Introduction
The CAB service is the largest independent advice agency network in England and Wales. Citizens Advice is the national body for the 450 Citizens Advice Bureaux in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Citizens Advice Bureaux give free, impartial, confidential advice from over 3,200 outlets including prisons, GPs’ surgeries, county courts, community centres and hospitals. During 2004/5, the CAB service dealt with over 5.2 million problems, including 1.5 million about welfare benefits and 1.2 million about debt.
The Citizens Advice service strategic plan for 2004-2008 has a commitment to become a first point of access for advice for people experiencing any type of discrimination working in partnership with others. Citizens Advice is therefore delighted to provide evidence to this important Commission. The Commission's terms of reference are extremely wide, but provide an opportunity to grapple with issues of discrimination holistically. The Commission is charged with:
- investigating the social, economic, cultural and other factors that limit or deny people the opportunity to make the best of their abilities
- providing an understanding of the long term and underlying causes of disadvantage that need to be addressed by public policy
- making practical recommendations on key policy priorities for: the Government and public sector; employers and trade unions; civic society and the voluntary sector
- informing both the modernisation of equality legislation, towards a Single Equality Act; and the development of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights.
The CAB service is in an ideal position to make a positive contribution to debate, policy development and remedies in tackling unfair discrimination. Many of our clients have poor basic skills (especially numeracy and literacy), speak english as a second language, live in poverty, suffer financial hardship and find financial management difficult, experience some form of discrimination because of race, religion, gender, sexuality, age, disability, suffer a disability or health problems, have offended or be at risk of offending, and experience difficulty in accessing services, agencies and bureaucracies.
Bureaux advisers are well aware of the grinding effects of discrimination. Clients use words and phrases like – ‘I felt angry and humiliated’, ‘became depressed’, ‘felt anxious and unsafe’, ‘I lost my self-confidence’, ‘never know who I can trust’. It’s bad enough when we see our clients loose their job, home, or be treated badly. However when it happens simply because of who they are – it is a fundamental attack on an important part of their personal identity, and the impact is greater and lasts longer. So when people are refused a job, abused on the street, driven out of their home, given second class service, or judged by others to be somehow not right, not normal and therefore not wanted, because of the colour of their skin, their religion or sexual orientation, or because they’re disabled, they are experiencing an injustice and an attack on their identity.
We present our submission in two parts:
- Causes and factors behind the persistence of discrimination and deprivation
- Recommendations on key policy priorities and the development of the legislative framework for equality protection and promotion
Part 1 - Causes and factors
The causes and factors behind prejudice and cycles of persistent discrimination which ‘lock-in’ social disadvantages are extremely complex and culturally sensitive. They raise important social policy questions about what models of citizenship, social identity, market relations, and transactions with the pubic sphere best foster community cohesion and civil society. Despite the growth in awareness of rights and growing economic prosperity, many of the problems remain hidden. For example hidden racism has erupted in periods of significant community tension, with outward displays of violence, which has shocked us all – whether in Brixton or Bristol in the 1980s or Bradford in more recent years.
Measuring the problem
What is clear than is that the problem is deeply entrenched both on the level of attitudes and instances of discrimination. Research as shown most two-thirds of people in England (64%) can name at least one minority group towards whom they feel less positive – representing 25 million adults across the country. The most frequently cited are travellers/gypsies (35%), and refugees /asylum seekers (34%), while around one in five (18%) mentions an ethnic group towards which they feel less positive, and one in six (17%) cites gay or lesbian people.
However, there has only ever been limited research on the scale and incidence of unlawful discrimination experienced in the population at large. Hazel Genn’s study of ‘justiciable problems’ in the 1990s suggested, using a wide typology of commonly experienced (‘social welfare’) legal issues, that approximately 4% of the population directly experienced problems of discrimination and unfair treatment. From statistical returns submitted by CABx for 2003-4, the best available estimate is that around 5% of contacts directly involved discrimination and/or intimidation.
Yet these all take place in a wider social context; the diversity of the population of England and Wales is often reflected in patterns of social and economic inequality. Discrimination is by its nature often a hidden issue. People do not present to advice agencies and lawyers with a ‘discrimination problem’, the discrimination may come to light as the underlying problem or cause of an employment, housing or consumer related enquiry, ie. the bulk of enquiries and experience of justiciable problems. When one looks at this issue more closely, the incidence of unlawful discrimination is actually quite significant, and supported by a variety of evidence sources.
Take for example age discrimination: A poll conducted for Age Concern found that 70 per cent. of our fellow citizens believe that age discrimination occurs in this country. The Employers Forum on Age estimates that age discrimination costs the UK economy £31 billion a year. At present one in three people between 50 and state-pension age are out of work—2.8 million; only a minority of those affected have made early retirement a lifestyle choice. Almost half depend on benefits for most of their income. Help the Aged published the results of a survey of employers. In the case of half the companies surveyed, fewer than ten per cent. of employees were over 50, and one in ten employed no one over that age. That is not surprising given that, according to research by the Institute of Employment Rights, more than 50 per cent. of managers admit that they have used age-based criteria for recruitment purposes. The Government's own research reveals that for every £100 spent by companies on training, just £10 is spent on training older workers.
The problem of estimating the scale of discrimination is difficult precisely because discrimination is so systemic, and unchallenged. A very large proportion of people who perceive possible discrimination elect to do nothing about it, whether by legal redress or other means. The EOC Pregnancy Investigation suggested that only 3% of women who could potentially complain of discrimination on grounds of pregnancy in fact did so. MOD surveys consistently that most victims of racial or sexual harassment do not complain. RAF surveys have also indicated very high rates of racial or sexual harassment, well over half the black personnel, but of these almost none complained. Surveys by disability groups have consistently shown that employers and service providers have been slow and resistant to implementing DDA ‘reasonable adjustments’ for disabled people, but this is not reflected in the number of DDA cases before employment tribunals or the county courts.
There is a direct correlation between having some awareness of ‘rights’ to equal treatment and seeking to enforce them. The 2005 annual report of the Employment Tribunal Service shows low numbers of applications re sexual orientation discrimination or religious discrimination; it is unlikely that such low numbers merely reflects the incidence of discrimination on these grounds; it is more likely that the numbers reflect at least partly the fact that these new rights are not yet well known and that there is no statutory body with powers to support cases.
Towards a typology of discrimination and disadvantage
We need a more sophisticated understanding of discrimination and its relationship to persistent disadvantage in order to tackle these problems. We suggest that the problem should be understood under the following heads.
- social exclusion
- financial exclusion
- access to essential services
- health inequalities
- workforce migration
- access to justice
- access to public services
- access to benefits
- community incohesion
Social exclusion
Social exclusion is the key link between discrimination and disadvantage. Social exclusion stresses the multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of poverty and deprivation. Social exclusion experienced by minority groups is not confined to work and social activities, but extends throughout the fabric of society and markets including how people are treated as consumers for example in relation to financial services. Tackling social exclusion involves looking to the many different reasons that stop people being fully active citizens – from a scarcity of jobs and educational opportunities, to poor housing conditions, to lack of access to financial services. The following cases illustrate our concerns
An East London client received a JSA cheque of only £40 to last him two weeks. On visiting his Jobcentre Plus office to ask why, he was told that it was a social fund loan from years ago, and there was nothing he could do about it. The client already had direct repayments being taken from his JSA for a recent social fund loan and for benefit overpayments. The bureau spoke to a Manager at Jobcentre Plus who was shocked when she realised what had happened, and asked the client to go straight back to be helped to request a review. This he did, but it would still take approximately three weeks to process, leaving him with only £20 per week to live on. This will make life extremely hard for him, and he is likely to have to go without food, or in his words, ‘resort to crime’.
A Hampshire CAB’s elderly, disabled client is eligible for the savings element of pension credit and would be approximately £350 a year better off if she received it. She did not want to claim it, however, because it would mean changes to the way her council tax and housing benefits were paid. Currently, all her rent and council tax is paid directly by the local council, which the client finds easy and convenient. She felt that to have to apply and fill out a form for pension credit, and then have to make arrangements to pay a small amount of rent and council tax, was too much hassle, as she is struggling to manage from day to day with physical disabilities and cannot easily get to the bank or post office.
Financial exclusion
A closely related concept is the issue of financial exclusion. The concept of ‘financial exclusion’ is complex and poorly understood. Broadly there are three strands to financial exclusion:
- Lack of access to basic mainstream financial services, including a bank account, credit, insurance and payment facilities.
- Lack of financial capability, where people are unable to or do not feel confident to make informed decisions about their finances.
- Unfair or inflexible practices by the financial services industry which enforce exclusion.
Tackling discrimination is therefore essential to achieving financial inclusion. Bureaux often report cases about difficulties experienced by clients from minority groups in attempting to open bank accounts due to the inflexible approach adopted by many banks in relation to the kind of documents they will accept as proof of identity and address. This is because EU money laundering legislation requires all financial services providers to check the identity and address of all applicants for financial services, and banks can be fined by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for not carrying out the checks properly. Even though the FSA has issued guidance on alternative documents that can be accepted, CAB clients still experience problems. For example,
A Cambridgeshire CAB reported that a client, who holds an Afghani passport and has been granted indefinite leave to stay in the UK, cannot open a bank account as his passport is not recognised.
A CAB in Wiltshire report that their client had recently arrived from South Africa and been granted indefinite leave to remain but had been caught in a Catch-22 situation where she was unable to open a bank account because she has no address and yet cannot get an address because she has no bank account.
A client of a West London CAB, a Muslim woman of Yemeni origin, tried to open a bank account in a high street branch. She was told that due to the terrorist situation this would be difficult. She produced a UK passport, which the bank would not accept. She suggested the bank contact the Home Office and police; the bank took the passport for checking and returned it five days later but still refused to open an account.
The CABx Kent Probation Project reported that a client recently released from prison on licence needed an account to pay his wages into. The adviser told him to take the following documents with him as proof of ID – a letter from his probation officer, his jobcentre card, a housing benefit award letter which shows his address, his licence and release letter from prison. The client tried to open an account with two banks but was turned down. When the adviser contacted one of the banks, they agreed that the client had had sufficient proof of ID and address for them to open an account.
Essential services
Applying the same typology, part of the discrimination and disadvantage cycle also can be demonstrated in inequity of access to basic consumer services such as utilities. In the area of utilities / essential services there are provisions which seek to ensure that everyone is provided with access to such essential services, irrespective of their personal circumstances. For example, in gas and electricity, the standard licence conditions require domestic electricity and gas suppliers to prepare and submit codes of practice or statements in a number of areas, including:
- Provision of Services for Persons who are of Pensionable Age or Disabled or Chronically Sick; and
- Provision of Services for Persons who are Blind or Deaf
In addition, Codes and statements should be available in the ethnic minority languages predominant in the supplier’s areas of business, and suppliers should make arrangements to deal with enquiries and complaints from customers whose first language is not English. Fuel suppliers are also advised that under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 there is a duty on service providers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, such as providing extra help or making changes to the way they provide their services. The code of practice under this Act indicates that providing information in alternative formats, such as Braille or large print to customers with visual impairments, is likely to be a reasonable step for the Utility company to take.
In telecoms, the Universal Service Obligation (USO) seeks to makes sure that virtually everyone can have a basic fixed-line service. This is now part of European Union and UK law. The regulations say that BT (and, in Hull, Kingston Communications) has to provide a range of services. These include:
- a phone line, on demand, almost anywhere in the UK, at speeds that allow you to get access to the internet;
- special low-cost schemes to help people on low incomes to afford a phone service;
- enough public call boxes (‘payphones’) where they are needed; and
- special services for people with disabilities.
The universal service obligation was introduced in 1984 when BT and Kingston were privatised but it is currently undergoing being reviewed by Ofcom. However, CAB evidence suggests that these standards often fall short in practice. We find that the actions and policies of utilities companies can result in certain groups of people experiencing difficulties in receiving appropriate levels of service. In particular, we find that despite the Codes outlined above which detail prescribed levels of service for certain groups (e.g. the elderly and vulnerable), such people continue to experience problems in accessing services provided by utilities. For example, fuel suppliers fail to carry out regular meter readings for people who are unable to take such readings for themselves (e.g. elderly or partially sighted). For example,
A North region CAB reported the case of an elderly client who was severely disabled, and who was therefore classified as a high priority customer who would have his meter read every quarter. However, despite the bureau calling Powergen on 18 March and receiving confirmation that the client would have his meter read within seven days, he still had not had a meter reading by 18 July. When the bureau again contacted Powergen they received a promise that the client’s meter would be read within ten days, but by 5 August no one had come to read the meter.
In addition, many of those eligible for special assistance remain unaware of the existence of potentially helpful measures which suppliers must offer. Evidence from CABx corroborates Ofgem’s findings from a 2003 report on the services to vulnerable customers, which found that around three quarters of potentially eligible customers were unaware of the Priority Service Register (PSR). The follow-up research found that little improvement had been made and that:
- there was no change in the level of awareness, with three-quarters of eligible customers still unaware of the PSR,
- there was no improvement in the level of awareness of individual services for vulnerable customers, such as password schemes,
- almost half of the those surveyed were unaware that help and support on energy efficiency was available from suppliers, and
- less than a fifth of those surveyed had ever taken up offers of help on energy efficiency.
Another area where the practices of utilities companies can discriminate against certain groups is in their use of call centres and automated telephone systems. These can make their services inaccessible for certain people (such as those who are deaf, hard of hearing, have difficulties using the phone, those without landline telephones or people on very low incomes). In particular, utilities often fail to:
- make their contact systems inaccessible for people for whom English is not their first language, or who are not confident about using automated options;
- make their contact centres affordable for people who are on low incomes who may have to hold for a long time in order to get a problem resolved;
- offer alternative methods of contact for people who are not able to use the phone or who might wish to discuss an issue face to face;
- explain their bills sufficiently clearly.
For example,
An Essex CAB reported their diabetic client was left with no heating or hot water due to a key meter error. She had spent hours phoning her fuel supplier from a public call box to no avail. The bureau spent 110 minutes on the phone and commented that the press button facility was very irritating.
A Greater Manchester CAB experienced 20 minutes of recorded messages when they tried to contact a water company to discuss their arrears allowance scheme for a client on income support and incapacity benefit. They found that the call centre agent had not heard of the scheme and had to supply the bureau with a new telephone number. The bureau adviser was faced with another 20 minutes of recorded messages.
A man who lived alone and had poor basic skills contacted a CAB in Staffordshire about threatened court action for non-payment of fuel. In fact he had not used any gas, due to a faulty meter. When the CAB rang the fuel supplier, they held on the phone for 90 minutes, without getting through. In the end they had to pass the case to energywatch. The bureau commented that special contact facilities should be provided to meet the needs of clients for whom face to face is likely to the best means of communication.
Health inequalities
Significant health inequalities in society exist on the level of lifestyles, health outcomes and morbidity rates, and access to services. Most health practitioners understand that the poverty of many of their patients is the root cause of many illnesses – issues which often lead to patients developing conditions of stress, anxiety and depression, and that it can be the reason they cannot follow medical advice to turn up their heating or modify their diet.
Ethnicity also affects access to services. There are noticeable differences between white majority and minority ethnic groups experience of mental health services and the Government has produced a consultation documents with proposals to address this issue. Rates of compulsory admission are higher for black and minority ethnic groups, this may be associated with a more frequent involvement of the criminal justice system in their referrals. This group of people are also more likely to be assessed as requiring a greater degree of control and security and are more likely to be admitted to secure environments. Some bureaux, such as Leytonstone, provide services in day centres for people with mental health problems from black communities. More work of this kind needs resources to help minority ethnic groups realise their rights.
Mental health raises particular issues about exclusion and discrimination. Equal dignity and access to services for those with impaired mental health or capacity has been a key concern for the CAB service. Our evidence report Out of the Picture – CAB evidence on Mental Health and Social Exclusion highlighted a number of areas where policy adjustments are needed such as procedures for assessing benefits entitlement and work capacity, and improved consumer protection rights in legislation concerning Mental Capacity. A copy of our report is enclosed with this submission, and the following cases illustrate just a few of the issues.
A Midlands CAB advised a woman who had long term mental health problems and had not been able to work for many years. Her only income was income support and disability living allowance. When she had just been discharged from hospital she took out a loan of £1,000 with a high street bank. The client said that she was feeling groggy and unwell and the counter clerk who dealt with the loan application had remarked on this. The client told the counter clerk about her medical history, recent discharge from hospital and the fact that changes to her medication were contributing to how unwell she felt. However the counter clerk did not appear to have made any additional checks that the client understood the credit agreement she was signing or that she would be able to meet the repayments on the loan. It appears that the clerk advised the client that the loan would help with her financial difficulties because she could not make ends meet on her income from benefits. The bank also recommended that she take out PPI cover even though she would be excluded from claiming on the basis of both a pre-existing condition and because she was not working at the time she took out the loan.
A CAB in Lincolnshire advised a man with a history of mental health problems who has on-going psychiatric support. He obtained full time employment in October 2002 and was subsequently asked to sign an employment contract containing the clause ‘The employer may end the employment … if …(the employee) becomes of unsound mind or a patient under the Mental Health Act 1983.’
A CAB in Cumbria described a client who has been on incapacity benefit because of post-natal depression whose condition was beginning to improve and she wanted to work again. She applied at a local shop that was advertising for part-time staff but when she disclosed why she had not been working, the shop said they didn’t wish to employ her.
Workforce migration
Often it is migrant populations which face the greatest levels of discrimination. Since July 2004, people applying for citizenship in the United Kingdom have been required to demonstrate that they can communicate effectively in English. Bureaux have seen several clients who have been quoted high fees by notaries public when asking for this certification.
A client of a West London CAB was quoted fees of £85, £105 and £175 by to provide this information.
When a Lancashire CAB contacted a notary public to certify a client’s English skills, on behalf of a client who had lived in the UK for nearly 40 years, the bureau was quoted a fee of £90 for this service.
A Bedfordshire CAB assisted a client who was applying for naturalisation on the basis of her marriage to a British citizen. The client was from an English-speaking country, but her application was turned down, as she needed a letter from a notary confirming her proficiency in English. The bureau was able to put the client in touch with a local college of further education, who said that they could provide a letter certifying this at no cost. The bureau commented that it might be worth other bureaux checking whether similar colleges in their areas offered a similar free service.
We receive disturbing numbers of reports about the exploitation of workers from abroad who are employed in the UK. In particular, there is a growing body of evidence showing that migrants working in restaurants, care homes and hotels are especially vulnerable.
A CAB in Hampshire’s client, a nurse from Zimbabwe, came to the UK via a recruitment agency. The agency failed to find her a work placement and she paid £890 to another nursing agency hoping they would find her a job where she could complete a nursing adaptation course. The client found her own employment however and asked for her money back. She was told that the fee she paid was a registration and consultation fee and that this would not be refunded. Bureau advisers are helping her to make a complaint to the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate.
An adviser in Gloucestershire calculated that their client, a nurse from Kuwait, was owed £1,170 by her former employer, a nursing home. This included payment in lieu of notice, holiday pay, payment for several days’ work that had not been received and the difference between the hourly rate stated in her contract and the rate she was actually paid. The client had also been dismissed with no written notification and was given no reasons for the dismissal. The client started to pursue a claim through an employment tribunal but withdrew this after receiving threatening phone calls from a member of her former employer’s family.
A client of a Suffolk CAB , a qualified Filipino nurse working in a BUPA care home, was being bullied by his colleagues. He was getting no support from his managers. He was also living in tied accommodation that was sourced by the matron of the home – the matron had keys to the house and had been in the client’s property when he was out.
Several Polish workers who felt they were being discriminated against, by the manager of the hotel where they worked visited a Kent CAB. They had no written contracts of employment, had received no holiday pay, had their pay withheld for the first two weeks of their employment and were being paid at a rate below the national minimum wage.
Another Polish client who visited a Hertfordshire CAB had been working in a restaurant for two years without paid holiday. The client and his colleagues are reluctant to complain to their employer as they expect that this would lead to them losing their jobs.
A Latvian couple sought advice from a CAB in Essex clients because they had no contracts of employment and had not been paid all the money they were owed when they left their jobs at a local restaurant. With the bureau’s assistance they wrote to their former employer, but suffered intimidation and harassment as a result
Government needs to do more to ensure that the most vulnerable workers in the economy are able to enforce their workplace rights. For many low-paid and especially non-unionised workers, the legal protection supposedly offered by the Employment Tribunal system is rendered meaningless by a number of factors. Their fear of being victimised or dismissed simply for making a claim to an Employment Tribunal, or even just for initiating now obligatory grievance procedures or otherwise asserting their rights.
More accessible and pro-active enforcement mechanisms associated with the National Minimum Wage – under which workers can make anonymous complaints to an enforcement agency which also carries out on-site inspections of carefully selected employers – should be extended to many of the other basic, statutory workplace rights, through the establishment of a Fair Employment Commission. Working with ACAS, the Small Business Service and other government agencies, the Commission would ensure a more joined-up system of advice, guidance and practical business support for small, low-profitability employers, as well as a more pro-active approach to compliance and, where necessary, enforcement.
Access to justice
‘Access to justice’ means equality before the law, and is the basis of maintaining a legal aid scheme as part of the welfare state. However, incongruously discrimination law remedies are largely outside the scope of the Community Legal Service (legal aid and publicly funded legal support). Yet if people who are discriminated against or marginalised are unaware of their rights or, are aware of them but unable to obtain advice or representation to achieve them, then legal rights become meaningless. Evidence suggests that the problem of access to legal aid has been building up for many years and that we now have ‘advice deserts’. The inadequacy in the support and redress available to the most vulnerable sections of society is one explanation why we have made limited progress in tackling inequality and discrimination during nearly half a century of equality legislation.
We have called for changes to the Equality Bill to improve the CEHR’s capacity and duties to deliver and commission casework services and partnerships, and we attach a separate paper on this subject.
Access to public services
It is not just legal aid where there are fundamental problems of access for excluded communities. The experience of many marginalised communities is that services that say they are for everyone are not really for them..
A CAB in the South East report the hardship faced by clients who are over 65 and so can get no help with their mobility needs. One only goes out rarely because he worries about the cost of running his car. The other is over 90 and receives AA. If she goes out she has to be driven by her daughter, and she feels it is very unfair that her daughter gets no Vehicle Tax exemption, although she would if the client was under 65 and young enough to get mobility DLA.
A Leeds CAB client suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and was desperate to hear whether he had been successful for a community care grant, so that he could move from a hostel to an unfurnished flat. The bureau helped him to make the claim but two months later he had still not had a decision. Without the grant, the client could not buy any of the essentials he needed to set up home. The client rang Jobcentre Plus many times, using his mobile, but was unable to get through and eventually gave up. When the bureau tried, they found either that the lines were engaged or that the person who answered was unable to help, sending them in a never-ending circle. The client was angry and frustrated at the delays and uncertainty, exacerbating his illness. Ringing the social fund proved very expensive, and had added to his already fragile state of mind.
Access to Benefits
Disadvantaged groups may face multiple problems in accessing the benefits system. Last year Citizens Advice presented evidence to the Department of Work and Pensions Select Committee Delivery on the delivery of DWP of services to people from black and minority ethnic communities. Using evidence from CABx we highlighted particular problems experienced by claimants whose first language is not English:
- No assistance offered in completing benefit application forms by benefit agency or Jobcentre Plus staff
- Poor communication of problems with claims leading to unnecessary delays or refusals of claims.
- Lack of interpreters at tribunal appeals
- Lack of cultural sensitivity or awareness of significance of language barrier by DWP staff including medical services doctors
- Lack of awareness of the special needs of asylum seekers who face transition from support by the National Asylum Support Service to eligibility to support under the benefits system
For example:
A CAB in the West Midlands saw an elderly woman who was registered blind, felt harassed by two calls in one morning from the Pension Service trying to persuade her to have her pension and DLA paid into a bank account. Although the client had a bank account, the bank branch was too far away for her to use for regular cash withdrawals. The client did not want a card account as she cannot see well enough to use a PIN. Neither caller explained the cheque payment service to her.
A Bengali man who visited a CAB in South London was subjected to racist and derogatory remarks by staff DWP staff when he contacted them by telephone. Bureau staff are helping him to submit a complaint to the department.
Community incohesion and perceptions
Whilst the issues of access and inclusion explored above are fundamental to defining social discrimination, it is important to understand how these issues interact with community dynamics and public perceptions. Often perceptions of preferential access can exacerbate social expressions of inequality.
Hate crime is the expression of inequality acted out often in violent ways. U.S. research shows two things that highlight the importance of mainstream organisations / majority communities pro-actively promoting equality. Hate crime perpetrators often act not out of ‘hatred’, but because the messages that society sends about some groups of people being worth ‘less’ than others, being second class citizens in the eyes of the law, or being somehow not normal or 'right', this makes perpetrators feel justified in attacking people from those groups. The research also shows that in terms of reslience and recovery, if people who are victims of hate crime can get support from the community they are better able to cope with and recover from the experience.
Social policy evidence submitted to Citizens Advice nationally by member bureaux contains significant instances of racist incidents. The evidence from Citizens Advice Bureaux about such incidents however extends across the range of day to day interactions and activities that most people undertake without a thought such as, going to work, shopping, leisure activities, claiming benefits etc. Much the social policy evidence submitted by bureaux relates to harassment within the clients home environment, striking at the heart of the clients life and right to quiet enjoyment of their property. The one very clear fact is that racist abuse and violence is still part of the experience of CAB clients and it is not confined to the larger urban areas with high concentrations of BME communities.
However, a common theme is that it is the perception of ‘otherness’ within communities that trigger backlashes. Evidence submitted suggests that asylum seekers and refugees in some areas are particular targets of repeat attacks:
A CAB in the North East reported that one of their clients, an asylum seeker from Africa, was forced to leave his property because of racist attacks. He and his fiancée awoke one morning to find a burnt cross, propped up outside the house, and a letter made from magazine cut-outs stating ‘you’re dead nigger’. The client reported this to the Police but there was insufficient evidence against those suspected. The case is now closed.
The same bureau reported more racist attacks against asylum seeker families in accommodation provided by North East Refugee Service (NERS):
A CAB client from a family of Turkish asylum seekers had experienced repeated persistent serious incidents of violent harassment, including verbal abuse, destruction of property, two broken windows, and a firework pushed through the letterbox. On one occasion a brick landed in the baby’s cot through the window, which could have left him seriously injured if he had been there asleep. The client had reported most incidents to the Police and accommodation provider but he was not been given new accommodation and Police enquires did not solve the problem. The bureau contacted the Public Harassment Team at NASS who confirmed that the family would be re-housed as soon as possible.
Other individuals from established BME groups also continue to experience harassment and violence from neighbours. A common strand of concern that appears in some evidence reports is that there is unwillingness on the part of the police to accept the victims’ perception that they have experienced a racist incident. This is contrary to the guidance in the Home Office Code of Practice.
A CAB in Lancashire reported a client who was from Bangladesh, who was experiencing problems with neighbours in his predominantly white area. He had been subjected to excessive noise, broken windows and had been burgled more than once. The Police advised the man to contact the Environmental Health Officer as they thought it could make matters worse if they became involved. They seemed unwilling to consider that the attacks were racially motivated.
Advice and practical support for some victims remains patchy and awareness of the “Code of Practice for Social Landlords” may be low.
A CAB in south London reported that a client who had neighbour problems and who was subjected to abuse, violence, racist remarks and threats was sleeping in a local mosque because she was so frightened. Her Housing Officer had told her to go to the County Court to get an application for an injunction and then ask a solicitor to help her complete it. The client tried five solicitors to no avail.
Repeat offenders continue to blight the lives of vulnerable families and it is often difficult for the client to obtain a resolution to their problems despite the involvement of a number of agencies.
A CAB in Surrey reported the case of a Muslim family who were owner occupiers living next door to local authority tenants who were moved from their previous home because of neighbour problems. The family had been suffering from physical, verbal, racial and religious abuse from the neighbours for the past two years. The problems had escalated to include stabbing of the brother and the fuel pipe on the client’s car being severed. The Police, Council Housing Department, Community Relations Council and local councillor were all aware but nothing had visibly been done to change the situation. The client has not kept them all up to date. The lack of response had put her off.
The harassment experienced in the home can follow a child to school. The responses of, or willingness of some schools and colleges to deal with, racist incidents effectively is illustrated by the following two cases from different London Boroughs:
A Chinese CAB client suffered verbal racial abuse from a neighbour. This continued into the school playground and the perpetrator abused her children and encouraged her own children to bully the client’s children. The Head Teacher saw this as a neighbour dispute and not a school issue.
In the second case the perceived religious identity of the student was the reason for the attack:
A young Asian woman of East African descent and Christian faith was attacked by a group of Sikh students because they thought she was a Muslim. Since complaints were made to the College she has suffered further harassment at home and at the homes of relatives. The young woman is now suffering from severe panic attacks, depression and agoraphobia.
Part 2: Recommendations on key policy and legislative priorities
What our evidence reveals is that remedies for tackling discrimination cannot be conceptually isolated from the process of delivering public services, the operation of consumer markets, and the dynamics of community cohesion. A 'joined up' approach to these issues is needed. However, the fragmentary nature of existing institutions, policies and initiatives have clearly proven to be inadequate to meeting this enormous challenge.
This Review could make a significant contribution in integrating agendas which at present risk being taken forward in isolation – most obviously, the equality, human rights, social exclusion and community cohesion agendas. A ‘joined-up’ approach by Government will recognise that policies in one area, for example ASBOs or immigration and asylum, have an impact in the effectiveness of initiatives in other areas.
Coherence - aspiration v rights based legislation and policy
Inclusivity needs to be at the heart of all legislation and policymaking. The introduction of positive duties in relation to race (and soon in relation to disability and gender) is a significant step forward, but it is clear that we cannot rely on a anti-discrimination legislation alone, especially when the whole framework of this legislation remains in such a piecemeal state.
A Single Equalities Act would be a first step to achieving a more coherent approach. The current framework is unsatisfactory for the flowing reasons:
- The framework is complex and fragmentary
- Comprehensive and harmonised legislation is required to make sure that the CEHR can work effectively; this requires eliminating the inconsistencies amongst the different pieces of legislation, and introduce common definitions and common scope.
- A comprehensive ground of discrimination on the basis of age has been specifically omitted from the CEHR legislation, although the Government is obliged to legislate on this by 2006
- There is a need to cover other areas of identifiable discrimination such as protection against less favourable treatment on grounds of pregnancy and maternity
Bringing together the grounds of unlawful discrimination in a more coherent statutory framework would enable the CEHR to make more effective use of their powers and resources. It will help the public, private and voluntary sector to understand their duties and engage with the fight for equality and against discrimination. The current state of legislation, with further changes to be brought in with the Disability Bill, the new gender equality duty and the age regulations, means that a coherent approach to combating discrimination is a long way off, despite the inception of a single institutional framework. Furthermore, a cross-strand approach to equality will be very difficult to bring about if the CEHR has to juggle with different, and complex, pieces of legislation. There should be a basic unity about the definitions of discrimination for the CEHR; this is an area in which the inconsistencies in the equality enactments are perhaps most significant, for example the current situation in which the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 after amendment by the Burden of Proof Directive has two different concepts of indirect discrimination according to whether the issue is employment related or not is intolerable and would be exactly the kind of change that would need to be made.
The discrepancy in scope may have an effect on the priorities of the CEHR. The CEHR will lose their credibility with the general public if it is seen to be more active for certain strands and less so for other strands. For example, the CEHR will be able to support someone who has been discriminated against by a bank, if that was on the ground of gender, race or for a reason related to disability. However the CEHR will not be able to offer this support to a person who has been refused a mortgage because the bank does not accept same-sex relationship.
Mainstreaming equality and diversity
However, there is much more that needs to be done beyond the legislative framework. Legislation by itself is not the answer – most discrimination legislation rests on the only partially helpful concept of ‘’comparators’’; ie comparing the treatment of those groups or individuals with particular identity characteristics to those without those characteristics. This not only misses the complex problems of multiple and systemic discrimination, but fails to recognise the continuum of issues between the basis of prejudice against disadvanged groups and the concrete issues of exclusion, incapacities and ill-health.
We therefore need positive concepts of inclusivity and citizenship to underpin all public policy planning. This needs to be part of wider programme of work for regulators and agencies in mainstreaming equalities issues, such as incorporating equality issues into employers and service providers standards and industry codes of practice.
It is important that representatives of mainstream society send clear messages that we are all equal and that attacking certain groups is never justified. A good example of this in practice is Manchester CAB, who worked alongside refugee groups, when asylum seekers began to be dispersed to the area and a backlash against them began, to set up the 'refugees welcome here' campaign, including radio interviews making clear the bureau’s position and why it was so important to help asylum seekers - it helped stop/limit the backlash.
However, ‘mainstreaming’ should not be taken to mean that specialist services can incorporated into a ‘mainstream’ service delivery agenda. Policy makers should not assume either that people from marginalised communities want or need to be referred to a ‘specialist’ organisation – or be helped by ‘their own’. Some people will want advice from within their community, others will want advice from a mainstream service like Citizens Advice, others will check out both. Most people want to go where they can get the best quality advice that will help with their problem.
The ‘access’ agenda
The vital link between service delivery and tackling unfair discrimination is the issue of access. This means more than easy geographic access; services need to be delivered in forms which are appropriate to clients needs and should have high standards of customer service. We suggest that service providers should be encouraged to develop a range of ‘Access Standards’.
Changing perceptions
Sadly, whatever public policy interventions are pursued, discrimination persists at the level of public perceptions, and so may have limited impact in winning the diversity case in ‘hearts and minds’.
Sustained effort is needed to address these issues in the popular media. Some sections of the media are so sensitive to the idea of ‘political correctness’, that any discussion about the rights of people from faith, ethnic and LGBT communities can trigger negative criticism. Mainstream journalists sometimes forget that people from faith, ethnic and LGBT communities are part of the wider population.
Conclusion
The relationship between discrimination and persistent disadvantage is complex and multi-faceted. There is no easy strategy or single solution to achieving the goal of inclusive citizenship and community cohesion. Recent events in urban France have demonstrated just how fragile civil society can be, even in an economically advanced democracy with high levels of social protection – it would be a huge tragedy if we were to allow similar events to unfold in the UK.
However, efforts can be made to tackle these issues if public bodies, employers, service providers, and voluntary and community organisations are prepared to work in partnership. Partnership approaches can utilise and pool scarce resources to ensure that there is continuous capacity building for community groups and services. Building and funding partnership needs to at the heart of the CEHR’s proactive work in tackling discrimination.
Finally, we need to make the business case as well as the social case for addressing these issues so that appropriate resources can be identified and allocated.
Social Policy contact: James Sandbach James.Sandbach@citizensadvice.org.uk
|
