COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has concluded its consideration of the eighteenth through twentieth reports of the United Kingdom on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The report of the United Kingdom was presented by Stuart Hoggan, Deputy Director, Integration, Department for Communities and Local Government, Steven Bramley, Deputy Legal Adviser, Home Office, Yvonne Strachan, Scottish Government, Amelia John, Welsh Government, and Ken Fraser, Northern Ireland Executive.

The delegation said the United Kingdom was a multi-national country and had devolved substantial powers to national legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including many that were relevant to the work of the Committee. The government of the United Kingdom recognized that challenges remained and that some individuals and communities were struggling to realise their potential. Disturbances took place in a number of English cities two weeks ago. It was important to not oversimplify the serious events or the underlying causes. The challenge now was immediate recovery and to understand and respond to the underlying reasons for this culture and behaviour. The Government had a well developed programme of action in place to tackle racial disproportionality at each point of the criminal justice process in England and Wales. The Government had made a deliberate shift away from interventions specifically on the basis of race or ethnicity and towards increasing the impact of core and mainstream polices and programmes for disadvantaged communities.

In preliminary concluding observations, Dililp Lahiri, the Committee Expert who served as the country Rapporteur for the report of the United Kingdom, said the dialogue had been intense and comprehensive. While many policies, legislation and activities were welcomed, Committee Members had also identified areas of concern. This did not reflect the Committee’s satisfaction with overall progress. The concerns of the Committee about a number of issues would be included in the final report, as would the major advances made in the United Kingdom over the years.

During the interactive dialogue, Committee Experts raised a number of questions and asked for further information on subjects related to, among others, the situation of Roma, localism, the recent disturbances and the Government’s reaction, reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the situation of Travellers and Gypsies, hate speech, United Kingdom-based companies’ respect for human rights, inequality in health, housing, education and employment and the implementation of the Convention in Northern Ireland.

The delegation of the United Kingdom was made up of representatives of the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man and the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the eighteenth through twentieth periodic reports of the United Kingdom, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 2 September.


The next public meeting of the Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination will be at 3 p.m. when it will begin consideration the fifteenth to twentieth periodic reports of Malta (CERD/C/MLT/15-20).



Report of the United Kingdom

The eighteenth through twentieth periodic reports of the United Kingdom, submitted as one document (CERD/C/GBR/18-20), states the Government of the United Kingdom and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are firmly committed to the elimination of all forms of racism and related intolerance. Substantial progress has been made in recent years. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has extensive new powers to enforce equality law in the UK including the ability to take legal action and launch official inquiries and formal investigations. Between June 2004 and February 2005, the (then) Scottish Executive conducted a comprehensive review of race equality in Scotland, which led to the development of a National Race Equality Statement. A Race Equality Strategy for Northern Ireland was launched in summer 2005. The Welsh Assembly Government’s revised Race Equality Scheme sets out the Government’s commitment to tackling racial discrimination and inequalities in Wales. The Government set up a Discrimination Law Review to examine all of Great Britain’s laws on discrimination. The Government has noted the Committee’s request for information on “descent-based” discrimination, but has seen no firm evidence. A commitment to commission research into caste discrimination was made, however. The UK Government shares the Committee’s concerns about the publication of racist or inflammatory material, and points out that the laws on incitement to racial hatred apply to all such media. The press in the UK has established its own self-regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission, which will consider complaints from individuals.

Members of ethnic minorities are twice as likely to be poor and it is often that poverty, rather than simply ethnic origin, which has a devastating impact on their chances. In employment, the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force has focussed action to raise ethnic minority employment rates. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target with an indicator to improve the employment rate of ethnic minority people. Since 1996, the gap between minority ethnic groups and the average has narrowed 19 percentage points. In education, where a few years ago pupils from many groups lagged behind in attainment, projects such as the Black Pupils Achievement Programme and the Aiming High Strategy have helped to raise attainment by under-achieving groups. Local authorities receive a ring-fenced Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG) to support the needs of Black and minority ethnic pupils and those pupils who have English as an additional language. Between 1996 and 2006, the proportion of minority ethnic households living in non-decent homes fell from 51 per cent to 29 per cent. This level of improvement has reduced the gap between minority ethnic and white households living in substandard accommodation. The Ethnic Minorities Innovation Fund has worked with hard-to-reach groups and is a testament to the commitment and efforts being made by our many partner organisations across the country.

In the criminal justice system, where some of the challenges were most acute, far-reaching changes have been seen. We have changed how racist incidents are defined, and made the recording of Stop and Search more transparent. We have changed the way that police officers are trained. As a result, the number of police officers from minority ethnic backgrounds has more than doubled. On 14 September 2009, the Home Office launched the Cross-Government Hate Crime Action Plan (HCAP). It sets out the challenges we face in tackling hate crime, our approach to meeting those challenges and our long-term vision. In Scotland, the Lord Advocate’s (consolidated) Guidelines to Chief Constables, dealing with the investigation and reporting of racist crime, assessment of language need and cultural sensitivities and death reports and associated crime reports, were published in 2002. The Northern Ireland Office Community Safety Unit lead on hate crime policy as part of its responsibility to reduce violent crime, and has a range of policies and practical initiatives to tackle hate crime in Northern Ireland. Community Safety Partnerships in Northern Ireland have a statutory duty to work with local agencies/organisations to develop and implement strategies to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, including hate crime. The UK Government is strongly committed to tackling anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The Department for Communities and Local Government is leading the Government’s follow-up to the All Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. The Government funds a number of projects to tackle Islamophobia including a campaign by the Muslim Safety Forum.


Presentation of the Report

STUART HOGGAN, Deputy Director, Integration, Department for Communities and Local Government, said in preparing the report the delegation consulted with members of civil society in the United Kingdom, including non-governmental organisations and national human rights institutions, which strengthened the report. It was clear that the United Kingdom had a strong and vigorous civil society which was ready to hold the Government to account, but also to work in partnership with it. The United Kingdom was a multi-national country and had devolved substantial powers to national legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including many that were relevant to the work of the Committee. Within the shared legislative framework, there were many different experiences and different approaches to the agenda taken by the devolved governments. Surveys revealed that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom believed that people from different backgrounds got along well with each other in their local area. Many Black and minority ethnic communities in the United Kingdom were amongst the highest achieving in schools, public life and the private sector. Gaps remained for Pakistani, Black and other pupils, but they too had narrowed. The government of the United Kingdom recognized that challenges remained and that some individuals and communities were struggling to realise their potential.

The United Kingdom parliamentary elections in May 2010 led to a change of Government. The new Government brought into force the vast majority of the Equality Act passed under the previous administration. Most of the Equality Act had now been implemented, including a new Public Sector Equality Duty which required public bodies to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people from different groups. This legislation was amongst the strongest in Europe. The Government believed it was a mistake to see inequalities only in terms of race and ethnic origin, since socio-economic status and poverty affected people’s chances in life, regardless of racial or ethnic background. The Government had made a deliberate shift away from interventions specifically on the basis of race or ethnicity and towards increasing the impact of core and mainstream polices and programmes for disadvantaged communities. The Government launched the Social Mobility Strategy, which set out a series of significant measures to address socio-economic disadvantage in England. The Government believed that the causes of inequality and the barriers to social mobility were often best addressed locally. The Government provided communities the rights, freedom and tools to improve local areas and to build their vision of what the Government called the “Big Society”.

Disturbances took place in a number of English cities two weeks ago. It was important to not oversimplify the serious events or the underlying causes. The challenge was now immediate recovery and to understand and respond to the underlying reasons for this culture and behaviour. The perpetrators and victims were White, Black and Asian. Encouragement could be drawn from the way local communities came together during and after the disturbances.

Regarding why the Convention had not been incorporated into domestic law, Mr. Hoggan said the Convention placed no obligation on the State to do so. The Government understood its obligation under the Convention to take all necessary measures to ensure the law and, in practice the United Kingdom, fully respected and implemented all the provisions of the Convention. The United Kingdom maintained its interpretative statement concerning Article 4 of the Convention. The Government strongly believed that a press free from state intervention was fundamental to democracy. However, United Kingdom laws against incitement to racial hatred covered all newspapers. Concerning exclusions and racist bullying in education, the Government believed that the best way to tackle the issue was to encourage and support schools in addressing the underlying causes of poor behaviours as early as necessary. The Government was testing out a new approach, with schools retaining responsibility for the ongoing education and attainment of permanently excluded pupils. Tackling racist bullying was also a top priority and the Department for Education in England was working with the Anti-Bullying Alliance and other organisations to spread good practice and to facilitate cooperation.

The Committee suggested that the collection of disaggregated information and proactive intervention was necessary to close the gap between employment levels of ethnic minorities and the population at large. The overall gap had diminished significantly since 1996. Overcrowding in ethnic minority households continued to be higher than for White households. To tackle this, the Government funded the Overcrowding Pathfinder programme. Concerning Gypsies and Travellers, a Ministerial Working Group was looking at ways to tackle poor social outcomes faced by these groups. The Government’s overall objective was the fair and effective provision of authorised sites for Travellers to maintain their traditional and nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of settled communities. The Government supported training programmes and was compiling evidence to demonstrate how sites were well presented by Travellers and Gypsies. The Government was addressing the health needs of the most vulnerable people, including Gypsies and Travellers, in the Inclusion Health Programme. Funding for these groups of pupils was available to schools as part of the Dedicated School Grant. The Government had also funded several projects to tackle racial hate crime experienced by Gypsies and Travellers.

STEVEN BRAMLEY, Deputy Legal Adviser, Home Office, said the police powers to stop and search under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 were a vital part of the police’s role in combating crime. However, some groups were significantly over-represented. The Metropolitan Police’s figures showed apparent disproportionality, which was of concern. The power to stop and search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was repealed. The Government was determined to ensure that the criminal justice agencies did not discriminate against anyone because of race. The National Police Improvement Agency ensured recruitment standards and processes were transparent, consistent and compliant with equality legislation. The Government had a well developed programme of action in place to tackle racial disproportionality at each point of the criminal justice process in England and Wales. The United Kingdom rejected the Committee’s assertion that there was a disproportionate number of deaths in custody among those of Black and minority ethnic origin. The Ministry of Justice was committed to reducing the number of deaths in prison custody. The Government established the Independent Police Complaints Commission in April 2004 and its functions included the independent investigation of all serious injury or deaths during and following police contact. The Committee asked about the minimum age at which a foreign spouse or fiancé could enter the United Kingdom, stating this had a discriminatory effect on ethnic minority women. The Government rejected these allegations. The rise in the marriage visa age was intended to protect young British citizens and settled persons from being pressured into sponsoring a spouse from overseas.

YVONNE STRACHAN, Scottish Government, said the Scottish Government recognized the importance of improving data. The 2011 census would provide valuable, up-to-date information. Scottish Ministers would be consulting in 2011 on specific duties to support public authorities in the delivery of the Equality Duty. The Scottish Government sought to align work on race and religion, but each had its particular dimensions. Tackling sectarianism was a priority; however, the escalation of sectarian incidents in 2011 had prompted further concerted action to be taken. The Scottish Government promoted and encouraged the integration into Scottish society of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers and had promoted positive attitudes as part of the One Scotland campaign. Pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds generally performed well in Scotland and did not have disproportionately high rates of exclusion. Site provision and unauthorised encampments were key issues for the Gypsy, Traveller and settled communities. The Government had supported a number of programmes to address health inequalities and education issues for Gypsies and Travellers. Glasgow was the only United Kingdom city to be part of the European Union Roma Net Community and would host Roma Net in 2011 to support programmes of integration and support for Scotland’s Roma community.

AMELIA JOHN, Welsh Government, said integral to improving equality and good relations were the devolved public sector equality duties which had been in force in Wales since April 2011. In Wales, compared to the national average, ethnic minority pupils from some backgrounds were more likely to be excluded. The Government took this very seriously and guidance was currently being revised to provide more detailed advice on the issue. A national survey on bullying reported that the number of people reporting racist bullying was very low, though higher numbers reported witnessing it. Tackling poverty and social exclusion was a priority for the Welsh Government. Communities First was the Government’s programme for tackling the effects of poverty in most communities. The Community Cohesion Fund supported the aims of the Getting on Together: A Community Cohesion Strategy for Wales. The Gypsy and Traveller Strategy and Action Plan would be launched in September 2011. There were around 4,000 Gypsies and Travellers were living in Wales. Given the barriers that Gypsies and Travellers had in accessing healthcare, the Government was committed to multi-agency targeted interventions and specific programmes. These communities faced barriers in learning and had the lowest levels of educational attainment. The Welsh Government’s Grant for the Education of Gypsy and Traveller Children provided additional support for these pupils in primary and secondary education.

KEN FRASER, Northern Ireland Executive, said the Government would not dispute that sectarianism and racism were directly related. Northern Ireland had very robust and well-developed legislation and policy to address sectarianism. There was still a need in Northern Ireland to distinguish and single out the issues that related specifically to the conflict that took place in Northern Ireland and to address its specific manifestations. The Programme for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration was not intended to address the issues of discrimination, but to focus on the development of good relations between communities.

Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

DILIP LAHIRI, Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the United Kingdom, said racism and institutionalized racial discrimination were integral to the United Kingdom’s imperial project for over two centuries. The sweeping changes to discrimination and equality laws and social attitudes over the last four decades were much to the credit of the Government of the United Kingdom and polity which had set standards for other European countries in this area. But, as the recent riots and vandalism in the United Kingdom had shown, race and ethnicity, entangled with structural economic disadvantage, remained an inflammable part of social and economic discontent. It might have been expected that the State Party would ensure that policy responses to the riots would seek to address the underlying causes and promote ethnic cohesion. Instead, some of the Government’s policy solutions to the riots included plans to remove the welfare benefits of those convicted, but not jailed. These measures would particularly impact groups from poor and therefore, inevitably, ethnic minority backgrounds. The Committee might like to take a second look at the basis of its traditional treatment of the situation in Northern Ireland. The divide was often characterized only on the basis of religion. The situation was therefore kept outside the framework of protections against discrimination provided by the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and other international and regional standards. This seemed to ignore the historical ethno-national origin of the problem. Racism affecting immigrant communities in Northern Ireland had also been sectarianized. There could therefore be a case for the Committee to treat the discrimination in Northern Ireland not purely as a sectarian issue but as a subset of particular manifestation of racism like Islamophobia or anti-Semitism, which it had pronounced on in the past.

The Prime Ministers’ statement that multiculturalism had failed was not entirely fair to the country’s achievement. The Equality Act 2010 provided a single, consolidated source of discrimination law. Balancing the need to reinforce anti-discrimination actions with fiscal cutbacks was a challenge. For this reason, many stakeholders complained that the current Government showed weakened commitment to race equality. The proposed cuts were likely to have an adverse impact. Concerns were heightened by decisions to repeal or not bring into force various new protections introduced by the Equality Act which were considered burdensome for business. The unfortunate exception to the prohibition of discrimination in the exercise of immigration functions had been reproduced under the Equality Act. It permitted discrimination not only on grounds of nationality, but also on ethnic and national origins which were not synonymous with nationality. The discretionary processes for such discrimination under the Equality Act were opaque and subject to abuse.

The widespread negative media reporting on ethnic minorities continued to be of concern. The State Party continued to insist that it saw no need to interfere with the freedom of the press to curb such abuse. Certain provisions of the criminal justice system continued to exacerbate racial ill-will. Disproportionality in stop and search continued to be an intractable problem for black and Asian communities. There had been a 70 per cent increase in the stop and search of black and Asian people. The degree of discretion afforded to police officers was much too wide. The United Kingdom continued to grapple with the new dimensions of discrimination emanating from the challenges posed by the fight against terrorism which bred racial and ethnic stereotypes, social exclusion and prejudice based on religious manifestation. Many of the counter-terrorism measures adopted adversely impacted Muslims and foreign nationals. The Government’s review of counter-terrorism legislation in 2010 was welcome in this context. The State party had created a new system of control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Whether or not this procedure would alleviate the impression that Muslims were being specially targeted was open to question.

There had been a welcome commitment and action by the Government in recent years to tackle hate crime, however such violence and crime remained a persistent phenomenon. Roma, Gypsy and Traveller populations continued to experience discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, education and health. The long-standing issue of the situation of Dale Farms seemed to be coming to a head. The State Party launched the first race equality strategy called “Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society”. Other programmes in the field of education had been launched to strengthen support for minority groups. With respect to health issues, the Department of Health’s strategy strengthened the National Health System with respect to race equality issues. In the labour sector, the United Kingdom had tried to raise ethnic minority employment rates as well as reduce the disadvantages faced by ethnic minority groups through its Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force. The United Kingdom had introduced initiatives such as the Ethnic Minorities Innovation Fund or Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments. Regarding religious discrimination against immigrants, such as Jews or Sikhs, as well as reported cases of Islamophobia, the State had adopted the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. The State Party also embarked on several projects to tackle Islamophobia. The Committee should continue to be concerned that the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was not yet incorporated in the domestic legal order. The Committee should also note that the United Kingdom maintained its restrictive interpretive declaration to Article 4.

Following the country Rapporteur’s presentation, other Committee Members took the floor. Committee Members asked how different ethnic groups were dispersed, geographically, throughout the United Kingdom. Irrespective of the devolved situation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was the party responsible for implementing the Convention. How did the Government ensure the application of the Convention and other acts in Northern Ireland? The Government was responsible for ensuring that companies, in acting outside the United Kingdom, respected human rights. Companies had to conduct environmental impact evaluations and respect human rights. The Government had to ensure budget cuts did not disproportionately affect some groups. The Government should monitor the use of hate speech, which was being employed by youth groups against foreigners.

Regarding the recent riots in the United Kingdom, Committee Members stressed the socio-economic sources of the disturbances. There were two types of allegations. On the left, mistrust between certain communities and police was stressed as well as the issue of unmet needs. The left would prefer to see further aid for impoverished communities. The right emphasized extremist groups, particularly Islamist groups and terrorists as well as urban crime. The right would prefer to respond with increased police forces and cuts to social benefits. It was necessary to promote and build-up social cohesion, however. Europe had a problem with integration. Minorities did not feel a part of society, even if they were citizens. Ethnic minorities looked at political leaders and did not see people that looked like them. Politicians and the press used inflammatory racial language regarding asylum seekers and migrants; integration was difficult. The problem was not going to go away by itself, but dialogue was a step in the right direction.

The differences between the Committee and the Government, including its interpretative statement of article 4, its refusal to adopt article 14, and the lack of control of the press and police, were of concern. Committee Members also raised concerns about the number of reservations to the Convention made by the government of the United Kingdom. Committee Members asked if statistics on immigration reflected immigrants from the European Union. What steps were being taken to implement an integration strategy as opposed to a race equality strategy? The agenda on localism would only be successful if plans addressed the specific issues that local authorities were not that interested in. How did the Government intend to address inequality in health, housing, education and employment for people suffering from discrimination in the United Kingdom? Comment was requested on the reduction in the number of asylum seekers accepted in the United Kingdom. The situation of migrant workers was also of concern. There had been reports of expulsion of Roma from the United Kingdom and data and strategy concerning the situation of Roma would be welcome. What targets and strategies would the United Kingdom develop with regard to fulfilling the European Union Roma Partnership?

The United Kingdom referred to itself as a multi-ethnic and multi-faith country, but not a multicultural country. Committee Members expressed support for integrationism, or the mixing up of all the different cultures and ethnicities. Was the public consulted when the United Kingdom moved to an integrationist approach? Did the Government envisage the inclusion of the category of “mestizo” or mixed race in the 2011 census? Was the response of the United Kingdom to the riots sufficient according to paragraph 11 of the periodic report? All the proposed remedies dealt with punishment, constraints on immigration and similar measures. Committee Members asked about the use of the social and economic measures.

The United Kingdom had not ratified the conventions related to genocide. At some point, would these conventions be ratified? Renouncing the reservation to Article 4 was important to realizing human rights in the United Kingdom. The Committee considered multiculturalism to be a gradualist approach, as opposed to the melting pelt approach in which society forced individuals to conform. The Committee considered multiculturalism as a way to alleviate the problems faced by migrants. In Europe, multiculturalism had its critics; in Committee Members’ view, this was due to misunderstanding. There was a fear that too much multiculturalism would cause too much separation. These fears were exacerbated in the context of counter-terrorism. Multiculturalism was a concept that allowed for flourishing of culture, respect for minorities and indigenous rights under the banner of a single citizenship. One Committee Member noted with regret that many of the programmes that were lauded for their contribution to racial equality and anti-discrimination were now being dismantled and altered. There had been an exorbitant increase in university fees, for example, which could have a detrimental effect on minorities.

Presentation by National Human Rights Institutions

A representative of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the Commission also represented the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The Equality Act 2010 was a landmark piece of legislation to modernize and improve the protection from discrimination for a wide range of groups. Since the last examination, there had been a number of improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities. However, the Commission had significant concerns regarding race equality, particularly in light of recent developments such as the recession. There was increased disproportionality in stops and searches of ethnic minorities. Since the last reporting period there had been a 70 per cent increase in the use of stop and search against Black and Asian people in England and Wales. The Government should conduct a comprehensive review of this power. The Commission welcomed the proposal to limit the power of authorisation; however, the Government needed to build into the power stronger safeguards to comply with human rights standards. The Government asserted that there was no evidence of disproportionality in deaths of ethnic minorities in custody. However, the Commission would point out that in the last six months there had been five deaths of ethnic minorities involving the police, including that of Mark Duggan, which triggered the recent disturbances. The Government needed to clearly demonstrate what action it would take to improve trust and good relations between the Black community and the police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Under-achievement in compulsory education and disproportionate permanent exclusion for certain ethnic minority children remained persistent problems. The Government should set out detailed plans for addressing under-achievement and disproportionate exclusion of those groups. The decrease in the ethnic minority employment gap over the past decade had been a very positive development; however, significant disparities and inequalities remained. The Government should provide a detailed delivery plan as to how it would prevent the ethnic minority employment gap from widening. The Commission also drew the Committee’s attention to the ethnic pay gap, which had received scant attention from the Government. The Commission’s recent research showed that counter-terrorism measures were having a negative and disproportionate impact on Muslim communities and ethnic minorities. The proposed change to control orders and pre-charge detention may not fully comply with human rights obligations related to the right to liberty. The review of the Government failed to consider key issues such as stops and searches at ports and airports or glorification offences. The Government should reconsider the extent to which proposed changes to control orders and pre-charge detention were human rights compliant. There was strong evidence that the inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers were linked to a lack of decent, appropriate and secure accommodation. The United Kingdom should develop a national strategy to ensure that there were adequate and suitable sites available. A pressing issue for Scotland was the dearth of equality data in areas such as education, health, employment and criminal justice.

A representative of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission said Northern Ireland had separate legislation and policies in areas relevant to the Convention. There was still no progress on single equality legislation and a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The extension of the remit of the Office of the Police Ombudsman to consider complaints against immigration officers had not progressed. There were concerns regarding ethnic profiling in what were effectively ad hoc internal immigration controls between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in addition to the counter terrorism stop and control powers. The Committee should consider the specific situation of Travellers in Northern Ireland, who faced serious and persistent disadvantage. The authorities had failed to provide sufficient sites for this community. The differential treatment on citizenship and immigration status and restricting access to homelessness to non-European Economic Area nationals were of concern. The Commission wished for sectarianism to continue to be named separately from other forms of racism. It had its own origins, stereotypes, manifestations and particular characteristics. Reporting on sectarianism had to be in addition to reporting on minority ethnic groups. The Commission was seeking more effective implementation of hate crime legislation to tackle paramilitaries.

Response by Delegation

The delegation said concerning reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the United Kingdom took international obligations very seriously and only undertook ratification of conventions if the Government could fulfil its commitments. There was a comprehensive body of anti-discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom. The Government maintained its interpretative reservation to Article 4 regarding the adoption of additional legislation. The United Kingdom had a long history of the protection of freedom of speech and current laws struck the right balance between freedom of speech and protecting individuals from violence and hatred. The United Kingdom had not acceded to article 14 of the Convention, the optional declaration regarding the competence of the Committee to hear complaints. This could be relevant in situations where there were not sufficient remedy in domestic courts, but this was not the case in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom would continue to monitor the situation to determine the practical benefits of adopting Article 14.

There had been an effort to collect and collate data, which was considered crucial to racial equality and tackling racism and other forms of discrimination. Mr. Hoggan acknowledged that there were ways in which collection and analysis could be improved. Members of the Committee had raised the issue of caste-based discrimination. The Equality Act 2010 contained a paragraph that would allow for the consideration of caste as a form of race and therefore a basis for discrimination. However, there was no consensus on the need for legislation on the issue and it was still being considered. Regarding Gypsies and Travellers, instead of a top-down programme, local councils would be provided incentives to develop accommodation sites in consultation with local communities. Schools knew best what was required to address the needs of minority and disadvantaged groups and were being provided with resources, through school grants, to achieve this. The recent European Union action on Roma, which concerned Gypsies and Travellers, emphasized the responsibility of States and allowed for the adoption of a wide range of measures. The Inter-Ministerial Group on reducing Gypsy and Traveller Inequalities and the Social Mobility Strategy addressed inequalities faced by these groups. Finding and bridging common ground in communities, which promoted links and dialogue while respecting and tolerating differences, was a priority.

Regarding the programmes that had been altered and ended, the Government had changed and a process of fiscal consolidation had been undertaken. Available resources had been mainstreamed, according to the Social Mobility Strategy, and had been localized. In terms of responses to racial discrimination in a devolved system, there had to be a balance between national standards and appropriate scope for local decision-making and innovation. It was important to not over-provide in terms of guidance and policy at the national level. The Government had decided to not bring forward the provisions of the Equality Act related to multiple discrimination. This was part of efforts to reduce the burden on all businesses and promote job creation and economic growth. Turning to the question of whether Muslims should be classified as a racial or ethnic group by law, the delegation said a racial group was defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or racial or ethnic origin. The court had ruled that this did not apply to groups that defined themselves by reference to religion. A Racial and Religious Hatred Act was introduced in 2006 that afforded religious groups the same amount of protection against discrimination; the law now applied to all religious and racial groups. The Hate Crime Action Plan had seventy provisions for delivering justice to victims of hate. Most of these provisions had been completed or were near completion. With the change of government, this plan would be replaced by a new Hate Crime Action Plan. The census included categories of mixed heritage. In the 2001 census, 1.2 per cent of people identified as mixed race.

The delegation confirmed that the intake of refugees and asylum seekers had dropped to a historic low in 2010. These numbers were now on the rise due to the situation in North Africa. Regarding the visa process, applications were dealt with on their merits. The Government was moving toward online entry clearance. The fee was determined using to a complex range of factors, including the need to attract certain categories of migrants, the value of a successful application to the migrant and the cost of the visa process. Fees could not be differentiated per nationality. The Government was committed to taking swift action to respond to the disturbances and was commissioning studies on their causes. Specific measures were being taken to be deployed against gangs. The Government would establish specific social support for affected families. It launched an inquiry into the police response and would establish a victims and communities panel, led by important public figures, to investigate the impact of the disturbances. The Government believed these were robust and fair measures.

Regarding Northern Ireland, word of the committee’s comments had already reached Belfast and a significant debate was emerging on the relationship between racism, sectarianism and religious discrimination. While the label of Northern Ireland as the race hate capital of Europe made for good headlines, in looking at the true statistics, it was far from being so. However, the Government recognized there was a problem with clearance and was looking into the matter. With respect to corporate social responsibility and the United Kingdom’s extraterritorial obligations, the government believed the Convention did not include extraterritorial obligations and could not give rise to obligations outside a State’s sovereign territory. Companies were primarily responsible for their activities. Legal responsibility for human rights violations rested with the State in which violations occurred. The Government saw its role as clarifying the proper role of businesses and developing guidance and advice. Although the United Kingdom had not ratified of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of Apartheid, racial segregation was illegal in the United Kingdom as prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. The United Kingdom had ratified the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Further Questions Posed by Experts

Committee Members asked whether the State Party had investigated the developments and causes of the disturbances related to migration, particularly with respect to the pursuit of employment. Concerning the actions of United Kingdom-based companies outside United Kingdom territory, was the Government encouraging the companies to respect human rights? How were they doing so? Committee Members expressed concern for sanctions of non-performance involved in localism policy. Given the considerable cutbacks to support for integration and minority groups, how would support for individual groups that could provide for successful integration and combat discrimination be provided? Concerning the non-adoption of provisions on multiple discrimination in the Equality Act 2010, would a woman, for example, have to pursue a case based on provisions for racial discrimination as well as gender discrimination? It was disappointing that key provisions of the Act would not be implemented and had not been extended to Northern Ireland. What steps would be taken to push the Equality Act 2010 and the Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland?

Response by Delegation

The delegation said the Government believed migration enriched its culture and strengthened its economy. The Government needed to attract the best and brightest to keep its economy strong and businesses innovative. Unregulated migration, however, placed constraints on public services and social support. Therefore, in April the United Kingdom placed limits on migration from outside Europe. There was not full information on those arrested and charges in the recent disturbances. It was not yet known how many were recent migrants or came from minority groups. The Government had made it clear that it would look into the deeper social and economic causes involved. It had asked all ministers to look into investigations and remedies. An independent and thorough investigation was being made into the circumstances of Mark Duggan’s death. The Prime Minister was interested in looking at the issues faced by families in difficulty and considering early intervention. The Government strongly supported corporate social responsibility internationally and nationally, and was active in informing business of their impact on human rights. The Government had supported the development of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which had been adopted by the Human Rights Council, and it was committed to the dissemination and application of these principles.

The abolition of national and regional strategies was part of the current government’s disbanding of top-down policies. Local authorities had to plan for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation sites in consultation with local communities. The Government was of the view that regional special strategies pitted local people against development. The Government was implementing a duty to cooperate so that local bodies engaged in a dialogue throughout planning processes. If an authority could not prove it worked in compliance with the duty, the development plan would not be approved. The volume of public services and civic activities over the last decade had mushroomed to an extraordinary degree due to cross-party support. All parties were interested in seeing further expansion in the voluntary community sector and thus had urged decision-makers to deliver resources to the front line and protect the voluntary and community sector.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

DILIP LAHIRI, Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the United Kingdom, said the dialogue had been intense and comprehensive. While many policies, legislation and activities were welcomed, Committee Members had also identified areas of concern. This did not reflect the Committee’s satisfaction with overall progress. The Equality Act was a landmark piece of legislation welcomed by the Committee. However, there were concerns of retrogression. The recent disturbances were a tricky and sensitive issue. The steps taken by the Government had shown adequate sensitivity. The Committee had concerns related to reservations issued to article 4 and that the United Kingdom had not adopted the optional procedure under article 14. These concerns and others would be included in the Committee’s final report. It would continue to express its disappointment at the remedial treatment of minority groups. However, overall, the major advances in the United Kingdom made over the years would be reflected in the final report.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD11/033E