Executive Office looks to replace its racial equality strategy with an even weaker one

During the remit of the 2015-2025 Racial Equality Strategy, recorded race hate incidents in the north increased by 49% and race hate crimes by 40%. Three fifths of respondents to a ‘call for views’ judged that the strategy had not been a success (Analysis Report, p. 3). Yet the Executive Office has found a way to make its successor policy even weaker: rather than an equality strategy grounded in specific 75 duties around equality of opportunity, it has proposed a ‘race relations’ approach under the secondary and more limited section 75 duty to regard the ‘desirability of promoting good relations’.

The precedents for such a shift are not reassuring; nearly fifteen years ago PPR’s founder Inez McCormack was scathing about the emerging use of the ‘good relations’ framework to paper over fundamental inequalities in access to housing, saying 

attempting to build ‘good relations’ on the basis of denying the needs, frustrating the rights, and silencing the voices of the poorest is wrong in itself as much as it is destructive to the goal of building a shared future.

The same analysis applies to a ‘good relations’ approach to race-based inequalities and hate: covering over the harm these leave behind, rather than openly acknowledging, redressing and working to combat it, prevents all of us from moving forward. 

In addition to its duties to provide everyone – both majority and minority communities – access to housing, health care, education and more, the state has explicit obligations under international law to refrain from racial discrimination itself and “to prohibit and bring [it] to an end… by any persons, group or organization”  (International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, para. 2d). Rather than shouldering these obligations, with this draft strategy TEO tries instead to put the onus on communities to ‘get along’. 

The north is facing unprecedented levels of race-based and Islamophobic hate, according to newly released PSNI findings; we know that if anything the real figures are even higher, due to significant underreporting amongst victims. We further know that some local areas have a comparatively high likelihood of hate crime (PPR’s submission to the ‘call for views’ included mapping of these District Electoral Areas (DEAs); the information is also available on the RISE website). Finally, we know that the Independent Reporting Commission (in its most recent report) drew attention to “compelling evidence of a paramilitary dimension to race and hate crime” (para. 3.11). Recent recommendations from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/GBR/CO/24-26, para. 22) and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/GBR/CO/7, para 47 (h)) call for measures to prevent and combat paramilitary intimidation and violence against ethnic minorities and migrants here; yet somehow the Executive Office’s draft race strategy fails to even acknowledge the paramilitary role. 

Meanwhile none of the four main flaws identified in the independent review of the 2015-2025 strategy, which kept it from being effective and successful (lack of budget and action plan; insufficient meaningful involvement of people with lived experience; absence of ethnic monitoring and data; and weak governance) have been anywhere near adequately addressed in the current draft.

The result?  Barring a serious rethink, continued defaulting by the state on its obligations -- to everyone.

PPR’s full response to the Executive Office consultation is here.