BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP 8960, 24 May 2021
Race and ethnic By Edited by Doug Pyper
disparities
Contents: 1. Background to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities 2. The Commission’s report 3. Implementation 4. Statistics 5. Previous reviews
www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Race and ethnic disparities
Contents
Summary 4 1. Background to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities 5 Initial reaction 5 1.1 Commission administration 6 2. The Commission’s report 7 2.1 Reaction to the report 7 2.2 Commission statement 9 2.3 House of Commons debate 9 2.4 The report’s recommendations 10 General recommendations 10 Data recommendations 11 Education and training 12 Employment, fairness at work and enterprise 15 Crime and policing 18 Health 23 3. Implementation 27 4. Statistics 28 4.1 Ethnic groups in the UK 28 Survey estimates for 2019 28 The 2011 Census 28 4.2 Education 32 4.3 Health 38 Efforts to assess life expectancy and mortality 39 Mental health 41 4.4 Policing and crime 42 Police Officers 42 Stop and search 43 Domestic abuse 45 4.5 Criminal justice 47 A note on data quality and coverage 47 4.6 Employment and incomes 52 Employment gaps 52 Pay gaps 54 Incomes 54 Poverty 57 4.7 Housing 58 Home ownership and renting 58 Overcrowding and housing conditions 59 Homelessness 60 4.8 Ethnic diversity in public life 62 Politics 62 Selected public sector organisations 63 5. Previous reviews 65 5.1 Windrush Lessons Learned Review (2020) 65 5.2 Timpson Review (2019) 67 5.3 The Lammy Review (2017) 68 5.4 McGregor-Smith Review (2017) 71 5.5 Angiolini Review (2017) 75 3 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
5.6 The Marmot Review (2010) 80 5.7 The Macpherson Report (1999) 82
Contributing Authors: Doug Pyper; Cassie Barton; Nerys Robers; Paul Bolton; Rachael Harker; Grahame Allen; Esme Kirk-Wade; Georgina Sturge & Baber Yasin; Brigid Frances-Devine; Elise Uberoi; Melanie Gower; Sally Lipscombe; Jacqui Beard; Jennifer Brown; Daniel Ferguson; Melissa Macdonald
Cover page image copyright: No attribution required.
4 Race and ethnic disparities
Summary
On 14 June 2020, following Black Lives Matter protests, the Prime Minister indicated the Government would set up a commission to investigate “all aspects of inequality.” On 16 July 2020 the Prime Minister formally established the independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. The Commission published its report on 31 March 2021, alongside supporting documents. The report made 24 recommendations in areas including data, education, employment, crime, policing and health. This briefing discusses the work of the Commission, its recommendations and stakeholder reaction to the report. It also provides statistics on race and ethnic disparities in various areas of life and summarises previous major reviews into race and ethic disparities. Who were the commissioners? There were ten commissioners. Dr Tony Sewell CBE, an education consultant, chaired the Commission. Dr Sewell was previously appointed by Boris Johnson (then Mayor of London) to chair an inquiry examining primary and secondary education in London. The nine other commissioners were drawn from fields including science, education, broadcasting, economics, medicine, policing and community organising. What other reviews have there been? On announcement of the Commission, some commentators highlighted previous reviews of racial inequality, with their recommendations in various stages of implementation. This briefing discusses the following reviews: • Windrush Lessons Learned Review (2020 – immigration) • Timpson Review (2019 – school exclusions) • The Lammy Review (2017 – criminal justice) • Angiolini Review (2017 – police custody) • McGregor-Smith Review (2017 – employment) • The Marmot Review (2010 – health) • The Macpherson Report (1999 – policing)
Further reading from the Commons Library • Constituency data: ethnicity • Ethnic diversity in politics and public life • Unemployment by ethnic background • Gypsies and Travellers • Poverty in the UK: statistics • Windrush generation: Government action to ‘right the wrongs’
5 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
1. Background to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
In a Written Ministerial Statement on 16 July 2020, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which was due to report by the end of that year. He said: The Commission’s work will touch upon many areas of public policy. It will make recommendations for action across Government, public bodies and the private sector, and will inform a national conversation about race, led by the evidence. I have assembled a group of ten talented and ethnically diverse commissioners. They bring a wealth of experience from across a range of important sectors. In order to understand why disparities exist, what works and what does not, they will consider detailed quantitative data and qualitative evidence. They will also commission new research and invite submissions where necessary. The Commission will set out a new, positive agenda for change - balancing the needs of individuals, communities and society, maximising opportunities and ensuring fairness for all.1 The Commission had originally been suggested by the Prime Minister in a Telegraph article on 14 June 2020.2 These announcements appeared at a time of heightened public concern about racial disparities and racism, particularly that targeted at Black people, following the death in the US of George Floyd.3 The Commission’s terms of reference were published on 16 July 2020. Broadly, its purpose was to: review inequality in the UK, focusing on areas including poverty, education, employment, health and the criminal justice system. The Commission will look at outcomes for the whole population.4 The terms of reference state the Commission should “aim to submit its findings to the Prime Minister by the end of the year.”5 On 14 September 2020 the Commission outlined the areas it would focus on, including education, health, crime and policing, and employment and enterprise.6 Initial reaction The initial response to the announcement of the Commission was mixed. David Isaac, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the EHRC was ready to work with the new commission:
1 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: Written statement - HCWS383 2 Prime Minister's article in the Telegraph: 15 June 2020, Gov.uk 15 June 2020. The original article (£): Rather than tear some people down we should build others up, Telegraph 14, June 2020 3 See: Black Lives Matter protests: UK reaction to the killing of George Floyd, Commons Library, 4 June 2020 4 Terms of reference: Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, Gov.uk, 16 July 2020 5 Ibid. 6 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: sub-group priorities, Gov.uk [accessed 25 September 2020] 6 Race and ethnic disparities
We know the scale of the problems we face to tackle the entrenched racial inequality in our country. It is not new. There have been countless reports and the data exists exposing all the issues. Now is the time for urgent action. We need to see a clear and comprehensive race strategy with clear targets and timescales from Government. We hope this new commission will help deliver that and we stand ready to work with it.7 Marsha de Cordova, the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, called for “action on the structural racism that we already know exists."8 Other commentators, including the Shadow Justice Secretary, David Lammy, questioned whether there was any need for the Commission, given previous reviews and reports relating to racial inequality.9 In evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in July 2020, Mr Lammy emphasised the need to implement the findings of those previous reviews.10 Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (the mother of Stephen Lawrence) has made similar points.11
1.1 Commission administration The Commission was independent of government but supported by the Race Disparity Unit within the Cabinet Office. The Sponsoring Minister was the Minister for Equalities, Kemi Badenoch MP. The commissioners were appointed directly by the Prime Minister. The Commission was chaired by Dr Tony Sewell CBE, an education consultant who runs a charity focused on encouraging students from disadvantaged backgrounds into careers in science and engineering.12 In 2012, Dr Sewell was appointed by Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London, to chair an inquiry examining primary and secondary education in London.13 There were nine other commissioners, drawn from fields including science, education, broadcasting, economics, medicine, policing and community organising. A full list of commissioners is available on Gov.uk.14
7 https://twitter.com/EHRC/status/1272470269387575298 [accessed 25 September 2020] 8 Charity boss Tony Sewell to head government race commission, BBC News, 16 July 2020 9 Black Lives Matter: We need action on racism not more reports, says David Lammy, BBC News, 15 June 2020 [accessed 25 September 2020] 10 Joint Select Committee on Human Rights Oral evidence (virtual proceeding): Black people, racism and human rights, HC 559, 6 July 2020, p3 11 Ibid., p6 12 Generating Genius, about us [accessed 24 May 2021] 13 The Mayor's Education Inquiry First Report, February 2012 14 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, Gov.uk [accessed 25 September 2020] 7 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
2. The Commission’s report
The Commission published its report on 31 March 2021, alongside supporting documents. The report made 24 recommendations. The Prime Minister issued the following statement on the day the report was published: The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities was launched to conduct a detailed, data-led examination of inequality across the entire population, and to set out a positive agenda for change. I want to thank Dr Tony Sewell and each of the commissioners for generously giving their time to lead this important piece of work. It is now right that the Government considers their recommendations in detail, and assesses the implications for future government policy. The entirety of government remains fully committed to building a fairer Britain and taking the action needed to address disparities wherever they exist.15 The next sections of this briefing summarise the reactions of stakeholders to the report and debate in Parliament, followed by an overview of the report’s 24 recommendations.
2.1 Reaction to the report Stakeholder reaction to the report has been mixed. The chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, said the report rightly identified the varied causes of disparities and “gives the government the opportunity to design policy targeting the sources of inequality.”16 By contrast, a statement from the Scottish Human Rights Commission said the report “does not accord with the experiences of many people from black and minority ethnic communities in Scotland, nor the available data.”17 In an article for the Times, Trevor Philips, former chair of the Commission for Racial Equality and Equality and Human Rights Commission, criticised what he saw as uninformed criticism of the report. He praised the report for trying to: bring a scientific approach to a problem that bedevils western societies, and as with all science, new data often means that we need to change our theories. Depressingly, a minority want the debate about race to continue as a medieval contest of faith, in which the catechism — “institutional racism”, “white privilege” — is mouthed unthinkingly, without understanding.18
15 PM statement on The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: 31 March 2021, Gov.uk, 31 March 2021 16 EHRC Chair responds to report from Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, EHRC website, 31 March 2021 17 Statement on Report from UK Government's Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, SHRC website, 1 April 2021 18 Silence of white establishment betrays Sewell, The Times, 5 April 2021 8 Race and ethnic disparities
Race equality think tank, the Runnymede Trust, published a statement in response to the report criticising what it saw as “a script that has been written for 10 Downing Street.”19 The Trust said: by denying the evidence of institutional racism and tinkering with issues like unconscious bias training and the use of the term ‘BAME’, the Government have insulted not only every ethnic minority in this country - the very people who continue to experience racism on a daily basis - but also the vast majority of the UK population that recognise racism is a problem20 The NHS Race and Health Observatory21 published a press release in response to the report, stating it was “disappointed” by several of the headline conclusions. It said: The Observatory believes that tackling persistent ethnic and racial disparities in health, and across society, is absolutely the right thing to do. However, as an evidence-led organisation, the Observatory was disappointed by several of the headline conclusions of the report, including those on the causes of ethnic inequalities. The Observatory is an independent expert body, established by the NHS to examine the health inequalities experienced by ethnic minority communities in England. The evidence it cites is clear: institutional racism exists in this country, it exists in the organisations that make up our health and care system, and it exists across wider public establishments. Several recommendations cited in the report are of particular interest to us, including those recommending work that the Observatory has already started. Over the coming period, the Observatory will be in touch with relevant government departments to discuss these in more detail. Britain will never be a ‘successful multicultural community’ until it is an equal one. The Observatory has been established to shine a light on discriminatory structures, and to gather evidence to support health and care organisations to rebuild those structures in a way that eradicates, rather than exacerbates, inequality.22 The NHS Race and Health Observatory plans to conduct a “thorough analysis” of the report’s health chapter and said a more detailed response will be published in “the coming weeks.”23 A statement from the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent described the report as “reprehensible”. As with many other stakeholders, the Working Group took particular issue with the sentence in the report that refers to slavery in the following terms: There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and
19 Runnymede Trust, Our statement, 31 March 2021 20 Ibid. 21 The NHS Race and Health Observatory was launched on 30 May 2020 by NHS England and NHS Confederation to investigate the impact of race and ethnicity on people’s health and to tackle specific health challenges facing people of black and ethnic minority origin. 22 NHS Race and Health Observatory, Response to the report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, 1 April 2021 23 Ibid. 9 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.24 The Working Group said: the Report’s mythical representation of enslavement is an attempt to sanitize the history of the trade in enslaved Africans.… The Report’s sanitized version of history devalues the experiences, and deaths of millions of Africans who were violently uprooted, taken to the Americas where they were further exploited, brutalized and dehumanized.25
2.2 Commission statement On 2 April 2021 the Commission released a statement arguing that “some cases fair and robust disagreement with the Commission’s work has tipped into misrepresentation”.26 The statement also highlighted personal attacks on the commissioners: The deeply personal attacks on many of us by politicians and other public figures are irresponsible and dangerous. For example, one MP presented commissioners as members of the KKK. Robust debate we welcome. But to depict us as racism deniers, slavery apologists or worse is unacceptable.27
2.3 House of Commons debate On 20 April 2021, the Commons debated the Commission’s report, following a statement by the Minister for Equalities, Kemi Badenoch.28 The Minister took issue with some of the criticism of the report, and indicated that the Government would work to produce a response to the report during the summer: I urge right hon. and hon. Members to take the time to read the report’s 258 pages. There is also another thing that I am sure unites this House, which is abhorrence of the appalling abuse meted out to the commissioners and the false assertions made about their work in the past three weeks. It is true that this landmark analysis challenges a number of strongly held beliefs about the extent and influence of racism in Britain today. The commissioners have followed the evidence and drawn conclusions that challenge orthodoxy, and they were prepared for a robust and constructive debate. However, they were not prepared for the wilful misrepresentation of the report that occurred following its publication, such as false accusations that they denied racism exists, or that they wished to put a positive spin on the atrocities of slavery, or false statements that commissioners did not read or sign off their own report, or that they are breaking ranks. I have been informed by the chair and by individual members that the commission remains united and stands by its report. This Government welcome legitimate disagreement and debate, but firmly reject bad-faith attempts to undermine the credibility of this report. Doing so risks undermining the vital work that we are
24 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report, March 2021, p8 25 UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report, UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner website, 19 April 2021 26 Statement from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities 27 Statement from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, Gov.uk, 2 April 2021 28 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, HC Deb 20 April 2021 cc867-885 10 Race and ethnic disparities
trying to do to understand and address the causes of inequality in the UK, and any other positive work that results from it. For that reason it is necessary to set the record straight. This report makes it clear that the UK is not a post-racial society and that racism is still a real force that has the power to deny opportunity and painfully disrupt lives. … The Government will now work at pace to produce a response to the report this summer. I assure the House that it will be ambitious about tackling negative disparities where they exist and building on successes.29 The Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, Marsha de Cordova, argued that the report was “misleading and incoherent”, that its conclusions were “ideologically motivated and divisive” and questioned its independence from government. 30 Ms de Cordova asked the Minister to reject the report and “and tell the House instead what she is doing to implement the 231 recommendations in the Timpson, McGregor-Smith, Williams, Angiolini and Lammy reviews.”31
2.4 The report’s recommendations General recommendations Recommendation 1: Challenge racist and discriminatory actions This recommendation has two parts. First, the Commission recommended that the Government gives the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) ring-fenced funding to use its enforcement powers to challenge “policies or practices that either cause significant and unjust racial disadvantage, or arise from racial discrimination.”32 The report did not provide any analysis of the adequacy of the EHRC’s current funding or approach to enforcement. Other stakeholders have in the past also called for the EHRC to play a stronger enforcement role generally (not only in relation to race). In a 2019 report, the House of Commons Women and Equalities Select Committee recommended that the EHRC should “significantly increase the volume, transparency and publicity of its enforcement work,” and reduce its reliance on individual complainants. 33 Responding to the report, Chair of the EHRC, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, said the EHRC welcomed “the recognition that additional funding would help us carry out our important work to tackle discrimination and disadvantage.”34
29 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, HC Deb 20 April 2021 cc868-869 30 Ibid., c869 31 Ibid., c870 32 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report, March 2021, p37 33 Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Women and Equalities Committee, 30 July 2019, HC 1470, p19 34 EHRC Chair responds to report from Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, EHRC website, 31 March 2021 11 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Secondly, the Commission recommended the Government to consider the “complex issue of online abuse, and the platforms that are used to perpetuate such, as a public policy priority.”35 The report36 highlighted the role of social media in amplifying racist views, as well as evidence that minority ethnic groups are particularly affected by online trolling and cyber-bullying.37 Addressing online abuse is already a policy priority for the Government: in 2019 it published an Online Harms White Paper, responded to it in December 2020, and now plans to introduce legislation (see the Library’s briefing, Regulating online harms).38 Recommendation 19: Undertake a ‘support for families’ review The Commission recommended that the Government reviews support for families. This is with a view to improving educational support and relations between parents and schools; encouraging employers to provide flexible working to single parents; involving parents in preventing youth crime; and encouraging family therapy and other mental health services. The report recommends that the Children’s Commission of England should be part of the review team.39 This recommendation was grounded in the Commission’s concern over the prevalence of family breakdown. The report noted that in 2020, 14.7% of families in the UK were lone parent families, yet “63% of Black Caribbean children were growing up in lone parent families, as were 62% of children in the Black Other ethnic group”.40 In particular, the report pointed to the effect of absent fathers, showing evidence of worse educational performance, emotional development and mental health.41 The Commission argued that, while it is not the case that two parents are always better than one, lone parent families may require more support to cope with ‘family strain’. The report defines this as the “negative impact of economic and social pressure on households.”42 Data recommendations Recommendation 23: Use data in a responsible and informed way The Commission recommended that the Race Disparity Unit (a team in the Cabinet Office that collects, analyses and publishes ethnicity data) should work with the Office for National Statistics and Office for Statistics Regulation to develop a set of ethnicity data standards. The Commission criticised the way some data is presented, arguing this can often present a distorted picture of disparities or mask the causes. The report provides the following example:
35 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report, March 2021, p37 36 See Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report, March 2021, pp29-31 & 140-142 37 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Rapid Evidence Assessment: The Prevalence and Impact of Online Trolling, June 2019, p17 38 Regulating online harms, CBP 8743, 22 January 2021 39 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021p44 40 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p41 41 Ibid., p42 42 Ibid., p240 12 Race and ethnic disparities
most ethnic minority groups are on average younger and more likely to live in inner city areas than the White population, and because crime is disproportionately committed by young people and people in big cities this needs to be adjusted for when looking at the raw data on crime.43 The report also recommends that, once those standards are developed, the Race Disparity Unit should work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Office for Statistics Regulation and the Independent Press Standards Organisation, to ensure the standards are applied in the media and government communications channels.44 Some commentators have welcomed this recommendation. For example, while generally critical of the report’s use of data, the Open Data Institute agreed that standards “could help make it easier to ensure analyses are consistent – something that has sometimes proved difficult when ethnicity data has been categorised in different ways.”45 See section 4.1 of this briefing for further discussion of how ethnic groups are defined in official statistics. Recommendation 24: Disaggregate the term ‘BAME’ The Commission recommended that “the government move away from the use of the term ‘BAME’, to better focus on understanding disparities and outcomes for specific ethnic groups”.46 The term BAME has long been criticised for its lack of specificity and campaign groups have supported the recommendation, although also highlighted that Government departments have for years advised against using the term.47 Government style guidance on writing about ethnicity already discourages its use: We do not use the terms BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic or BME (Black and minority ethnic) because: • they include some groups and not others – for example, the UK’s ethnic minorities include White minorities and people with a Mixed ethnic background • the acronyms BAME and BME were not well understood in user research48 Education and training Recommendation 6: Replicate the factors of educational success for all communities The report recommends government investment to: “understand what factors drive the success of high performing pupils’ communities including Black African, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Indian ethnic groups, and how it can be replicated to support all pupils.”49
43 Ibid., p50 44 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p51 45 Objective data? Reflections on the Commission for Race and Ethnic Disparities report, ODI blog, 15 April 2021 46 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p51 47 Boris Johnson's race commission 'to scrap use of BAME label', The Guardian, 29 March 2021 48 Writing about ethnicity, Gov.uk [accessed 27 April 2021] 49 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report, March 2021, p70 13 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
In particular, the report recommends that the Department for Education identifies and obtains the best data to identify trends in disadvantage and attainment, and that funding should be targeted at the most disadvantaged groups, and areas with the greatest disparities.50 Recommendation 7: Invest in proven interventions through better targeted funding The report acknowledged that the school funding system in England has recently been reformed, and that these changes were too recent for any impact to be seen. (The Library briefing School funding in England: FAQs, CBP 8419, provides an overview.) The report stated that recommendation 7 was “for new additional funding to systematically target disparities using proven interventions.”51 It recommended that this funding uplift should be sustained, and issued with clearly defined outcomes.52 In particular, the Commission identified extra hours of education to improve both pupils’ academic abilities and their social skills, with the opportunity for extracurricular activities. It acknowledged there are significant challenges in providing these services, such as cost.53 Section 6 of the Library briefing, The School Day and Year, provides information on research into extended school days and terms. Recommendation 13: Build social and cultural capital – enrichment for all Recommendation 13 built on the recommendation for children to be given an extended school day. The Commission recommended that this be phased in, with the most disadvantaged areas and communities prioritised. It stated that: “additional hours must provide all pupils with the opportunity to engage in physical and cultural activities, including working with local activity clubs.”54 The Commission identified potential issues with this recommendation: • Staffing • Aligning extra support with the wider curriculum • Impact on time for teachers’ continuing professional development • Parental expectations and how to extend hours without causing stress on family life • Protecting family time • Delivery of core school hours for schools currently struggling • How long the extended hours would be The report stated these changes would represent “a unique opportunity for [the Department for Education]to improve current practices and
50 As above, p80-81 51 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p81. Emphasis in original. 52 As above. 53 As above, p82-86 54 As above, p86 14 Race and ethnic disparities
ensure education practitioners are best equipped and rewarded for their time.”55 Recommendation 15: Empower pupils to make more informed choices to fulfil their future potential The Commission cites data that shows although White students are the least likely aggregated ethnic group to go to university, they are far more likely to attend high tariff universities, especially compared to their Black peers.56 Moreover, once at university, students from minority ethnic backgrounds are generally more likely to drop out before completing their course, as well as having lower levels of attainment, and lower earnings after graduating.57 The report recommends that the Office for Students (OfS), which regulates higher education in England, should issue stronger guidance on outreach programmes, with funding targeted at the Gatsby benchmarks of good careers support. If guidance alone is not effective, then the OfS should consider regulatory or legal changes. Commenting on the Commission's report, the Director for Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, Chris Millward, said: “we will consider carefully the Commission’s advice on the priorities and approach for university outreach, which builds on the findings of our own evaluative work and the steps we are taking to strengthen this.”58 Two other reports published in March 2021 by UCAS and the Social Mobility Commission came to similar conclusions about the need to ensure young people have sufficient access to advice for making informed choices about education pathways and opportunities.59 Recommendation 20: Making of modern Britain: teaching an inclusive curriculum Within the National Curriculum’s history programme ,60 a range of subjects can be chosen under broad headings. In the National Curriculum, key stages 1 to 3 move largely chronologically from the Stone Age through to the present day. Academies (including free schools) are not required to follow the National Curriculum, although in practice many do. Options under ‘Ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901’ at Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14), for example, include ‘Britain’s transatlantic slave trade: its effects and its eventual abolition’, alongside ‘the development of the British Empire with a depth study (for example, of India)’. These, however, are options rather than requirements, and
55 As above, p87 56 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p95. 57 Ibid., pp96-97. 58 OfS, “OfS responds to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report”, 31 March 2021. 59 UCAS, Where next? What influences the choices school leavers make?, March 2021; The Social Mobility Commission, The road not taken: The drivers of course selection, March 2021. 60 Department for Education, National curriculum in England: history programmes of study, September 2013 15 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
other topics such as ‘Ireland and Home Rule’, ‘the French Revolutionary Wars’ or ‘Britain as the first industrial nation’ may be taught instead. The Commission’s report raises concerns that schools are not always able to reflect the “multi-layered story” of British society and called for greater resources to support schools to deliver the curriculum. It stated: We heard that many schools and teachers do not have the knowledge or confidence to teach the kind of history suitable for a multi-ethnic UK and need additional support to do so. There is a clear need for better, high quality resources that teachers can use and trust.61 The Commission recommends that the Department for Education work with an appointed panel of independent experts to produce “a well- sequenced set of teaching resources to tell the multiple, nuanced stories that have shaped the country we live in today.” It said the resources should be embedded within subjects in the statutory curriculum.62 Employment, fairness at work and enterprise Recommendation 8: Advance fairness in the workplace The Commission said that bias in the workplace was hard to pin down but that there was conclusive evidence that bias exists, at least in recruitment. It cited several initiatives that have been used to tackle bias in hiring, including the Contextual Recruitment System developed by a company called Rare Recruitment. Regarding unconscious bias training, the Commission cited academic research and reports by bodies like the Equality and Human Rights Commission, to conclude that most research was sceptical of its effectiveness. It argued that organisational redesign and training were better ways of addressing ethnic disparities. It said other measures were more effective, including blind CVs, transparent performance metrics and better mentoring and networking. The Commission said that diversity-related training should involve an exploration of biases that “people of all backgrounds and ethnicities are susceptible to.” It also cautioned that some diverse representation on boards is not sufficient and that companies should place greater emphasis on “diversity of thought and perspective around a board table which is not associated with anyone’s race or ethnicity.” The Commission recommended that employers move away from unconscious bias training and, instead, focus on “sponsorship groups” and skills training for all employees. It also recommended that the Government look into “evidence-based approaches” to tackling disparities in the workplace.63 Recommendation 9: Investigate what causes existing ethnic pay disparities The Commission noted that ethnicity pay gap reporting was a “potentially useful tool” for addressing pay disparity. It also said that
61 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p92 62 Ibid., p93 63 Ibid., p128 16 Race and ethnic disparities
data should be disaggregated by different ethnicities and accompanied by an assessment of why any disparities exist. The Commission said ethnicity pay gap reporting is different from gender pay gap reporting. It noted that an average employer will have roughly equal numbers of male and female staff whereas it will have a much smaller percentage of workers from minority ethnic groups. As a result, it said that ethnicity pay gap data could be significantly affected by changes in pay for a small number of staff. There are multiple ways in which pay gap figures can be reported. The Government consultation on mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting sought views on reporting one pay gap figure, multiple pay gap figures comparing different ethnicities or ethnicity information by different pay bands.64 For gender pay gap reporting, employers are required to publish mean and median pay gaps as well as the proportion of male and female employees in each pay quartile.65 The Commission recommended that employers should be able to choose whether to report ethnicity pay information but those who do should accompany it with an action plan and strategy to improve pay disparities. It recommended that data should be disaggregated by ethnicity and account should be taken of sample size.66 The recommendation was criticised by a number of business organisations.67 Groups like the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD) have supported ethnicity pay gap reporting.68 Business in the Community which, along with law firm Hogan Lovells published a guide on ethnicity pay gap reporting, said the report was a “missed opportunity” and called for mandatory pay gap reporting.69 Trade unions were similarly critical of the report. Thirty-six unions co- signed a letter expressing their “disappointment” and called on the Government to fully implement the recommendations made in previous reviews, including the McGregor-Smith Review.70 During a debate on the report in the House of Commons, the Minister for Equalities was asked whether the Government would commit to introducing mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting. The Minister said the Government would consider the report and “assess the implications of this recommendation for future Government policy.”71
64 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Ethnicity pay reporting, October 2018, pp16-17 65 Reg. 2, Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 66 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p117 67 “UK business groups call for mandatory reporting of ethnicity pay gap”, Financial Times, 18 April 2021 (accessed 27 April 2021) 68 CBI, CBI responds to Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, 31 March 2021; CIPD, CIPD responds to Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, 31 March 2021 (both accessed 27 April 2021) 69 Business in the Community, Government report on race is a missed opportunity, 31 March 2021 (accessed 27 April 2021) 70 TUC, Open letter to the Prime Minister to reject ‘insulting’ report and act on race equality at work, 18 April 2021 (accessed 27 April 2021) 71 HC Deb 20 April 2021 c874 17 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Recommendation 10: Improve understanding of the ethnicity pay gap in NHS England The Commission noted that the NHS was one of the first public sector bodies to publish ethnicity pay gap information. Assessing NHS figures from 2019, the Commission concluded that “there is no consistent pattern with examples of both positive and negative pay gaps.” Citing examples of pay gaps, it concluded that the “picture is not consistent with a pattern one might expect of systemic discrimination.” The Commission recommended that NHS England carry out a review of pay disparities and their causes. It said that where discrimination is identified as the cause of pay disparities, the review should set out measures to address it.72 Recommendation 16: Open up access to apprenticeships The Commission recommended a “highly-targeted’ government campaign aimed at young people to encourage them to take up apprenticeships in “growth sectors”. This will particularly be aimed at young people who face discrimination or disadvantage and who lack access to in-depth information on career choices.73 They suggested a two-phased approach to rolling this out, beginning with a pilot in “left behind areas across England,” before a national rollout. This will be done by the DWP and the DfE, in partnership with the Youth Futures Foundation. The Commission noted that young people from minority ethnic groups are under-represented in the apprenticeship system. The Library briefing Apprenticeship statistics for England (30 March 2021) reports that young people have seen the largest fall in apprenticeship starts following the coronavirus outbreak. Recommendation 3: Improve the transparency and use of artificial intelligence The report provided a short discussion of artificial intelligence, highlighting the potential for bias and unfairness in automated decision systems. In particular, the Commission supported the recommendations outlined in the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation’s Review into bias in algorithmic decision-making74and called on the Government to: • place a mandatory transparency obligation on all public sector organisations applying algorithms that have an impact on significant decisions affecting individuals • ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission to issue guidance that clarifies how to apply the Equality Act to algorithmic decision- making, which should include guidance on the collection of data to measure bias, and the lawfulness of bias mitigation techniques
72 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p120 73 Ibid., p22 74 Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, Review into bias in algorithmic decision- making, November 2020 18 Race and ethnic disparities
On 28 April 2021 the Minister of State for Media and Data responded to a PQ asking what steps his department would be taking to ensure gender and racial discrimination is not incorporated into the development of artificial intelligence systems. The Minister highlighted, among other things, measures intended to mitigate against bias “being incorporated into AI systems procured into the public sector, which at 40% of the economy, sets the standard for AI suppliers in the wider economy.”75
Recommendation 17: Create Agency – Encourage innovation The Commission recommended that HSBC UK collaborates with universities to pilot an enterprise programme for aspiring entrepreneurs from underrepresented and low-income backgrounds. This recommendation is unusual in that it relates specifically to the expenditure of an identified company, whereas most of the report’s recommendations target government policy. The recommendation is perhaps better viewed more as a summary of a proposal the Commission developed in collaboration with HSBC UK.76 The proposal is explained as follows: The universities that would be considered to take part in the pilot will be those who would benefit most from an increased endowment that would: 1) bolster their offer of support to aspiring entrepreneurs; and 2) further enable them to nurture entrepreneurial talent. The programme will support participants in the development of their proposals through the provision of advice, mentorship and access to networks, and provide financial backing towards the winning entrant’s enterprise.77 The report’s discussion of the proposal and the experiences of entrepreneurs cited evidence showing that entrepreneurs from minority ethnic backgrounds are disproportionately declined for lending.78 It also referred to a report, submitted to the Commission by the British Business Bank, that found “Black, and Asian and Other Ethnic Minority entrepreneurs experience far worse outcomes, on average.”79 Crime and policing The first three recommendations on crime and policing relate to stop and search. The Commission identified the main issue as “a lack of consistency, transparency and oversight that allows the perpetuation of charges of racism in public discourse and the media.” Recommendations 4, 5 and 14 are aimed at tackling this. Full background information on stop and search is set out in the Library briefing, Police powers: stop and search.
75 UIN 187146, tabled on 26 April 2021 76 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p133 77 Ibid., p134 78 Carter S., Mwaura S., Ram M., Trehan K., Jones T., (2015) ‘Barriers to ethnic minority and women’s enterprise: Existing evidence, policy tensions and unsettled questions’ International Small Business Journal. 2015;33(1):49-69. 79 British Business Bank, Alone, together Entrepreneurship and diversity in the UK, 21 October 2020 19 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Recommendation 4: Bridge divides and create partnerships between the police and communities This recommendation has two parts. First, the Commission said the College of Policing should develop a framework of minimum standards for community ‘safeguarding trust’ groups, that will scrutinise policing and ensure at least a minimum level of engagement with local communities.80 This framework should cover matters such as access to data, a requirement for groups to be independently chaired and representative of their communities, a duty to publish minutes, an ability for groups to scrutinise disparities in policing activity, and an ability for groups to review ‘no suspicion’ stop and search authorisations made under s60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Safeguarding trust groups should engage with the Chief Constable and Police and Crime Commissioner, and police services should be required to demonstrate how they have responded to community scrutiny or challenge. The Home Office should support in identifying areas where trustworthiness is low and set targets to “close the confidence gap.” The second part of the recommendation is for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) to inspect each police service area against the minimum standard framework.81 The Commission noted that existing legislation requires the police and Police and Crime Commissioners to engage with local communities,82 and that stop and search guidance also sets out requirements on community scrutiny of stop and search.83 However, the Commission concluded that this was “still open to interpretation by each police service area,” which had led to “large degrees of variance” in community scrutiny. The Commission said communities would need to “exercise their own agency, individually and collectively, to play their part” in making this recommendation successful. It cited research by the Criminal Justice Alliance, a network of organisations campaigning for a fair criminal justice system, which had identified Bedfordshire Police as having a “transparent, informed, independent and representative approach to community scrutiny.”84 The Criminal Justice Alliance welcomed the Commission’s reference to the good practice it had identified, and its recommendations to improve
80 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p174 81 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p176 82 Section 34 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and section 96 of the Police Act 1996 83 See the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice on Stop and Search: Transparent – Community Scrutiny (accessed 27 April 2021) and paragraph 5.4 of Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 84 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p172. See also Criminal Justice Alliance, Stop & Scrutinise: How to improve community scrutiny of stop and search, 2019 and Bedfordshire Police, Community scrutiny panel [accessed 27 April 2021] 20 Race and ethnic disparities
community scrutiny. However, it was disappointed that the Commission had failed to recommend the repeal of section 60 stop and search. It said that overall, the report represented a “devastating missed opportunity.”85 Recommendation 5: Improve training to provide police officers with practical skills to interact with communities The Commission recommended that the College of Policing develop a strategy to improve the efficacy and implementation of stop and search. It also recommended that police officers receive effective ‘de-escalation’ training, starting with all new police officers joining the service and extending to serving officers as a ‘key aspect of continual professional development’.86 The Commission said that police forces did not appear to take a uniform approach to training their police officers on how to conduct stop and search. It was instead “a matter for individual police services” to decide how to use the available training material issued by the College of Policing.87 The Commission noted that better training was often proposed as a potential solution to tackling biases in stop and search. However, it added that a 2016 trial conducted for the College of Policing had concluded that problems with stop and search “would not be solved by training alone.”88 Recommendation 14: Increase legitimacy and accountability of stop and search through body-worn video The Commission said there is already a “strong presumption” that police officers will switch on their body-worn video (BWV) cameras if they are in a stop and search situation.89 The authorised professional practice issued by the College of Policing, currently states that the standard approach is for an officer to activate BWV to capture “the time leading up to the person being detained for a search, the conduct of the search itself and the subsequent conclusion of the encounter.”90 The Commission recommended that an officer who does not switch on their BWV camera during a stop and search should be required to provide a written explanation as to why this was not done. This explanation should be available to the person who was stopped and searched. Appropriate action should be taken – for example through performance or misconduct procedures – where the explanation provided is of concern.
85 Criminal Justice Alliance, Report from Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities a ‘devastating missed opportunity’, 1 April 2021 86 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p168 87 Ibid., p165. The existing College of Policing guidance is set out in the Authorised Professional Practice on Stop and Search 88 College of Policing (Quinton and Packham), College of Policing stop and search training experiment: An overview, 2016 89 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p170 90 College of Policing, Authorised Professional Practice on Stop and Search: Transparent - Using body-worn video to record information [accessed 27 April 2021] 21 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
The Commission also recommended that BWV footage of stop and searches should be scrutinised by ‘dip-sampling’ at two levels: • external scrutiny conducted by community Safeguarding Trust groups (see recommendation 4 above) • an internal performance framework that includes review of BWV footage by supervising officers. Recommendation 12: Prevent harm, reduce crime and divert young people away from the criminal justice system The Commission recommended a multi-agency approach across the criminal justice system to develop an “evidence-based pilot to divert offences of low-level Class B drug possession into public health services.”91 The Commission said the pilot should be trialled in four of the six police force areas, where almost half of all arrests for drug offences took place in the year ending March 2020. These are the Metropolitan Police, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, and Humberside. The Commission noted that Thames Valley and West Midlands are already undertaking these pilots.92 It said that information about those referred into the programme should not be disclosed to potential employers, education providers or voluntary sector organisations, to avoid them being held back by a criminal record. The Commission noted that its recommendation built on similar themes in the Lammy Review (see section 5.3 of this briefing). Other organisations have previously examined this issue and made similar recommendations, including the StopWatch coalition that campaigns for fair policing and the drugs law charity, Release.93 Recommendation 18: Improve safety and support for children at risk The Commission recommended that the Youth Justice Board work with partners to develop a digital solution to support young people at risk of, or already experiencing, criminal exploitation.94 This could include such mobile apps, a text line or chatbot. The Government would be required to give additional resourcing to the Youth Justice Board to enable it to deliver this recommendation. The digital solution should act as an ‘entry point’ to signpost and refer people to local organisations that can support them at or before the ‘point of crisis’. The aim would be to empower young people to escape
91 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p185 92 Thames Valley Police, Youth Drug Diversion Scheme to be rolled out forcewide – Thames Valley, 13 October 2020 and West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner, Police Commissioner funds new scheme to break the cycle of drug crime, 14 October 2020 93 StopWatch, The Colour of Injustice: ‘Race’, drugs and law enforcement in England and Wales, 2018 and Release, The Numbers in Black and White, 2013 94 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p179 22 Race and ethnic disparities
criminal behaviours and exploitation without needing to go to the police. The Commission said this recommendation was based on existing technology innovations, such as the online chat service Is This OK? and the National Innovation Incubator for Children’s Social Care launched by children’s charity Coram. Recommendation 21: Create police workforces that represent the communities they serve The Commission recommended that each police force introduces a local requirement that recruits are from the areas they serve , to help forces better represent their local communities.95 The Library briefing, Police Service Strength provides further information on diversity among current UK police officers. The Commission noted that the Metropolitan Police has a ‘residency requirement’ to help it to achieve a target that 40% of its workforce should be from a minority ethnic group. 96 It recommended that this policy be “upscaled across all police force areas in England and Wales,” with the College of Policing providing guidance for police services on the residency requirement. The guidance should take account of the “different nuances of each police service area.” The Joint Committee on Human Rights made a similar recommendation in its November 2020 report, Black people, racism and human rights. The Committee said polling it had commissioned showed “very low levels in trust in the police among the Black community,” and that the police should set a target to increase the number of Black police officers and publish the percentage of Black police officers in each force by seniority.97 The Committee noted the ‘Police Plan of Action on Inclusion and Race Equality’ established by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing following the death of George Floyd. It said it welcomed the commitment given by those organisations to develop and deliver the plan through “ongoing two-way engagement with Black people, and others with lived experience, inside and outside of policing.”98 Recommendation 22: Equip the police service to serve the needs of their local communities The Commission recommended that the College of Policing works with police forces to design and evaluate recruitment pilots that match candidates’ life skills with the needs of the communities they serve in
95 Ibid., p197 96 Metropolitan Police, Police constable overview: who are we looking for – residency [accessed 27 April 2021] 97 Joint Committee on Human Rights, Black people, racism and human rights, HC 559/HL Paper 165, November 2020, para 68 98 Ibid. para 67. For further details of the Plan see Written evidence from the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council (RHR0025) and the National Police Chiefs’ Council press releases Update on the Plan of Action for inclusion and race equality in policing, 31 July 2020 and Policing seeks check and challenge for new action on inclusion and race, 29 March 2021 23 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
their local areas.99 Relevant life skills might include knowledge of local issues, familiarity with languages in the areas covered, and an understanding of different religious and cultural sensitivities.100 The Commission set a deadline of September 2021 for the College of Policing to identify a lead for the project, and to outline timelines for the progression of the pilots. Following evaluation of the pilot, the College of Policing should introduce evidence-based guidance for police services on how to include suitable questions in the recruitment process. If the College of Policing decides, based on the evaluation results, that it is unable to proceed with this recommendation, it should be required to write to the Home Secretary and Home Office to outline the reasons why the pilots cannot be upscaled. Health Recommendation 2: Review the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) inspection process The Commission recommended that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) commission a review into the CQC’s approach to scoring employee diversity and inclusion in their inspections.101 The CQC takes a range of diversity indicators into account when carrying out inspections, including the NHS’s Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) scores and recruitment data. The WRES was established in 2015 and requires NHS organisations to report against nine indicators of race equality. The latest WRES report for 2020 notes that data gathered since 2015 has shown: […] black and minority ethnic staff members are less well represented at senior levels, have measurably worse day to day experiences of life in NHS organisations, and have more obstacles to progressing in their careers.102 However, the Commission stated there was evidence of a lack of trust in the CQC process among frontline staff, and “more needs to be done by the CQC to ensure disparities are better understood and considered in inspections”.103 The Commission concluded this has the potential to be one of the strongest tools for encouraging change and progress for one of the largest employers in the UK. The Commission recommended that the review be chaired by “an expert with close knowledge of the health care system and CQC internal processes” and ideally “a former inspector or inspector of an alternative inspection body”.104 The Commission noted that the review should work closely with the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard team and the disciplinary bodies
99 The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, The Report, March 2021, p198 100 Ibid., p196 101 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report, March 2021, p130 102 NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard, 2020: Data Analysis Report for NHS Trusts and Clinical Commissioning Groups, February 2021, p3 103 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report, March 2021, p129 104 Ibid., p129 24 Race and ethnic disparities
of the medical professionals to “ensure that the views of these bodies feed into this work”.105 In response to the Commission’s recommendations, NHS Employers said they support reviewing the CQC’s approach to including disparities in the experiences, progression and disciplinary actions taken against ethnic minority staff in their inspections of healthcare providers.106 The Royal College of General Practitioners published a statement responding to the report and also welcomed the call for a review into the CQC inspection process: We specifically welcome the call for a review into the Care Quality Commission inspection process, which echoes our own call for the CQC to take measures to look at the impact of its inspections on GPs from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. But such a review must be independent, and it must listen to the voice of professionals working on the front line with experience of being inspected by the CQC.107 The NHS People Plan for 2020/21 published in July 2020 included a number of actions relating to equality and diversity, including for the CQC to place “increasing emphasis” on equality, diversity and inclusion: Over 2020/21, as part of its ‘well led’ assessment of trusts, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) will place increasing emphasis on whether organisations have made real and measurable progress on equality, diversity and inclusion - and whether they are able to demonstrate the positive impact of this progress on staff and patients.108 On 9 March 2021 the CQC and the EHRC published a new Memorandum of Understanding which sets out how the CQC and EHRC will work together, including: • collaborating for better leadership on equality for staff working in NHS and social care • where providers are failing to meet equality requirements, we have a commitment to look at where CQC and EHRC can take coordinated regulatory action to improve equality for either people using services or for staff working in health and social care.109 Recommendation 11: Establish an Office for Health Disparities The Commission recommended an ‘Office for Health Disparities’ should be established to target health disparities in the UK. It would aim to improve healthy life expectancy across the UK and reduce inequalities.110 The Commission proposed the Office for Health Disparities should be an independent body, working alongside the NHS as part of, or in place of,
105 Ibid., p130 106 NHS Employers, Race and ethnic disparities report published, 6 April 2021 107 Royal College of General Practitioners, RCGP response to Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, 1 April 2021 108 NHS England, People Plan 2020/21, July 2020, p26 109 CQC, New agreement between CQC and Equality and Human Rights Commission, 9 March 2021 110 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report, March 2021, p230 25 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
the redesigned Public Health England.111 The Commission note that addressing health inequalities would involve multiple government departments and the Office would therefore need to be cross-cutting.112 The Commission based this recommendation on the Office of Minority Health in the USA. The Office of Minority Health is a federal agency established in 1986 at the Department of Health and Human Services: Their mission is to improve the health of racial and ethnic minority populations through the development of health policies and programs that will help eliminate health disparities.113 The Commission identified the following aims for the proposed Office for Health Disparities: • Increase programmes aimed at levelling up health care and health outcomes: ─ Communities with the worst health outcomes should be targeted for tailored health interventions, health education and communications. • Improve the data, guidance and expertise in the causes and solutions for health disparities for specific groups: ─ Fund further research into health conditions which adversely impact specific groups, including deprived communities and different ethnic groups. ─ Provide best practice for the inclusion of known health disparities in clinical care guidelines, and work closely with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other bodies to ensure all guidance includes information on disparities as standard. Provide expertise in how the health of different ethnic groups, including White, are affected by underlying conditions, cultural and linguistic practices, geography and occupation.114 The Commission listed priorities for the Office, including commissioning new research into the causes of mental health conditions and life-limiting clinical conditions, and the reasons for disparities in outcomes. Research into preventative approaches was also recommended, alongside how to increase the diversity of participants in clinical research studies such as clinical trials.115 Health education and communications were identified as key priorities, with the aim of improving health literacy and tackling the stigma associated with the mental health services in different groups. The Commission also recommended a team of experts with cultural understanding of different communities provide advice to healthcare providers nationwide.116
111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 113 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report, March 2021, p229 114 Ibid., p230 115 Ibid., p231 116 Ibid. 26 Race and ethnic disparities
Following the announcement in August 2020 that Public Health England would be abolished, the creation of the Office for Health Promotion was announced by the Department of Health and Social Care on 29 March 2021: We will ensure that core public health responsibilities and capabilities are placed at the heart of government, with a new Office for Health Promotion in DHSC reporting into the CMO and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, supporting them to execute their roles in improving the public’s health and narrowing health inequalities.117 The press release notes that the Office will be “established by the autumn” and will inform a new cross-government agenda which will track wider determinants of health and “implement policies in other departments where appropriate”.118 There will also be a new cross-government ministerial board on prevention, “which will drive forward and coordinate action on the wider determinants of health to level up inequalities”.119
117 DHSC, Transforming the public health system: reforming the public health system for the challenges of our times, 29 March 2021 118 DHSC, New Office for Health Promotion to drive improvement of nation’s health, 29 March 2021 119 Ibid. 27 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
3. Implementation
The Queen’s Speech on 11 May 2021 announced that measures would “be brought forward to address racial and ethnic disparities”.120 The Speech did not explain what these measures would entail. The background briefing notes to the Speech said: The Government is now considering the Commission’s findings and recommendations in detail, assessing their implications on future Government policy, and will respond in due course.121 As stated above (see section 2.3), the Government has indicated that it is working to produce a response to the report during the summer.
120 Queen's Speech 2021, Gov.uk, 11 May 2021 121 Queen's Speech 2021: background briefing notes, 11 May 2021, page 115 28 Race and ethnic disparities
4. Statistics 4.1 Ethnic groups in the UK Survey estimates for 2019 The Annual Population Survey (APS) provides the most up-to-date estimates of the number of people belonging to different ethnic groups in the UK. The table below shows the most recent estimates for the whole of the UK.
Population by ethnic group, UK (2019)
Population % of total Ethnic group (millions) population White 56.50 85.6% Asian / Asian British 4.92 7.3% Indian 1.74 2.6% Pakistani 1.42 2.1% Bangladeshi 0.61 0.9% Chinese 0.33 0.5% Any other Asian background 0.82 1.2% Black / African / Caribbean / Black British 2.22 3.4% Mixed / Multiple ethnic groups 1.15 1.7% Other ethnic groups 1.18 1.8%
Total 65.97 100.0%
Source: Annual Population Survey, Q1 2019 – Q4 2019 dataset
These UK-wide figures show White people as a single group122, but more detail is available for Great Britain. Around 78.9% of the population of Great Britain identified as White British in 2019, while 0.6% were White Irish (around 369,000 people) and 5.8% were from another White ethnic group (around 3.72 million people). The Gypsy and Irish Travellers are White minority ethnic groups. Concerns have been raised about under-counting of these groups in surveys and the census because they can be hard to reach. For more background on this and estimates of the population size, see the Library’s Gypsies and Travellers briefing paper (CBP 8083). The 2011 Census The decennial census provides a more comprehensive picture of ethnic groups in the UK, because the entire resident population is asked about the ethnic group they identify with. The most recent census was carried out in 2011. The census is carried out separately in England and Wales,
122 This is because the survey question about ethnic groups is asked in different ways in different countries, including differences in the options given for White ethnicity in Northern Ireland. 29 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Scotland and Northern Ireland, each with a slightly different set of categories presented in the ethnicity question. In all nations, census respondents can also write in an ethnic group. The Government’s Ethnicity Facts and Figures website summarises demographic information from the census in England and Wales including information about the age profile, socio-economic status, and family structure of people in ethnic minority groups. Further analysis of findings on ethnicity in England and Wales is also available from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) website.
Box 1: How are ethnic groups defined in official statistics? Ethnicity is something that is self-defined, and can be highly personal. The terms that society uses for different ethnic groups can also change over time. While ethnicity can be described in lots of ways, statistics produced by the Government will normally use a standard set of categories to describe ethnic groups. These categories exist so that data can be compared over time and between different sources. The standard categories are designed to be used in the census, survey questions, and government forms, where the survey respondent will be able to self-identify which group they belong to. The categories are slightly different in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but survey results can be brought together to produce aggregate UK-wide estimates like those above. In practice, not all government departments and organisations use these standard categories, for example if they want the data they collect to be consistent with older data. Before every census, the ONS consults on how ethnicity should be asked about. Views are taken from census data users, as well as people from different communities. For more detail, see the Library briefing on Preparing for the 2021 Census (CBP 8531). More background on defining ethnic groups is available from the ONS’ Ethnic group, identity and religion guide. A 2019 blog post from the Race Disparity Unit offers further historical background.
Local-level statistics The census is able to provide data for small geographic areas, unlike Statistics on survey data. The map overleaf shows the proportion of the population ethnic groups by that belongs to an ethnic group other than White British in England and 123 constituency for Wales. The map is scaled so that each hexagon represents a Middle the UK are Layer Super Output Area (MSOA), a type of small geographic area for available from statistical analysis defined by the ONS. the Library’s Each MSOA has a population of around 7,000 to 10,000 people, which Constituency data: ethnicity means that densely-populated urban areas appear bigger in the map dashboard. while relatively unpopulated rural areas appear smaller. These densely- populated urban areas tend to have a higher proportion of people from ethnic minority groups living there. London, Birmingham, Leicester and Bradford all have many MSOAs with a large proportion of ethnic minority groups. The table overleaf shows the MSOAs in England and Wales that have the highest percentage of their population belonging to some of the broad ethnic groups reported in the census data. MSOAs with large Asian populations were more common than areas with large populations of people from Black or other minority ethnic groups – this
123 The term ‘White British’ is used here to describe anyone who gave their ethnicity as White British or White English, White Welsh, White Scottish or White Northern Irish. 30 Race and ethnic disparities
is unsurprising given the size of the Asian population in the UK relative to other ethnic minority groups. In 2011, there were 160 MSOAs in England and Wales with a majority-Asian population, with some of the largest populations in parts of Leicester, Bradford, Birmingham and Blackburn. There were four MSOAs with a majority Black population in England and Wales, three of which were in London. MSOAs with large populations of people identifying with Mixed or multiple ethnic groups were present in parts of Nottingham, Liverpool, London and Kirklees. The table also shows the proportion of people belonging to ‘Other’ non-White ethnic groups. These groups were prevalent in parts of central London, Liverpool and Sheffield. In each of the areas shown, the majority of people in the ‘Other’ group identified as Arab.
Which neighbourhoods have the biggest ethnic minority populations? Percentage of population by ethnic group, neighbourhoods in England and Wales, 2011
Neighbourhood % Neighbourhood %
Asian / Asian British Black / African / Caribbean / Black British Belgrave South Leicester 85% Peckham North West Southwark 55% Toller Lane & Infirmary Bradford 84% Peckham Park Road Southwark 51% Barkerend East Bradford 83% Stonebridge Brent 51% Sparkhill North Birmingham 83% Moss Side West Manchester 50% Bastwell Blackburn 82% Loughborough Road Lambeth 48%
Mixed / Multiple ethnic groups 'Other' ethnic groups Paddington & St George's St Ann's East Nottingham 11% Fields Westminster 22% Deighton & Brackenhall Kirklees 11% Toxteth Park Liverpool 22% Toxteth Park Liverpool 10% Church Street Westminster 21% Thorneywood Nottingham 10% Westbourne Westminster 19% West Norwood South Lambeth 10% Burngreave & Grimesthorpe Sheffield 16%
Notes: The ‘neighbourhoods’ listed are Middle-Layer Super Output Areas (MSOAs), defined by the Office for National Statistics. ‘Asian / Asian British’ includes people identifying as Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, and ‘Other Asian’. ‘Other ethnic groups’ includes all ethnic groups that were not White, Asian, Black or Mixed.
Source: 2011 Census, Table KS201EW; Commons Library, MSOA Names dataset
31 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
32 Race and ethnic disparities
4.2 Education Schools Schools Attainment at GCSE At the end of key stage 4 (the GCSE phase) there are some differences in headline measures of attainment between pupils from different ethnic groups. In 2019/20, 71% of White state-funded school pupils attained a standard pass in both English and maths GCSEs (grades 9 to 4, broadly equivalent to the old A* to C grading). The ethnic group with the highest attainment were Chinese pupils, with 91% achieving this measure. Black pupils showed the lowest attainment, with 69% attaining a standard pass in English and maths.124 The table below shows the GCSE attainment data by major and minor ethnic group, in 2020. This highlights that differences arise within the broad ethnic groupings. For instance, among Black pupils those classed as Black Caribbean pupils show lower attainment than Black African pupils. In the Asian ethnic group, Indian pupils show higher performance than Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils. Among the White ethnic group Gypsy/Roma and traveller children show much lower levels of attainment.
124 Department for Education, Key stage 4 performance 2019-2020,15 April 2021. 33 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
% of pupils with a standard pass in English and maths GCSE, by ethnicity 2020, State-funded schools, England
White 70.9 White British 71.2 White Irish 79.0 Any other white background 69.2 Gypsy/Roma 20.2 Traveller of Irish heritage 37.5
Mixed 70.9 White and Black Caribbean 60.8 White and Asian 78.9 White and Black African 72.4 Any other mixed background 72.9
Asian 76.7 Indian 84.8 Bangladeshi 77.3 Pakistani 69.1 Any other Asian background 81.0
Black 68.5 Caribbean 59.6 Any other black background 64.2 Black African 72.5
Chinese 91.3
Any other ethnicity 69.8
All 71.2
Notes: A standard pass is achieving at least 9-4 grades in English and maths GCSE. 9-4 is roughly equivalent to A* to C under the previous letter grading system. Source: Department for Education, Key Stage 4 attainment 2019-2020, National characteristics data, published 15 April 2021.
Progress 8 is a headline performance measure for schools in England. It measures the progress a school makes with its pupils between end of key stage 2 (end of primary) and key stage 4. A positive Progress 8 score means that on average, a group of pupils makes more progress than peers with similar prior attainment nationally. Owing to the coronavirus pandemic, Progress 8 scores have not been published for 2020. In 2019, White pupils made the least progress of any major ethnic group. Again, Chinese pupils made the most progress. 34 Race and ethnic disparities
Average progress 8 score at the end of Key Stage 4 England 2019: pupils in state schools
Chinese 0.86
Other 0.50
Asian 0.47
Black 0.13
Mixed 0.00
White -0.11
Source: Department for Education, Key Stage 4 performance 2019 (revised), updated 7 September 2020.
Exclusions The Department for Education publishes the number and rate of permanent and fixed period exclusions broken down by ethnicity. This data is available for state-funded primary, secondary and special schools. The most recent data available is from the academic year 2018/19 (published in July 2020). A permanent exclusion refers to a pupil who is excluded and who will not come back to that school (unless the exclusion is overturned). The permanent exclusion rate is the number of permanent exclusions in an academic year expressed as a proportion of sole and dual main registered pupils on roll as of January school census day. A fixed period exclusion refers to a pupil who is excluded from a school for a set period of time. This can involve a part of the school day and it does not have to be for a continuous period. A pupil may be excluded for one or more fixed periods up to a maximum of 45 school days in one academic year. The fixed period exclusion rate is the number of fixed period exclusions in an academic year expressed as a proportion of sole and dual registered pupils on roll as of January census day. Across all ethnic groups, in England in 2018/19 the overall permanent exclusion rate in state-funded schools was 0.10%. Permanent exclusion rates by ethnic group are shown in the table below. 35 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Permanent exclusion rate England 2018/19: Pupils at state schools
Exclusion rate White 0.10 White - British 0.10 White - Irish 0.06 Gypsy / Roma 0.39 Traveller of Irish Heritage 0.27 Any Other White Background 0.05
Mixed 0.13 White and Asian 0.08 White and Black African 0.12 White and Black Caribbean 0.24 Any Other Mixed Background 0.10
Asian 0.04 Indian 0.01 Pakistani 0.06 Bangladeshi 0.04 Any Other Asian Background 0.04
Chinese 0.01
Black 0.11 Black - African 0.07 Black Caribbean 0.25 Any Other Black Background 0.13
Any Other Ethnic Group 0.08
All pupils 0.10
An exclusion rate of 0.10 is equivalent to 10 pupils per 10,000. Source: Department for Education, Permanent and fixed period exclusions in England 2018/19.
On average pupils of Gypsy/Roma and Travellers of Irish Heritage ethnic groups have the highest rates of both permanent and fixed period exclusions and pupils of Chinese ethnicity, the lowest. Special educational needs Pupils in England who have complex special educational needs (SEN) may have an Education, Health and Care plan (EHC plan) setting out their school or college placement, and their legal entitlement to special educational provision. Pupils with less complex special educational needs may receive support in school or college, through what is known as SEN Support. In the 2019/20 academic year, pupils from the White Irish Traveller ethnic group had the highest incidence of EHC plans (5.0% of pupils, 36 Race and ethnic disparities
compared to the national average of 3.3%); a further 24.9% of White Irish Traveller pupils were receiving SEN Support (compared to the national average of 12.1%). Asian – Indian pupils had the lowest incidence of EHC plans (2.1%), and pupils of Chinese ethnicity the lowest rates of SEN Support (5.5%).125 Higher education Access to higher education The latest data on access to higher education is from the admissions service UCAS. The chart opposite gives estimated entry rates for HE participation rates 18 year olds from England by broad ethnic group. UCAS do not for 18 year olds publish these figures for more detailed ethnic groups. These data Young people from England in 2020 only cover full-time undergraduate courses. Chinese 72% More than two-thirds of Chinese 18 year olds started higher Asian 53% 126 education in 2020 as did just over half of Asian 18 year olds. The Black 48% entry rate for 18 year olds from Black and ‘other’ ethnic groups were Other 47% also above average. One in three 18 year olds from White Mixed 39% backgrounds started higher education in 2020. This broad pattern White 33% has been in place for the last decade. The largest increase in entry rates over this period was among Black 18 year olds and those from Source: End of cycle data resources, ‘other’ ethnic groups, the smallest among White 18 year olds. UCAS UCAS breaks down entry rates by the ‘tariff’ level of different universities. There are three tariff groups; high, medium and low and these refer to average grades of students admitted. High tariff institutions where entrants have higher grades are generally Higher tariff 18 year old considered more prestigious and harder to get into. This type of participation rates analysis therefore can shed light on a different aspect of access to Young people from England in 2020 higher education. Chinese 40% The chart opposite shows that Chinese 18 year olds were also more Asian 14% likely to go to higher tariff universities, but the gap with other ethnic Mixed 13% groups was much larger. While 48% of Black 18 year olds entered Other 13% higher education in 2020 only 10% went to a higher tariff institution; White 11% the lowest rate of any ethnic group. Another way of looking at this Black 10% disparity is the proportion of entrants to higher education who got into a higher tariff institution. This rate was 21% for Black 18 year olds compared to 56% of their Chinese and 33% of their White contemporaries respectively. A more detailed ethnic breakdown has been produced by the Department for Education. This looks at the proportion of young people from state-funded schools starting higher education by age 19. This is given in the following table which includes a gender breakdown The highest overall progression rate was again among Chinese young people, here 79%. Next highest were Indian (72%), other Asian (69%) and Black African (67%) young people. There was substantial variation within each ethnic group not shown in the broader UCAS data. The
125 Department for Education, Special educational needs in England, 2 July 2020. 126 Combined rate for Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and ‘other Asian’ ethnic groups. 37 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
lowest rates by far were among those from Gypsy/Roma and Traveller groups. Progression rates were around 30%127 higher among females on average. The gender gap was smaller within ethnic groups with overall higher progression rates. The largest gender gap at 58% was within the Black Caribbean group.
Progression to HE by ethnic group and gender, England Percentage of pupils from state-funded schools starting HE by age 19, 2018/19
Female Male All
White White - British 43.2 32.9 37.9 White - Irish 58.5 47.5 53.0 Gypsy / Roma 4.7 5.7 5.2 Traveller of Irish Heritage 8.5 6.8 7.6 Any Other White Background 51.9 41.5 46.6
Mixed White and Asian 59.5 51.0 55.2 White and Black African 59.8 42.6 51.5 White and Black Caribbean 42.2 29.3 35.8 Any Other Mixed Background 57.7 47.1 52.3
Asian Indian 76.3 67.5 71.7 Pakistani 62.5 50.8 56.5 Bangladeshi 71.3 58.7 64.9 Any Other Asian Background 74.2 63.9 68.8
Chinese 83.2 75.5 79.3
Black Black - African 74.6 59.1 66.9 Black Caribbean 54.6 34.6 44.7 Any Other Black Background 60.4 44.0 52.1
Other Any Other Ethnic Group 64.9 55.4 59.9 Unknown 48.8 37.6 43.0
TOTAL 48.0 37.3 42.5
Source: Widening participation in higher education 2018/19, DfE
Retention and outcomes While entry rates to higher education are higher among minority ethnic groups, retention rates are generally lower, and degree outcomes poorer, than White students. The Office for Students measures the proportion of new full-time home students at English universities who were continuing their studies one year later. The non-continuation rate (no longer in higher education) for 2018/19 starters was highest for Black students at 15.1% compared with 12.6% for ‘other’ ethnic groups, 10.9% for mixed, 9.8% for Asian
127 Relative difference in progression rates 38 Race and ethnic disparities
and 8.9% for White Students. This broad pattern has remained stable since 2010.128 Black graduates were least likely to gain a first or upper second class degree. 68% did so in 2019/20 compared with 79% of Asian, 83% of Mixed and 87% of White graduates.129 These rates increased substantially for all age groups in 2019/20. This is thought to be due to the ‘no detriment’ approach to assessment130 adopted by many universities in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Some of this difference can be ‘explained’ by differences in entry qualifications. However, when these and other factors are taken into account their still remains a gap in outcomes by ethnic group. For 2016/17 graduates this was estimated at 17 percentage points (compared with White graduates) for Black graduates, 10 points for those from an Asian ethnic group and 6 points for those from a Mixed background.131 Black graduates were also less likely to be in highly skilled employment or further study six months after graduation. 69% of Black graduates in 2016/17 were in such activities compared with 71% of Mixed, 72% of Asian and 74% of White graduates.132 A survey of 2017/18 UK graduates 15 months after finishing their course found that the highest rates of full-time employment were among White students at 60% compared with 54% of Mixed, 52% of Asian, 50% of Black and 45% of those from ‘Other’ ethnic backgrounds.133 Analysis of first degree graduates from English higher education institutions looked at earnings at various points after graduation. Median annual earnings of the 2013 graduating cohort five years after graduation were highest among those from Indian and Chinese backgrounds at £31,000 and £29,900 respectively. White graduates earned the same as the overall median average at £27,400. Pakistani graduates had the lowest earnings at £23,700, but other minority ethnic groups earned below the overall average, including Black Caribbean, ‘other Black’, mixed White and Black Caribbean and Pakistani graduates, all of which were in the £25,000 to £26,000 range.134
4.3 Health The relationship between health and ethnicity is a complex one that requires detailed investigation and understanding. Indeed as noted in
128 Continuation rates and transfers, Office for Students; Access and participation data dashboard, Office for Students 129 Access and participation data dashboard, Office for Students 130 According to HESA “This typically ensured that students would be awarded a final grade no lower than the most recent provider assessment of their attainment. The impact can be seen in the increase in the proportion of first class degrees awarded in 2019/20 compared with 2018/19.” 131 Differences in student outcomes, Office for Students 132 Ibid. 133 Higher Education Graduate Outcomes Statistics: UK, 2017/18, HESA 134 Graduate outcomes (LEO): 2018 to 2019, DfE 39 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Public Health England’s Local action on health inequalities report, without explicit consideration of ethnicity within health inequalities work there is a risk of partial understanding of the processes producing poor health outcomes and ineffective intervention. Availability of ethnicity details Although the need to investigate ethnic inequality is increasingly recognised, efforts are hampered by limited availability of regular, accurate data to monitor ethnic variation in health outcomes and access to NHS services. Observers note that despite some improvement, the completeness and accuracy of ethnicity recording within routine health data systems remains patchy: see for example Salway et al (2020).
Public Health England’s Health equity report on ethnicity highlights some key gaps in the available of data by ethnic group. Mortality data is of particular concern. Since ethnicity is not recorded on death certificates in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, and has only recently been introduced in Scotland, it is impossible to calculate life expectancy estimates or robust mortality rates from death registration data.
Factors such as this influenced the recent recommendation from the report on Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on BAME groups to:
Mandate comprehensive and quality ethnicity data collection and recording as part of routine NHS and social care data collection systems, including the mandatory collection of ethnicity data at death certification…
Efforts to assess life expectancy and mortality Some estimates of life expectancy by ethnicity have been produced by linking death registration records to Census data which includes self- reports of ethnic group.
The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) report’s view that ethnic minority groups have better life expectancies than White groups is sourced to the work of Gruer et al (2016). This study analysed deaths in Scotland (between May 2001 and April 2004) linked to ethnicity data from the 2001 Census and found higher levels of life expectancy among Indian, Pakistani and Chinese groups. However, it is worth noting that this Scottish study included insufficient numbers to assess the life expectancy of Black groups.
The Gruer et al study was based on the methodology used by an earlier study (Morris et al (2015)) examining deaths in England and Wales between 2000 and 2002. Morris et al (2015) found a strong advantage in life expectancy for White populations which was particularly evident among men. When the distribution of deprivation was taken into account, Asian and White groups displayed similar life expectancies, but Black groups remained at a disadvantage. The life expectancy of Black 40 Race and ethnic disparities
men was 4.2 years behind both Asian and White groups. Black women were 1.5 years behind White women and 1.7 years behind Asian women.
The CRED report also provides a summary of studies examining comparative mortality rates between ethnic groups, pointing out that for some conditions, particularly certain cancers, black and minority ethnic groups show lower mortality rates (ie better outcomes) than white groups. However, this situation is reversed for other conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, highlighting the complex picture underpinning health inequalities and ethnicity.
The report notes that the quality of data on health disparities is mixed and there are challenges in obtaining consistent ethnicity data across different health conditions. For instance, the data presented on cancer mortality is taken from the National Cancer Information Network’s 2009 analysis of Cancer incidence and survival by major ethnic group. The authors of this report highlight several limitations to their analyses including the lack of ethnicity information for almost a quarter of the cancer patients included in the sample. This substantially increases the uncertainty associated with the results given that the authors estimated that the patients with unknown ethnicity were not a random cross- section of all patients.
Given the issues with the availability of ethnicity details in administrative records, much of the information examining ethnicity and health is taken from surveys. However, this data also has inherent problems and small sample sizes limit our knowledge about health inequalities between different ethnic groups. Where sufficient data is available to allow meaningful comparisons between ethnic groups, this tends to be a national level rather than for local areas. National data is not readily comparable between UK nations due to differences in data collection and measurement.
The following sections provide a brief overview of the main findings from available statistics examining differential health outcomes for particular ethnic groups.
Overweight and obesity Data from the Active Lives Survey shows that Black adults in England are more likely than other ethnic groups to be overweight or obese. 73.6% of Black adults were overweight or obese compared with 63.3% of White British adults. Other ethnic groups had below average figures: 56.2% of Asian adults were overweight or obese, along with 35.3% of Chinese adults and 57.0% of Mixed ethnic group adults. Data from the English National Child Measurement Programme analysed by PHE indicates that, at age 4/5, children from Black ethnic groups are most likely to be overweight or obese. White children also have above average rates. Among children aged 10/11, most minority ethnic groups have above average rates of overweight and obesity. 41 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Children aged 10/11 from White and Chinese ethnic groups have below average rates. Diabetes A NICE review from 2013 states that people from some minority ethnic groups have an equivalent risk of diabetes at a lower body mass index (BMI) than White people. In other words, their BMI-adjusted risk is higher. NICE recommended that lifestyle interventions be used at a lower BMI threshold for Black and Asian populations. Cardiovascular conditions Some ethnic groups are at a greater risk of cardiovascular conditions. The British Heart Foundation states that: • People of a South Asian background are more likely to develop coronary heart disease than White people (read more here). • African or African Caribbean people are at a greater risk of high blood pressure and stroke than other ethnic groups (read more here). Mental health Evidence on variation in mental health problems between ethnicities is uncertain. Research has found that diagnosis and recognition of mental disorders varies in different groups, and that there can be a stigma attached to mental health issues in some communities.135 Prevalence of conditions The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey is undertaken every 7 years in England and gives a picture of trends in mental health and wellbeing. It includes information on variation between broad ethnic groups. The survey found the following variations136: • 22.5% of Black/Black British adults had symptoms of a common mental disorder such as depression and anxiety – compared with 17.7% of White British adults and 17.9% of Asian/Asian British adults. • The proportion of people receiving treatment varied between ethnic groups, at 14.5% for White British, 6.5% for Black/Black British and 7.1% for Asian/Asian British. • 8.3% of Black/Black British adults screened positive for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, compared with 5.8% of Asian/Asian British adults and 4.2% of White British adults. • 3.5% of Black/Black British adults screened positive for Bipolar Disorder, compared with 1.4% of Asian/Asian British adults and 2.0% of White/White British Adults.
135 DH, Ethnic Minority Psychiatric Illness Rates in the Community; Perceived barriers to accessing mental health services among black and minority ethnic (BME) communities: a qualitative study in Southeast England, BMJ Open 136 Prevalence figures in this section are age-standardised, which means that they take account of differences in the age structure of populations in different ethnic groups. 42 Race and ethnic disparities
• 21.6% of White British adults reported ever having had suicidal thoughts, compared with 20.7% of Black/Black British adults and 13.1% of Asian/Asian British adults.
Outcomes for those undergoing psychological therapy Data is collected on the treatment outcomes of those referred to NHS psychological therapies for common mental disorders such as depression or anxiety (known as ‘IAPT’) in England. People from minority ethnic groups are less likely to experience improvement in their condition, or recover from their condition, after therapy. In 2019/20, 64% of Asian/Asian British Adults saw improvement after treatment, compared with 65% of Mixed, 66% of Black/Black British adults and 68% of White adults. 46% of Asian/Asian British and Mixed adults recovered from their condition after treatment, compared with 49% of Black/Black British adults and 52% of White adults.
GP practice data Analysis of data from GP practice registers in England shows that areas with a lower proportion of the population identifying as White also tend to have lower recorded prevalence of GP-diagnosed depression. However, the reverse is true for serious mental illness. Since this data does not include information on patient ethnicity, these correlations do not necessarily show variation between ethnic groups.
Further reading: Public Health England, Local action on health inequalities: Understanding and reducing ethnic inequalities in health – contains analysis of further indicators such as cancer incidence, wellbeing, disability-free life expectancy, tuberculosis and child health indicators. The report also contains discussion of ethnic inequalities in the social determinants of health.
4.4 Policing and crime Police Officers At 31 March 2020, 9,174 (7%) police officers in England and Wales self-identified as being from an ethnic minority.137 This represents a three-percentage point increase from 2007. This is considerably lower than the proportion of the general population from an ethnic minority (16%).138 Of those that identified as being from an ethnic minority, 42% were Asian or Asian British, 30% were of mixed ethnicity, 17%
137 Excluding British Transport Police and central service secondments. 138 Population estimates based on the Annual Population Survey dataset 2019. 43 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
were Black or Black British and 11% were from Chinese or “Other” ethnic backgrounds. The chart below shows the percentage point difference between the proportion of police officers from different ethnic and the general population.
Ethnic breakdown of police force compared to general population, at 31st March 2020 Percentage point difference, England and Wales
10%
9% 6% Asian or Black or All Asian Black Chinese minority 2% British British 0% or Other groups*
-2% -3% Mixed White -2% -5%
-6% -9%
-10% *excluding White minorities
Note: excluding British Transport Police
Source: Home Office, Police workforce, England and Wales, 30 July 2020 and earlier editions; Annual Population Survey dataset 2019. Officers from ethnic minority backgrounds were also under-represented at senior ranks, accounting for 4% of officers at the rank of Chief Inspector or above. This proportion remained the same as at 31 March 2019. The police force with the largest proportion of ethnic minority officers is the Metropolitan Police Service (15%). It is estimated that 41% of the resident population of London is from an ethnic minority background. The force with the next highest proportion is West Midlands (12%), followed by Bedfordshire (10%), Greater Manchester (9%) and Leicestershire (8%). North Wales and Cumbria had the smallest proportion of officers from ethnic minority groups (0.9% and 1.0% respectively). 12 of the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales in 2020 did not have any officers from an ethnic minority background ranked Chief Inspector or higher. Further information on police workforce numbers can be found in the Commons Library Briefing Paper: Police service strength. Stop and search People from minority ethnic backgrounds have been consistently more likely to be stopped and searched than White people. 44 Race and ethnic disparities
In the early part of the last decade, police forces reduced their use of stop and search in response to concerns that police were overusing their powers and conducting poorly targeted searches. Since 2017/18 the number of stop and searches carried out in England and Wales (including the British Transport Police but excluding Greater Manchester Police) has more than doubled from just under 280,000 in 2017/18 to 577,000 in 2019/20. During this period, the disparity between the search rate for Black and White people has increased. This is the result of a larger reduction in the number of White people searched than Black people. Between 2008/09 (when the use of stop and search reached its peak) and 2017/18, the number of White people stopped and searched fell by 85% whilst the number of Black people searched fell by 77%. The number of searches of both White and Black people has increased between 2017/18 and 2019/20 - by 91% and 79% respectively. The chart below shows the rate of stop and searches for different ethnic groups per 1,000 head of population in England and Wales during 2019/20 (excluding vehicle only searches):
Source: Home Office, Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2020 second edition, Stop and search statistics data tables: police powers and procedures year ending 31 March 2020 second edition [Accessed: 27 April 2021]; stop and search rates calculated using 2011 census data. The search rate for all ethnic minority groups combined in 2019/20 was just over 4 times that for White people. The difference was particularly pronounced for people who self-identified as Black or Black British, who were almost nine times more likely to be searched than White people. Further analysis of stop and search can be found in the Commons Library Briefing Paper: Police powers: stop and search. The paper observes that: 45 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
There is no evidence to suggest that BME people are more likely to carry items that officers have powers to search for. Neither is there evidence that suggests they are more likely to be involved in criminality associated with stop and search enforcement. (p.21) […] The disparities in ethnic stop and search rates for England and Wales are primarily influenced by stop and search activity in London because the MPS conducts more searches than any other force [48% of all searches in 2019/20139]. London has a diverse population (around 40% of people living in the capital are from BME backgrounds). The search rates for Asian Londoners are similar to those for white Londoners. However, black Londoners are subject to a disproportionate number of searches compared to white Londoners. (p.22) Domestic abuse Crime is not always experienced equally within communities. By analysing data on the perpetrators and victims of crime according to different personal characteristics, high crime prevalence can at times be identified among certain groups. This information can be useful in helping to target intervention and support. Disparities exist between different groups with regards to their experience of domestic abuse. The latest statistics on the characteristics of victims of domestic abuse are published by the ONS. This is based on survey data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales and as such are estimates of the true value amongst the general population. The table below shows the prevalence of domestic abuse amongst different ethnic groups, as well as between genders:
139 Home Office, Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2020 second edition, Stop and search statistics data tables: police powers and procedures year ending 31 March 2020 second edition [Accessed: 27 April 2021]. 46 Race and ethnic disparities
Prevalence of domestic abuse in the last year Percentage victims once or more, Adults 16-74, England and Wales, 2019/20
Ethnic group Men Women All
White 3.6 7.7 5.7 English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 3.7 8.0 5.9 Irish - - - Gypsy/Irish traveller - - - Any other white background 2.4 4.7 3.6
Mixed 5.9 9.4 7.6 White and Black Caribbean - 11.7 - White and Black African - - - White and Asian 6.4 - 8.8 Any other Mixed/Multiple ethnic background - 4.5 4.8
Asian or Asian British 3.0 4.4 3.6 Indian 5.2 4.6 4.9 Pakistani 2.0 5.3 3.5 Bangladeshi 0.4 3.0 1.4 Chinese 0.8 2.8 2.0 Any other Asian background 2.0 4.4 3.1
Black or Black British 2.7 4.6 3.7 Black African 3.2 4.9 4.1 Black Caribbean 1.9 4.1 3.2 Any other Black/African/Caribbean background - - 2.5
Other ethnic group 6.1 5.1 5.6 Arab - - 5.8 Any other ethnic group 4.2 6.7 5.5
All ethnic groups 3.6 7.3 5.5
Source: ONS, Domestic abuse prevalence and trends, England and Wales: year ending March 2020, [Accessed: 27 April 2021] In the 12 months to March 2020, an estimated 5.5% of all respondents experienced domestic abuse on at least one occasion. Women experienced domestic abuse at nearly twice the rate of men (7.3% and 3.6% respectively). Looking at the ethnicity of female respondents, the prevalence of any kind of domestic abuse is highest amongst female respondents of “Mixed” ethnicity (9.4% of respondents had been the victim of domestic abuse in the previous twelve months); followed by women from White backgrounds (7.7% of female respondents) and Other ethnic group backgrounds (5.1% of female respondents). Disparities exist within the broader ethnic categories. Within the Black or Black British ethnic group, the prevalence of abuse was greater amongst female respondents who identified as Black Caribbean rather than Black African. 4.9% of female Black Caribbean respondents had been the victim of domestic abuse in the previous twelve months compared to 4.1% of female Black African respondents (a similar proportion to all females). Although figures for most categories within the Mixed ethnic group have been supressed (due to the low number of respondents) it appears that domestic abuse is most prevalent amongst 47 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
female respondents of Mixed - White and Black Caribbean ethnicity (11.7%).
4.5 Criminal justice What data is available? The most comprehensive, recent exploration of ethnicity-based disproportionality in the justice system is The Lammy Review (2017). The main findings are summarised in Section 3.3 of this briefing. The Lammy Review sought to move beyond simple comparisons between the share of the population that is BAME and the share appearing at various points in the justice system. This was because while such comparisons highlight the disproportionality that exists – for example, that Black people make up approximately 4% of the population of England and Wales but 13% of those in prison – it usually tells us little about the reason for disproportionality. The Review’s authors were concerned with identifying the point or points at which disproportionality enters the system. For the Lammy Review, research was commissioned from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which looked for evidence of disproportionality at each specific juncture of the criminal justice system.140 This used data from 2014 and 2015 and which is now somewhat out-of-date. The statistics in this section draw on the findings of this analysis, updated versions of it where possible, and other data from the MoJ. Most of the MoJ data is taken from its Criminal Justice Statistics and Offender Management Statistics collections. The UK Government has, in recent years, published regular summaries of the headline statistics on ethnicity and the criminal justice system. These include the Race and the Criminal Justice System, which is released every two years, and Ethnicity Facts and Figures, which was being updated quarterly but has not been updated since May 2019, at the time of writing. The Government also publishes an annual update on its progress towards responding to the recommendations in the Lammy Review: Tackling racial disparity in the criminal justice system. A note on data quality and coverage Much of the criminal justice data by ethnicity has a high proportion of non-response or ‘not stated’. This is only a problem if the rate of non- response is not the same across all ethnicities and this is something that we cannot check. There are also gaps in the data: for example, there is no data on prosecutions and convictions for summary offences by ethnicity and there is no data on the use of force by staff in adult prisons, by the ethnicity of prisoners. Most of the data presented here covers England and Wales only. Remand The analysis conducted for the Lammy Review concluded that BAME defendants were disproportionally likely to be remanded in custody
140 Uhrig, N. (2016) Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales. Ministry of Justice. 48 Race and ethnic disparities
while awaiting trial at the Crown Court.141 The latest published statistics from the MoJ indicate that in 2019, BAME defendants at the Magistrates’ court were remanded in custody 21% of the time, compared with 16% of the time for White defendants.142 At the Crown Court these proportions were 45% for BAME defendants and 39% for White defendants.143
Proportion of defendants remanded in custody while awaiting hearing or trial England and Wales, adults, 2019
% remanded Chinese in custody White Black Asian Mixed and other Total BAME Magistrates' Court Males 17% 22% 19% 22% 25% 22% Females 7% 13% 10% 11% 16% 13% All 16% 21% 19% 21% 24% 21%
Crown Court Males 40% 47% 40% 52% 50% 46% Females 25% 33% 26% 33% 39% 32% All 39% 46% 40% 50% 49% 45%
Source: Ministry of Justice, Criminal justice statistics quarterly December 2019, Remand data tools Notes: Indictable offences only
Guilty pleading When the Lammy Review was published in 2017, it found that “Black, Asian and other ethnic minority men were greater than 50% more likely than White men to plead ‘not guilty’ at Crown Court.”144 The relevant data from 2019 shows that 37% of BAME defendants who were tried in the Crown Court pleaded ‘not guilty’ compared with 27% of White defendants,145 meaning BAME defendants were 35% more likely than White defendants to plead ‘not guilty’. A guilty plea carries a discount of up to one third of sentence length at the sentencing stage.146 Amongst the BAME population, Black defendants were the most likely to plead ‘not guilty’ at 38%, followed by Asian defendants at 37%. In relation to some specific offences, BAME defendants are more likely to plead ‘guilty’. The 2019 data shows that 34% of BAME defendants pleaded guilty when they were charged with drug offences compared with 19% of White defendants. For possession of weapons offences, 9% of BAME defendants pleaded guilty compared with 7% of White defendants.147 However, BAME defendants are consistently more likely
141 Ibid., p.9 142 Adult defendants only, male and female combined. 143 MoJ, Criminal justice system statistics quarterly: December 2019, Remand data tools. 144 The Lammy Review (2017) 145 Ibid. 146 Sentencing Council, Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea: Definitive Guideline 147 MoJ, Criminal justice statistics quarterly December 2019, Outcomes by Offence Data Tool 49 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
to plead not guilty for robbery, theft offences, drug offences, possession of weapons, public order offences, and crimes against society.148 Prosecutions and convictions Approximately 16% of the population of England and Wales identified as BAME in 2018, yet 23% of individuals that were prosecuted for indictable offences in 2019 were from a BAME background.149 There is no publicly available data on prosecutions by ethnicity for summary offences. Black individuals represented 4% of the population but the defendant was Black in 11% of prosecutions in 2019.150 This disparity is more pronounced for certain offence groups: for instance, in 39% of drug offences prosecutions the defendant was BAME. Around a third of prosecutions of Black and Asian defendants were for drug offences, whereas this offence category accounted for 15% of prosecutions of White defendants.
Percentage of prosecutions where the defendant identified as BAME, by offence group England and Wales, 2019, indictable offences only
Robbery Drug offences Possession of weapons Fraud Miscellaneous Public order offences Violence against the person Sexual offences Criminal damage & arson Theft
All BAME population
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Source: Ministry of Justice, Criminal justice statistics quarterly December 2019, Remand data tools Notes: Indictable offences only
Overall in 2019, White defendants were more likely to be convicted (85% of were found guilty) than defendants from BAME backgrounds (79%).151 This might be influenced by the fact that White defendants are 15% more likely than BAME defendants to plead ‘guilty’. Over one third (37%) of people convicted for drug offences were from a BAME background. Drug offences were the largest category of offence for which BAME offenders were convicted, while for White offenders this was theft. Half (50%) of convictions of Black offenders
148 Ibid. 149 MoJ, Criminal justice statistics quarterly December 2019, Outcomes by Offence Data Tool 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid. 50 Race and ethnic disparities
were for drug offences or possession of weapons, compared to under a quarter of convictions of White offenders. Sentencing The Lammy Review found that the odds of imprisonment for BAME offenders were higher than for White offenders.152 The data for 2019 shows a slight difference in the overall proportion of offenders sentenced to immediate custody, by ethnic group, with 34% of BAME offenders being sentenced to custody compared with 33% of White offenders for indictable offences.153 There was no noticeable difference across the ethnic groups within the BAME category. Analysis carried out for the Lammy Review went into more depth than the published MoJ statistics allow. The analysis found that “Under similar criminal circumstances the odds of imprisonment for offenders from self-reported Black, Asian, and Chinese or other backgrounds were higher than for offenders from self- reported White backgrounds. Whilst statistically significant, the increases in the odds of imprisonment were all medium sized effects (53%, 55%, and 81% higher, respectively, for offenders self-reporting as Black, Asian, and Chinese or other). No effect was observed for offenders from a self-reported Mixed background”.154 Average custodial sentence length has been rising in general in recent years but the rise has been steeper for BAME offenders. Overall, the average custodial sentence length for indictable offences rose by 5.2 months between 2009 and 2019; for White offenders the rise was 4.9 months and for BAME offenders it was 8.0 months.
Cumulative change in average sentence length (in months) since 2009, by ethnicity group England and Wales, indictable offences only 10 BAME 8
6
4
2 White
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: Ministry of Justice, Criminal justice statistics quarterly December 2019, Remand data tools Notes: Indictable offences only.
152 The Lammy Review (2017), p.33 153 MoJ, Criminal justice system statistics quarterly: December 2019, Sentencing tool. 154 MoJ (2016) Associations between ethnic background and being sentenced to prison in the Crown Court in England and Wales in 2015, p.1 51 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Disparities between White and BAME offenders start to appear when comparing average custodial sentence length (ACSL). Overall, BAME offenders received an average of 27 months in custody compared with 20 for White offenders. This is partly driven by the difference in the type of offences for which BAME and White offenders are convicted. But when comparing ACSL for specific offence groups, there are still differences by ethnic group, for example that, on average, BAME offenders received an average of 37 months in prison for violence against the person offences, compared with 20 months for White offenders. There were also differences by sex in 2019, although the large majority of those convicted of indictable offences are male. Black male offenders sentenced to custody received more than twice the average custodial sentence length for violence against the person offences (44 months compared with 21). Asian male offenders received a longer average sentence for sexual offences (70 months) compared with White male offenders (57 months). Prison Prison population BAME individuals make up around 16% of the population of England and Wales and 27% of its prison population. This is driven by there being a much higher proportion of the prison population who are Black (13%) than in the general population (4%). Most prisoners are male but in the female prison population of around 3,600 individuals, the proportion from a BAME background is closer to the proportion in the general population (18%).155 Safety in custody Figures on safety in custody are not routinely published by ethnicity but some data was recently made available in response to a Parliamentary Question.156 This showed that the rate of self-harm incidents to prisoners was much higher for White prisoners than for any other ethnic group, in 2019. There were 91 self-harm incidents for every 100 White prisoners in 2019, compared with 25 for every 100 BAME prisoners and the rate was lowest for Black prisoners, at 18 incidents per 100 prisoners.157 The figures also show that a higher proportion of self- inflicted deaths in prison over the last 5 years were of White prisoners (86%) than the proportion of the prison population that is White (around 72%). Use of restraint techniques on prisoners Statistics on the use of force, including restraint techniques, against prisoners are only available for the youth estate, although the MoJ is planning to pilot a tool for recording it in the adult estate.158
155 MoJ, Offender management statistics quarterly, September 2020. 156 HC58603, 18 June 2020. 157 It should be noted that there was a high level of ‘unrecorded’ ethnicities in this data, although even if all unrecorded ethnicities were BAME, the self-harm incident rate among White prisoners would still be much higher 158 As reported in response to HC28644, 19 March 2020 52 Race and ethnic disparities
The MoJ’s Youth Justice Statistics indicate that in 2018/19, around 27% of BAME children and 24% of White children in the youth estate were subject to Restrictive Physical Intervention (RPI) at some point. There were 46 RPIs per 100 BAME children and 47 per 100 White children.159 Reoffending The MoJ measures proven reoffending as any further offence for which a person is convicted or cautioned that is committed within one year of the index (the original) offence. The latest annual figures at the time of writing indicate that the overall adult reoffending rate was 30% for White offenders, 31% for Black offenders, and 24% for Asian offenders. There was a greater difference by ethnic group for juvenile offenders (those aged under 18 at the time of the index offence), with 40% of White juvenile offenders, 47% of Black juvenile offenders, and 31% of Asian juvenile offenders going on to reoffend.160
4.6 Employment and incomes Labour market status, pay, incomes and poverty rates all vary between ethnic groups. Since a person’s employment status and pay affect their income, and income determines if a household is in poverty, it is unsurprising that a similar pattern appears in all the charts below. People from Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnic groups in the UK have the lowest employment rates, the lowest pay, the lowest income and the highest poverty rates, often closely followed by people from Black ethnic groups. For the most part, people from White and Indian ethnic groups have the highest employment rates, pay and incomes and the lowest poverty rates. Employment gaps Employment rates were highest for Indian (79%) and White (76%) ethnic groups and lowest for Pakistani (59%), Black (64%) and Bangladeshi (64%) ethnic groups in October-December 2020.
159 MoJ, Youth Justice Statistics 2018-19, table 8.5 160 MoJ, Proven reoffending tables (annual average), January 2018 to March 2018, table A7a and A7b. 53 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Labour market status by ethnic group, UK Data at October-December 2020, not seasonally adjusted
Employment Unemployment Economic rate (Aged 16- rate (Aged 16+) inactivity rate 64) (Aged 16-64) Pakistani 59% 10% 34% Black/African/Caribbean/Black British 64% 14% 26% Bangladeshi 64% 6% 31% Other ethnic group 66% 8% 28% Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups 67% 9% 26% Chinese 70% 8% 24% White 76% 4% 20% Indian 79% 7% 15% Total 75% 5% 21%
Note: Unemployment rates have a slightly different denominator (economically active population aged 16+) to the other rates (16-64) . Estimates based on survey responses sosubject to sampling error.
Source: ONS, Labour market status by ethnic group, February 2021
Economic inactivity rates of some ethnic groups, like Pakistani (34%) and Bangladeshi (31%) ethnic groups, are higher than average (21%). This is largely because of high rates of economic inactivity among women from these ethnic groups. In October-December 2020, around 50% of women from Pakistani and 44% of women from Bangladeshi ethnic groups were economically inactive, compared to 28% from a Black ethnic group, 23% from a White ethnic group and 19% from an Indian ethnic group.
Economic inactivity by gender and ethnic group, UK Data at October-December 2020, not seasonally adjusted
All Women Men Pakistani 34% 50% 20% Bangladeshi 31% 44% 18% Other ethnic group 28% 34% 21% Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups 26% 29% 23% Black/African/Caribbean/Black British 26% 28% 23% Chinese 24% 27% 21% White 20% 23% 17% Indian 15% 19% 11% Total 21% 24% 17%
Source: ONS Labour market status by ethnic group, February 2021
Library briefing paper Unemployment by ethnic background provides more unemployment statistics. 54 Race and ethnic disparities
Pay gaps The chart below shows the median gross hourly pay of employees in each ethnic group in Great Britain in 2019. In 2019, people from Pakistani (£10.55) and Bangladeshi (£10.58) ethnic groups had the lowest average pay, and people from Chinese (£15.18) and Indian (£14.43) ethnic groups had the highest. Median gross hourly pay by ethnic group Great Britain, 2019, all employees
Pakistani £10.55 Bangladeshi £10.58 Other ethnic group £11.43 Any other Asian £11.53 Black/African/Caribbean/Black British £11.63 White Other £11.68 White British £12.49 Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups £12.50 Indian £14.43 Chinese £15.18
Source: ONS, Ethnicity pay gaps in Great Britain: 2019 Incomes The chart below shows the median weekly household income of ethnic groups in the three year period (2016/17-2018/19). Households are Defining income assigned an ethnicity based on that of the ‘Household Reference Person’ Income here refers 161 (HRP). to disposable income, which People from Pakistani (£334) and Bangladeshi (£365) ethnic groups includes wages and have the lowest median household income and people from White other income like (£518) and Indian (£538) ethnic groups had the highest. benefits, income from investments and private pensions. It excludes direct taxes, National insurance and local taxes, like council tax.
161 The HRP is the person who owns the home or is responsible for the rent. In joint tenures, the HRP is the highest earner; if incomes are the same, the oldest person is the HRP. 55 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Median weekly household income by ethnic group By ethnic group of the head of the household, 2016/17-2018/19 (2018/19 prices)
Pakistani £334
Bangladeshi £365
Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British £408
Other ethnic group £420
Any other Asian background £446
Chinese £479
Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups £500
White £518
Indian £538
Source: Library analysis of DWP, Household Below Average Income microdata The Resolution Foundation measures median incomes after housing costs by ethnic group and finds that income gaps have decreased since the mid-1990s, partly due to convergences in employment rates for both men and women. However, these gaps remain sizeable, as shown in the chart below.162
Income distribution As well as a difference in median incomes, there is also a disparity between the proportion of people in different ethnic groups at the top and bottom of the income distribution.
162 Resolution Foundation, The Living Standards Audit 2020, 21 July 2020 56 Race and ethnic disparities
The charts below show the percentage of people in each ethnic group living in households that were in the bottom fifth and the top fifth of all incomes in the years 2017/18 to 2019/20. Nearly half (47%) of people from the Pakistani ethnic group lived in households that were in the bottom fifth of incomes, compared to 18% of people from a White ethnic group. 42% of people from the Bangladeshi ethnic group and 31% of people from a Black ethnic group were in the bottom fifth. Percentage of individuals in the bottom fifth of incomes By ethnic group of the head of the household 2017/18-2019/20
White If there was Indian complete income Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups equality Any other Asian background between ethnic groups all bars Chinese would end at Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British the 20% line Asian/ Asian British Other ethnic group Bangladeshi Pakistani
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Source: DWP, Households Below Average Income 2019/20
At the other end of the income distribution, only 3% of people from the Bangladeshi ethnic group and 5% of people from the Pakistani ethnic group lived in households that were in the top fifth of incomes, compared to 31% of people from a Chinese ethnic group, 25% of people from an Indian ethnic group, and 21% of people from a White ethnic group. Percentage of individuals in the top fifth of incomes By ethnic group of the head of the household, 2017/18-2019/20 Bangladeshi If there was Pakistani complete income Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British equality Any other Asian background between ethnic groups Asian/ Asian British all bars would Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups end at the 20% Other ethnic group line White Indian Chinese
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Source: DWP, Households Below Average Income 2019/20
57 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
Poverty Measured before housing costs, people in households where the head of the household was from the Pakistani ethnic group experienced the Defining poverty highest poverty rate, at 41% (25 percentage points higher than Someone is defined as households where the head is from White ethnic groups), during the being in relative poverty if period 2017/18-2019/20. they live in a household with income After housing costs, people in households where the head of the below 60% of the household was from the Bangladeshi ethnic group experienced the median in that year. highest poverty rate, at 55% (36 percentage points higher than Incomes can be measured households where the head is from White ethnic groups). before or after housing costs. 27% of people in households where the head of the household was from a Black ethnic group were in poverty before housing costs, and 40% were in poverty after housing costs.
Percentage of people in relative low income 2017/18-2019/20 By ethnic group of the head of the household Before housing costs After housing costs
White 16% 19%
Indian 18% 24%
Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups 19% 32%
Other Asian background 24% 42%
Chinese 25% 30%
Other ethnic group 27% 40%
Black/ African/ Caribbean/ British 27% 40%
Bangladeshi 35% 55%
Pakistani 41% 47%
Source: DWP, Households Below Average Income 2019/20
Library briefing paper Poverty in the UK: statistics provides more poverty statistics and information.
58 Race and ethnic disparities
4.7 Housing Home ownership and renting The government’s Ethnicity facts and figures website provides an analysis of the extent of home ownership, private renting, and social renting by ethnicity in England from 2016 to 2018. Households are assigned an ethnicity based on that of the ‘Household Reference Person’ (HRP).163 During this period, 68% of White British households owned their own home. This is a higher rate of home ownership than most ethnic minority households.
Ethnicities with the highest and lowest rates of each type of housing England and Wales Home ownership Private renting Social renting
Indian 74% White Other 59% Black African 44% White/Asian 70% Arab 51% White/Black African 41%
Highest White British 68% Any Other 49% Bangladeshi 33%
Arab 17% White British 16% Indian 7% Black African 20% White/Asian 20% White/Asian 10%
Lowest Any Other 29% Black Carribea 20% Chinese 10%
Note: the ‘Any Other’ ethnic category refers to people who do not identify with the White, Asian, Black, Mixed or Arab ethnic category options. “/” indicates mixed ethnicity. Source: Race Disparity Unit, Ethnicity facts and figures: Housing Disparities exist within broader ethnic categories. Within the Asian ethnic group, whilst homeownership among Indian households is high, Pakistani (58%), Bangladeshi (46%), Chinese (45%) and households from Other Asian backgrounds (39%) all have lower rates. Homeownership among Mixed White and Asian households is more than twice that of Mixed White and Black Caribbean (32%) and Mixed White and Black African households (34%). Black Caribbean households have twice the rate of homeownership of Black African households (40% compared to 20%). White British households were less likely to rent their home privately than households from minority ethnic groups (16% compared to 39%). Again, disparities can be seen within broader ethnic groups. Chinese households were more likely to rent privately (45%) than other Asian ethnic groups (e.g. 21% of Bangladeshi and 29% of Pakistani households). Black Caribbean households were less likely to rent privately than households from Black African (36%) and other Black backgrounds (36%).
163 The HRP is the person who owns the home or is responsible for the rent. In joint tenures, the HRP is the highest earner; if incomes are the same, the oldest person is the HRP. 59 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
16% of White British households were social renters. Households from Black and Mixed White and Black ethnic backgrounds were most likely to rent social housing. Overcrowding and housing conditions Ethnic minority households are more likely to live in overcrowded accommodation than White British households (as above, these statistics are based on the ethnicity of the Household Reference Person or HRP and count all households that are not White British). Overcrowding is measured according to a ‘bedroom standard’ which determines the number of bedrooms a household needs based on the ages and relationships of its occupants. Married or cohabiting couples are allocated a bedroom each, and children may share in pairs depending on their age and sex. A household with fewer bedrooms than it needs is said to be overcrowded. Households with someone from an ethnic minority as the HRP are more likely to be overcrowded in all tenure groups. Around 5% of ethnic minority households that own their home are overcrowded, as are 13% of privately-renting households and 17% of social renting households. By contrast, the figures for White British households are 1%, 3% and 6% respectively. The table below shows more detailed figures for different ethnic minority groups. More detailed analysis is available in the Library briefing paper on overcrowding (CBP 1013) and the Ethnicity Facts and Figures website. Overcrowded households by ethnic group, England Percent of househlds in overcrowded accommodation, three-year average to 2018/19
All England 3% Black Mixed / multiple ethnicities… Black African 16% White/Asian 4% Asian Black Caribbean 7% White/Black African 14% Bangladeshi 24% Other Black 3% White/Black Caribbean 8% Chinese 4% Other 8% Indian 7% White Pakistani 18% White British 2% Other groups Other Asian 10% White Irish 4% Arab 15% Other White 9% Any other 10%
Source: Ethnicity Facts and Figures, Overcrowded households, 9 September 2020 Analysis from the Ethnicity Facts and Figures website also looks at other aspects of housing conditions. The analysis found that damp problems were more common in some ethnic groups. 13% of Mixed White/Black Caribbean and 11% of Mixed White/Black African had damp problems, as did 10% of Bangladeshi households, 10% of Black ‘other’ households, and 9% of Black African households. By comparison, 3% of White British households experienced damp problems. 164 Additionally, fuel poverty is more common in ethnic minority households. Over the
164 Ethnicity Facts and Figures, Housing with damp problems, 8 October 2020 60 Race and ethnic disparities
three years between 2017 and 2019, 18% of households in non-White ethnic groups were estimated to be in fuel poverty compared with around 9% of White households. 165 Homelessness Local authorities in England have a duty to work to prevent and relieve homelessness for all eligible homeless applicants under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The chart below breaks down households owed a prevention or relief duty by the ethnicity of the main applicant. Of the 288,470 households owed a duty in England during the 2019/20 financial year, 70% were White (including White minorities) and 24% belonged to a minority ethnic group (ethnicity was unknown for 6%).
Ethnicity of main applicant in households owed a homelessness prevention or relief duty England, 2019/20 England London Rest of England
White 70% White 31% White 79%
Black 11% Black 32% Black 6%
Asian 6% Asian 13% Asian 5%
Mixed 3% Mixed 5% Mixed 2%
Other 4% Other 9% Other 2%
Note: Some households had their ethnicity recorded as unknown: 6% across England, 10% in London, and 6% in the rest of England. Source: MHCLG, Homelessness live tables, Detailed local authority tables: Financial year 2019-20 People from Black ethnic groups were over-represented in the population of homeless acceptances.166 The main applicant was Black in around 11% of homeless acceptances, while households led by a Black person make up around 3% of households in England. People in Mixed and ‘Other’ ethnic groups were also over-represented, to a lesser extent.167 Around 70% of acceptances were White households, compared with 89% in England’s population. This difference is driven by White British households rather than other White ethnicities. The picture in London is different from the rest of England. Households with a White main applicant were even further under-represented
165 Ethnicity Facts and Figures, Fuel poverty, 18 December 2020 166 Household population estimates based on Labour Force Survey Household Dataset, Q2 2019. 167 See MHCLG’s homelessness live tables for a more detailed ethnic breakdown. 61 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
(accounting for 31% of homeless acceptances compared with 65% of the household population), whilst households with a Black main applicant were substantially over-represented (32% of acceptances compared to 13% of households). Households with a main applicant from an Asian, Mixed or other ethnic group were also over-represented, to a lesser extent. The Greater London Authority (GLA) publishes statistics on rough sleeping in London. 168 In 2019/20 the majority of people seen rough sleeping were White (59%). This is similar to Greater London’s White population (59%). Within this broader ethnic category, 29% were White British, 76% were Gypsy or Irish Traveller and 29% belonged to other White ethnic groups (mostly from Central and Eastern Europe). By contrast, people from non-British White backgrounds make up just 15% of London’s population.169 Rough sleepers from an Asian background were under-represented (7% compared to 18% of the population).
168 GLA, CHAIN Greater London Full Report 2018/19, Section 4.7 169 Population estimates based on Annual Population Survey datasets 2019.
62 Race and ethnic disparities
4.8 Ethnic diversity in public life Politics There is no official data on the ethnicity of Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We therefore rely on external sources for this data and it should be treated with some caution. The number of ethnic minority MPs has increased at every general election since 1987. Following the 2019 General Election, 10% of Members of the House of Commons have an ethnic minority background (compared with 13.8% of the country). The chart below shows the number and proportion of ethnic minority MPs elected at general elections since 1987, by party.
Ethnic minority MPs elected at general elections 1987 to 2019, by party
LAB CON LD SNP Total Number 1987 4 0 0 0 4 1992 5 1 0 0 6 1997 9 0 0 0 9 2001 12 0 0 0 12 2005 13 2 0 0 15 2010 16 11 0 0 27 2015 23 17 0 1 41 2017 32 19 1 0 52 2019 41 22 2 0 65
Percentage 1987 2% - - - 1% 1992 2% - - - 1% 1997 2% - - - 1% 2001 3% - - - 2% 2005 4% 1% - - 2% 2010 6% 4% - - 4% 2015 10% 5% - 2% 6% 2017 12% 6% 8% - 8% 2019 20% 6% 18% - 10%
Source: British Future (2019), House of Commons Library Briefing Paper CBP7529, UK Election Statistics: 1918-2020 Research by Operation Black Vote suggests that in April 2021 there were 48 ethnic minority Members of the House of Lords, 6.1% of all 793 Peers. There are four Cabinet Members from an ethnic minority background: Rishi Sunak, Chancellor; Priti Patel, Home Secretary; Alok Sharma, 63 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
COP26 President; and Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Ethnic minority representation in the devolved legislatures has been much lower, ranging between 0-4%. Operation Black Vote reported in 2019 that about 14% of local councillors in England were from ethnic minorities. Selected public sector organisations The chart below shows the proportion of personnel in the armed forces, Civil Service, police and NHS, and court judges, who are from ethnic minority groups (groups other than the White ethnic group). These figures hide substantial differences between job profiles: people from ethnic minorities tend to be in less senior positions. This is not the case in the NHS, where 40.1% of consultants are from ethnic minority groups. Note that figures for the NHS are for England and figures for the police and court judges are for England and Wales only. For comparison, in 2018, ethnic minorities made up 12.7% of the economically active population in the UK and 13.8% in England and Wales.
Ethnic minorities in the public sector Percentage of current workforce belonging to an ethnic minority
Police officers 7.3%
Court judges 7.4%
Armed forces 8.8%
Civil Service 12.7%
NHS 22.1%
Notes: most recent data: March 2020 (police), April 2019 (judges), October 2018 (armed force), March 2019 (Civil Service) & March 2020 (NHS). Data for the armed forces showing all personal below officer grade
Source: GOV.UK, Workforce and business The table above shows data for all ethnic minorities grouped together (excluding White ethnic minorities). This hides differences between ethnic groups, which are presented in more detail on the Government’s Ethnicity Facts and Figures pages on ‘Workforce diversity’. Asians make up the largest proportion of ethnic minority employees, just as they are the largest ethnic minority group in the UK population. More information is included in Library Briefing Paper Ethnic Diversity in Politics and Public Life. Diversity in the legal profession The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has been publishing diversity statistics in some form since the year 2000. The current series of Judicial Diversity 64 Race and ethnic disparities
Statistics, reports on the number and proportion of judges and magistrates by sex, ethnicity, age, and other characteristics. In 2018/19, 6% of judges were BAME compared with 2% in 2000/01.170 The proportion of BAME people over 18 years of age in England and Wales was around 16% in 2019 and 9% in 2001.171 In 2018/19, 12% of Magistrates were BAME compared with 8% in 2012/13 (the earliest year of comparable data available). There are no official statistics on diversity in the legal profession but the Solicitors Regulation Authority has published reliable estimates based on a survey of its members.172 These show that, in 2019, 21% of lawyers working in law firms were BAME: 15% were Asian, 3% Black, 2% mixed ethnicity, and 1% ‘other’.173 This was in comparison to BAME individuals making up around 13% of the overall workforce of England, Scotland, and Wales in 2018. The SRA does note that, “Both Black and Asian lawyers are significantly underrepresented in mid to large size firms (those with six or more partners). The largest firms (50 plus partners) have the lowest proportion of BAME partners - only 8% (no change since 2017). This contrasts with one partner firms, where 36% of partners are from a BAME background (up 2% since 2017).”
170 This is the proportion of Judges who declared their ethnicity. 171 2019 figure from the Annual Population Survey Jan-Dec 2019 dataset; 2001 figure from Census data, accessed via Nomisweb. 172 In the most recent round of data collection, 96% of firms submitted responses, so these figures can be taken as representative. 173 Solicitors Regulation Authority, How diverse is the legal profession? 20 March 2020 65 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
5. Previous reviews 5.1 Windrush Lessons Learned Review (2020) Background The Windrush Lessons Learned Review was led by Wendy Williams, HM Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services. It was published on 19 March 2020.174 The May Government set up the Review in 2018, as one strand of its response to the Windrush scandal.175 The scandal affected an unknown number of longstanding UK residents who had migrated to the UK from Caribbean Commonwealth and other countries in the post-war period. They were wrongly identified as illegal immigrants and consequently denied access to employment, healthcare, and other services, and targeted for removal from the UK. The Review’s terms of reference were to focus on events from 2008 onwards, identifying the underlying causes of the Windrush cohort’s difficulties and the key lessons for the Home Office. Summary of recommendations The report highlighted a need for systemic and cultural change within the Home Office. It made 30 recommendations, which covered three main themes: ... the Home Office must acknowledge the wrong which has been done; it must open itself up to greater external scrutiny; and it must change its culture to recognise that migration and wider Home Office policy is about people and, whatever its objective, should be rooted in humanity.176 The Review called on the Home Office to publish a comprehensive improvement plan within six months of its publication (rec 2). Other specific recommendations include undertaking a full review and evaluation of the hostile/compliant environment policy (rec 7); cultivating a better understanding of the groups affected by Home Office policies, through improved engagement, research and service user involvement (rec 8); establishing a Migrants’ Commissioner responsible for speaking up for people affected by the immigration system (rec 9); establishing an overarching strategic race advisory board to inform policy-making and practice (rec 27); and overhauling staff learning and development (recs 6, 11, 12, 29). Considering the question of whether the Home Office is institutionally racist, Ms Williams' report concluded While I am unable to make a definitive finding of institutional racism within the department, I have serious concerns that these
174 Windrush Lessons Learned Review: Independent review by Wendy Williams, HC 93, 19 March 2020 175 For background and a more detailed overview of the Review, see Commons Library briefing CBP 8779, Windrush generation: Government action to ‘right the wrongs’ 176 Windrush Lessons Learned Review: Independent review by Wendy Williams, HC 93, 19 March 2020, p.7 66 Race and ethnic disparities
failings demonstrate an institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation within the department, which are consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism.177 Government response and status of implementation The Johnson Government accepted the Review’s recommendations in full.178 It has established a Windrush Cross-Government Working Group to provide strategic input into the Home Office’s response to the Lessons Learned Review.179 Membership comprises of stakeholders and community leaders, and senior representatives from across government departments. The Home Secretary gave an update on progress in implementing Wendy Williams’ recommendations in a statement to the House on 21 July 2020. The Home Office formally responded to the Review on 30 September 2020 through publication of its Continuous Improvement Plan.180 The Plan groups the Review’s recommendations into five broad categories: • Righting the wrongs and learning from the past • Creating an inclusive workforce • Changing the Home Office’s openness to scrutiny • Inclusive and robust policymaking • A more compassionate approach – people not cases Wendy Williams is due to conduct a follow-up review in September 2021 and her findings will be published.181 Separately, the Home Office has signed a legal agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission under section 23 of the Equality Act 2006. This follows an assessment by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which found that the Home Office had failed to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duties when developing and implementing its hostile/compliant environment policies. The Department is committed to a two-year improvement action plan which will be monitored by the EHRC.
177 Windrush Lessons Learned Review: Independent review by Wendy Williams, HC 93, 19 March 2020, p.7 178 HC Deb 23 June 2020 c1193 179 HC Deb 21 July 2020 c2020 180 HM Government, The Response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review: A Comprehensive Improvement Plan, CP 293, 30 September 2020 181 HM Government, The Response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review: A Comprehensive Improvement Plan, CP 293, 30 September 2020, para 35 67 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
5.2 Timpson Review (2019) In March 2018 the Secretary of State for Education commissioned Edward Timpson MP to undertake a review of school exclusions, to explore how head teachers use exclusion in practice, and why some groups of pupils are more likely to be excluded. In particular, the review looked at the variation in exclusion rates between pupils from different ethnic groups. The report of the review was published on 7 May 2019.182 The report observed: In relation to ethnicity, some ethnic groups are associated with a lower likelihood of being permanently excluded, including Bangladeshi and Indian children who are around half as likely to be excluded as White British children. Children from other ethnic groups are more likely to experience exclusion, in particular Black Caribbean and Mixed White and Black Caribbean pupils.183 Section 2.2 above provides recent data on this. The review report discusses race and ethnicity at pages 34-36. Summary of recommendations The report’s 30 recommendations are wide-ranging, and in the main do not mention ethnicity directly although are generally relevant to differences in rates of exclusion among ethnic groups. The recommendations that relate expressly to race and ethnicity were: • The Department for Education (DfE) should establish a fund to develop best practice on areas including “creating inclusive environments, especially for children from ethnic groups with higher rates of exclusion”184 • The DfE “should extend funding to equality and diversity hubs (an initiative to increase the diversity of senior leadership teams in England’s schools through training and support for underrepresented groups) beyond the current spending review period and at a level that widens their reach and impact.”185 Government response and status of implementation The DfE published its response to the Timpson review in May 2019.186 The annex to the response document provides specific responses to each of the reviews 30 recommendations. In reply to a PQ in January 2020 on the timeframe for implementing the undertakings in the response document, the Minister of State for School Standards, Nick Gibb MP, said: The Government is taking forward an ambitious programme of action on behaviour, exclusion and alternative provision (AP) which will respect head teachers’ powers to use exclusion when they need to, enable schools to support children at risk of
182 Timpson Review of School Exclusion, CP 92, May 2019 183 Ibid., pp9-10 184 Ibid., p74 185 Ibid., p64 186 DfE, The Timpson Review of School Exclusion: Government Response, CP95, May 2019 68 Race and ethnic disparities
exclusion, and ensure that excluded children continue to receive a good education. We will expand AP and improve the quality of the sector so that pupils in AP receive an education on a par with that received by their mainstream peers and receive the support they need in other areas. Further information on the timeframes for this work will be provided in due course.187
5.3 The Lammy Review (2017) Background In January 2016 the then Prime Minister David Cameron asked David Lammy MP to lead a review of the criminal justice system in England and Wales to investigate evidence of possible bias against people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds. Announcing the review, David Cameron said that it would examine “the over-representation of defendants from black and ethnic minority backgrounds in the criminal justice system” including possible sentencing and prosecutorial disparity.188 Summary of recommendations David Lammy published his emerging findings on disproportionality in November 2016, followed by a final report and recommendations in September 2017.189 The review noted that although people from minority ethnic backgrounds were “breaking through barriers” in areas such as education and political representation, the justice system “bucks the trend”: Those who are charged, tried and punished are still disproportionately likely to come from minority communities. Despite making up just 14% of the population, BAME men and women make up 25% of prisoners, while over 40% of young people in custody are from BAME backgrounds. If our prison population reflected the make-up of England and Wales, we would have over 9,000 fewer people in prison – the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons. There is greater disproportionality in the number of Black people in prisons here than in the United States. These disproportionate numbers represent wasted lives, a source of anger and mistrust and a significant cost to the taxpayer. The economic cost of BAME overrepresentation in our courts, prisons and Probation Service is estimated to be £309 million a year.190 The review considered that the response to this disproportionate representation should be based around three core principles:
187 School Exclusions Review, UIN 3183, tabled on 14 January 2020 188 Prime Minister’s Office press release, Review of racial bias and BAME representation in criminal justice system announced, 31 January 2016 189 Lammy Review press release, Lammy review: emerging findings published, 16 November 2016 and Lammy publishes historic review, 8 September 2017 190 Lammy Review, The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System, 2017, p3 69 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
• putting robust systems in place to ensure fair treatment in every part of the criminal justice system; • building trust in the criminal justice system; and • stronger analysis about where responsibility lies outside the boundaries of the criminal justice system, including more work with local communities. The final report made 35 recommendations (summarised at pages 7-9 of the report), including the following: • better recording, analysis and dissemination of data on ethnicity in the criminal justice system • a new principle of ‘explain or reform’, where criminal justice agencies that cannot provide an evidence-based explanation for apparent disparities between ethnic groups should introduce reforms to address those disparities • Crown Prosecution Service reviews of joint enterprise, gang prosecutions and modern slavery • a new ‘deferred prosecution’ model with interventions before pleas are entered rather than after • addressing data gaps in court statistics on pleas and remand decisions • increasing the transparency of criminal courts by improving access to sentence data and sentencing remarks • introducing a new online feedback system on how judges conduct cases, and taking measures to achieve a representative judiciary • introducing assessments of young offenders' maturity • improving data on ethnicity in relation to prisons, release of prisoners and reoffending • increasing BAME representation in prison staff and leadership positions • exploring how criminal records could be "sealed" or kept from employers, in particular for young people Government response and status of implementation The Government published its response to the review in December 2017.191 The Ministry of Justice said: The response has sought to respond directly to the problems that Lammy’s report identifies and his recommendations. As a key principle from the review, the Government has adopted “explain or change” as an approach to identify and objectively assess disparities, and then decide whether and how changes need to be applied.
191 Ministry of Justice, Government Response to the Lammy Review on the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System, December 2017 70 Race and ethnic disparities
In the response, the Government has committed to publishing more and better data on race and ethnicity, including on the working of the courts, victims and offender management. On a small number of the recommendations the Government has indicated that it will proceed with caution, where significant barriers exist that prevent it from implementing a recommendation as it stands. Where this is the case, it will aim to be transparent about the reasons and open to change, as circumstances alter.192 The Ministry of Justice has subsequently published two updates on its progress in implementing the review’s recommendations, the first in October 2018 and the second in February 2020.193 On 23 June 2020 Justice Minister Alex Chalk gave the following update on the status of the review’s recommendations: Out of the 35 recommendations; i. 16 have been completed (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 33, 35) ii. 17 recommendations are still in progress, of which: ─ 1 recommendation is in the initial stages (34), ─ 11 recommendations aim to be completed within 6 – 12 months (15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30) ─ 5 recommendations will take longer than 12 months to be completed (1, 9, 10, 31, 32) iii. In the Government’s response to the Review in December 2017, it was stated that two recommendations specific to a target for judicial appointments and appraisal (14, 16) would not be taken forward.194 Boris Johnson repeated these figures during Prime Minister’s Questions on 24 June 2020.195 However, David Lammy has disputed these figures. In an open letter to the Prime Minister, he argued that only six of his recommendations have in fact been implemented: It is false to say that these 16 recommendations have been implemented. As is clear from the government’s latest update on the implementation of the Lammy Review, ‘Tackling Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: 2020 Update’, recommendations 3, 5, 6, 7, 23 and 33 have been implemented. However, recommendations 8, 13, 18, 19 and 35 have not been
192 Ministry of Justice, Lammy Review - Government Response, 19 December 2017 193 Tackling Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: 2018 Update Includes progress responding to the Lammy Review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System, one year on, October 2018 and Tackling Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: 2020 Update Includes progress responding to the Lammy Review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System, February 2020. Annex 1 of each update sets out progress on each of the review’s recommendations. 194 PQ 59745 [on Treatment of, and Outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Individuals in the Criminal Justice System Independent Review], 23 June 2020 195 HC Deb 24 June 2020 c1310 71 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
implemented. Meanwhile, recommendations 2, 4, 11, 12 and 22 have at best been partially implemented.196 On 30 June 2020 Mr Lammy asked an Urgent Question on the Government’s implementation of the review’s recommendations. He said he was “disappointed” to hear the Prime Minister claim that 16 of the recommendations had been implemented: I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister break that consensus last week when he claimed that 16 of the recommendations I made in the Lammy review had been, and I quote, “implemented”, when in fact the majority of them had not. Inadvertently, he misled the House, and it is a shame he is not answering this urgent question himself. There is a huge difference between implementing my recommendations and, as the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box today, completing the actions the Government committed to following my recommendations.197 In response, Alex Chalk reiterated the Government’s view that 16 recommendations have been completed, two have been rejected and 17 are in progress. He said the Government had always made it clear that “not every last recommendation could or indeed should be implemented precisely as requested”. He said the Government “were determined to implement the policy objective even if doing things to the absolute letter would not necessarily be the best way of achieving that”.198
5.4 McGregor-Smith Review (2017) Background On 5 February 2016, the then Business Secretary Sajid Javid launched a review into the progression of Black and minority ethnic (BME) workers in the labour market.199 The review was led by Baroness McGregor- Smith, a Conservative peer and then CEO of FTSE 250 company, Mitie. The terms of reference for the review focussed on six issues: • Imperatives for change: Looking at the business and economic case for drawing on wide and diverse pools of talent. • Identifying obstacles: Looking at obstacles to progression for BME workers, such as cultural, conscious and unconscious biases. • Impact of obstacles: Assessing why the obstacles prohibit BME workers from gaining roles commensurate with their talent. • Data: Bringing together data to explore the scale of the problem. • Best practice: Highlighting examples of best practice from public and private sector employers.
196 Letter from Rt Hon David Lammy MP to Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, 25 June 2020. See also Boris Johnson accused of misleading MPs over race review response, BBC News, 25 June 2020 197 HC Deb 30 June 2020 cc172-3 198 HC Deb 30 June 2020 c176 199 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), Business Secretary steps up fight to end discrimination, 5 February 2016. 72 Race and ethnic disparities
• Recommendations: Cost-effective recommendations to ensure progression for BME workers in the public and private sector. The review formed part of the Government’s BME 2020 plan which aimed to improve labour market outcomes for BME workers, including by increasing rates of university education and rates of employment.200 The review was also designed to complement the Parker Review of ethnic diversity on UK company boards. This review, which issued its final report in October 2017, called for all FTSE 100 companies to have at least “one director of colour by 2021”, and by 2024 for the FTSE 250.201 Further background information can be found in a House of Lords Library Note, Black and Minority Ethnic People in the Workplace in Britain (LLN 2016/021). Summary of key recommendations The final report, Race in the Workplace: The McGregor-Smith Review, was published in February 2017. The report found that while BME people made up 14% of the UK working-age population they made up only 10% of the workforce. A greater portion of BME workers reported having been overlooked for promotion compared to White workers. The proportions also varied among different ethnicities. Lack of connections, unconscious bias and discrimination were all identified as factors contributing to this.202 The report also highlighted that there was a significant lack of data on rates of employment and pay for BME workers among large employers.203 The report made a total of 26 recommendations under the themes of: measuring success, changing culture, improving processes, supporting progression and building inclusive workplaces.204 Most of the recommendations were targeted at businesses. These included recommendations such as publishing aspirational targets, providing transparent career pathways and building inclusive networks. Only a handful recommendations were targeted at the Government: • Legislate to require all companies with more than 50 employees to publish the number of employees by race in each pay band (Recommendation 4). • Create free online unconscious bias training (Recommendation 5). • Work with employers and third sector organisations to create a guide on discussing race in the workplace (Recommendation 22).
200 Ibid. 201 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), Beyond One by ’21: A Report into the Ethnic Diversity of UK Boards, 12 October 2017, p10. See also BEIS, Ethnic Diversity Enriching Business Leadership: An update report from The Parker Review, 5 February 2020. 202 BEIS, Race in the Workplace: The McGregor-Smith Review, 28 February 2017, p. 6. 203 Ibid., pp. 12-16. 204 Ibid., p. 32. 73 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
• Work with Business in the Community to create an online portal with information on taking positive action (Recommendation 23). • Write to all institutional funds with holdings in FTSE companies to ask for their policies on diversity and inclusion and how they will hold companies to account (Recommendation 25). • Review the implementation of the recommendations one year on (Recommendation 26). The most significant recommendation was the one calling for mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting (discussed below). The report of the McGregor Smith Review was published just after the Government made the regulations introducing gender pay gap reporting.205 Government response The Government published a brief response alongside the final report of the McGregor-Smith Review. The response addressed recommendations calling for Government action. In the response the Government also committed to look at the recommendations directed at businesses in its capacity as an employer.206 On the recommendations concerning the creation of guidance and online tools the Government committed to producing guidance on discussing race in the workplace: [Business in the Community] is already doing a great deal of positive work, sharing best practice and bringing employers together. Their current online toolkits and guides already provide support to hundreds of employers and we will continue to work with them and others over the coming months to do what we can to deliver on your recommendations in this area. This includes developing a guide on discussing race in the workplace as well as having a single portal where useful case studies and unconscious bias training packages can be sourced.207 On the issue of ethnicity pay gap reporting, the Government said that a voluntary, non-legislative solution should first be tried: For these reasons, we believe that in the first instance, the best method is a business-led, voluntary approach and not legislation as a way of bringing about lasting change. We believe the case you have made in your report is compelling and expect businesses will want to comply. We therefore believe a non-legislative solution is the right approach for now, but will monitor progress and stand ready to act if sufficient progress is not delivered.208 Implementation of the recommendations In July 2018 the Government published a scorecard report on the implementation of recommendations in the McGregor-Smith Review. Online tools and resources The scorecard noted steps the Government had taken to implement the recommendations relating to the creation of online tools and
205 See The gender pay gap, Commons Library Briefing Paper SN 7068, 6 March 2020. 206 BEIS, Government response to Baroness McGregor-Smith, 28 February 2017. 207 Ibid., p2 208 Ibid., p3 74 Race and ethnic disparities
guidance.209 This included Business in the Community (BITC) publishing a booklet on talking about race in the workplace and a range of other online toolkits. Ethnicity pay gap reporting The scorecard noted that the Government had not legislated for mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting and highlighted that only 11% of employers voluntarily collect data about pay and ethnicity.210 Alongside the scorecard report, the Government published a consultation on ethnicity pay gap reporting. The consultation said that given the small number of employers publishing ethnicity pay gap data, the Government had concluded that legislation was necessary: A year later, we know that a small number of employers have chosen to publish ethnicity pay data voluntarily. We have heard reports from business and public sector representatives of a lack of clarity around what information should be reported, as well as concerns about the use of classifications and levels of data collection and self-reporting rates within organisations. […] The government believes it is time to move to mandatory ethnicity pay reporting.211 It noted that this would require primary legislation. The Regulations on gender pay gap reporting were made under a specific power conferred by section 78 of the Equality Act 2010. The consultation noted that there were multiple options for how mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting could work. These included: • One pay gap figure comparing average hourly earnings for White and BME employees; • Multiple pay gap figures comparing average hourly earnings for employees in different ethnic groups; • Information on the proportion of employees by ethnic group in each £20,000 pay band (the model proposed in McGregor-Smith). Previous studies, such as a 2017 study by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, found that pay gaps differed significantly between ethnicities. It also noted important intersections between ethnicity and gender.212 The consultation listed some barriers to a reporting duty, such as the difficulty of classifying employees by ethnic group and the fact that many employers do not currently collect data on employee ethnicity. The consultation also sought views on the size of company that should be required to report ethnicity pay gap data. For comparison, the obligation on gender pay gap reporting applies to companies with 250 or more employees. Employers must publish:
209 BEIS, Race at Work 2018: The McGregor-Smith Review one year on, 11 October 2018, p. 11. 210 Ibid. p. 7. 211 BEIS, Ethnicity Pay Reporting: Government Consultation, 11 October 2018 212 S. Longhi and M. Brynin, The ethnicity pay gap, Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report 108, August 2017, pp. 30-36. 75 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
• The difference in mean hourly pay between male and female ‘full- pay relevant’ employees; • The difference in median hourly pay between male and female full-pay relevant employees; • The difference in mean bonus pay between male and female full- pay relevant employees; • The difference in median bonus pay between male and female full-pay relevant employees; • The proportion of male and female full-pay relevant employees in the lower, lower-middle, upper-middle and upper pay quartiles.213 The consultation closed on 11 January 2019. The Government has yet to publish a response. In February 2020 the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) called on companies with more than 250 employees to start voluntarily publishing ethnicity pay data.214 Following the Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020, a petition calling for legislation on mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting received over 130,000 signatures. In response to a Parliamentary Question from Baroness McGregor-Smith the Government simply noted that a new Commission will be examining the issues of race and ethnic disparities in the UK: The Government ran a consultation from October 2018 to January 2019 on Ethnicity Pay Reporting and, we have met with businesses and representative organisations to understand the barriers towards reporting and what information could be published to allow for meaningful action to be taken. We have also run voluntary methodology testing with a broad range of businesses to better understand the complexities outlined in the consultation using real payroll data. On the 14 June, my Rt. Hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a new Commission on race and ethnic disparities which will examine continuing racial and ethnic inequalities in Britain and ways Government can address these and improve lives. Further information will be published in due course.215
5.5 Angiolini Review (2017) Background In 2015, Theresa May (then Home Secretary) asked Dame Elish Angiolini QC to conduct a review of deaths and serious incidents in police custody. The review was prompted by criticisms of two separate investigations into the death of Black men following their time in police custody (cases involving the deaths of Sean Rigg and Olaseni Lewis). However, Dame Elish was asked to consider the operation of police custody and police accountability more widely.216
213 See The gender pay gap, Commons Library Briefing Paper SN 7068, 6 March 2020. 214 CBI, CBI urges firms to reveal ethnicity pay gap, 28 February 2020. 215 PQ HL5858 [on Equal Pay: Ethnic Groups], 1 July 2020. 216 Home Office, Home Secretary announces review of deaths in police custody, July 2015; HC Deb, Independent Review: Deaths in Police Custody, 30 October 2017 76 Race and ethnic disparities
Dame Elish published her review in January 2017. It made a total of 110 recommendations on a range of issues including: the treatment of vulnerable people in custody, the way in which the death and serious injury (DSI) matters are investigated and the support provided to bereaved families. Dame Elish made nine specific recommendations on the subject of race. Those nine recommendations are explored in this paper, other Library papers (police powers: detention and custody and police complaints and discipline) discuss some of Dame Elish’s other recommendations. Summary of recommendations regarding race Dame Elish concluded that “institutional racism… still appears to be an issue within the police service”.217 She said that the deaths of young black men following contact with the police resonate with the black community’s experience of systemic racism, and reflect wider concerns about discriminatory over- policing, stop and search, and criminalisation.218 Dame Elish’s was critical of how the issue of race was handled systemically by those investigating police death and serious injury matters. She was concerned that: Those investigating DSI matters do not always consider the role ethnicity played in the incidents they investigate. She recommended that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) should adopt a “systematic approach” to considering the role discrimination played in DSI incidents. She called on the IPCC to address discrimination “robustly” in their investigation report recommendations.219 The stereotyping of young Black men as “dangerous, violent and volatile” was still a problem within the police service. She recommended police officers attend “mandatory training and refresher training on the nature of discrimination… which aims to confront discriminatory assumptions and stereotypes.”220 Available police statistics are not detailed enough to monitor police use of force against BAME people and those with mental ill health. She said police use of force statistics “must include ethnicity and mental health in all force data so as to provide a standardised national picture”. She also recommended that the Home Office and the IPCC monitor police data to “draw out patterns” and devise plans to address racial disparities.221 The police complaints, police discipline and criminal justice systems are ineffective at holding police officers involved in incidents involving Black men accountable for criminality and
217 Rt. Hon. Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, Report of the Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody, January 2017, para 5.7 218 Ibid, para 5.6 219 Ibid, para 5.18 & p93 220 Ibid, p93 221 Ibid, para 5.42 77 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
misconduct.222 She called on the IPCC to publish criteria for deciding on whether police action amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct. She argued that “dismissal should always follow findings of gross misconduct, unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances.”223 She recommended that prosecutors meet with those investigating DSI incidents within the first two weeks of their investigation to discuss “the probability and/ or possibility of criminal charges”.224 She called for a review of the CPS’ specialist unit handling prosecution decisions about deaths in police custody “to ensure it is properly resourced with experienced prosecutors”.225 Government response and implementation In October 2017, eight months after the publication of her report, the Government published its response to Dame Elish.226 Much of its response pointed to its existing police reform programme. The Conservative Party (as partners in the Coalition Government and as the governing party following the 2015 election) had been pursuing major policing reforms. The reform process had begun in 2010 with the publication of the White Paper Policing in the 21st century: reconnecting police and the people. Its central proposal was to replace Police Authorities with directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). In 2012 the first PCC elections were held in England and Wales. In the same year the new College of Policing was established. The College was a new independent body responsible for professional standards in policing. In 2014 Theresa May announced an “end-to-end” review of the police complaints and discipline systems (a year before she commissioned Dame Eilish to conduct her review of death and serious incidents in custody).227 By the time Dame Elish’s report was published, a major piece of legislation introducing reforms to police accountability and powers (the Policing and Crime Act 2017) had already made its way through Parliament. Replacing the IPCC with the Independent Office for Police Conduct The 2017 Act renamed and restructured the IPCC to create the new Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The new corporate structure of the IOPC is supposed to aid the transparency of its work by placing sole responsibility for its core functions in its Crown appointee Director General (currently Michael Lockwood). The IOPC’s first strategic plan (published in 2018 which runs to 2022) commits to:
222 Ibid, p177 223 Ibid 224 Rt. Hon. Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, Report of the Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody, January 2017, p190 225 Ibid 226 HM Govt, Government response to the Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody, October 2017 227 HC Deb, Police Reform, 22 July 2014 78 Race and ethnic disparities
• “identify and address factors that impact the quality of [its] work and may cause inconsistent outcomes for users of our services.”228 • “ensure [its] work adds value by…developing a clear strategy to focus on areas that concern both the public and the police.”229 • “work closely with colleagues across the policing environment to improve our approach to learning recommendations and work with them to drive change within policing”.230 • Work to increase BME people’s confidence in the police complaints system by offering tailored support and guidance to help people understand their rights.231 In July 2020 the IOPC announced a new thematic focus on “race discrimination investigations”. This commits them to independently investigate more complaint and conduct matters involving allegations of discrimination. The IOPC said this would allow them to “establish the trends and patterns which might help drive real change in policing practice”.232 Reforming the police complaints and discipline system The 2017 Act introduced major changes to both the police complaints and discipline systems. The reformed systems became fully operational in February 2020. The Library’s briefing paper police complaints and discipline discusses these reforms in detail. Dame Elish specifically recommended that misconduct be better defined, and that findings of gross misconduct should always result in an officer’s dismissal. Misconduct has been redefined in the reformed system but not quite in the way Dame Elish proposed. Misconduct has been redefined to mean breaches of policing standards that are serious enough to warrant disciplinary proceedings (previously misconduct was any breach of the standards). This is supposed encourage officers to own and learn from mistakes by reducing the seriousness of how some breaches of policing standards are handled.233 The new statutory guidance on professional standards, performance and integrity in policing provides some information on what breaches warrant disciplinary proceedings but ultimately it is still decided on a “case by case basis”.234 Under the reformed discipline system officers whose conduct is found to amount to “gross misconduct” are not always dismissed. These officers can still be sanctioned with a “final written warning” or a “reduction in
228 IOPC, Strategic plan 2018-22, November 2018, p15 229 Ibid 230 Ibid, p16 231 Ibid, p18 232 IOPC, IOPC announces thematic focus on race discrimination investigations, 10 July 2020 233 IOPC, Statutory guidance on the police complaints system, February 2020, para 4.6 234 College of Policing, Code of Ethics: A Code of Practice for the Principles and Standards of Professional Behaviour for the Policing Profession of England and Wales, July 2014, para 5.1.8 and box 2 79 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
rank”.235 The new statutory guidance provides advice to decision makers on choosing the right sanction. The College of Policing has also published guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings designed to ensure “consistency and transparency in assessing conduct”.236 The College of Policing guidance says “cases where discrimination is conscious or deliberate” are “particularly serious” whilst unconscious discrimination can “also have a significant impact on public confidence in policing”.237 There is a renewed focus on efficient decision making in the reformed discipline system. This is supposed to ensure that officers who should be, are dismissed expeditiously. Cases involving credible allegations of gross misconduct can now be “fast tracked” to disciplinary proceedings when there is a public interest case for dismissing the officer(s) involved.238 There is also a new expectation that those investigating police conduct explain to others in the system when their investigations take longer than a year.239 Police training Police forces are expected to train their officers and staff on unconscious bias. However, their unconscious bias training has frequently been criticised. In February 2020, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) reported that only nine of nineteen forces they inspected on the use of their stop and search powers had adequate unconscious bias training.240 The College of Policing now sets national standards for police training (though the delivery of training is still an operational matter for police forces). The College is currently driving fundamental reforms to police recruitment and training processes. These reforms are designed to standardise police training and (in the process) make the police a graduate profession. The reforms include: • The development of three new entry routes to become a police constable. • The introduction of a Police Educational Qualifications Framework (PEQF) for police officer roles. • The development of the National Policing Curriculum to support the long-term professional development of all those who work in policing. “Equality and diversity” as now part of the national policing curriculum’s core learning.
235 Home Office, Conduct, Efficiency and Effectiveness: Statutory Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance and Integrity in Policing, February 2020, para 11.123 236 College of Policing, Guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings, undated 237 Ibid, paras 4.53 & 4.54 238 Home Office, Conduct, Efficiency and Effectiveness: Statutory Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance and Integrity in Policing, February 2020, para 7.50 239 Ibid, para 7.3 240 HMICFRS, PEEL spotlight report: Diverging under pressure, February 2020 p17 80 Race and ethnic disparities
Use of force statistics Since 2017 there has been an extended operational requirement for forces to record their use of force.241 The new statistical release does provide some data on the perceived ethnicity of those subject to the police use of force. However, these statistics are classified as “experimental”. This means they cannot yet be relied upon to provide an accurate picture of all police “use of force”.242 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (who jointly inspects police custody with HMICFRS) has remained critical of the collection and analysis of use of force data relating to police custody. In 2019 they concluded that “this critical area does not attract the oversight and level of governance we would expect from force leaderships.”243
5.6 The Marmot Review (2010) Background In November 2008, the Secretary of State for Health asked Professor Sir Michael Marmot to chair an independent review of evidence-based strategies for reducing health inequalities in England. The review reported in February 2010 with the title ‘Fair Society, Healthy Lives’.244 The review looked at health inequalities generally, rather than solely at race and ethnic disparities in health outcomes. Nevertheless, the review did look throughout at the relationship between ethnicity and other social determinants of health. The review is one of several being considered by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities as part of its focus on health.245 Summary of recommendations The Marmot report found a “social gradient” in health (meaning that “the lower a person’s social position, the worse his or her health”). It recommended action to reduce the gradient by seeking to improve health throughout society. Since health inequalities resulted from social inequalities, action was needed “across all the social determinants of health”.246 The report also recommended the adoption of the “life course approach” to improving public health.247 Six specific policy objectives were recommended: • Give every child the best start in life. • Enable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives. • Create fair employment and good work for all.
241 Home Office, Police use of force statistics, last updated December 2019 242 Ibid 243 HMIP, Annual report 2018/19, p72 244 The Marmot Review, Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review, February 2010 245 Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: sub-group priorities, Gov.uk, 14 September 2020 246 Ibid., p15 247 Ibid., p20 81 Commons Library Briefing, 24 May 2021
• Ensure healthy standard of living for all. • Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities. • Strengthen the role and impact of ill health prevention.248
Government response and status of implementation As part of the NHS Long Term Plan process all local health systems in England have been asked, as part of their overall delivery plans, to set out how they will specifically reduce health inequalities by 2023/24 and by 2028/29. In addition, the UK Government’s Green Paper, Advancing our Health: Prevention in the 2020s (July 2019), set out proposals to achieve “5 more years of healthy, independent life by 2035 while reducing the gap between richest and poorest”. Public Health England’s Strategy 2020 to 2025 (September 2019) commits it to “work to narrow the health gap”. To mark the 10 year anniversary of the publication of the Marmot Review report the Health Foundation commissioned Professor Sir Michael Marmot and his team at the UCL Institute of Health Equity to examine progress in addressing health inequalities in England. Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On (February 2020) found that while there had been progress in some areas there was also evidence of widening health inequalities. As with the 2010 report, the 2020 follow-up looked at health inequalities generally, yet highlighted the relationship between health inequalities and race: Austerity has taken its toll in all the domains set out in the Marmot Review. From rising child poverty and the closure of children’s centres, to declines in education funding, an increase in precarious work and zero hours contracts, to a housing affordability crisis and a rise in homelessness, to people with insufficient money to lead a healthy life and resorting to foodbanks in large numbers, to ignored communities with poor conditions and little reason for hope. And these outcomes, on the whole, are even worse for minority ethnic population groups249 The report’s main recommendation was for the Prime Minister to “initiate an ambitious and world-leading health inequalities strategy and lead a Cabinet-level cross-departmental committee charged with its development and implementation”.250 For NHS England and Public Health England, the review recommended greater investment in more deprived areas and the reassessment of resource allocation formulae,251
248 Ibid., pp171-176 249 Ibid., p5 250 Ibid., p150 251 Ibid., p142 82 Race and ethnic disparities
more investment in prevention services252 and for health care organisations to act on the social determinants of health.253
5.7 The Macpherson Report (1999) The murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 is now considered a landmark moment in the history of race relations in Britain. Stephen was murdered by a group of White males in a racially motivated attack. The failure of the police to thoroughly investigate his murder, and the near twenty year wait for any of his attackers to be prosecuted, highlighted systematic problems with how Black people were treated by the police. The publication of Macpherson’s Inquiry into the investigation of Stephen’s murder in 1999 was a watershed moment for both police leaders and black rights activists. Macpherson’s conclusion that the Metropolitan Police Service (and other police services across the country) was institutionally racist sparked a national debate about police reform.254 Macpherson made 70 specific recommendations in his report. They considered the whole police service and touched on police governance, police recruitment and training, the oversight of police powers, the support provided to the families of murder victims and how the police record and respond to crimes motivated by racism.255 The policing landscape today is fundamentally different to that Macpherson was examining. However, questions persist as to whether the police have overcome institutional racism. The Home Affairs Select Committee examined the police’s progress in 2009 and concluded that they had made “tremendous strides”. They reported that 67 of MacPherson’s 70 recommendations had been “implemented fully or in part”. However, the Committee remained concerned that Black people continued to be “over-represented in the criminal justice system”.256 Ethnic disparities can be still be found across police data, including in the use of police powers (notably stop and search), the numbers of BME police officers and in the confidence in the police felt by Black people.257 The Home Affairs Select Committee has been taking evidence from policing stakeholders and BME community leaders as part of work to update its 2009 report. It’s expected to publish a new report considering the Macpherson report “twenty-one years on” later this year.258
252 Ibid., p133 253 Ibid., p144 254 The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: A report of an inquiry by Sir William Macpherson, Cm 4262-I, February 1999, chapter six: racism, para 6.39 255 Ibid, chapter forty-seven 256 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, The Macpherson Report—Ten Years On: Twelfth Report of Session 2008–09, July 2009, paras 15-17 257 See above, section 2.4 258 Home Affairs Committee, The Macpherson Report: twenty-one years on [last accessed 7 August 2020]
About the Library The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their staff with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents. As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing papers, which are available on the Parliament website. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes. If you have any comments on our briefings please email [email protected]. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing only with Members and their staff. If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons you can email [email protected]. Disclaimer This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice. The House of Commons accepts no responsibility for any references or links to, BRIEFING PAPER or the content of, information maintained by third parties. This information is Number CBP 8960 provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence. 24 May 2021