Introduction to poverty

Before we start to analyse the possible causes, effects and situation of the migrants who are stuck in poverty, we have to take a look at the definition of poverty in the UK. Before the 1997 Labour Government, the word poverty was generally used as a blanket term to describe situations where people lack many of the opportunities that are available to the average citizen, instead of social exclusion. Whilst low income formed a foundation to this notion, the term poverty also covered other factors relating to severe and chronic disadvantage. Poverty in the UK today is a relative concept (not referring to malnutrition or the states of squalor as seen in previous centuries). Poor people are those who are considerably worse off than the majority of the population a level of deprivation heavily out of line with the general living standards enjoyed by the majority of the population in one of the most affluent countries in the world. In fact, many of those defined as poor in the UK have jobs. The definition of poverty by the European Commission in its Joint Report on Social Inclusion (2004) is as such: People are said to be living in poverty if their income and resources are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living considered acceptable in the society in which they live. Because of their poverty they may experience multiple disadvantage through unemployment, low income, poor housing, inadequate health care and barriers to lifelong learning, culture, sport and recreation. They are often excluded and marginalised from participating in activities (economic, social and cultural) that are the norm for other people and their access to fundamental rights may be restricted. Poverty is defined most commonly in the UK by use of relative income poverty, which is the agreed measure used throughout the European Union. It works as such: Each households income, adjusted for family size, is compared to median, or average, income. Those with less than 60 per cent of median income are classified as poor. Thus, 60 per cent of median income is the poverty line for the UK. (This is also an international standard.) Most third-world countries define absolute poverty as earning $1 to $2 a day, assuming that that is the basic amount needed for survival. However, the minimum wage in the UK is about 3 to 6, depending on your age. As such, some experts argue that there is no absolute poverty in the UK. It is worthy to note however, that recently, the Government has begun to describe households with less than half the average 1997 household income, after adjusting for inflation, as falling under the category of absolute poverty. Absolute poverty is difficult to define exactly, and debates over what is absolute poverty in UK continue to be heated. Discussions of poverty, though, tend to be referring greater to relative poverty than to absolute poverty. As a third-world country, the UK is also facing an increasing number of asset-rich, cash-poor elderly folk. (This number is greatly due to UKs problem of an ageing population.) Asset-rich, cash-poor is defined as people who have assets of high value, but do not have much actual money. There also exists invisible poverty, which is becoming an increasing problem in modern society. This refers to poor people who do not sign up for welfare beneficiaries, and instead live off other people eg. relatives and friends, making it difficult for the government to track them. It is difficult to mention poverty in the UK without mentioning child poverty. The current definition by the Government for child poverty is as such: Children living in households with needs adjusted (equivalised) incomes below 60 per cent of the median income. Income is adjusted for different need (so called equivalisation) on the principle that the same income will stretch further in a smaller family than a larger one. Save The Childrens annual child poverty statistics show that there are currently 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK- nearly a third of all the children in the UK. 1.6 million of these children live in severe poverty (severe poverty is defined by a household with an income of below 50 per cent of the median after housing costs, and where

both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity; and either adults or children under the age of 14 or both groups lack at least two basic necessities). 63% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works. At 14%, the proportion of children in severe poverty was highest in Wales, compared to 13% in England and 9% in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Within the English regions, the risk of severe poverty was the highest amongst children living in London, at about 18%, followed by the West Midlands at 16% and the North West at 15%. Children living in severe poverty are missing out on things such as school trips and hobbies, which hinders their educational and social development. Under the governments new definitions of fuel poverty set out in late 2013, someone is defined to be in fuel poverty if they have required fuel costs that are above average (the national median level) or were they to spend that amount they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line. Previously, a household was defined to be under fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10% of its income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory heating regime (usually 21 degrees for the main living area, and 18 degrees for other occupied rooms).

Ethnic Minorities within the Poor Migrants

The problem of poverty is more prevalent amongst ethnic minorities than people who are white, who are the majority in UK. Approximately two-fifths of ethnic minorities live in poverty, which is twice as many for impoverished white people (Palmer, 2010). The exact breakdown of people who live in low-income households is as such: Ethnicity Whites Indians and Black Caribbeans Black Africans Pakistanis Bangladeshis Percentage of those who live in poverty 20% 30% 50% 60% 70%

Specifically speaking, 33% of white people in the UK do not have any savings. In contrast, the proportion of black and Asian people who do not have savings is almost twice that, at 60%. In fact, the average white household tends to have a total of 221,000 in assets, which is in stark contrast to the 76,000 held by the average Black Caribbean household, 21,000 by Bangladeshi households, and 15,000 by Black African households (Khan, 2011). So, it is more probable for ethnic minorities to be part of a low-income household as compared to white people. While the gap is smaller with regards to non-working families, it is more noticeable when regarding working families, and is the widest amongst part-working families. In addition, the discrepancies differ depending on area; for instance, the the difference between the proportion of impoverished white people and impoverished ethnic minorities seem to be larger in London and other cities, as compared to the rest of England. One reason for there being more people of ethnic minorities living in poverty than white people is because of the difference in proportion of children. Generally, of the total population of ethnic minorities there is a higher proportion of whom are children, as opposed to the white population. For example, of the white population 20% are children, while 40% of Bangladeshis are children. Since children are more likely to be in poverty than adults, this results in an overall high poverty rate for ethnic minority groups where there are more children (Kenway & Palmer, 2007). Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, and Indians are more likely to live with their extended families. While this could mean a larger number of working-age adults bringing in money and raising the overall household income, it is more likely that there are more dependents (both young and old) unable to contribute to the household income and have to be

supported. Similarly, households with three or more children (young dependents) are more likely to be in poverty than other kinds of families. 35% of such households are in poverty, in comparison to 21% of single-child or two-children families. Around a half of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children and one-third of black African children come from families with three or more children, which could contribute to the higher poverty rate amongst ethnic minority families. Having large families that live in impoverished situations would hence result in a higher overall child poverty rate, which is indeed the case in UK, where many children in poverty are part of minority groups. Many immigrants are also working in low-income, poor-security jobs with minimal to no benefits, which makes it difficult for them to save up money. Around half of Bangladeshi workers, one-third of Pakistanis, and a quarter of black Africans are earning 6.50 per hour, which is only slightly over the minimum wage for working adults of 6.31. Furthermore, it has been found that minority ethnic groups are unevenly distributed across the more low-paying jobs, with 35% of Bangladeshis found to be working in hotels and the catering sectors in 2001, as compared to 5% of people from other ethnic groups. Contributing to the high poverty rate amongst ethnic minorities is their high unemployment rate. The unemployment rate has skyrocketed since 2010, but especially so for young black men in the 16 - 24 age group, 26% of whom are jobless. This is a drastic increase from the 14% of unemployed black youths in 2002 (Labour Force Survey, 2012). Furthermore, being immigrants away from their home country, they are unlikely to be able to inherit family property, so additional monetary support is not available to them. People from many ethnic minorities are proportionately less likely to enter employment, be paid equal salaries, and be promoted, than their White British counterparts, meaning it is harder for them to escape poverty. For example, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black people are paid less than White British or Indian people with the same qualifications. There were large differences across ethnic groups in rates of unemployment across economically active aged 25 to 49 years old in 2011. (refer to figures below)

Where you live has a huge impact on how likely you are to escape poverty. The likelihood of living in a deprived neighbourhood can vary greatly across different ethnic groups in the same place. For example Peterborough has one of the heaviest concentrations of Asian people in deprived areas, but Black people are least likely to live in deprived areas of the city. Where you live also has an effect on your likelihood of being employed. For example, there are very different employment rates for the same ethnic group in different areas: a Pakistani woman is three times more likely to be employed in Camden than in Newcastle. Changing demographics mean that caring responsibilities are going to alter in the near future. A study in Birmingham suggested that by 2026, 1 in 4 people over 65 will be from minority ethnic groups (the current figure is 1 in 8). Having caring responsibilities affects the type of work you can do. Demographic changes could increase the pressure on people from some ethnic groups to take low-paid work. They could also have big implications for care services providers. Healthcare More minority races are admitted into hospitals for a variety of illnesses, as compared to whites. In the 2004 Health Survey for England, participants were asked to rank their health by selecting one of five categories: very good, good, fair, bad, or very bad. Results are presented for the worst two categories combined ('bad or very bad'). Results are shown in the figure below.

About one in seven Bangladeshi men, and one in ten Pakistani men, reported 'bad' or 'very bad' health. The lowest prevalence of bad/very bad health was among Black African and Chinese men (4%) and men in the general population (6%). The proportion of women in the general population who reported 'bad' or 'very bad' health was similar to that of men (7%). Around one in seven Bangladeshi and Pakistani women reported bad/very bad health (14% and 15% respectively). As with men, the lowest prevalence was among Chinese women (3%). Pakistani women and Bangladeshi men were more likely to report the presence of a long-standing illness which limited them on a daily basis. Furthermore, the figures had increased in Pakistani women by almost 10% when compared with the results of the 1999 survey. All ethnic minorities reported a severe lack of support, especially people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin. Additionally, some diseases are more prevalent in certain ethnic groups - for example, cardiovascular-related illnesses are more prevalent in men from the Indian subcontinent. This has sparked a lot of interest, and programmes to increase the detection of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors in ethnic groups are underway. Most of the existing surveys have focused on issues such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease. The reason for these differences in predilection for illnesses existing across ethnic groups is unknown. A large proportion of research is performed with cohorts that presently do not include enough ethnic minority patients, meaning that results may not necessarily correlate to patients from ethnic groups. Furthermore, each population group, either that determined by religion or ethnicity, has differences in terms of illness behaviour, seeking assistance with health matters and beliefs about illness. Some of these processes are determined by culture- migrants from various parts of the world bring their culture along too into Britain, and this affects the peoples mindsets, and their attitudes towards healthcare, and outrightly commenting on what attributes these people bring in from their culture might seem racist. It is difficult to find an all-encompassing way to treat these patients of different ethnicities. All these contribute to worse healthcare for non-white ethnicities.

Migration and Child Poverty

Many refugees and asylum seekers in the UK already have their roots in poverty. Once trapped in the cycle, they are unable to escape; with low literacy levels due to the lack of education, or large families that have become burdens, migrant workers are unable to seek higher-paying jobs. Thus, their children are also dragged into the vicious cycle of poverty to form part of those in child poverty in the UK. Asylum seekers Asylum seekers who have arrived in the UK and are without savings can apply to the UK Border Agency for a subsistence-only package, or for subsistence comprises a cash allowance, set at a level equivalent to 70% of income support. This amounts to about 6.50 per day, which is the minimum wage for a UK citizen in late 2013. Those requiring accommodation are housed by the UK Border Agency outside Greater London and the South East, often far from support networks. Asylum-seeking children in receipt of support from the UK Border Agency are also a part of child poverty. This group presently numbers about 6,000 children, and is dispersed around the UK. This is due to a law made since 2003 that prevents new asylum seekers from seeking work legally in the UK, and hence, the asylum seekers are made to be reliant on the benefits offered by the government. At the same time, the asylum seekers are supported by a system that condemns them to ongoing poverty due to discrimination and the myth that having more migrant workers would prove to upset the economy through the migrant workers stealing Britons jobs. It is not surprising that 20 % of asylum seekers opted for subsistence-only support and chose to live with friends and family, due to familial affection and support that they need after coming to a foreign land. This group gives the asylum seekers support that they need, but also isolates them from the rest of society. And hence, due to these enclaves, asylum seekers are seen to be in a state of overcrowding and hostility against the Britons, which may explain why many Britons are prejudiced against them. Refugees and low-paid migrants Newly arrived EU migrants and work visa holders, who have essentially come to the UK to work, have high levels of employment. Those populations who have come to the UK as refugees tend to have much lower levels. The work visa system has seen considerable change since 2009 and routes for unskilled or semi-skilled workers have all but ended. Prospective migrants are now subject to the new immigration cap and those who wish to bring their dependents have to show savings of at least 533 per child. Hence, it is often without doubt that most of the EU migrants and work visa holders have a certain level of skill, and are thus beneficial to companies. However, the same cannot be said for refugees who have not undergone certain procedures to ensure that they are skilled workers, since their reasons for migration are different from those who came for work-related reasons. Thus, these refugees who tend to travel with their families, are unable to have stable working jobs, as compared to EU migrants who usually come as individuals because their families are not forced by terrible circumstances (such as chaos in the country) to migrate to the UK. Just 29 % of Somalia-born adults and 36 % of Afghanistan- born adults of working age were employed in 2007. Longer settled populations from Bangladesh and Pakistan also experience low levels of employment: just over 46% of the Bangladesh- born population was in work in 2007. (Jill Rutter, n.d.) Research on barriers to labour market participation among refugees shows that poor levels of fluency in English, employer prejudice, the absence of qualifications and childcare obligations are major barriers to work. This in itself is self-explanatory, given that UK has a rather imperialistic view and is guarded against foreigners (see: Attitudes towards immigrants). 82% of those questioned in a poll see religion as a cause of division and tension between people (Guardian, 2006), hence showing that different beliefs due to cultural backgrounds and race could cause prejudice and stereotypes to play a part in the employers decision to employ a person of a certain background.

Many migrants have an additional demand on their income. For example, estimates suggest that 1.5 billion was sent from the UK as remittance payments in 2005. Research with low-paid migrant workers in London indicates that they are sending home between 20 and 30 % of their net income (Jill Rutter, n.d.), and engage in many different money-saving strategies to do this (such as having more than one job and eating the cheapest food) strategies that impact on childrens wellbeing. Some migrant households also take in destitute co-nationals, who are often irregular migrants. Such families of low paid migrant workers are often housed in the private rented sector, sometimes in very poor quality and overcrowded accommodation. The nature of this accommodation means that families sometimes experience high levels of housing mobility, with childrens schooling being interrupted. One study of low-paid migrant workers showed that nearly 40% did not always have enough money to pay for food for their children and over one-third could not pay for childrens clothes. (Jill Rutter, n.d.) There are also an unknown number of irregular migrants in the UK and, in many cities; undocumented children are a sizable proportion of children living in poverty. The irregular migrant population mostly comprises visa and asylum over-stayers, but also includes a smaller number of clandestine entrants. Recent estimates put their number at between 373,000 and 719,000 at the end of 2007, with a central estimate of 533,000 people (Jill Rutter, n.d.). A new study suggests that, at the end of 2007, there were 104,000 to 216,000 children who had no permission to remain in the UK. (Jill Rutter, n.d.) These include over-stayers, but also the UK-born children of irregular migrants. This research gives a middle estimate of 155,000 undocumented children, with 85,000 children born in the UK. As irregular and illegal over-stayers, the breadwinners of those families are often unable to find work legally for fear of being arrested, and the children are unable to have access to proper education. Even if they are able to find work, the employers may exploit them (seeing as they have no other options) and pay them peanuts. Thus, they will be trapped in the poverty cycle, living from hand-to-mouth.

Effects of Poverty
Literacy levels Educational achievement is an important factor in poverty rates amongst ethnic minority groups. The achievement gap between white pupils and their Pakistani and African-Caribbean classmates has almost doubled since the late 1980s. As compared to over half (55%) of White British students, Pakistani and Black Caribbean students had significantly lower proportions of students achieving level 6 or above in Mathematics at age 14, at 38% and 33% respectively. (Steve Strand, 2012) A study by Steve Strand (2012) has shown that Black Caribbean students may be disproportionality allocated to lower test tiers as a result of indirect discrimination through years of deeply-rooted stereotypes, hence causing teachers judgements of those students academic potential to be distorted by perceptions of their behaviour. If the behaviour o f Black Caribbean students is more challenging, or even if teachers simply perceive their behaviour as problematic, there may be a tendency to underestimate their academic ability. First, Black Caribbean, and Mixed White and Black Caribbean,students are 2.0 to 2.5 times more likely to be permanently excluded from school than White British students (Parsons et al., 2005). Second, Black Caribbean students are 2.3 times more likely than White British students, and Mixed White and Black Caribbean students twice as likely as White British students, to be statemented or at School Action Plus (SAP)for Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties (BESD) (Strand & Lindsay, 2009). These findings are in line with ethnographic studies in English secondary schools arguing that behavioural criteria and not purely cognitive measures were used in the allocation of pupils to examination sets and streams, and that this practice disadvantaged African-Caribbean pupils in particular (Wright, 1987; Mac an Ghail, 1988; Gillborn, 1990;Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; Rollock, 2007).

On average, children from poorer households do worse than others at every educational stage. They have a smaller vocabulary by the age of three. Only 31% are performing at the expected level when they enter school, compared to 53% of children who are not poor. By the time they get to university age, only 13% of poor children will go on to higher education, compared to 32% of their non-poor peers. This is because of the impacts poverty has on the child's attitude towards education and schools. Social background influences the way children feel about school from an early age. At primary school, children in poverty are more likely to have negative experiences and feel nagged at by teachers. Children from poorer households find themselves in schools where the pressures are greater, and this reinforces prior disadvantages. While children from all backgrounds see the advantages of school, deprived children are more likely to feel anxious and unconfident about school. This is due to how they view school as a necessary stepping stone in order to be able to earn a living, and due to their home environment which may not be conducive or allow information to be easily accessible. One example would be in the case of single-parent families, in which the parent has to work all day and is thus unable to supervise his child, or provide him with the encouragement and emotional support the child would need during his growing stages. Many children and young people who become disengaged with school develop strong resentments about mistreatment (including perceptions of racial discrimination). A crucial difference highlighted by the research is in experiences of homework. Children from poorer families are less likely to have space in which to do their homework, or to get as much help from parents as children with higher socioeconomic status. Only a quarter of students receiving free school meals gain five good GCSEs or equivalent, compared to over half the overall population in England. The gap between the outcomes of children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those from advantaged backgrounds is wider in the UK than in most other similar countries. Health Children from poor families are at 10 times the risk of sudden infant death as compared to children from better-off homes. And it reveals how babies from disadvantaged families are more likely to be born underweight - an average of 200 grams less than children from the richest families. Poorer children are two-and-a-half times more likely to suffer chronic illness when toddlers and twice as likely to have cerebral palsy, according to the report, 'Health Consequences of Poverty for Children'. It found that children living in disadvantaged families are more than three times as likely to suffer from mental health disorders as those in well-off families and that infants under three years old in families with an annual income of less than 10,400 are twice as likely to suffer from asthma as those from families earning over 52,000. The report also suggests the health consequences of being born into poverty continue well beyond infancy. For example, adults who came from deprived families were found to be 50 per cent more likely to have serious and limiting illnesses, such as type two diabetes and heart failure. By logical extension of the scenario, those adults, who already have a disadvantage of being born into poverty, would be exposed to more serious illnesses which would incur expensive medical bills and limit their ability to have a stable working life, or even have a stable job. Thus, their families would be in debt due to expensive medical bills. This would become a vicious cycle as their children are exposed to the risk of having such serious illnesses, or forced to stop schooling and work.

Measures Against Poverty

The UK government has consistently churned out countless measures to reduce poverty, especially child and old-age poverty. Poverty is a very real problem in the UK - in 2011/12, the UK had 9.8 million people living in poverty. Past measures In 1999, Tony Blair, then Prime Minister of the UK, made a historic pledge to end child poverty in a generation. The goal was to reduce child poverty by 25% by 2005, by 50% by 2010 and to eradicate it completely by 2020. To meet these targets and to reduce poverty and social exclusion more generally in the UK, the government has since enacted a number of laws (e.g., Welfare Reform Act 2007, Equality Act 2006, Childcare Act 2006) and implemented a range of initiatives. The government had adopted a multi-pronged strategy which had identified a variety of factors contributing to poverty including, (among others): a lack of education and training, low labour market participation and poor working conditions, a need for affordable housing, a lack of accessible public transport systems, poor health, involvement in crime, and a need for better access to affordable high-quality child care. The governments efforts are being focused on groups identified as particularly disadvantaged or at risk of poverty; these include children, lone parents, people with disabilities, members of ethnic minorities, people with low skills, people with multiple needs and older workers. The government also established a national minimum wage, tax credits for low-income earners, tax credits to provide financial support to parents, and measures to provide security and independence to seniors and people with disabilities. The government has also significantly increased its spending on education, employment assistance measures, health and housing. However, these goals were not met well. In June 2012, the government published Child poverty in the UK: The report on the 2010 target. The report showed that the target to halve child poverty by 2010 was not met. The number of children living in poverty in 2010 to 2011 fell to 2.3 million, which was 600,000 short of the number required to meet the target. The report encompasses: The last Labour government set themselves the target to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and in the pursuit of that target, to halve it by 2010. However, the latest figures show that the target was missed and that ending child poverty would be an extremely complex and challenging task for the government. In the past decade, vast amounts of money were poured into the pursuit of reducing poverty. Over 150 billion spent on tax credits alone between 2004 and 2010. Yet, despite this unprecedented level of spending, too many of the root causes of poverty remained unchecked. This is because the last governments approach to poverty was fundamentally flawed - todays figures show that they did not do enough to make work pay, focusing instead on treating the symptoms of poverty through simple income transfers. The poverty plus a pound approach at first managed to move some people who were easier to reach from just below the poverty line to just above it, enabling an early declaration of success. However, such a strategy did nothing to transform the lives of the poor, for the root causes of poverty cannot be changed simply by a set of income transfers. Families need real support to break the cycle of disadvantage so they can take responsibility for their own lives and improve the life chances of their children and future generations. Addressing the issues that hold a family back and limit their capacity to take control of their own lives should be at the heart of an antipoverty strategy. There was a consultation on better measurement of child poverty which ran between 15 November 2012 and 15 February 2013. Present measures

The government then set up the Child Poverty Act 2010, which set income targets for 2020. It published its national strategy for reducing child poverty on 5 April 2011. This explains how the targets will be met between 2011 and 2014. They changed their approach and recognised that poverty, as measured by a households income relative to the national average, is often due to deeper, more complex problems. Many of these problems are passed on from one generation to the next. The Positive for youth report, published in December 2011, explains how the government is working with others to improve outcomes for young people, emphasising heavily on support for the youth, financially, emotionally, and otherwise. The Home Office is providing 5 million in 2012 to 2013 to 91 local projects as part of the Positive Futures programme. The programme provides prevention and diversion activities for vulnerable young people. In 2010 to 2011 over 57,000 young people participated in the Positive Futures programme and more than 38,000 positive outcomes were recorded, such as improved self esteem, employment and qualifications. Additionally, the Welfare Reform Act 2012 made sweeping changes to the benefits system, moving towards a single benefit, known as Universal Credit. It aims to simplify welfare and make sure work always pays, since the previous benefits system had a great potential of trapping people in poverty. For instance, the way housing benefit (HB) operates can mean that work simply does not pay for Housing Benefit recipients. This proved to be a great problem for the homeless, since poverty is a very big problem for them. Housing Benefit rules also hinder claimants' efforts to gain new skills and qualifications as anyone over the age of 18 cannot claim Housing Benefit if they are studying for more than16 hours a week. Universal credit may, subject as follows, be awarded to (a)an individual who is not a member of a couple (a single person), or (b)members of a couple jointly. Universal credit is awarded given reference to the following: (a) standard allowance, (b) an amount for responsibility for children or young persons, (c) an amount for housing, and (d) amounts for other particular needs or circumstances. Measures against workplace discrimination The Equality Act 2010 made it illegal for an employer to discriminate against employees because of race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin. The Equality Act also ensures equality for people of different genders, as seen under Gender: laws. This act, while does not directly address the problem of poverty, indirectly alleviates the impact of poverty through changing peoples attitudes towards migrant workers. Thus, the chances of immigrant refugees and migrant workers facing discrimination and hence being unable to have an equal employment opportunity would be reduced. This would improve their chances of having a more stable job and subsequently bring them out of poverty. There are four types of race discrimination. Direct discrimination: treating someone less favourably because of their actual or perceived race, or because of the race of someone with whom they associate. An example of this could be refusing to employ someone solely because they are a particular race Indirect discrimination: can occur where there is a policy, practice or procedure which applies to all workers, but particularly disadvantages people of a particular race. An example could be a requirement for all job applicants to have GCSE Maths and English: people educated in countries which don't have GCSEs would be discriminated against if equivalent qualifications were not accepted. Harassment: when unwanted conduct related to race has the purpose or effect of violating an individual's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual Victimisation: unfair treatment of an employee who has made or supported a complaint about racial discrimination. In very limited circumstances, there are some jobs which can require that the job-holder is of a particular racial group. This is known as an 'occupational requirement'. One example is where the job-holder provides personal welfare

services to a limited number of people and those services can most effectively be provided by a person of a particular racial group because of cultural needs and sensitivities. It is unlawful to discriminate against a job-seeker, worker or trainee on grounds of race, colour, nationality, and ethnic or national origins. Employers should ensure they have policies in place which are designed to prevent discrimination in:

recruitment and selection determining pay training and development selection for promotion discipline and grievances countering bullying and harassment.

Positive action is where an employer can provide support, training or encourage people from a particular racial group. An employer must ensure any positive action taken is a proportionate way of tackling the under representation of a particular racial group, without discriminating against people outside of that group. Positive action is only allowed where a particular racial group:

suffers a disadvantage is disproportionately under represented has needs that are different from the needs of other racial groups in the workforce.

Positive action is not the same as positive discrimination which can be regarded as preferential treatment of member of a minority group. This is illegal in Great Britain. Still- despite all these measures, racial discrimination is still a prevalent problem in Great Britain, however, with these laws, the problem is easier to manage. Examples of recent cases of racial discrimination in the UK:

In April 2012, a 10-year-old boy was arrested for calling an 11-year-old mixed race pupil a 'Paki' and 'Bin Laden' in a playground argument at a primary school in Irlam In 2013, a 14-year-old schoolgirl in Worsley, Greater Manchester, was arrested for refusing to sit with a group of Asian students because some of them did not speak English, but was released without charge. Also in 2013, former Barbados international footballer, Mark McCammon (who is black) took legal action against his former club Gillingham FC, stating that black members of the club were treated differently from the white members. He won his case.

Debunking the myth that immigrants cause unemployment

Increasingly, more links have been drawn between the increasing numbers of people from other parts of Europe (usually eastern Europe) migrating to the UK, and the tight squeeze for jobs that leaves many people, but especially youths of today, in the dust. Essentially, though, the discontent of unemployed youths in UK due to insufficient opportunities for them to enter the job market has bred resentment amongst UK-born citizens, in spite of the absence of reliable evidence to correlate claims that the two are related. This causes many immigrant refugees to be doubly marginalised, on top of their race or cultural background and hence causes them to face problems in social contexts as well as employment opportunities.

In 2009, almost six in ten UK citizens held the view that foreigners from other parts of the EU had the right to enter UK to work, a view that has drastically changed since then. Now, a survey revealed that 75% of its respondents feel that government is wrong in still recruiting immigrant workers when youths native to the UK are already struggling to make ends meet, while two-thirds feel that UK citizens should be given priority over immigrant workers when being reviewed by firms and employers, despite the fact that it could require UK to leave the European Union. Threequarters of people also felt that immigration was an issue mishandled by the last Labour government (Hughes, 2013). European immigrants tend to have a better education than UK-born citizens on average. It was revealed in 2012 that UK students who leave school at age 16 or below make up 50.2% of the working population, in contrast with the fact that only 24.1% of all immigrants in the UK left school at a similar age. With regards to those who go on to study after they are 21 years old (i.e. going onto tertiary education), they form 20.07% of the UK-born working population, which is around half of the 41.1% for all immigrants. UK students fare even worse when they are compared to new immigrants, 53.6% of whom leave school at 21 or after 21, as revealed by the 2012 Labour Force Survey. On first glance, it might indeed seem as if immigrants do have an advantage over UK-born citizens with regards to level of education. They seem to be more likely to get employed in academic or professional fields, however there is actually a distinct mix with regards to immigrants working in elementary sectors (waiters, bartenders etc) and professional sectors, which seems especially anomalous when considering their high levels of qualifications. 16.2% of immigrants are employed in the elementary sectors, as compared to 9.9% of UK-born citizens, with the result that of the total number of people employed in the elementary sector, 21.4% are immigrants. What this means is that immigrants cannot be considered one contributing factor to youth unemployment, since the bulk of youths who cannot find a job already have degrees, and are unable to find a job in professional sectors, not elementary sectors. Immigrants are perhaps overrepresented in elementary sectors due to various factors such an incompatible qualifications or skillsets, discrimination, etc. Even so, they are more likely to substitute UK-born citizens in elementary sectors, where there is a shortage of workers from within the country, than in professional sectors, which are actually not facing that kind of problem at all (Wadsworth, 2012). Hence, fears of foreigners being the cause of unemployment in UK is indeed exaggerated and false. Such fears, however, could in the long run result in severe friction between the youths native to UK and immigrant youths searching for jobs. Xenophobia and stigmatisation could result, and manifest in the workplace, in learning institutes and so on. Furthermore, it could worsen the situation of unemployment amongst immigrants, if employers end up having to prioritise UK-born citizens over immigrants, especially when one considers the discrimination immigrants might already have to face, even more so if they are from ethnic minorities, or are refugees. Limiting the number of immigrants into the country to similarly bring about problems. As mentioned above, the main reason immigrants end up entering elementary sectors, is because of the lack of applicants from the country itself. Hence, if an insufficient number of people are employed in the elementary sectors, working conditions for people already currently employed in the sector could degenerate due to the increasing demand without any means to combat it, and the economy could become unable to sustain itself if there is a severe imbalance. Youth unemployment UK is currently facing a serious youth unemployment problem, with 21% (1 million) of citizens under 25 jobless, and 9% (650,000) falling into the NEET category (not in education, employment or training). Overall, a third of those unemployed have been jobless for over a year, signifying the increase in long-term employment, that was heralded in the start of the recession where over 115,000 people aged 18 to 24 had been unemployed for two years or more (Mount, 2013). In fact, of all unemployed persons, two-fifth of them are under 25. One reason for that is the rising cost of education in the UK. Since 2007, the tuition fee cap (the maximum amount of money educational institutes can charge annually) has increased by almost three times to 9,000, with universities charging an average of 8,400 per year. This, coupled with the rising cost of living, means that many youths go out into a stagnant job market shouldering heavy student debts. The situation is worsened by Englands abolition of the

Educational Maintenance Scheme, a 560m financial support system that provided 10 to 30 grants a week for about 650,000 low-income students (usually living in households earning less than 30,800 a year) studying either at sixth form colleges or higher-learning institutes. However, in 2011, it was cut to 180m for colleges to disperse amongst their own students according to their judgment, instead of being given to individual students (Coughlan, 2011). At 180m, the current bursary system is almost half of the original EMA system. With a smaller number of students who are in need receiving grants, an increasing dropout rate and a drastic decrease in social mobility has been predicted by many (Kershaw, 2011). Even amongst those who have managed to gain employment, there are problems. 47% of graduates are in unskilled jobs, as compared to the 39% in 2007. Furthermore, current graduates are earning 12% less than youths who graduated before the recession. This results in a difficulty to earn sufficient money to pay off their student debts effectively, and perhaps even a difficulty in supporting oneself. While financially there are difficulties, competitivity is also an issue. Since the recession, the number of full-time students have increased by 10%. More than 50 graduates compete with each other for an entry-level occupation. Hence, in the short-term, many youths are at best completely or partially dependent on their parents, which affects the individual household earning, and at worst homeless and poor. All this, coupled with the fact that the state pension age is to be raised to 70 in order to save funds, mean that the youths of today will have a retirement age of 70, in order to save up sufficient money for retirement (Watt, 2013). However, it is also likely that instead, more elderly people will be in poverty in the later years, due to them having been in poverty when they were younger. This then creates a vicious cycle; adults or elderly people in poverty will result in an overall household in poverty. Naturally, the rising prevalence of youth unemployment will not just affect youths themselves. With an ageing population on the rise (a trend most likely to continue and increase in the years to come), there will doubtless be an increase in the number of elderly dependents. These elderly dependents will be depending on youths for their livelihood (once they are unable to work), and so there is an extra burden on them, which will be worsened if they are unemployed. Furthermore, youths being unemployed will also affect the financial situations of anyone depending on them, for example their parents, grandparents or other elderly dependents. Without a job, without economic stability and without the means to obtain their own property, youths will be unable to progress in other aspects of their lives since they have to concentrate their time on working to get enough money. This means that certain parts of their life, like relationships, family, et cetera will get neglected, but especially so for lifetime partnerships, for which the stability of a good job is integral. It would be impractical for one to attempt to start a family if they are already having difficulty supporting oneself. So, in the best case scenario, it is possible that the national average marrying age or birthing age will simply increase, with more people putting off starting a family until after they are confident and secure enough with regards to their financial state. This is much like how many women in the UK have children after the age of 30, i.e. after their careers have taken off and they find themselves in an advantageous, stable position. In the worst case scenario, however, people continue to struggle with their finances and are unable to escape their impoverished state, and so starting a family becomes an unrealistic goal. As a whole, population may then decrease, worsening the situation. The Youth Contract In 2012, the UK government launched a 1 billion campaign known as the Youth Contract Wage Initiative. It is targeted at people aged 18 - 24 who have been out of work for more than six months and who are taking part in the Work Programme, or have been claiming benefits for six months. It provides a wage subsidy of up to 2,275 for employers to pay the young workers with after a period of 26 weeks of 30-hour work weeks. A wage subsidy of 1,137.50 is also available for part-time workers who work for 16 to 29 hours a week (Department of Work and Pensions, 2014). The scheme has helped decrease the number of unemployed youths to a certain extent, with the number falling by 58,000 after it was first introduced. More employers are also becoming open with hiring young people under the scheme. Under the wage incentive, 9% of employers actively created vacancies for people who would be hired and paid with the Youth Contract, while 28% revealed that the incentive made them more willing to keep the employee on

for more than six months. Furthermore, 86% predicted their willingness to adopt the practice of taking on youths unemployed for more than half a year under the scheme. However, the effectivity of the scheme has already been called into question. Initially designed to help 160,000 youths out of unemployment in the next three years, an interim report has revealed that only 4,690 placements have been granted from April 2012 to May 2013, a far cry from the initial goal (Grice, 2013). To be this in perspective, only oneeighth of the allocated funding has actually been used to subsidies employers, even though the one-quarter checkpoint has already been reached. One reason for the low effectivity is the lack of media coverage and communication to employers. A survey carried out by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) revealed that although 56% of employers learnt of the scheme before they began hiring, there were still 15% only discovering the existence of the scheme during the hiring process itself (most notably while they were interviewing a young person who was part of the programme), and 27% not even knowing about the scheme until afterwards (Jordan, McGinigal, Thomas & Coleman, 2013). The government has hence already announced intentions to review measures to combat youth unemployment (Wintour, 2013).