72
Castle 00CJFD 4.76 Indian 1.17 White Other 0.96 Other Asian 0.52
White Other,
Dene 00CJFE 9.73 Indian 1.77 Pakistani 1.72 Chinese 1.26
Pakistani,
Black
Denton 00CJFF 2.36 Indian 0.51 White Other 0.50 African 0.22
Elswick 00CJFG 27.22 Bangladeshi 11.72 Pakistani 7.62 Indian 1.87
Fawdon 00CJFH 3.92 White Other 0.69 Pakistani 0.62 Indian 0.51
Fenham 00CJFJ 11.66 Pakistani 5.10 Indian 1.59 White Other 1.56
Grange 00CJFK 10.45 Indian 2.24 White Other 1.94 Bangladeshi 1.40
Heaton 00CJFL 10.71 White Other 3.09 Pakistani 2.37 Indian 1.40
Jesmond 00CJFM 11.30 white other 4.08 Indian 2.21 Pakistani 1.35
Kenton 00CJFN 7.75 Pakistani 1.72 Indian 1.59 White Other 1.39
Lemington 00CJFP 2.23 White Other 0.48 Indian 0.40 Pakistani 0.24
Indian,
Monkchester 00CJFQ 2.97 White Other 0.57 Pakistani 0.51 Chinese 0.45
Moorside 00CJFR 23.31 White Other 7.09 Chinese 2.76 Pakistani 2.38
Newburn 00CJFS 1.73 White Other 0.53 Indian 0.22 Pakistani 0.16
Sandyford 00CJFT 11.97 White Other 4.41 Chinese 1.95 Pakistani 1.13
Scotswood 00CJFU 4.19 Pakistani 1.52 Indian 0.86 White Other 0.41
South Gosforth 00CJFW 10.01 White Other 3.00 Indian 2.05 OEG 1.22
Walker 00CJFX 3.42 Pakistani 0.80 Indian 0.54 White Other 0.47
10. Walkergate 00CJFY 2.98 Indian 0.71 Pakistani 0.61 White Other 0.39 NEWCASTLE
West City 00CJFZ 11.32 White Other 3.17 Pakistani 1.66 Chinese 0.25
Westerhope 00CJGA 1.96 Indian 0.62 White Other 0.47 Chinese 0.25
Wingrove 00CJGB 27.15 Pakistani 13.09 Bangladeshi 3.18 Indian 2.79
Woolsington 00CJGC 3.09 White Other 0.76 Pakistani 0.53 Indian 0.52
11. Map of three largest minority populations Census 2001