Since 1999 El Carnaval del Pueblo has added a new face to the diverse and multicultural landscape of London. This year it has been cancelled due to refurbishment. Carolina Ramirez reports

Months ago in the City Hall building, during the launch-event of an important research report whose title suggested the end of the long-lasting invisible character of Latin Americans, the Deputy Mayor of London highlighted the contribution made by this group to the ‘cosmopolitan’ character of London.

This contribution has become tangible, it was said, through the amenities and services that we can enjoy today. Just take a walk on the streets of Lambeth or Southwark – two of the boroughs with a major concentration of Latin Americans - and you will be able to see, hear, smell and taste the various ways in which Latin Americans have daily shaped our lived experience of the city.  

Nevertheless, regardless of these palpable signs of their presence, we should not naively assume that the issue of invisibility has been overcome. This is a matter that has acquired renewed relevance today when one of the social scenes where Latin Americans have been able to engage with the city (and acquire visibility) on their own terms has been abruptly cancelled.

As many Londoners may know – particularly those of Latin American ancestry – including the residents of Lambeth and Southwark, El Carnaval del Pueblo has been ‘suspended’ this year due to refurbishment and development in Burgees Park. To understand the relevance of this festival and, consequently, the disappointment and concern that its interruption has brought to the community formed around it, we need to go beyond our idea of it as a simple ‘multicultural spectacle’.

El Carnaval del Pueblo has been since 1999 a central space for Latin Americans to meet and it has provided an opportunity to make room for them, as there are many Latin Americans who still remain largely hidden in a structural invisibility. This is for the most part relevant to those who have arrived in the UK during the last decade and who largely (but not exclusively) participate in this annual event.

According to research made in conjunction by Queen Mary University, LAWRs and the Trust for London, more often than not these newcomers perform invisible jobs (they are noticeable in the cleaning and catering industry) and report experiences of abuse and exploitation in their workplace, as well as various constraints on their daily well-being, such as language barriers, exclusion from public health services, low quality accommodation and overcrowding, amongst others.

Conversely, the interactions and practises implicated in cultural activities, such as El Carnaval del Pueblo, offer alternative means of social support for them, as well as a way of emotionally dealing with their on-going experiences of exclusion and dislocation. Likewise, as some of us were able to appreciate in-situ at last year’s festivities, the carnival also provides a platform for the diffusion of some of the initiatives targeted at them by varied NGOs, charities and other civil organizations.

More importantly, this involves a form of appropriation that – by developing a multi-sensory engagement with the scene - does not exclude but incorporates the wider social and physical context of London, namely the city dwellers and their material setting. Hence, this event, which is seemingly a merely entertainment-based event, and which as such is often devalued as a means of social empowerment, might be able to positively allow individuals to renegotiate their sense of belonging to the UK as part of rather than separate from the rest of society.

Let us return to the launch event mentioned above, in which Latin Americans’ contributions to the multicultural landscape of London was celebrated by some of the authorities. It is crucial that the often straightforward discourses that (rarely) emerge ‘from above’ go hand in hand with our capacity and willingness to provide and, more importantly in this case, maintain the meaningful spaces that some groups have progressively generated for themselves as well as for the broader public. This is not to say that El Carnaval del Pueblo is the magic solution to deal with issues of migrants’ sense of belonging and integration. Instead, it is to say that in order for Latin Americans to become ‘no longer invisible’ it is vital for them to go forward and not backwards in the creation of environments that allow Latin Americans to actively embrace their cultural background as well as the wider environment that they occupy at present.

If   the proposed cuts to legal aid are implemented, the Government risks losing us money in addition to denying the poorest and most vulnerable of our society legal representation.

Legal aid is funding provided by the government to give those without the means, access to legal advice. It costs the government an estimated £2.2 billion a year, though this in turn is a mere 13% of annual UK legal expenditure, the remainder of which goes to private firms. It is also equivalent to just two weeks public funding for the NHS, as highlighted by the Justice for All campaign.In their bid to reduce the fiscal deficit, the Ministry of Justice proposes to slash the legal aid budget by 15%, making a saving of £350 million. Practically, this will mean that 18 of the 57 law centres around the country may have to permanently close their doors.However, the cuts may prove to be a false economy. In a recent report from the Citizens Advice, for every £1 spent on legal aid, the state saves £8.80 on benefits, £7.13 on employment and £2.34 on housing advice, to give a few examples.

Under the current proposals, the areas which would no longer be funded by legal aid would include employment law, most housing and family law (excluding homelessness and domestic violence), debt advice, and immigration law.The Ministry of Justice estimates that this will leave between 455,000 and 505,000 people without access to legal advice in these areas. The Legal Aid Group argues that the figure could be much higher.Walk-in law centres, such as the Migrants Resource Centre, have provided a lifeline to many who see the legal system as a foreign language, not least migrants and asylum seekers. To lose them would therefore have a huge adverse impact on our society.

The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has expressed concern for a while over current pay structures and funding regimes in legal aid. In their response to the Government’s consultation paper on the proposed cuts, they state that the new proposals present a ‘grave threat’ to the availability and quality of work. Figures from 2009 Migrants Rights Network reports reveal that 37% of all appeals regarding Home Office immigration and asylum decisions were allowed. Without the right advice, those appeals would not have been granted, adversely affecting the lives of thousands of families in the UK. Migrants are not the only members of our society who could be affected, however. Employment, family and housing law are all pervasive areas; the restriction of access may leave a wide range of people without legal redress, particularly those who are already vulnerable.

In addition to saving money, the Ministry of Justice cites ‘unnecessary litigation’ as a reason for the cuts. It claims legal aid has expanded into too many areas of law, encouraging people to resolve their problems through the courts rather than seek out alternative solutions. The problem is that there may not be any ‘alternative solutions’ for many people seeking to rely on legal aid. Since the beginning of the law centre movement, over 40 years ago, service provision has expanded, but only in response to need.In place of advice centres the government proposes to introduce telephone helplines for legal aid funded advice: Operators would assess a caller’s eligibility before transferring them to an advisor. While this may be an efficient way of dealing with relatively clear cut cases, more complex matters may find themselves lost in bureaucracy.The Ministry of Justice argues that cuts will be mitigated by, amongst other things, cases being taken on by the community advice sector. However, volunteers, who make up a large section of the workforce in advice centres, are already strained. Without professional support they will not have the capacity to deal with the volume and complexity of many cases, and it is unlikely that pro bono efforts will help to shoulder much of the burden.

In essence, the Government’s proposed cuts to legal aid would prove a false economy. The Chancellor has recently admitted the need to revise the economy’s expected growth figures amid fears of a double-dip recession. It is exactly in such financially strained times that ‘the big society’ needs to become a reality, by providing the most vulnerable with access to the legal advice that is rightfully theirs. Only by doing this we can achieve social and financial stability.

By Anna Bowsher

The voluntary sector cuts risk undermining the very idea of the Big Society, as reduced services will affect London poorest areas and its most vulnerable communities. Gary Buswell reports

Following the heavy cuts in spending to the public sector back in the spring, the government’s axe has now fallen on the very sector we were led to believe would be picking up the slack as the state rolled itself back: the third sector consisting of voluntary and community organisations that make up the so-called Big Society.

Research published by False Economy has shown that over 2,000 charity groups in England have had government funding slashed, with many losing the full 100 per cent of their funding. A hefty 110 million has been sliced from the voluntary sector budget. With data still to be collected from several local councils, the final figure will be even higher.These cuts shed some light on the government’s commitment to t he “Big Society”. When the plan to reduce public spending was announced, David Cameron deflected a lot of the negative press by highlighting the role of charities and volunteering in filling the gap in service provision. But a study by London-based LVSC found that 51 per centof voluntary organizations in the capital have had to close services in the past year despite increasing demand. Furthermore, although demand for volunteering has increased, the capacity to support volunteers has decreased.
Worryingly, both these studies suggest that, as with the public sector cuts, the reduction in funding and services are disproportionately affecting poorer areas.In London, boroughs such as Hackney, Bromley and Waltham Forest have each lost millions in funding. Among those hit are numerous small refugee and migrant groups along with organisations supporting volunteering.

However, it is charities supporting children and young people who have been the most affected.
One such charity is The Crib, an organisation based in Hackney that works with 11-24 year olds who are NEET (not in education, employment or training) or at risk of offending.
The Crib offers support and advice to young people and runs projects aimed at raising their ambitions and building relationships between them and their communities. They work closely with local police, schools and elderly community groups.Third sector cuts have meant that the organisation has lost 75 per cent of its public funding, equating to over 200,000 pounds a year.Project manager Janette Collins says that they have yet to secure alternative funding despite facing rising demand for services.
“We are constantly asked to help out in high anti-social behaviour areas” she said. “We used to run three youth clubs in areas of high gang violence but due to cutbacks we’ve gone from working with 200-plus young people a quarter to working with 16”.

It’s not hard to see how all this intensifies the general impact of the cuts. Back in March I wrote how the spending cuts were likely to increase poverty, unemployment and crime. Poverty figures are unlikely to be available for a while, but latest unemployment figures show a rise of 38,000 unemployed between March and June this year. Unemployment stands at nearly 8 per cent. The number of males aged 16-24 unemployed is around one in four, and a study by the Institute of Public Policy Research suggests that nearly 50 per cent of black British 16-24 year-old males are out of work.

Another study funded by O2 found that a quarter of 16-24 year-olds are depressed about their employment prospects. Then, in August, we had the riots. Now, one must be mindful of making over-simplistic assumptions about the complex causes of these events. To say they were determined by the cuts would be foolish, but Cameron’s attempts to blame them on simple “criminality” is equally so. They cannot be seen in isolation from the reduction of public and third sector youth services and the impact this is having.
Collins’ organisation works in one of the boroughs most affected by the riots. “The reoffending rate with our young people has risen. Young people feel like there is no hope” she says. “We had to close one of our centres that housed 64 young people every Friday night. Young people engaged in cooking, music and fashion workshops. We also delivered family support and CV writing. Young people feel let down by the council and are unable to understand the reasons for the cuts”. Another organisation affected is The Peace Alliance, a multi-agency organisation consisting of faith groups, community leaders and the police working to reduce crime and promote cohesion in Tottenham, Haringey. Haringey is one of the most diverse boroughs in London. It is also facing some of the most severe public sector cuts. It has the highest unemployment rate in London. 75 per cent of the youth service budget was recently cut and 8 out of the borough’s 13 youth centres were shut down. Tottenham was the area where the recent rioting first broke out. The Peace Alliance is facing a reduction of 63 per cent of public funding and has yet to find alternative financial means.

According to Reverend Nims Obunge, Chief Executive of the Alliance, the organisation is working flat out and is struggling to rebuild community relations in the aftermath of the riots.
“Of course we have had to reduce our services, like many other organisations in a similar situation. But it’s no use complaining about what’s happened and how difficult things are. We must remain strong. I have faith in the goodwill of volunteers in this community”.

The government has defended its actions by stating that charities must become less dependent on state funding and seek out other alternatives. But where? Funders such as trusts and the national lottery are already heavily over-subscribed and to make up the deficit there would need to be 6.6 million new private donors, or existing donors would need to give an extra 32 pounds each. Interestingly, the government has just announced a new Transforming Local Infrastructure model for charities. This promotes a social enterprise approach, encouraging streamlining and merging among organisations.

So perhaps the ultimate legacy of Cameron’s Big Society will be that charities end up behaving more like private businesses.

Juan Camilo explains why restricting settlement for skilled migrant workers might not be a wise idea

The pledge to bring down net migration to tens of thousands has turned out to be a headache for the Conservative party leading the coalition government. Because net migration reflects the difference between the number of people moving into Britain and those moving out, the Government faces significant challenges in its attempt to bring it down to a fixed target.First, the Government cannot restrict the movement of EU citizens, so it has to focus exclusively on non-EU migrants in order to achieve its goal. Yet changes in migration patterns of EU citizens can significantly alter the figures in unexpected ways, scuppering the efforts made on other fronts.

Second, if the number of people leaving the UK goes down, net migration figures can go up even if the number of arrivals remains the same. This seems to be precisely what is happening: fewer British people are leaving the UK than in previous years and the number of East European migrants returning to their countries has been lower than expected.Therefore, the net migration figure actually went up in 2010 despite tighter immigration rules imposed through the interim cap on non-EU migrant workers.The net migration figure for 2010 stands at more than double the Conservative party’s aim, at 239,000. So in order to stand a chance of achieving its goal by 2015 the coalition government has to look at the full range of options for reducing the numbers of non-EU people coming to the UK and increasing the numbers leaving the country.

Part of this drive has been capping the number of highly skilled workers (Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points Based System). However, reducing the number of non-EU migrants entering the UK will not be enough to reach the target and the Government is now looking at increasing the number of migrants leaving the UK by restricting settlement rights. Specifically, the Government has laid out plans to restrict the options for skilled migrants to settle in the UK.The restrictions focus on Tier 2 of the Points Based System, i.e. skilled migrants who come to the UK with a job offer. For 2011/12 the limit of Tier 2 (General) visas was set at 20,700. In summary, Government is proposing to categorise all Tier 2 migrants as ‘temporary’, making exceptions for a very limited number who would become eligible to switch into a permanent visa once in the UK. The majority of Tier 2 workers would be expected to leave after five years, driving the net migration number down. But is it really sensible to target this group of migrants by restricting their ability to settle?

The proposals to withdraw the option of settlement from Tier 2 workers seems unfair to prospective migrants. Government argues that it will make clear to applicants that their stay is temporary and they will be expected to leave once it is finished. Migrants will be expected to come to the UK on the understanding that their stay will be temporary. However, five years is a significant period in time in which personal and family plans can change significantly.In this period of time people can settle down and become attached to the new place. Their children may grow up with a sense of belonging to the UK and may be affected by abreak in their education, making parents reluctant to move out. Skilled migrant workers will be contributing to their employers and therefore the British economy; they will be paying taxes and into pension pots, and yet they will be expected to leave without being able to access some of the benefits accrued from these contributions. Workers with a good track record within a business and with a career ahead will see their progress trumped as they have to leave the country. People’s lives and career prospects will therefore be undermined by immigration policy even if their performance is good. Removing the flexibility to have the option to settle is failing to acknowledge that personal plans can change significantly in a lapse of five years and that what was expected to be a temporary sojourn can be transformed into a desire for a more permanent stay.

In the present context, however, these arguments have little purchase with Government or the wider public. The overriding concern is reducing immigration, not the circumstances of individual migrants. So what about the economic argument? Does it make economic sense for the UK to introduce these changes? The first point is that Tier 2 migrants are, by definition, workers that the UK economy labour market needs and does not have. They are either qualified in professions with a short supply of workers or recruited after an employer can show they have been unable to recruit within the EU. Second, because of the nature of their work, skilled workers tend to be net fiscal contributors and therefore pay more in taxes than they take in services. These are, therefore, workers that are needed and that make a positive economic contribution.

The private sector, on which the hopes of an economic recovery are pinned, is particularly reliant on the skills of these workers: in the most recent quarterly labour market outlook survey 25% of employers stated that they were planning to recruit migrant workers (continuing an upward trend in the proportion of those planning to do so) but the private sector is the main driver of recruitment of foreign nationals doubling the public sector (32% vs. 15%). Regionally London has the highest proportion of employers planning to hire from abroad (40%) confirming the demand for migrant workers within London´s private sector economy, itself the economic powerhouse of the country.So these workers are clearly needed by the British economy. Government argues that they can still come but will be in-country only for a limited time-period. However, UK-based businesses are competing for international workers with businesses from across the world and the attractiveness and barriers of moving to the UK will be a factor in the decisions of workers on where to move.

As emerging economies become stronger they are joining the traditional world economic centres in this competition for global talent. In future China, India and the Middle East will be increasingly aiming to attract skilled labour from the same pool of international workers as the UK. States have often sought to restrict the rights of low-skilled migrants, frequently giving them only temporary leave, while seeking to attract high-value migrants by making their migration easier. With the new proposals the UK seems to be going the other way and actually putting restrictions on skilled migrant workers. The key question becomes what weight do skilled workers give to restrictions such as the opportunity to settle when deciding between working in one country or another?

If the UK becomes less attractive for skilled workers at the same time that other countries are competing for that pool of labour then in the future there is a risk that the current set of regulations will end up harming the economic potential of the UK.