Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-157)
MR DARRA
SINGH
1 APRIL 2008
Q140 Anne Main: How much do you think
cohesion teams could help?
Mr Singh: Obviously if they are
structured and resourced appropriately then they can help tremendously
and the point we were trying to make in the report is that as
a country we have a long tradition of dealing with migration and
change. What has really surprised a number of people is the pace
of change, which you will have picked up over recent years, and
also the fact that the patterns of migration, as Trevor Phillips
picked up in his evidence to you, are now very different. It is
no longer people from the old Commonwealth countries coming to
this country but much more varied. So pace and rapidity are particularly
important. Some areas are more acclimatised and are used, through
their history, to that kind of change; parts of London in particular.
In some of the rural areas, Peterborough in particular and the
surrounding environment there, the pace of change is something
which is a newer phenomenon. It is important particularly for
those areas for the new teams to be resourced up to an adequate
level to be able to say there are challenges faced in other areas,
this is an element of good practice we can bring to assist you
and try to get underneath the skin of the issues facing them to
make suggestions and proposals about how they can respond appropriately.
Q141 Chair: Today has seen the publication
of the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic
Affairs.
Mr Singh: I thought you might
ask about that.
Q142 Chair: It would be useful just
to have your initial—and we recognise obviously that it
is initial—response to their main conclusion, which, as
I understand it, is that the economic impact of immigration is
neutral?
Mr Singh: Having very quickly
read the report—obviously there is quite a lot of detail
in there and I will need to go through it spending a lot more
time on it—it seems to me that one of the things they are
calling for is a lot more evidence, more research in terms of
how we appropriately measure the economic impact or otherwise
of migration. Certainly thinking about it not from the macro level
but from Ealing's perspective, in terms of migration and the contributions
that migrants make to local public sector services, they are tremendous
in Ealing. We recruit social workers from abroad, for example,
in children's services and the local hospital recruits nurses
and doctors and we have planners from outside the UK. We have
a whole range of other services which are dependent to some degree
or other on labour from abroad, from outside the UK. It is right
that we should also focus on investing in citizens in this country
and residents in terms of upskilling them and providing them with
the opportunities to access the labour market, but we need to
do that in a sustained and measured way rather than saying we
should stop one approach and move over to another. Yes, we must
always continue to make the case for migration and take the point
about effective measurement and evidence. It is interesting that
in my reading of the report, in quite a number of the recommendations,
though not all, there is a call for better evidence. That must
be right.
Q143 Jim Dobbin: It has been very
interesting for the Committee to look at different parts of the
country and the diverse problems which exist across the country.
It will be interesting to see how our report turns out. Your Commission's
report did not draw any firm conclusions on the significance of
immigration as a driver of poor community cohesion. Why was that?
Mr Singh: Our report was a very
thorough piece of work. As you probably gathered from the report
itself, we spoke to something in excess of 2,000 people. We had
over 600 written submissions, we talked to individuals from across
a whole range of different backgrounds in nine regions in England
and we also went to Scotland and Northern Ireland. What we were
trying to reflect and what we wanted to be was to be as practical
as we possibly could be and not to produce a piece of work which
was more of an academic nature but to produce a piece of work
with recommendations which actually fed off the contributions
we received and built upon the good practice which we had seen.
In fact we did look at the impact of migration at a local level
and that was our remit as opposed to making a comment about national
policy on immigration. That was not our remit and I did not really
see that as my role as Chair of the Commission. It was really
about how localities can adapt to change and what they can learn
from what is happening in other parts of the country which purports
to be good practice.
Q144 Jim Dobbin: If you believe what
you read in the media at the present time recent immigration is
seen as a driver of poor community cohesion. Would you agree with
that? Do you think other factors such as deprivation or crime
could be involved in that?
Mr Singh: What the research we
undertook as a Commission has clearly shown is that we must avoid
being simplistic in terms of trying to identify one single cause
of either good or poor levels of cohesion at the moment. There
is a whole range of different impacts and the levels of cohesion
are driven by an area's history in terms of its industrial makeup
and so on; the characteristics of the individuals who live there,
for example their age, their qualifications, education and so
on and also individual attitudes. Yes, deprivation can have an
impact and can drive down levels of cohesion, but it is not always
the case that happens. Levels of crime and people's fear of crime
can also drive down levels of cohesion but that does not always
happen and also levels of change, the rate at which an area changes
in terms of its population, the so-called churn, can also have
an impact. There is not one cause and there is not one solution.
That is why each area is unique. Comparing Bradford, for example,
to Barking and Dagenham, there are different challenges in both
those areas and different responses are required. It does not
mean you cannot learn something from each other, but you cannot
always export an activity from Barking and Dagenham into Bradford
and hope it will have the same effect.
Q145 Jim Dobbin: Why do you think
a new national body for migration is required?
Mr Singh: We, as commissioners,
felt that the responsibility, therefore accountability in terms
of dealing with and responding to the challenges that migration
develops in this country, is fragmented. You will be aware from
the submissions you have already received that there is at the
moment the Migration Impacts Forum, the Migration Advisory Committee,
a Migration Directorate has been established in CLG and responsibilities
quite sensibly lie with different government departments. What
we were really looking for was something which brought all that
together, not because we want to add to the layers of bureaucracy
which exist at the moment—and as a bureaucrat I assure you
of that—but because there needs to be a focal point in terms
of responsibility and accountability and also an ability to respond,
for example, positively to the report which was issued this morning,
to be able to commission research and develop evidence as well
as spread good practice and work with a range of other partners
to improve resilience and positive relationships between communities.
Q146 Jim Dobbin: So you do not see
a new body as duplicating the work of all these other organisations
you have mentioned?
Mr Singh: No, in my opinion a
new body should help to bring that work together and provide a
clear sense of accountability and responsibility for these issues.
In his evidence Trevor Phillips suggested that we should wait
until we got some basic building blocks in place. I think actually,
whatever those building blocks are, we should respond more positively
to that now. CLG are looking to prepare a business case and I
look forward to seeing the outcome of that exercise.
Q147 Anne Main: I want you to focus
on local population numbers. Before you give me an answer to my
question, I should just like to remind you of what was said in
their Lordships' report, which was that there was a concern "More
work needs to be done—by both central and local government—to
assess whether or how much extra funding for local services is
needed because of increased immigration. The Government should
ensure that local councils have adequate funding to provide and
pay for the increasing demand". That was in paragraph 151.
We have heard from councils that they dispute hotly the numbers
supposedly living in their local area. What effect do you think
the inaccuracies of local population statistics and any lag behind
making sure they are up to date has on community cohesion?
Mr Singh: There are several impacts.
An issue we face in Ealing, if I may revert to being chief executive
of Ealing Council, and we are the third largest London borough
by population, is that according to the census we have 303,000
residents. When we look at our information around school children,
look at our information in terms of national insurance number
registrations or workers' registration scheme numbers or indeed
GP registrations, we estimate that is an underestimate, at our
best estimate, by about 12,000 people. An issue for us all is
how to get more real-time information or as close to real time
as possible in terms of population numbers. Yes, it definitely
does have an impact. Another issue is that the constant doubts
which are expressed about the quality of the data do in some way
undermine public confidence in the statements made about the number
of people living in the UK and in different localities. There
is a knock-on effect there. Obviously it feeds into the financial
formula and to some extent drives demands on local public services
as well. These are points which have been well made to you and
we do pick up the issue in our report about the work of the ONS
and the need quickly to improve how robust the data collection
mechanisms are.
Q148 Anne Main: If you accept that
community cohesion needs to be funded adequately—I think
you have said that a few times and especially with regard to community
cohesion teams—and data is lagging behind, can you give
us any idea how you think this could be improved?
Mr Singh: Yes. Funding is an important
issue but I would also argue that we cannot wait until additional
funding is provided, if the case can be adequately made and the
resources are available, before we respond to the challenges which
we face in different localities. What we set out in our report
is a range of recommendations which can be done now: initiatives
around developing clear local visions, working with our partners
to have an effective community strategy; initiatives around research
on understanding local populations and community dynamics and
aspirations; issues around designing and delivering existing services
so they are sensitive to the needs of different communities are
all things which can be done now and do not need to await additional
resources. That is what we are doing in Ealing, in Barking and
Dagenham this is happening and in many localities. The question
in addition to that of course is how we adequately reflect the
additional demand on services and how we adequately resource that
within the system. That is a much bigger question but we do not
need to wait to answer that before we do the rest of the work.
Q149 Anne Main: In which case what
should Government be doing to support local authorities experiencing
these rapid population changes?
Mr Singh: A range of things. Central
Government's main responsibility in this is setting the appropriate
national framework and some of the elements of responses in CLG's
document produced earlier this year—
Q150 Anne Main: Yes, but we have
been told by councils under strain that frameworks, strategies,
visions and ideas do not pay the bills when they have communities
feeling that they are being short-changed somehow because of all
these migrants coming in and using resources. This is just putting
it blandly. We have just visited a council today which has 12
BNP members trading on those very fears. I would just like you
to try to tell us the real elements of how a community is going
to deal with accusations that funds are being stretched and resources
are being stretched too thinly.
Mr Singh: How we deal with them
and how many areas deal with them is first of all by actually
being transparent about how resources are allocated, what is available
in locality, providing plenty of information in terms of what
we spend on different services and how individuals access services.
We talk a lot in our report about busting myths in terms of access
to housing and education and so on for new arrivals. It is not
appropriate for us simply to hold our hands up and say we cannot
do much because we do not have enough money or we need more money.
If we were to say that, we would be neglecting our responsibility
in terms of making the best of our existing resources.
Q151 Anne Main: You are anticipating
my next question but I still want to ask it exactly. Do you believe
then that there is or is not a need for a contingency fund to
support local authorities so that money is there up front for
those experiencing rapid new inward migration? Should an area
which is expecting to take a lot of churn with migration have
a special casebook for them to have a contingency grant?
Mr Singh: I support the Local
Government Association's proposals in terms of a contingency fund.
I note the additional funding which has already been made available
in response to my Commission's report, the £50 million and
how that has been distributed, and I have had information about
that. We need to come forward with some evidence as to why that
is not enough and also probably do a bit more thinking about how
resources are allocated. Yes, it is right to have a contingency
fund, but we need to do some careful work about establishing how
that contingency fund is allocated.
Q152 Anne Main: So the welcome centre
at Peterborough, which people cite as being a useful contact and
entry point, is expensive to run. Do you think the Government
should be funding welcome centres in areas which are expected
to welcome lots of migrants?
Mr Singh: I come back to the fact
that I do not think Government should be saying they will fund
welcome centres or a single initiative in every single area. The
case needs to be made by local government and our partners as
to what works and why additional resources are required in different
areas. We need some evidence to make the case. Coming back to
the report issued this morning by the House of Lords Select Committee
on Economic Affairs, it is all about making the case and providing
the evidence.
Q153 Anne Main: Do you support that
view?
Mr Singh: We should provide the
evidence.
Q154 Chair: Interestingly, we put
that question to the council this morning and their view was that
they thought that they wished to provide that information to the
new migrants in Barking and Dagenham in a different way. Different
councils do different things.
Mr Singh: Absolutely.
Q155 Chair: On the whole question
of funding, CLG actually has two funding streams to go to local
authorities related to this matter. There is community cohesion
but there is also the prevention of terrorism stream. Do you have
any views on the interaction between those two streams and whether
it is helpful to have separated the money out in that way and
whether councils might not be tempted to apply for one stream
of funding and then apply it to projects which more properly might
be funded under the other.
Mr Singh: Yes, I take the point
about the two sources of funding. My view on this and certainly
talking to colleague chief executives—interestingly this
was picked up in the Government's response to the Commission's
report—is that whilst different streams of activity are
complementary and there are some overlaps, it is right there should
be some targeted activity around PVE, preventing violent extremism,
as well as mainstreaming our activity in terms of work around
community integration and cohesion. The prevention of violent
extremism funding goes into the area of base grant, so yes, councils
and LSPs, local strategic partnerships, do have an opportunity
to flex some of the funding. In my experience the people I talk
to tell me they are very mindful of the criteria which attach
to that funding and the aims and objectives of the PVE. Yes, there
may well always be a temptation; there is some overlap between
the integration and cohesion activity and PVE, preventing violent
extremism. It depends where localities wish to target their resources.
There is always a temptation but I think people will be sensible
about it.
Q156 Jim Dobbin: If the Government
had to agree to the contingency fund it would be difficult to
prioritise that, would it not? They would have to ring-fence it
for a start. It would not be easy to allocate that across the
country.
Mr Singh: Absolutely; yes. If
a fund were set up, yes, of course there would need to be criteria
for the allocation of that funding. It may well be that some of
the factors could be the levels of mobility within particular
areas, the levels of churn as demonstrated, let us say, by registrations
for national insurance numbers, or as demonstrated by demand for
GP services for example. Looking at existing data sources, I am
using those as a proxy to show that the level of churn is so significant
in a locality that there are additional challenges there. If a
fund were set up, we would need to do two things: one is for local
government and local partnerships to demonstrate their case for
the funding to be allocated to particular areas; second is not
to use the availability of that funding to divert us from our
mainstream activity.
Q157 Chair: May I just ask about
the question your Commission used to assess community cohesion?
I cannot lay my hands on what exactly was asked but it was about
how well you feel people of different backgrounds get on in your
area. May I relate it to the choices that a number of other local
authorities have made, including Barking and Dagenham, to develop
their own question to assess community cohesion? I think the Barking
and Dagenham one laid stress on fairness and equity within the
question they asked. Do you think that it is helpful to tailor
these questions for different areas? If it is, how are we going
to get any sort of measure across the country of whether certain
areas have problems with community cohesion or not?
Mr Singh: The question we used
was: how well do people from different backgrounds get on with
each other in your locality within a 15- or 20-minute distance
from where you live? It is a standard question which has been
used in various surveys going back several years. The reason we
stuck with that question is precisely because of the point you
make, which is that there is a level of consistency there and
we can track positive or negative results year on year. As I understand
it, that question will go into the new place survey, so there
will be consistency at the national level, but within that, individual
councils and partnerships in different localities undertake their
own surveys. Yes, it is right that people have some flexibility
to establish their own questions at a local level. We need to
have something where we can compare performance year on year and
between localities at a national level and the system is there
to do that.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
