Memorandum by the Audit Commission
The Audit Commission is an independent body
responsible for ensuring that public money is spent economically,
efficiently and effectively, to achieve high-quality local services
for the public. Our remit covers around 11,000 bodies in England,
which between them spend more than £180 billion of public
money each year. Our work covers local government, health, housing,
community safety and fire and rescue services.
As an independent watchdog, we provide important
information on the quality of public services. As a driving force
for improvement in those services, we provide practical recommendations
and spread best practice. As an independent auditor, we ensure
that public services are good value for money and that public
money is properly spent.
SUMMARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
1. The Audit Commission welcomes the opportunity
to provide evidence to the House of Commons Community and Local
Government Committee inquiry. Our submission is based mainly on
our recent research on the local impact of migrant workers, published
in January 2007 (Ref. 1). This research did not cover broader
migration issues.
2. The Commission supports an approach to
community cohesion that covers more than race relations or issues
of faith and we stressed this in our response to the Commission
on Integration and Cohesion (Ref. 2). The Commission sees
cohesion as a key factor in building sustainable communities and
considers this in the delivery of local services assessment and
inspection work. Since 2005 corporate assessments for single tier
and county councils have specifically considered the question
of what the council, with its partners, has achieved in its ambitions
for building safer and stronger communities. Evidence for this
response has been drawn from corporate assessments (Ref. 3).
3. The Commission submitted evidence to
the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee relating to the
impact of immigration on local public services (Ref. 4).
This response does not repeat that work. Our previous evidence
covered:
— the importance of place, given local
differences in impact;
— the limitations of local population
estimates and associated data about recent migration, and the
lack of quantifiable information about demand for, and use of,
public services by different groups of migrants;
— the different kinds of demand on
public services that can be associated with migrants;
— the contribution of migrant workers
to public services, particularly in the health and care sector;
and
— the lack of data on possible compensating
savings to local authorities resulting from British citizens moving
abroad.
4. This submission adds information on:
— the role, responsibilities and actions
of different bodies on community cohesion and migration, including
local and central government;
— the effectiveness of local and central
government action and expenditure in promoting community cohesion
and responding to inward migration flows; and
— the role of the English language
as a tool in promoting the integration of migrants.
Recommendations
5. The recommendations made in our January
2007 report still apply.
6. Local authorities need to take a lead
role in coordinating and delivering locally tailored responses
by:
— understanding how local populations
are changing by analysing national and local sources of data and
intelligence;
— balancing enforcement of regulations
with encouragement for employers and landlords to improve standards;
— addressing language, advice and information
issues;
— minimising local tensions, responding
swiftly to emerging problems and maintaining contingency plans;
and
— modifying services to meet the diverse
needs of a changing population.
7. The government and regional bodies could
help local areas more effectively by:
— coordinating activity across government
departments to support local areas in respect of data and information
and to prepare for future increases in migration;
— analysing trends and demand for skills
and training regionally and coordinating regional information,
advice and guidance; and
— developing a regional approach to
address the issues raised by migrant workers in housing, planning
and economic development strategies and teaching English to adults.
DETAILED RESPONSE
The role, responsibilities and actions of different
bodies on community cohesion and migration
8. Community cohesion issues raised by inward
migration are normally best dealt with collaboratively by a group
of local partners. The group should include local public agencies,
community and faith organisations and employers. The Commission
found no best pattern of coordination and, in different areas
where coordinated work takes place, leadership came from different
partners. Normally it will be provided by the voluntary and community
sector, police forces or local authorities.
9. Local authorities have a number of specific
responsibilities to promote equality and a community leadership
role. They should ensure that an appropriate joint response is
taking place in their areas.
10. Much recent migration is driven by the
needs of labour markets. Employers and employment agencies will
often know most about likely future change and will be well placed
to support their employees or pass on relevant information from
public agencies. Local authorities and their partners agencies
should therefore seek to work with employers and trade unions
in local partnerships. There are local and regional examples of
such partnerships, such as the regional Migrant Workers North
West. Consideration should be given to the impact of large scale
recruitment by local public services, particularly the health
and social care sectors.
11. Labour markets frequently cross local
authority and other public agency boundaries. The link to economies
means that it is often appropriate for a wider lead to come from
relevant economic agencies. The East of England Development Agency
has taken a particular lead on migration within its region and
across all the Regional Development Agencies. Regional observatories
are well placed to lead on the analysis of available national
and local data; the South West Observatory was an early pioneer.
12. There are other regional initiatives,
but overall regional and sub-regional coordination is patchy and
recent population changes related to inward migration are not
all reflected in regional strategies. There is no clarity as to
which agency has the responsibility to ensure that appropriate
and coordinated regional responses are taking place.
13. There is continuing local evidence that
standards in employment and housing are not all being met. Responsibility
for enforcing such standards is shared across a number of national
and local agencies and needs to be coordinated. Collaboration
is also more likely to be cost effective.
14. At a national level at least six departments
of state have a direct interest in inward migration and cohesion.
Local agencies are not always clear about where to go for what
information or support.
The effectiveness of local and central government
action and expenditure in promoting community cohesion and responding
to inward migration flows
15. In general, councils' approach to community
cohesion is not well developed. This was reflected in the summary
report published on Comprehensive Performance Assessment work
carried out in 2005-06 (Ref. 3) (see below). Strategy was
a particularly weak area, with individual council work on community
cohesion often not part of a wider strategic framework.
Councils and their partners are delivering visible
improvements to community safety and some are linking this well
with other shared priority areas. But measuring outcomes, managing
performance and coordinating work in relation to community cohesion
remain areas for improvement (paragraph 2).
Community cohesion work, in particular, is not
being brought together in a coherent way, reducing its impact
and lessening the sharing of learning (paragraph 37).
Learning from CPA 20045-06
16. There has been some improvement in 2006-07.
The diversity of local populations is changing rapidly in many
areas and councils are placing increasing importance on developing
frameworks for addressing community cohesion. Councils that are
improving their approach are starting to gather good quality intelligence
about community cohesion issues and acting on them to make practical
improvements, for example, better monitoring of racial incidents
leading to effective action as a result.
17. However, a number of councils still
do not have an overarching strategy resulting in uncoordinated
or untargeted activity. Community and service user involvement
in developing cohesion priorities is inconsistent in many councils
and there are only limited examples of effective working with
local communities to address community cohesion.
18. Over the past 18 months in particular
there has been an increase in joint work and shared learning about
inward migration flows at a local level and about ways in which
local partners can best anticipate and/or respond to related local
issues. For example:
— The Local Government Association
set up an officer advisory group on migration and cohesion in
2007 and has widened the remit of its Member group on asylum to
one that looks more broadly at inward migration.
— Local Government Analysis and Research
now host local authority based data from the Worker Registration
Scheme that can help inform local work.
— The Greater London Authority are
leading a group of local and regional partners in working with
an Economic and Social Research Council sponsored group to look
at improving regional data on migration.
— There are more conferences focusing
on relevant issues such as measuring local change and the local
impact of migration, and tailored workshops at service specific
conferences. Both allow local areas to share good practice.
— There are now a number of electronic
communities of practice and information sharing groups.
— Communities and Local Government
funded the Improvement and Development Agency to develop a peer
support/mentoring scheme.
19. The Commission plans to undertake a
national study on community cohesion in 2008-09 to improve our
understanding of the effectiveness of local responses.
The role of the English language as a tool in
promoting the integration of migrants
20. Evidence from a range of sources, including
research carried out by MORI for the Commission for Integration
and Cohesion, shows that language is critical to communication
and better integration and is the single greatest driver of improved
cohesion in relevant areas. Immigrants with English language skills
are less likely to be exploited and more able to help themselves.
They are less in need of interpreters or translators (which are
a cost to public services) and will have a wider range of better
paid job options.
21. In January 2007 the Commission recommended
a number of improvements to help address concerns about the quality,
quantity and content of English for Speakers of Other Languages
(ESOL) classes and gaps between local needs and local provision.
22. In the past year there have been some
changes in arrangements that may help. For example, more appropriate
courses have been designed; expectations about employer contributions
have been increased; and authorities are currently being consulted
on proposals for locally determined strategies and for targeting
subsidised courses in English.
23. However, there is an ongoing significant
shortfall in supply that is not being addressed. There is no legal
requirement on employers to fill this gap and in many cases they
do not have a direct financial incentive.
24. In January 2007 the Commission suggested
the investigation of options to boost quality supply. Without
this, the inadequacy of supply will continue to undermine improvements
to local cohesion in certain areas.
25. Nationally and locally, the annual pupil
census returns identify a continuing increase in the percentage
of children in maintained schools for whom English is a second
language.
26. More appropriate training is still needed
for teachers and schools who are inexperienced in the most effective
ways of teaching pupils for whom English is a second language.
At a school level issues are not just about language. Recent work
by the Institute for Community Cohesion identified rapid turnover
as an important associated concern (Ref 5).
Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA)
27. The Local Government White Paper, Strong
and Prosperous Communities, announced the introduction of joint
assessments of local public services. The Audit Commission, Commission
for Social Care Inspection, Healthcare Commission, HM Inspectorate
of Constabulary, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of
Probation and Ofsted are jointly developing Comprehensive Area
Assessment (CAA) which will be implemented in April 2009.
28. The CAA assessments will draw on the
new national indicator set, currently being consulted on by the
government, and will also be heavily influenced by the views of
residents and those using services. At the heart of the new framework
will be a joint inspectorate assessment of the prospects for the
local area and the quality of life for local people, referred
to in the White Paper as the area risk assessment.
29. The improvement priorities in the Local
Area Agreement (LAA) will be key. The area risk assessment will
judge the likelihood of the targeted improvements being achieved
and, where appropriate, will identify barriers to that improvement.
Community cohesion is likely to feature as a key priority in many
LAAs and the CAA joint inspectorate assessment will consider how
effective the local services are in promoting and building community
cohesion in their local area.
REFERENCES
1. Audit Commission, Crossing borders: Responding
to the local challenges of migrant workers, Audit Commission,
2007.
2. Audit Commission, Response to the Commission
on Integration and Cohesion, 2007.
3. Audit Commission, Learning from CPA 2005-06.
Audit Commission, 2007. Publication of a similar report for 2006-07
is imminent.
4. Audit Commission, Evidence to the House
of Lords Economic Affairs Committee relating to the impact of
immigration on local public services, September 2007.
5. Survey for the Local Government Association
by the Institute for Community Cohesion, 2007.
| 
