Advertisement

UK Localism: Unprecedented Opportunity for Local Migrant Integration Policies or ‘White Elephant’?

  • Rachael Coker
Chapter
Part of the Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship book series (MDC)

Abstract

Since 2010 successive legislation aimed at decentralising power to the local level has led to the assertion that UK integration policies have undergone a ‘localist turn’ (Ali and Gidley 2014). When taken on face value, it is easy how this would appear to be the case. The 2012 Creating the Conditions for Integration policy clearly designates integration as a local issue and in 2016, the government introduced an Act which they claimed was “the biggest transfer of power from central to local government in recent history” (Osbourne, cited in Watt, 2015) Theoretically, local authorities in the UK have been given an unprecedented opportunity to inovate and facilitate migrant integration in their localities.

Nevertheless, when a power lens is applied to all government steers affecting a local authority’s ability to facilitate migrant integration (not just that contained within official integration policy), a different picture emerges. Rather than a local turn, the resesarch contained within this chapter argues that an encroachment on the autonomy of local authority’s ability to facilitate integration has taken place. Using a modified version of Emilsson’s 2015 compliance framework to highlight the composite effect of central government steers, it is questioned whether the designation of integration as a local issue, is in fact a white elephant.

References

  1. Ali, S., & Gidley, B. (2014). Advancing outcomes for all minorities: Experiences of mainstreaming immigrant integration policy in the United Kingdom. Brussels: Migration Policy Institute Europe.Google Scholar
  2. Bak Jørgensen, M. (2012). The diverging logics of integration policy making at national and city level. International Migration Review, 46(1), 244–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedlow, D., & Hoult, P. (2013). A power of confidence, in Local government lawyer. The Localism Act two years on. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/images/Localism%20Act%20Survey.pdf
  4. Booth, R. (2015). Local councils warn of critical funding crisis as £18bn grant is scrapped. The Guardian. Retrieved October 20, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/25/local-government-councils-funding-gap-critical-budget-cuts-social-care-spending-review
  5. Centre for Research on Migration, Refugees and Belonging (CMRB). 2016. “Everyday borders” film. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from https://www.uel.ac.uk/News/2015/05/Everyday-Borders
  6. DCLG. (2012). Creating the conditions for integration. Department for communities and local government. Retrieved October 19, 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7504/2092103.pdf
  7. DCLG. (2015). Community relations. Written questions:2696. Retrieved July 15, 2016, from http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-06-16/2696/
  8. Doyle, L. (2014). 28 days later: Experiences of new refugees in the UK. Refugee council. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0003/1769/28_days_later.pdf
  9. Emilsson, H. (2015). A national turn of local integration policy: Multi-level governance dynamics in Denmark and Sweden. Comparative Migration Studies, 3, 7.Google Scholar
  10. Flint, C. (2011). The danger of changing business rates. Local Government Chronicle. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from https://www.lgcplus.com/politics-and-policy/finance/the-danger-of-changing-business-rates/5027226.article
  11. HM Treasury. (2015). A country that lives within its means: Spending review 2015. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  12. House of Commons. (2015). Pubic bill committee: The immigration bill written evidence. The Stationery office. Retrieved September 15, 2015, from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmpublic/immigration/memo/immigrationconsolidated.pdf
  13. Houston, D., Findlay, A., Harrison, R., & Mason, C. (2008). Will attracting the “creative class” boost economic growth in old industrial regions? A case study of Scotland. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 90(2), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirkup, J., & Winnett, R. (2012). The aim is to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for illegal migration. Telegraph. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9291483/Theresa-May-interview-Were-going-to-give-illegal-migrants-a-really-hostile-reception.html
  15. Local Government Association. (2016). Immigration bill. Immigration bill report stage, house of lords, 15 and 21 March 2016 key messages. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://www.local.gov.uk/briefings-and-responses/-/journal_content/56/10180/7522212/ARTICLE
  16. Lowndes, V., & Gardner, A. (2016). Local governance under the conservatives: Super-austerity, devolution and the ‘smarter state’. Local Government Studies, 42(3), 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. National Audit Office. (2014). Financial sustainability of local authorities 2014, National Audit Office. Retrieved September 20, 2015, from https://www.nao.org.uk/report/financial-sustainability-of-local-authorities-2014/
  18. National Audit Office. (2016a). The response to the refugee crisis. An international comparison. National Audit Office. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-response-to-the-Syrian-refugee-crisis-an-international-comparison.pdf
  19. National Audit Office. (2016b). The Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement programme. NAO website: Retrieved October 10, 2016, from https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Syrian-Vulnerable-Persons-Resettlement-programme.pdf
  20. Newbury, K. (2015). Immigration bill 2015 – The real impact of creating a ‘hostile environment’. Kingsley Napley Website. Retrieved from: https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/news-and-events/blogs/immigration-law-blog/immigration-bill-2015-the-real-impact-of-creating-a-hostile-environment. Accessed 29 Oct 2016.
  21. NRPF. (2015). Briefing for LGA Asylum, Refugee and migration task group meeting. NRPF website Retrieved October 20, 2016, from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7bDmso4ahuoJ:www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/Documents/LGA-migration-briefing.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
  22. NRPF. (2016a). Application to remove NRPF condition is regulated immigration advice. NRPF website. Retrieved September 14, 2016, from http://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/News/Pages/change-of-conditions-OISC.aspx
  23. NRPF. (2016b). Immigration bill 2015–16: Funding higher education for migrant care leavers (England). Retrieved September 14, 2016, from http://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/Documents/immigration-bill-education.pdf
  24. Price, J., & Spenser S. (2015). Safeguarding children from destitution: Local authority responses to families with “no recourse to public funds.” Oxford: COMPAS.Google Scholar
  25. Rutter, J. (2015). Moving up and getting on: Migration, integration and social cohesion in the UK. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rutter, T. (2015). Views from local government on George Osborne’s spending review, The Guardian. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/nov/25/views-from-local-government-on-george-osbornes-spending-review
  27. Rutter, T. (2016). Local government and the budget 2016: Views from the sector, The Guardian. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/mar/16/local-government-budget-2016-devolution-academies
  28. Schmidtke, O. (2014). Beyond national models? Governing migration and integration and the regional and local levels in Canada and Germany. Comparative Migration Studies, 2(1), 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scholten, P. (2013). Agenda dynamics and the multi-level governance of intractable policy controversies: The case of migrant integration policies in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 46(3), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scholten, P. (2015). Between national models and multi-level decoupling: The pursuit of multi-level governance in Dutch and UK policies towards migrant incorporation. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 1–22. https://doi.org/10-1007/s12134-015-0438-9
  31. Scott, S. (2015). Venues and filters in managed migration policy: The case of the United Kingdom. International Migration Review, Fall 2015, 1–41.Google Scholar
  32. Solomos, J. (1989). Race and racism in contemporary Britain. Hampshire/London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. UNHCR. (2015). Worldwide displacement hits all-time high as war and persecution increase. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/558193896.html
  34. Watt, N. (2015). Osborne to allow local councils to keep £26bn raised from business rates. The Guardian. Retrieved September 1, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/05/osborne-to-allow-local-councils-to-keep-26bn-raised-from-business-rates
  35. Young, K., & Connelly, N. (1981). Policy and practice in the multi-racial city. London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachael Coker
    • 1
  1. 1.UK Institute of Migration ResearchDoverUK

Personalised recommendations