Memorandum by Slough Borough Council
SUMMARY
Migration has had a major impact at a local
level in Slough. Councils have long been at the forefront of managing
these impacts in terms of local economies, community cohesion,
cultural differences and continuity of service provision—not
just in recent years.
What is different in the current waves of migration
to those gone past is not so much in scale and speed of migration
(although this has been unprecedented since EU expansion in 2004)
but in the failure of statistics to keep pace and reaction of
central government to the management of the impacts resulting
from migration.
Slough Borough Council has been responsible
for implementing innovative services, conducting research and
community cohesion programmes to meet the challenges of the impacts
of migration since the turn of the century. The town has successfully
integrated migration since the 1920s.
History of migration:
— 1920 migration from Wales, the North,
Scotland, Ireland and the South to take advantage of growing local
economy.
— Polish migration in the second world
war (130,000 Poles arrived in Britain during the first few years
after the war).
— Windrush and Indian subcontinent
immigration in 50s, 60s and 70s.
— Current EU A8 and A2 migration.
As a result the town has the most diverse ethnic
mix outside London with 37% of the population being classed as
Black or Ethnic Minority, at the last census.
In a report entitled Colour and Communities
examining the effects and impacts of migration from Indian
sub-continent and the West Indies in 1964 many of the impacts
highlighted then mirror those being faced by the council today.
"The fact remains that Slough has a successful
history of accepting large numbers and great varieties of people
from other places. Past experience has demonstrated Slough's ability
to assimilate newcomers without severe or lasting difficulties,
and in virtually all cases the newcomers have added something
of genuine value to the life of the town. Perhaps it is not too
unrealistic to think this could happen once more ... "
William H. Israel, Council Officer reporting
on migration in 1964
There are many direct impacts resulting from
significant migration to a local authority area such as pressures
to schools coping with the influx of new intake, labour market
distortions, housing, policing, fire prevention and refuse collection.
However, the most significant impact remains an indirect one resulting
from poor management systems within the UK and an unresponsive
centrally controlled mechanism for local government funding.
Poor measurement of local populations in "hyper-diverse"
communities has serious consequences to the management of migration
at a local level. The failure to track migration accurately to
and within the UK results in inaccurate population estimates with
corollary under funding for those areas where official statistics
prove inadequate. This in turn results in pressures to all services,
community cohesion risks and poor central and local planning of
services. The council has published incontrovertible evidence
of a population undercount in the town due to the inability of
official statistics to measure current migration movement accurately.
It is tempting in the debate around impacts
of migration to look solely at the visible effects on the ground.
Although this is important they should be viewed with consideration
of the indirect impacts of poor management of data and statistics.
The following evidence illustrates these points
which results from a series of independent studies and seminars
the council has conducted into the impacts of migration to the
town since 2002 (see Appendix A).
COMMUNITY COHESION
IN SLOUGH
The council welcomes the recognition of the
challenges of community cohesion in the government's White Paper
and in the setting up of the Migration Impacts Forum. With one
of the most diverse communities in the country, Slough is a migration
and cohesion success story. Nevertheless, the results of the council's
research and community mapping reveal that to maintain good community
cohesion the task over this recent period of significant social
change requires more effort and resources at a time when inaccurate
population estimates are imposing systemic underfunding over the
three year grant settlement period.
Slough has one of the most diverse communities
in the country. Inward migration is driven by economic factors.
Slough is the 3rd most productive town in the UK outside London
with a £2.5 billion output. Although Slough has a thriving
job marketplace and continues to be a successful economic hub,
it is also comparatively poor. Wages earned by those living in
Slough are less than surrounding areas. Slough has comparatively
lower house prices than the surrounding area and the presence
of existing diverse communities make it an attractive destination
for new communities seeking to gain a foothold in Britain. This
makes it a classic "churn" town. This is evidenced by
the growth in the town's BME community from 27% in the 1991 census
to 39% in the 2001 census. This is nearly four times the national
average growth of BME communities over this period.
Slough mirrors the pattern of growth of BME
and other new communities that is referred to in the Strong and
Prosperous Communities White Paper. Large Indian, Pakistani and
Polish communities and a smaller Caribbean community now share
an increasingly crowded space with growing Somali, other African,
Iraqi, Afghanistani and Eastern European communities. Only a minority
of individuals from the various communities are economically or
socially successful. In Slough there are low skills, comparatively
low incomes and housing overcrowding. As the White paper points
out "Those who are already excluded may feel they are missing
out again from access to housing, jobs or health services".
This is certainly evidenced from a survey conducted in 2006 that
the council has undertaken in order to map and understand the
different traditions and ethnicities of the town's communities
and their needs. Some key findings from this research are set
out later in this report.
As the White Paper points out, communities often
vie with each other for services and attention. Slough has a long,
successful history of migration and has worked hard to develop
and retain good community relations, balancing the consultation,
services and interventions needed within and between communities.
We already have in place most of the elements of good practice
set out in the White Paper. The Audit Commission quotes Slough
as an example of good practise in this area: "In Slough local
people and partners recognise the role the council plays in meeting
the significant challenges of social cohesion, deprivation and
inequalities|.. The council is strongly aware of its role in enhancing
community cohesion. It has a good understanding of the needs of
all local communities and through the LSP has built a clear vision
with a focus on social inclusion". Audit Commission, Learning
from CPA.
The council has also demonstrated its commitment
to improving its cohesion practices and sharing best practice
by holding a seminar, Migration Works, on 2 November 2006. Two
speakers, Danny Sriskandarajah, IPPR, and Ted Cantle, IDeA, spoke
about cohesion and suggested 22 priorities that councils need
to focus on in order to harness the potential of migration.
Ted Cantle's 12 priorities for local authorities:
1. Cope with additional population, services
they require and identity issues.
2. And population "churn".
3. Respond to resources required for schools,
social housing, health etc.
4. Manage settlement of new communities and
work with existing residents.
5. Managing conflicts and disputes.
6. Tension monitoring, with police.
7. Cope with extremism—of all descriptions.
8. Provide a sense of belonging.
9. Initiate cross-cultural programmes.
10. Understand social capital and bridging
relationships in community.
11. Leadership for a wide range of partners,
knitting together various programmes.
12. All with real vision and political will
Danny Sriskandarajah's 10 priorities for local
authorities:
1. Understanding the scale and impact of
recent flows.
2. Attracting (and retaining) appropriate
migrants.
3. Providing adequate reception services
in short-term.
4. Promoting integration over long-term.
5. Catering service provision to meet the
range of needs within and between different migrant groups.
6. Engaging employers, migrant communities
and others.
7. Tackle exploitation and destitution.
8. Tackle prejudice and hostility.
9. Sharing best practice.
10. Responding to but not pandering to public
opinion, and communicating role of migration.
Much of the priorities recognised by our speakers
as essential to cohesion are already practiced by Slough. However,
the ambitious scope of the priorities illustrates the added resource
pressures councils are expected to shoulder with no extra resource
from central government. Matters are made even worse where inadequate
migration estimates actually financially penalise the very councils
that are experiencing significant social change. It hardly needs
saying that to lock councils into a three year funding round using
inadequate data during this period completely disregards the community
cohesion needs of some councils.
Despite this expertise, the fast pace of the
changing patterns of our communities has created more pressure
on space and resources and is significantly stretching the council
(Slough was the 2nd most overcrowded town in the country at the
2001 census). The speeding up of inward and more complex migration
has, unfortunately come at a time when ONS figures are erroneously
predicting that the population is falling. This is causing a tightening
of resources and services at a time when it is critical to invest
in order to mitigate the short term effects of new inward migration.
If the town continues to attract in poorer communities that cause
both white flight and the flight of the wealthier sections of
other non white communities, its future sustainability is in doubt.
The nature and mix of migration over the 18
month period to September 2007 is demonstrated on school rolls.
888 pupils from non English speaking countries moved onto Slough
school rolls over the 18 months. 200 were from Poland, 185 from
Pakistan, 104 from Somalia and 91 from India. The remainder were
from other African, European or other Asian countries.
Also, from 1 January to April 2007 it is estimated
400 newly arrived Romanian Roma individuals (including children)
arrived in Slough. Families shared often overcrowded and sub standard
accommodation.
Eighty-eight unaccompanied Romanian Roma children
between the ages of 10-17 years presented to Slough children's
services requesting support in the same period. A temporary dedicated
team had to be set up by Children Services. The Roma team provided
support to 52 children. Thirty-six were refused support as they
have been assessed as being over the age of 18 or the council
located family members in the UK.
All children claimed they travelled to the UK
by Lorry, the amount paid for this varied, usually around 75 Euros.
Most said they left family in Romania or other EU countries and
came to the UK for a better life. Each child was individually
assessed and children's services sought to re unite children with
their families as soon as possible.
Six young people had babies of their own and
seven were pregnant. A high proportion of children had dental
problems, including small children who are dependants. Eight children
had been implicated in criminal activity such as theft, mugging
or begging. A small number of children had been seen cleaning
car windscreens at traffic lights.
Slough is an exceptional case in this specific
regard and has worked closely with the Romanian embassy to tackle
the problem of unaccompanied children arriving in the town. We
have now managed down the numbers of children that are looked
after by the council. However, this fast and very visual social
change to the town causes new and immediate community cohesion
challenges. The council had to be proactive and flexible in its
response to these challenges meeting both indigenous and new communities
and resolving any emerging areas of conflict. Providing local
immediate solutions to cohesion issues plus working with central
government and the Romanian embassy takes experience and a dedicated
resource. This has not been recognised by government.
As a result of concerns about increased migration
and how the varied communities are viewing each other, the council
has undertaken a number of audits and surveys to "test the
temperature", map the incoming communities and understand
their intentions in respect of length of stay in the town. Three
pieces of work have been completed to date:
— A community cohesion audit conducted
using independent expertise from a Neighbourhood Renewal advisor
to DCLG (Raj Bhari) and trained local community researchers.
— An independent set of focus groups
with some of the latest incoming communities carried out by Populus.
— Independent survey work of the migrant
communities, stakeholders and local employers carried out by the
Research Unit.
In addition to this specific social market research,
the council continues to work with communities through its service
provision, regular consultation and multi ethnic and multi faith
forums. This work also enables us to understand the current tensions.
Regular information sharing is undertaken with the police and
other partners and with the third sector. Community cohesion is
a shared challenge for our local strategic partnership. This range
of research and community engagement enables the council to be
confident that its description of what is happening in and between
the communities in Slough is accurate.
EVIDENCE ABOUT
CURRENT COHESION
CLIMATE IN
SLOUGH
The research shows that neither the more settled
communities nor the newer asylum seeking communities and European
migrants are feeling well integrated. In fact, the research exemplifies
the challenges set out in the White Paper "... established
communities can feel uneasy with change. They begin to hear and
believe stories about ethnic minorities getting preferential treatment
and can develop a sense of grievance".
Ted Cantle speaking about Slough's Migration
Works seminar on 2 November 2006 reinforced this point:
"Slough Borough Council's seminar is well timed.
Migration to the UK works as evidenced in places around the country
like Slough. However, building cohesive communities to harness
the benefits long term takes resources. It is important that councils
like Slough are funded correctly for their population size and
complexity to make sure they continue community cohesion work".
"Community tensions are sometimes caused
by the perception of competition between groups over resources
and councils have to be able to demonstrate that this is not the
case".
"The government needs to look with some
urgency at funding areas appropriately where statistics are not
keeping pace with what is happening on the ground".
Moreover, the situation is more complex in Slough
as it is not just the indigenous white community who feels this;
it is also the more settled BME communities who are now demonstrating
a sense of grievance.
LONG TERM
SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES
FOR SLOUGH
As our research shows, Slough is a very challenging
community for the council to serve. This is despite Slough's significant
experience and success in managing migration and community cohesion
up until now. Slough has already been implementing many of the
best practise elements set out in the new White Paper—community
mapping, engagement and conflict resolution.
We have also responded innovatively to the sharp
increase of children new to the UK accessing our schools. It was
proving increasingly difficult to place children, particularly
at secondary level, into our schools as a lack of recorded educational
need of the children meant they were largely an "unknown
quantity". In response to this and in partnership with our
head teachers we established the Slough Assessment Centre at Beechwood
School. It now caters for newly arrived secondary school pupils
without school records.
During the summer holiday period 2006, 89 secondary
aged pupils arrived in Slough from other countries. The Assessment
Centre can only cater for a maximum of 8 pupils at a time, although
4-6 provides a more effective teacher: pupil ratio.
The children spend Monday to Thursday at the
Centre where their English, maths and science are assessed and
short-term targets, both academic and social, are agreed. On Friday
a report is sent to Slough Admissions Department so that the case
can be presented to the next Admissions Panel meeting.
The centre also provides support for newly arrived
parents. Many families new to the country have complex needs and
require a level of information, advice or support that cannot
usually be met by schools. By consulting new arrivals and their
parents about their experiences and needs, the Assessment Centre
has been able to provide comprehensive and accessible information.
The cost of this, not least translation expenses, are considerable.
This single centre costs £92,000 a year
to run but is proving to be insufficient. The council estimates
it needs additional staffing for the Secondary Assessment Centre
to enable more pupils to be admitted during peak times of the
year. Two Primary Assessment Centres are also needed to improve
the admissions process for younger new arrivals, help them settle
in more quickly to the English educational system and provide
comprehensive, accessible information for parents.
This is an example of the kind of innovative
and responsive thinking that typifies the council's experience
and approach to migration. We do not know of any one else offering
this service and believe it is a clear example of good practice
that could be transferred to other towns and cities under similar
migration pressure.
The council has been engaged in "place
shaping" for some time and has as its ambition and the ambition
for the local strategic partnership a vision to improve the quality
of life for people who live and work in the town. This requires
the establishment of a sustainable community. It requires the
up-skilling of the population to enable them to share in the economic
prosperity of the town. This will enable them to become more self
sufficient, improve their housing and social conditions and engage
fully with the cultural life of the town. The council had some
success in achieving this goal in that Slough moved from 107 to
129 in the multiple index of deprivation between 2001 and 2004.
However the high and continuing influx of migration
over the last five to seven years threaten this vision. The particular
challenges it presents are:
— Increasing competition between communities
for work on skills. Should we focus on the Polish community who
only need language skills to obtain better jobs and fully utilise
the skills they have brought with them (Waiting lists for ESoL
classes at every level)? Or should we continue to focus on the
Pakistani and black communities who historically have the lowest
skills? What about the white community? All communities have far
lower skills than either the UK as a whole or the SE. At present
65% of Slough's population have only NVQ1 or above qualifications
compared to 81% in the SE and 76% nationally. At present 40,000
people commute into Slough each day, largely to take up the well
paid jobs.
— How can we close the disparities
of educational attainment, access to work, levels of wages, health
et at between communities. The council aims to support these groups,
but needs capacity to do so. The evidence of these groups creates
community tensions and there are risks that if groups, particularly
in access to employment increase community tensions will increase
too.
— How can we stabilise and regulate
our private rented sector when the local landlords are ready to
move quickly to bring small houses and illegal sheds in and out
of use rapidly? The current registration system does not work
as landlords move these properties quickly in and out of the market
and would not pay for the requirements to license, relying instead
on not being caught given the levels of resource the council can
allocate to private sector housing regulation.
— How can we create neighbourhoods
where people want to stay when they become wealthy enough to move
on? The current housing mix lends itself to first step housing
and the environment of the town is becoming ever more crowded.
— How can we meet the current high
level of demand for housing when the town is already the 2nd most
overcrowded in the country?
— How can we prevent tension arising
within and between our communities because of competition for
overstretched resources brought about by flawed population statistics?
— How can the council fund new cohesion
initiatives such as "twinning" and maintain discretionary
cohesion projects without appropriate funding?
— How can we prevent tensions arising
between communities due to perceived iniquity of cuts to existing
discretionary services brought about by flawed population statistics?
The council believes this cocktail of issues
raises crucial social policy questions that need to be urgently
addressed. The council needs recognition for the complex situation
it is handling and some guidance about what specific grants the
Government could introduce to assist. If Slough continues to be
a prime target for incoming migration wealthier residents will
continue to leave as soon as they are able to afford housing elsewhere
in the Thames Valley. This puts Slough at a crucial "tipping
point" that militates against the council and LSP's vision
for a more sustainable and affluent town.
The council would like to see recognition of
the complexity and immediate need for community cohesion specific
funds for areas let down by inadequate migration measurement.
Currently the criteria used to distribute part of the £50
million specific fund announced by the government is too simplistic
and does not take into account the complexity of hyper-diverse
areas like Slough.
Slough's position should be recognised in any
further orders relating to dispersal. (In the past Slough has
not been acknowledged and has become a target for other council's
to place people in Slough's bed and breakfast market and we have
not received any additional funding).
The council would also like to help the government
understand the complexities of population movement, its effect
on community cohesion, the innovative solutions to immediate problems
and the consequences of not recognising the effects of poor migration
measurement and corollary underfunding.
ADDRESSING THE
SKILLS ISSUE
The council has recently undertaken steps to
help cohesion through bettering the life chances of our under
skilled population. An innovative "Skills Campaign"
has been launched alongside key partners within the borough.
The Slough Employer Skills Research project
conducted a telephone survey of 502 local employers and depth
interviews with 33 companies across a wide range of sectors and
sizes of company to inform the Slough Skills Campaign.
Slough is home to around 4,500 employers and
75,000 employees. Transformation in the local economy is seeing
a shift away from manufacturing (employment fell by 40% between
1998 and 2005). While manufacturing remains important, the main
growth is in service industries and service-related jobs.
The analysis suggests eight key issues to be
considered by the Slough Skills Campaign:
— Issue 1: Slough residents' skills
are out of step with local employment opportunities.
— Issue 2: Skills are holding back
the local economy and business performance.
— Issue 3: Employer skills priorities
appear to reflect growth of high added value services.
— Issue 4: Acquisition of English language
skills is a major challenge.
— Issue 5: Tackling recruitment difficulties
could benefit from a joint approach, with employers sharing best
practice.
— Issue 6: Closer links between employers
and local learning and skills providers would be beneficial.
— Issue 7: Slough employers should
be encouraged to be more active in developing the workforce.
— Issue 8: Slough residents should
be encouraged to take greater ownership of their own learning
and career.
The council is taking steps to address these
issues and taking a pro-active place shaping role that will benefit
community cohesion not just in the short term but for the long
term future of the town.
However, this initiative is being conducted
without government support. The consequences of a financial settlement
based on flawed migration data means that the council is not funded
adequately enough to meet its aspiration for cohesion.
It is essential that the government recognise
that good community cohesion requires resources. It should also
recognise that it is stripping resources away from the very areas
that are witnessing significant social change because of a flawed
method of migration measurement.
| 
