Dr Phil McCarvill Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)

2. Dr Phil McCarvill Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)

3. Acknowledgements • To those colleagues who participated in and were interviewed as part of the project; • The project’s steering group; • The Equality and Diversity Forum and its funders

4. Aims of the Project • To determine the degree to which local authorities in London had incorporated a consideration of refugee and migrant communities into the work they undertook in respect of the Race Equality Duty; • To see what lessons can be learnt from the implementation of the Race Equality Duty; and • To consider what the new Equality Duty might mean for refugee and migrant communities.

5. Disclaimers • This project was not intended to be a wholesale review of legal compliance with the Race Equality Duty (RED); • The aim was to provide a snapshot of activity and to determine whether a connection was being made between the RED and refugees and migrants; • Given the potential legal significance, individual authorities are not named during the course of the report.

6. Structure • A desk based review of the extent to which local authorities were integrating refugee and migrant communities into their work in respect of the Race Equality Duty; • A practice review documenting how three public bodies have organised and prioritised their work with refugee and migrant communities; • An examination of what the new Equality Duty might mean for relevant public authorities in respect of refugee and migrant communities.

7. Why London, Why Refugees and Migrants? • Migrant communities represent 34% of the population of London; • Represent diverse groupings with a range of social experiences and needs; • Many face key barriers to public services; • Evidence of hostility towards refugees and migrants; • Lack of data and research outlining their experiences.

8. Why the Race Equality Duty? • Refugees and migrants are covered by the Race Equality Duty (RED) as ‘people defined by their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origins’; • RED framework lends itself to a focus on refugees and migrants; • RED was in place for more than 8 years – we should see evidence of progress.

9. Taking Stock • Race Equality Duty was in place for almost a decade; • Superseded by new Equality Duty in April 2011; • Opportunity to determine what worked; • Learn important lessons to ensure the effective implementation of the new Equality Duty.

10. Race Equality Duty The General Duty required relevant public bodies to have ‘due regard to the need to: • a) eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; • b) promote equality of opportunity; and • c) promote good relations between people of different racial groups.

11. Specific Duties To support relevant public authorities by setting out their arrangements for meeting the General Duty.

12. Desk Based Review • 33 Authorities – London Boroughs and City of London; • Review of web based material; • Focus on particular aspects of the requirements of the Race Equality Duty in respect of the coverage of refugee and migrant communities.

13. Desk Based Review of Activity • Race equality schemes or generic equality schemes; • Equality impact assessments; • Wider policy and service delivery initiatives; • Relevant practice examples.

14. Race Equality Schemes – Key Measures • The authority had published an equality scheme which was no more than three years old; • The scheme explicitly referenced refugee and migrant communities; • The scheme included analysis of the position and situation of refugee and migrant communities; • The scheme included specific actions intended to improve experiences and outcomes for refugee and migrant communities.

15. Race Equality Schemes - Coverage of Refugees and Migrants

16. Equality Impact Assessments EHRC defines an Equality Impact Assessment as: An equality impact assessment (EIA) is a tool that helps public authorities make sure their policies, and the ways they carry out their functions, do what they are intended to do and for everybody.

17. Equality Impact Assessments

18. Wider Activities • Review of wider activities; • Some evidence of notable practice; • However usually limited to specific types of services; • Largely limited to those authorities which demonstrated wider evidence of duty related activity.

19. Stage One: Key Findings • Low levels of inclusion of refugee and migrant communities in Race Equality Schemes; • Poor coverage and inclusion of refugees and migrants in Equality Impact Assessments; • Limited evidence of wider practice.

20. Stage Two: A Focus on Three Authorities Based on interviews with officers from three organisations: • One London local authority, • One non-London local authority; and • One strategic body

21. Three Approaches • Unified approach • Focal point approach • Twin approach

22. Common Features • An organisational prioritisation of refugees and migrants, alongside other disadvantaged communities. • A strategic approach which seeks to ensure consistency across all parts of the organisation. • Ownership by named teams and officers. • Leadership from the highest management and political levels. • Designation of a strategic, corporate role in which the relevant teams have licence to roam across the authority. • A remit to build links between refugee and migrant organisations and different parts of the authority.

23. Key Message • The second phase underlined what appears to be a confusion regarding the legal status of refugee and migrant communities.

24. The New Equality Duty • Builds on the previous equality duties, but strengthens it in important ways; • Reinforces the primacy of the General Duty; • Strengthens the expectations which are placed on public authorities • Emphasises on the proactive nature of the duty; • Seeks to reduce bureaucracy • Seeks to shift the emphasis on to outcomes. • Less prescriptive about precise methodologies.

25. Primacy of the General Duty • Keep focusing on the General Duty in order to make a difference. • When considering the Specific Duties, public authorities should keep returning to the three elements of the General Duty; • The overarching question must always be: how will the actions that we take enable us to deliver on one or more of these elements.

26. Significance for Refugees and Migrants • Refugees and migrants continue to be covered as they were under the Race Equality Duty; • The extension of the duty to a greater number of equality grounds increases the focus on cross-cutting inequalities; • Opportunity to renew the focus on refugee and migrant communities.

27. What Have We Learnt? • The Race Equality Duty should have provided a sound framework for addressing the needs of refugee and migrant communities; • However, stage one identified that very few of the authorities reviewed had made a connection between refugee and migrant communities and the Race Equality Duty. • Stage two underlined that there appeared to be confusion regarding the specific legal status of refugee and migrant communities in respect of the Race Equality Duty.

28. What Have We Learnt? • Despite this, a number of authorities demonstrated that it was possible to focus on refugee and migrant communities as part of work relating to the Equality Duties – dispelling the notion that such a focus is too difficult or even impossible. • It would appear that confusion regarding legal coverage status may go some way to explaining why so many authorities had not included a consideration of refugee and migrant communities as part of the RED.

29. Conclusion • The New Equality Duty represents a fresh start; • It should afford a stronger focus on refugee and migrant communities; • However, we must learn lessons from the implementation of the Race Equality Duty and specifically remove any potential misunderstanding regarding the coverage of refugee and migrant communities; • We must ensure that we seize the opportunity afforded by the new duty to improve outcomes for refugees and migrants

30. Recommendations • To address poor coverage of refugee and migrants under the Equality Duty: • Public authorities should include refugee and migrant communities in the work they undertake to ensure ‘due regard’ to the new Equality Duty. • The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Government Equalities Office and other relevant inspectorates and advisory bodies should develop guidance and briefings setting out how public authorities can best reflect the needs of refugees and migrants in the work they undertake in order to have ‘due regard’ to the three elements of the General Duty of the new Equality Duty,

31. Recommendations 2. To address considerable data and information gaps: • The Equality and Human Rights Commission should develop guidance for public authorities on how to collect appropriate information and data in respect and its application to refugees and migrants. This should reflect the clear sensitivities which are associated with collecting data regarding immigration status.

32. Recommendations 3. To remove apparent confusion regarding the legal position of refugee and migrant communities in respect of the Equality Duty: • The Equality and Human Rights Commission should specifically clarify the legal position and provide clear messages regarding inclusion of refugee and migrant communities in relevant Equality Duty guidance.

33. Recommendations 4. To address previous poor coverage of refugee and migrants in assessments of impact under the previous Duty: • The Equality and Human Rights Commission and other strategic bodies should include refugee and migrant communities in any relevant advice and guidance to help authorities to assess the impact of what they do in order to have ‘due regard’ to the General Duty under the new Equality Duty and improve outcomes for these communities