COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION HOLDS MEETING WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning heard statements from a series of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on the situation of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance in the United Kingdom. This is the third meeting with non-governmental organizations that the Committee has held this session to discuss the situation in countries under review. The eighteenth through twentieth periodic reports of the United Kingdom, submitted as one document (CERD/C/GBR/18-20), will be considered starting at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 August.

Speakers expressed concern that companies registered in the United Kingdom were contributing to human rights abuses outside of that country. The government of the United Kingdom had very weak institutional mechanisms for addressing the gaps in the accountability of United Kingdom-based companies. There were not adequate screening procedures, and foreign claimants seeking access to remedy in the United Kingdom faced huge legal and financial obstacles. The United Kingdom did not sufficiently differentiate between a human rights framework and corporate social responsibility. While such voluntary approaches might encourage some companies to improve their conduct, they allowed the laggards to continue to have adverse impacts on human rights without adequate sanctions or reparation.

Another speaker said that there was no evidence that the United Kingdom was committed to racial equality. In its Equality Strategy, the Government moved away from group-based approaches. Equality was not considered in terms of race, religion and ethnicity, thereby undermining the strategy itself. It was not a racial equality strategy, but rather an integration strategy in which equality of outcome was omitted. The lack of this element made the strategy likely to fail to provide protection against racial discrimination. Discrimination would not be eradicated without accessible means of enforcement and reform to legal aid. Cuts to public spending and reductions in the functions and budgets of national human rights institutions threatened effective enforcement.

With regard to the recent riots that took place in London, one non-governmental organization representative said it was important to emphasize that the riots could not be understood solely through race, and people from all backgrounds were involved in the riots. The riots were instigated by the shooting of a black man by the police, which had to be placed in the context of mistrust that had emerged between certain communities and the police. They were concerned that the Government’s policy response to the riots would lead to worse outcomes for minority ethnic groups. Highly racialized language tended to criminalize black culture, and there was concern about the backlash from the far right which was taking advantage of the riots to justify the stigmatization of whole communities. While it was clear that most of the rioters were not black, the policy response was likely to target and disadvantage black people disproportionately.


The next meeting of the Committee will take place this afternoon, Monday, 22 August at 3 p.m. when the Committee will begin consideration of the fifth to eighth periodic reports of Albania (CERD/C/ALB/5-8).


Statements

A representative of Amnesty International said it was concerned that many companies registered in the United Kingdom, but operating outside the country, contributed to human rights abuses. At the heart of the United Kingdom’s failings was a refusal to accept that impact on human rights of United Kingdom-based companies operating abroad gave rise to international human rights obligations. The United Kingdom was unwilling to address the different ways it could use its jurisdiction over parent companies registered in the United Kingdom to improve the human rights performance of multinational operations abroad. This fell far short of the standard of conduct required under Article 2(1)(d) of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The duty to protect did not apply only to a State’s own inhabitants. The United Kingdom had very weak institutional mechanisms for addressing the gaps in the accountability of companies based there. There were not adequate screening procedures and foreign claimants seeking access to remedy in the United Kingdom faced huge legal and financial obstacles. The United Kingdom did not sufficiently differentiate between a human rights framework and corporate social responsibility. While such voluntary approaches might encourage some companies to improve their conduct, they allowed the laggards to continue to have adverse impacts on human rights without adequate sanctions or reparation.

A Committee Member said that the request by Amnesty International for the United Kingdom to take measures to bring attention to the impact of companies abroad was understandable. There was a precedent, including a recommendation the Committee issued to Canada in which it urged that Government to study the situation of transnational companies headquartered in Canada which had negative impacts on indigenous people abroad. The Committee also asked that Canada include information on the effect of measures concerned with operations of transnational companies abroad in its next report. This recommendation, as well as a similar recommendation issued to the United States, had had positive effects. The Committee Member asked whether it was only in India that this took place or whether there were other countries where transnational United Kingdom corporations had negative impacts.

Another Committee Expert asked whether Amnesty International was asking the United Kingdom to investigate and prosecute all companies that were violating their human rights obligations abroad. One related issue was a resource problem. Could governments investigate each and every instance of human rights violations abroad? Or rather, was Amnesty International asking that restrictions be lifted so that the court system could be used as a mechanism of enforcement? This would be a broader approach. How could this be compared to the recent bribery laws in the United Kingdom? These were some of the strictest laws in the world, requiring self-reporting by companies on their activities abroad.

Responding to Committee Members’ questions, the representative of Amnesty International said that the case study of India was the product of Amnesty International’s own research. Other organizations had produced case studies about similar situations in Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Botswana. Amnesty International could only legitimately refer to its own case studies. The analogy of bribery laws was interesting because the United Kingdom did apply bribery, sex trafficking of children, anti-trust, securities regulation and terrorism laws extra-territorially. The United Kingdom recognized that it made sense to regulate and use civil procedures to address impacts abroad; however, it did not recognize human rights obligations in the same way. Amnesty International was not asking the United Kingdom to investigate all cases, but to investigate particular situations and hold companies accountable for their activities abroad.

A representative of the Discrimination Law Association said there was no evidence that the United Kingdom was committed to racial equality. In its Equality Strategy, the Government moved away from group-based approaches. Equality was not considered in terms of race, religion and ethnicity, thereby undermining the strategy itself. It was not a racial equality strategy, but rather an integration strategy in which equality of outcome was omitted. The lack of this element made the strategy likely to fail to provide protection against racial discrimination. The Equality Act was under threat because certain measures such as the Red tape Challenge, could result in a repeal of certain provisions, especially enforcement provisions. Discrimination would not be eradicated without accessible means of enforcement and reform to legal aid. Cuts to public spending and reductions in the functions and budgets of national human rights institutions threatened effective enforcement.

A representative of NICEM said Northern Ireland was emerging from a conflict based on ethnic, cultural and religious differences. Race relations failed to attract sufficient political commitment in Northern Ireland because of the sectarianized nature of politics there. Race relations were subsumed under a general “good relations” agenda, but the latter then focused almost exclusively on relations between the majority (Protestant unions) and minority (Catholic nationalist) communities. The Racial Equality Strategy was endorsed by all political parties but remained frozen. Departments were no longer implementing the Action Plan under the Race Strategy. NICEM encouraged the Committee to urge the United Kingdom to guarantee the process of developing a new racial equality strategy. NICEM expressed grave reservations about comments made in the submission to the Committee from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about the inter-sectionality between religion and racial discrimination. Race relations legislation would distract from the very real needs and concerns of the minority ethnic community in Northern Ireland and could potentially undermine the gains already made. The Committee should urge the United Kingdom to introduce a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement.

A representative of the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights said the Scottish Parliament had the power to promote equality. The Coalition for Racial Equality was concerned there was a large disparity in information among jurisdictions in the report of the United Kingdom. The Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights hoped the Committee would request information on specific jurisdictions when consulting the United Kingdom. One reason cited for these disparities was the lack of racial diversity in Scotland, but in 2009 to 2010, there were 6,000 racial incidents reported. Scotland needed a comprehensive race strategy. There was currently no official policy on racial equality. Devolution meant different jurisdictions had different policies. State reports that did not consider the situation in different areas were insufficient.

A representative of Runnymede Trust said it was too early to understand the causes of the riots and its racial dimension. Early responses indicated that the event would have an impact on minority groups. It was important to emphasize that the riots could not be understood solely through race, and people from all backgrounds were involved in the riots. The riots were instigated by the shooting of a black man by the police, which had to be placed in the context of mistrust that had emerged between certain communities and the police. Runnymede Trust was concerned that the Government’s policy response to the riots would lead to worse outcomes for minority ethnic groups. Highly racialized language tended to criminalize black culture. Runnymede Trust was concerned about the backlash from the far right which was taking advantage of the riots to justify the stigmatization of whole communities. While it was clear that most of the rioters were not black, the policy response was likely to target and disadvantage black people disproportionately.

A representative of JUST West Yorkshire said that the Prime Minister had made a seminal speech at a security conference in Munich where he linked home-grown terrorism and the State’s support for multiculturalism. British Muslims were cited as the enemy within. These attacks fed into the xenophobia and Islamophobia of the far right in the United Kingdom. An integrationist or assimilationist agenda was being pursued, instead of an agenda that reduced inequality and established fair access to public services. JUST West Yorkshire called on the Government to treat Al-Qaida and far-right terrorist threats equally. JUST West Yorkshire was particularly concerned about the Attorney General’s low prosecution rate of cases of racial and religious hatred. It called for publication of the criteria for decisions, the number of cases referred and the full details of successful prosecutions and sentences. Finally, JUST West Yorkshire called for a wholly independent body to oversee decisions on prosecutions. JUST West Yorkshire asked the Committee to consider the issues of control orders, British complicity in torture and rendition, schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, and the disproportionate use of stop and search.

The representative of UNISON NI Race Group said that racial incidents and hate crimes had increased an average of 10 to 15 per cent in Northern Ireland in past years, although these incidents were severely underreported. Links between locals and racism was concerning as well. The economic downturn had had a negative impact on race relations. Xenophobic attitudes from politicians also stirred racist tensions and such remarks instilled a sense of hostility towards migrant workers. The failure of the State to instigate constructive sustained programs of regeneration in deprived areas and the failure to agree on and deliver a program for Government meant racial harassment and racist attacks would persist. An increase in support for the British National Party was worrying as was racism in the media. A complaint was made to the Press Complaints Commission, but it was not upheld. The United Kingdom had to establish a truly independent Press Complaint Commission with a statutory Press Ombudsmen to ensure a high standard of ethics.

The representative of the Committee on the Administration of Justice said that a stop and search policy was in force in Northern Ireland and its use had increased exponentially. These powers were used without reasonable suspicion and there were no guidelines for its operation and use. The Committee on the Administration of Justice was concerned that these powers were used in a discriminatory manner. The United Kingdom was currently reviewing the Justice and Security Powers and the Committee on the Administration of Justice asked the Committee to introduce sufficient safeguards to ensure the powers could not be used in a discriminatory manner. The police service of Northern Ireland should collect and publicize data on those stopped. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should suspend the operation of specific articles of the Justice and Security Act until safeguards were introduced.

A representative of the Global Afrikan Congress said a new equality strategy had no consultation element, thereby preventing the input and dissemination of information. It was significant that there was a failure to translate international intentions to national and local intentions. Members of Parliament, inspectorates and other bodies needed to be trained on anti-discriminatory practices. The Government did not seem to be in favor of ethnic monitoring, but without information it was not possible to know where efforts needed to be targeted and where programs were successful. Further political participation, particularly for African and black communities needed support; the dialogue with non-governmental organizations was not working. Black people underachieved at school, and they were more likely to be in prison and unemployed. The Global Afrikan Congress stressed the role racism played in this situation.

A Committee Member asked for clarification on the statement by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Institution about the relationship between sectarianism and racism and the suggestion that the Committee approach the situation with the use of inter-sectionality. Another Committee Member said the comments regarding the disparity of reports provided a useful framework for discussing the report of the United Kingdom. They asked for further information from other non-governmental organizations on reporting, particularly regarding education. Concerning Northern Ireland, the Expert valued information about border issues and their relationship to migrants. Further information regarding the reporting and the burden of reporting for businesses was requested. Was there a derogation of public duties? There had been ongoing problems regarding implementation of legislation and more information was requested in that regard. What would be the appropriate action of the Government in regard to radicalization? The Expert asked for more information on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

Another Committee Member said the quality of outcomes needed to be discussed. Was there a definition of outcomes? It appeared to be difficult to establish exact equality. What would be a measurement of attaining equality? Regarding the question of public spending, was it targeted spending or spending across the board that was reduced? Multiculturalism required discussion as well. The comment that the response to the riots in the United Kingdom was racial was interesting. There had not been much discussion about the spark of the riots by politicians and in the media, as they had focused largely on criminal conduct. Did police in the United Kingdom come from the communities being policed? An inspector general could be useful.

Another Expert noted that the United Kingdom pursued social cohesion based on a community approach. The press reported that the Prime Minister had criticized this approach and there was a question of whether this was translating into changes in policy. They also asked for further information on labor laws.

Non-governmental organization representatives, responding to questions raised, said that regarding the issue of bureaucratic burdens, measures had been taken across the government to reduce and simplify regulation. In terms of the Equality Act, certain aspects had been deleted or were being considered for deletion. The Public Sector Duty, for example, required authorities to report and take positive action to provide better services to assure equality of outcome. The Government was considering disbanding this duty. The secondary legislation required for implementation of the Equality Act was not very strong, which sent the message that it was less important. While spending cuts did not intentionally target vulnerable groups, the reality was that public spending cuts disproportionally impacted disadvantaged communities. Speakers said that police officers generally came from the communities they policed. However, training taught police what not to say and what not to do, but did not deal with the feelings and prejudices they might harbor. Community-based policing did work and could build up trust and confidence. The inspectorate was not independent and allowed local police to investigate local complaints. It was not open or transparent, and things were not dealt with effectively. Only one person had been found responsible for the deaths in police custody. It would be foolhardy to believe that Muslims were predisposed to radicalization. The Government had to stop speaking to gate-keepers, i.e. particular groups the government was predisposed to talking to; going out into communities and talking to them would be a better approach. Regarding Northern Ireland, it was not safe for people to declare that they were police officers and the proportion of minority police officers was very low. Police were not representative of the communities they worked in and were not able to work in a community-based manner.

A representative of Equanomics said social integration and justice depended on economic integration and justice. Education, poverty and employment were inextricably linked. Not only was it harder to access good education if poor, but even where it was possible, there were problems in accessing higher education. Unless the Government invested in good quality education for all, unemployment would remain at highly disproportionate levels for racial minorities. Programs and grants focused on achievement gaps for pupils from ethnic minorities risked being cut. The increase in fees and the lack of grants and scholarships made it difficult for minorities to access higher education. Minorities disproportionately lived in low-income households, were unemployed, earned less and experienced higher rates of child poverty. The Committee should ask the Government how it would tackle specific and disproportionate child poverty and high unemployment in ethnic minority communities. How would the Government ensure equalities were not eroded by budget cuts and ensure the current economic situation was not used to freeze and reduce the wages of those bearing the brunt of the economic crisis?

The representative of Migrant Rights Network said the situation of migrants and government policy on migrants had changed significantly since the last time the Committee reviewed the United Kingdom. The Migrants Impacts Fund had been cut, which was specifically aimed at promoting integration for migrants. Consultations on policies had been reduced. The minimum age for spouses, partners and fiancés accompanying migrants had been increased to 21. A newly established pre-entry language test for entrants to the United Kingdom had been criticized as discriminating against low-income communities. Employers had been asked to be more responsible for the legal status of employees. There was an increase in work-place raids that generally focused on minorities. The Migrant Rights Network urged the Government to implement a code of practice on a broad range of issues and asked the government to lead press briefings in a more accountable way.

A representative of the Alliance of Filipino Communities drew the attention of the Committee to the unjust and discriminatory law which affected all those employed in the health care sector in the United Kingdom. Changes made to the immigration rules in 2011 required work permit holders wishing to settle in the United Kingdom after working lawfully for 5 years to be paid a specified rate for the job. The new immigration rules required senior care workers to obtain settlement status. This constituted an element of uncertainty in obtaining citizenship and placed workers at the mercy of their employers. The difference in salary paid to senior care workers between public sector and private sector differed significantly. Those working the private sector were being paid less. There were still many senior care workers receiving below minimum requirements for the last 5 years, which would restrict settlement rights. The Government needed to review and establish a monitoring mechanism to effectively address this issue. These workers were particularly vulnerable to discrimination and harassment. The Alliance of Filipino Communities encouraged the Committee to urge the government to stop discriminatory immigration rules and allow those with a 5 year work permit to settle in the United Kingdom. An independent body to investigate the mistreatment of workers should be set up.

The representative of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions said in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom a hidden and modern form of slavery was present, namely the plight of migrant workers. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions wished to bring the Committee’s attention to another serious problem workers faced if they tried to access their basic employment rights. At best, a migrant could expect to have complaints heard months after they were lodged, but the normal response from an employer who mistreated migrant workers to the lodging of a complaint was dismissal. On paper, a migrant worker was entitled to certain statutory legal protections, but in reality they were barred from exercising this protection. Employment tribunals were dominated by legal complexities, did not facilitate legal aid and did not have the power to force an employer to reinstate an unfairly dismissed employee. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions encouraged the Committee to urge the Government to introduce measures to improve accessibility to the justice system.

The representative of the Irish Travellers Movement in Britain said accommodation and health for travellers had not improved since the Committee issued its 2003 recommendations to the United Kingdom. Travellers had the highest infant mortality rates and faced wide-spread discrimination in education and health. There was a severe nationwide shortage of traveller accommodation sites. The main barrier was resistance and discrimination on the part of local communities. A number of schemes to provide support for travellers had been cut and disbanded. Each eviction cost 8 million GBP, a significant waste of taxpayer funds.

The representative of An Munia Tober said in Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland found that few travellers left school with any qualifications, few had paid employment and infant mortality rates were ten times the national average. Travellers faced the most significant health problems of any other group and had seriously reduced access to health services.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD11/031E