Pay It
Book It
Find It
Report It
Apply For It
Say It
Central and Eastern European migrants in Tameside
November 2010
Download a copy of the Migrant Report 1.74 MB 
- About the Authors
- Acknowledgements
- Executive Summary
- Chapter 1 - Overview
- Chapter 2 - Methods
- Chapter 3 - Characteristics of the Sample
- Chapter 4 - Migration Experiences
- Chapter 5 - Education and Qualifications
- Chapter 6 - Employment
- Chapter 7 - Accommodation
- Chapter 8 - Community and Neighbourhood
- Chapter 9 - Access to Goods, Services and Facilities
- Chapter 10 - Future Intentions
- Chapter 11 - Conclusions
About the Authors
Lisa Scullion is a Research Fellow and Gareth Morris is a Research Associate at Salford Housing & Urban Studies Unit (SHUSU) at the University of Salford. Salford Housing & Urban Studies Unit is a dedicated multi-disciplinary research and consultancy unit providing a range of services relating to housing, regeneration and urban and community policy to public and private sector clients. The Unit brings together researchers drawn from a range of disciplines including: social policy, housing management, urban geography, environmental management, psychology, social care and social work.
Core Team Members
- Dr Lisa Scullion
- Gareth Morris
Community Interviewers
- Marianna Findlow
- Filip Halaburda
- Adam Jankowski
- Agnes Mierzwinska
- Magda Ostrowska
Steering Group
- David Berry Policy & Performance
- Sarah Booth - Strengthening Communities
- Alan Franco - Welfare Rights & Community Legal Services
- John Hughes - Housing Strategy
- Haje Rakhman - Community Safety
- Chris Thean - Community Regeneration
- Russell Yates - Community Economic Development
Acknowledgements
This study was greatly dependent upon the time, expertise and contributions of a number of individuals and organisations, without whom the study could not have been completed. The project steering group provided guidance and information throughout the project and thanks must go to them for their support.
Thanks are also due to the stakeholders who took the time to participate in the study and provided invaluable information.
We are particularly indebted to all of our community interviewers whose continued efforts enabled so many interviews to be undertaken for the study. Finally, thanks must of course go to the Central and Eastern European migrants who found the time to talk to us and answer our questions in a full, honest and patient manner. It is hoped that this report is able to accurately reflect their experiences and needs.
This report is based on research undertaken by the study team and the analysis and comment thereafter does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the commissioning authorities, or any participating stakeholders and agencies. The authors take responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions in the report.
Executive Summary
The Study
It is accurate to say that all areas of the UK have experienced migration of some kind, whether it is long-established migrant communities, dispersed asylum seekers and refugees, or migrant workers. In recent years, the term migrant worker has been increasingly associated with individuals from the new EU countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).
It was recognised that, since 2004, a large number of Central and Eastern European migrants had moved into Tameside. To meet the challenge of providing responsive services to new communities, the aim of this study was to enhance intelligence in relation to CEE migrant communities, focusing on some of the key issues facing these communities in Tameside, as well as providing an understanding of the impact of migration on key public services.
The study was commissioned by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council in February 2010 through the Migration Impacts Fund. This funding was created by money collected from migrant communities (for example through visas) and allocated to all regions of England for projects which focus on understanding and managing the impacts of migration at a local level.
The study was conducted by Salford Housing & Urban Studies Unit (SHUSU) at the University of Salford. It was greatly aided by research support from a number of community interviewers. The project was managed by a steering group composed of officers representing Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and supported by the Culture and Community Cohesion Partnership and Tameside Housing Partnership.
The study was undertaken by conducting:
- Consultation with 12 key stakeholders and service providers;
- A survey of 160 CEE migrants; and
- Additional qualitative consultation with 6 CEE migrants.
Main Findings
The characteristics of the sample
- The majority of respondents were Polish (96%); however, the sample also included Czech, Latvian, Romanian and Slovak nationals;
- The majority of respondents were aged 25 – 39 years (65%)
- 58% of the respondents were male and 42% were female
- 34% of the sample were single; 28% were married; and 26% were cohabiting
- 39% of respondents had children
- 27% of respondents had lived somewhere else in the UK before moving to Tameside; and the main reasons for choosing Tameside were because they had family/partner in the area or a job to come to.
Chapters 3 and 4 provide a full discussion of the characteristics of the sample.
Qualifications and language skills
- 10% had postgraduate degree level qualifications; 10% had degree level qualifications; and 34% had technical qualifications;
- 39% of people said that their ability to speak English was good or very good.
- Understanding of spoken English was rated highest (59% rated this as good or very good). Respondents most frequently had problems with written language skills;
- 31% of respondents indicated that they did not need an English language course as they had already completed one; and
- 35% of respondents indicated that they did not have time to complete an English language course due to work commitments.
Chapter 5 of the report provides a full discussion of qualifications and language skills
Employment
- 81% of respondents were currently in paid employment; a large proportion of those without employment were female 61% of people were employed in elementary occupations (i.e. lower skilled occupations)
- The majority of respondents had undertaken between two and four different jobs in the UK. A large number of people made reference to undertaking temporary or agency work
- 85% of respondents were satisfied with their treatment by work colleagues;
- 79% were satisfied with their treatment by their employer. People were less satisfied with rates of pay and skill level of work; and
- 42% of respondents had found their current employment through friends/family.
Chapter 6 of the report provides a full discussion of the findings in relation to employment.
Accommodation Experiences
- 59% of respondents were living in the private rented sector; 16% were living in accommodation provided by their employer; and 14% were in socially rented accommodation. The remaining respondents were staying with friends/family or owner occupiers.
- 47% of respondents had found their current accommodation through friends/family
- 85% of respondents indicated that they had enough space in their current home. There were a small number of cases where overcrowding was evident
- 4% of respondents had experienced rough sleeping since living in Tameside; 23% had stayed with friends/family temporarily because they had nowhere else to live; and
- 23% of respondents said that they would move to a different property in the future; 43% of these wanted to live in private rented accommodation, 30% wanted socially rented accommodation and 14% wanted to buy their own home.
Chapter 7 of the report provides a full discussion of housing experiences.
Community and Neighbourhood
- Proximity to work and affordable accommodation were the main reasons for living in their specific area of Tameside
- 76% of people were satisfied with their local area as a place to live; 53% of respondents had a fairly strong sense of belonging to their local area, while 25% indicated that their sense of belonging was not very strong
- 46% agreed that their local area was a place where people from different ethnic backgrounds mixed well together; 12% disagreed
- 30% of respondents indicated that they had been victims of crime. Crime against property was most commonly referred to (14%); 12% of respondents had experienced hate crime; and
- 74% of respondents would recommend Tameside as a place to live and work to friends/family.
Chapter 8 of the report provides a full discussion in relation to community involvement and engagement.
Access to services and facilities
- 88% of respondents had used a doctor/GP, while 45% had used a dentist. Respondents also made reference to using A & E, walk-in centres and NHS Direct. 10% of respondents had not used any health services in Tameside
- 22% of respondents indicated that they had children attending local schools. Stakeholder consultation suggested that the main issue in schools related to language barriers. There was also a preference for children to attend faith schools.
- The facilities that were most commonly used in Tameside were: shops (98%) ;public transport (72%); churches/places of worship (58%); libraries (41%); and sports facilities (40%); and
- 43% of respondents were accessing benefits/tax credits in the UK. The most commonly referred to were: Working Tax Credit (24%); Child Benefit (23%); and Child Tax Credit (22%).
Chapter 9 of the report provides a full discussion in relation to use of services and facilities.
Future intentions
- 49% of respondents intended to stay in Tameside; 30% were unsure of their future intentions
- With regards to those who intended to leave, the majority would be returning to their home country; and
- 17% of respondents said they would be joined in the UK by other family members.
Chapter 10 of the report provides a full discussion in relation to future intentions of the respondents.
Conclusions
The following provides a summary of the main conclusions based on the findings of the survey.
Language barriers
Language barriers remain a pervasive issue for migrant communities. Across the sample as a whole, just over a third (35%) said that they did not have time to complete an English language course due to work commitments. However, it was apparent that while some people will actively seek English classes, others want to learn a basic level of English that will enable them to ‘get by’. Furthermore, there are also those who are not interested in learning English as their work/home life is spent with people from their home country.
Migrant communities therefore need to be encouraged to access English language courses, with more emphasis placed on the importance of acquisition of English language. In order to do so, however, there is a need to continue and develop flexible learning opportunities. For example, consultation with Tameside Council indicated that they were providing shorter courses as they had found that retention was an issue with longer courses. Previous studies have also shown that more ‘informal’ methods – such as conversation classes, etc – were popular with migrant communities. Overall, what was apparent was that ESOL providers were often having difficulty meeting demand; however, this issue could only be resolved with additional resources.
Reliance on social networks
A common theme running throughout the study was the reliance on social networks. Having friends/family living in Tameside was vital for many people, not only influencing their decision to move to particular areas, but assisting with access to employment, accommodation and services. For example, there was evidence of a particular accommodation ‘pathway’ in the UK, whereby people lived in lower quality accommodation or lived with friends/family, until they could afford to move to another property and had a better understanding of what was available. While there are clearly positive benefits to these social networks, we cannot guarantee that the advice and assistance provided by social networks provides the best option for people. There will also be ‘gaps’ in people’s knowledge, which means that people can be unaware of particular services. Furthermore, it was apparent that there were groups of migrants who are not engaged with local services, particularly those whose contact is limited to people from their home country. It is these migrants who are potentially vulnerable to exploitation or do not understand their rights. There was evidence in this study, for example, that people sometimes did not understand rights in relation to accommodation (i.e. in terms of eviction, deposits being withheld, etc). There is a need to explore how to provide information to migrant communities who are less engaged with local services (this could include targeting places where there are known populations, as well as through local churches, libraries and sports facilities, which were commonly being used by migrant communities).
Perceived and actual issues
A number of interesting issues have emerged from the study, which highlights potential discrepancies between perceptions of key issues for migrants and the views of migrants themselves. For example, there can sometimes be a perception of exploitation of migrant workers in employment. The survey suggested largely positive views on treatment by employers, suggesting that poor treatment was not the majority experience for those interviewed in this study. Furthermore, previous research has highlighted problems in relation to accommodation, particularly around the private rented sector and HMOs. While it is recognised that some migrants had experienced problems with private landlords, the study indicated that it is perhaps too simplistic to focus solely on the actions of landlords. Rather, we need to also acknowledge the actions and choices of migrants themselves, particularly in relation to economic opportunities. For example, there was evidence that people sometimes choose to live in overcrowded accommodation – often sub-letting without landlord’s knowledge – as it enabled them to minimise rental costs.
Future considerations
Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict future intentions, particularly with regards to a population whose migration is predominantly linked to economic opportunities and social networks. While it was often the case that people initially had short-term intentions, it was apparent that a number of people had actually been in the UK longer-term; for example, 59% of respondents had arrived in the UK between 2004 and 2007. Furthermore, while it was acknowledged that employment opportunities had decreased in recent years, over three quarters (77%) of those in employment had a permanent contract. It was also highlighted that opportunities in the UK – not just employment, but also in relation to education, welfare, etc – were still better than opportunities in their home countries and a high proportion of people had intentions to stay indefinitely (49% of respondents).
In addition, a number of participants had children (39% of the sample). Consultation with CEE migrants in this study – as well as previous research – highlighted that families were more likely to settle in the UK. This study did not focus on the needs and experiences of children, or cover in depth the implications of an increase in CEE migrants’ children on local services such as early years and nursery provision, plus health care and schools. This may therefore be an area for further consideration. Finally, this study represents a ‘snap shot’ of a population, providing a starting point for key stakeholders to begin looking at how to take the findings of the report forward and where further information is required. Service providers need to ensure that they are frequently monitoring population changes within their local area and sharing this information and good practice at a wider level.
Chapter 1
1. Overview
This report presents the findings of a study looking at the needs and experiences of Central and Eastern European (CEE) migrants living and working in Tameside. The research was commissioned by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council in February 2010 through the Migration Impacts Fund. This funding was created by money collected from migrant communities (for example through visas) and allocated to all regions of England for projects which focus on understanding and managing the impacts of migration at a local level.
The study was conducted by Salford Housing & Urban Studies Unit (SHUSU) at the University of Salford. The study was greatly aided by research support from a number of community interviewers. The project was managed by a steering group composed of officers representing Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and supported by the Culture and Community Cohesion Partnership and Tameside Housing Partnership.
1.1 Background to the Study
It is accurate to say that all areas of the UK have experienced migration of some kind, whether it is long-established migrant communities, dispersed asylum seekers and refugees, or migrant workers. In recent years, the term migrant worker has been increasingly associated with individuals from Central and Eastern Europe.
In May 2004, ten countries joined the EU: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. From that date, Cyprus and Malta had full free movement and right to work throughout the EU, while the remaining eight countries (often referred to as the A8) were subject to certain restrictions. In the UK, for example, the government regulated access to the labour market through the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS), and restricted access to benefits.
In 2007, the EU was also joined by Bulgaria and Romania (often referred to as the A2). Nationals of these two countries were allowed gradual access to the UK labour market. Skilled workers were allowed access as ‘highly skilled workers’, while for lower skilled workers quotas were set and restricted to specific schemes, such as the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS) or the Sector Based Scheme (SBS), which covers the Food Manufacturing Industry.
Footnotes
The Social Security (Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations 2004 changed the entitlement to benefits. The regulations introduced a new requirement that a claimant must be able to demonstrate a 'right to reside' in the UK. An A8 worker who comes to the UK to work after the 1st May 2004 has the right to reside’ if they are working and registered under the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS) or have completed twelve months uninterrupted employment. During the initial 12-month period of registered employment, an A8 worker is entitled to in-work benefits, such as housing benefit, council tax benefit, working tax credits etc. They are also able to go on the housing waiting register (and be allocated a property) and apply as homeless. If they stop working within the first 12 months for a period of more than 30 days they will lose their right to reside and their rights to benefits and housing. After 12 months uninterrupted employment, they then have the same entitlements as other EEA nationals. With regards to A2 nationals, the rules are similar, with A2 nationals having to complete twelve months as ‘authorised workers’.
Table 1: European Union Member States
| Pre 2004 | Joined 2004 | Joined 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom |
Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Slovakia Slovenia |
Bulgaria Romania |
1.2 Study Brief
Local authorities need to understand the composition and needs of their local population in order to be able to plan and deliver services effectively, as well as being able to respond to any issues relating to community cohesion2. It was recognised that, since 2004, a large number of Central and Eastern European migrants had moved into Tameside (see official data below). To meet the challenge of providing responsive services to new communities, the aim of this study was to enhance intelligence in relation to CEE migrant communities, focusing on some of the key issues facing migrant worker communities in Tameside, as well as providing an understanding of the impact of migration on key public services. Before looking at the findings of the study the section below provides a brief overview of some of the data for Tameside.
Exploring some of the official data for Tameside
The difficulties of calculating the scale of migration are widely acknowledged and there is currently no ‘all-inclusive’ data source that can offer a measure of the migrant population. Two of the most commonly used data sources in relation to CEE migrants are Worker Registration Scheme (WRS) and National Insurance Registration data (NINo). There are a number of caveats to these data sources. In particular, they do not provide a ‘net’ measure of migration as the figures are unable to show movement of people within the UK or how many people have returned home. However, they provide a useful starting point to explore who has potentially moved into an area.
Worker Registration Scheme (WRS)
The Worker Registration Scheme (WRS) was introduced in 2004 for A8 migrants. It requires individuals from these countries to obtain a registration certificate for each job they have in the UK. Once they have been working continually for twelve months they no longer have to register and can obtain a residence permit. WRS data does not include those from the A2 countries (Bulgaria and Romania) and excludes those who are self employed. It is also based on the postcode of the employer rather than the employee. Furthermore, an individual who has registered to work and who leaves employment is not required to deregister; therefore, some of those counted will have left the employment for which they registered. Finally, the figures rely on official registration, which naturally cannot account for those who are not registered. Between May 2004 and June 2010 1,195 A8 nationals registered for work in Tameside (See Table 2 below). The majority of registrations have been Polish (around 84%), followed by smaller numbers of Slovak and Czech nationals (7% and 6% respectively) There has been a decrease in the number of registrations since 2007.
National Insurance registrations (NINo)
Acquiring a National Insurance Number (NINo) is a necessary step for employment/self employment purposes, as well as to claim benefits or tax credits. NINo information is available for the number of allocations to adult overseas nationals (including both A8 and A2 migrants) providing analysis by calendar or financial year. Again, these figures rely on official registration and therefore cannot account for those who are not registered. Between January 2004 and March 2010 2,070 A8/A2 nationals registered for a National Insurance number in Tameside (See Table 3 below). Like WRS data, the majority of these registrations were Polish (85%), followed by Slovak and Czech (6% and 5% respectively). Again, the data suggests a decrease in the number of registrations.
Chapter 2 - Methods
This study involved three separate but interrelated phases of data collection:
- Consultation with key stakeholders
- Survey with Central and Eastern European (CEE) migrants
- Additional consultation with CEE migrants
Each of these is described in more detail below.
2.1. Consultation with key stakeholders
This phase involved carrying out semi-structured telephone interviews with selected key stakeholders. It was vital in terms of providing information and insights around some of the key issues and problems facing migrant communities in Tameside, as well as identifying areas of good practice that could inform the approach of the local authority and other relevant stakeholders. A total of eleven stakeholders were interviewed representing the following services/agencies: Ashton Pioneer Homes; Blue Orchid; GMP Tameside; Holy Trinity Primary School; Our Lady of Mount Carmel Primary and Nursery School; St Christopher’s RC Primary and Nursery School; St Peter’s Partnership; Tameside Libraries; Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council; and the NHS.
2.2. Survey with Central and Eastern European (CEE) migrants
This involved carrying out face-to-face interviews with CEE migrants within the boundary of the study area. The interviews took place between April and July 2010.
This phase of the study is discussed in greater detail below under three sections: questionnaire design; fieldwork and interviewers; and sampling.
Questionnaire design
The interviews utilised a structured questionnaire, which contained the following sections:
- Migration history
- Employment, education and training
- Housing
- Community and neighbourhood
- Access to goods, services and facilities
- You and your household; and
- Future intentions
The questionnaire included a mixture of tick-box and open-ended questions. This mixed approach enabled us to gather quantifiable information, but also allowed for contextualisation and qualification by some narrative responses.
Fieldwork and interviewers
The fieldwork for this study was carried out by community interviewers. Community interviewers are individuals from the target community who are trained to work as paid interviewers on the project. Working with community interviewers was of crucial importance in engaging with CEE migrant communities across Tameside. In order to standardise our fieldwork approach, each interviewer had to undergo a community interviewer training course. This course focused specifically on:
- An in-depth appreciation of the aims and objectives of the study
- The necessary skills to complete the interviews and ensure consistency of approach in asking the questions and recording information across the fieldwork force
- Issues of confidentiality; and
- Interviewer safety
The training also included familiarity with the questionnaire, with a particular emphasis on developing a shared understanding of the vocabulary and concepts used in the research. Each interviewer then had to demonstrate their understanding of the issues raised in the training session through practical use of the questionnaire. Those who successfully completed the training and practical work were presented with a Certificate of Attendance from the University of Salford and could begin work as a community interviewer. Each questionnaire that was returned by the community interviewers was subject to quality control and appropriate feedback given to the interviewers. A total of five interviewers worked on the project and the networks and contacts of these interviewers enabled the research team to access a range of participants.
Sampling
In the absence of a comprehensive database which provides details of individuals’ addresses and nationality, it was necessary to take a flexible and pragmatic approach to the sample selection procedure. A total of 160 interviews were carried out and there were two primary sampling strategies employed by the community interviewers in the study. The first was ‘snowball’ sampling, whereby interviewers were encouraged to interview members of their own community or people they knew/were in contact with. Through these contacts, they were then introduced to additional participants. The second was ‘opportunistic’ sampling whereby interviewers would simply go to places where the target migrant populations were known to live or frequent in order to engage people in the research. The interviewers were also encouraged to interview different nationalities, where possible.
2.3 Additional consultation with CEE migrants
Following completion and analysis of the survey, we also carried out some additional consultation with CEE migrants living in Tameside. This consultation included a number of the community interviewers as well as some survey participants. A total of six people took part in this additional consultation; five people took part in focus group discussions and one person took part in a one-to-one interview. The purpose of this phase was to provide clarification on some of the issues that had emerged from the survey, particularly around issues of language, employment, accommodation and future intentions. The inclusion of the community interviewers was vital as they were able to provide an overview of the interviews they had carried out.
Chapter 3 - Characteristics of the Sample
This chapter presents information about the characteristics of the CEE migrants interviewed in Tameside, including nationality/ethnicity; year of arrival; age and gender; religious beliefs; household information; and the town in which they were living.
3.1. Nationality and ethnicity
Table 4 below shows the breakdown of interviews by nationality. As can be seen, 96% of the sample were Polish. Just two respondents identified themselves as of Roma heritage; one was Latvian and one was Romanian. Consultation with key stakeholders in Tameside also revealed that service providers primarily had contact with Polish migrants. However, this sample is a reflection of the language skills of community interviewers and the ability to access certain nationalities, rather than an indication of an absence of particular nationalities. As highlighted in Chapter 2, accessing migrant communities for a study such as this requires a pragmatic approach with regards to sampling and identifying participants. What is important to note is that, albeit in smaller numbers, there are potentially a range of nationalities currently residing in Tameside.
Table 4: Nationality of Respondents
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Polish | 154 | 96 |
| Czech | 3 | 2 |
| Latvian | 1 | 1 |
| Romanian | 1 | 1 |
| Slovak | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
Please note that percentages have been rounded up or down accordingly; therefore not all totals will add up to 100%.
3.2. Year of arrival
With regards to year of arrival in the UK, a quarter of respondents had arrived in 2005 and a further 20% had arrived in 2006; however, the sample included people who had arrived at a range of points since 2004, including a small number of more recent arrivals (2010).
Table 5 - Year of Arrival in UK
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 22 | 14 |
| 2005 | 40 | 25 |
| 2006 | 32 | 20 |
| 2007 | 26 | 16 |
| 2008 | 25 | 16 |
| 2009 | 10 | 6 |
| 2010 | 5 | 3 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
3.3. Age and Gender
The majority of respondents were under fifty years of age, with 65% of the sample being aged between twenty-five and thirty-nine. Fourteen respondents (9%) were over the age of fifty. This dominance of the twenty-five to thirty-nine age range is not surprising. Official statistics for Central and Eastern European migrants – for example, Worker Registration scheme data – shows that this age range has dominated arrivals to the UK.
Table 6 - Age of Respondents
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| 18 - 24 | 21 | 13 |
| 25 - 39 | 103 | 65 |
| 40 - 49 | 21 | 13 |
| 50 - 59 | 11 | 7 |
| 60 - 74 | 3 | 2 |
| Total | 159 | 100 |
Notes - excludes one missing case
With regards to the gender breakdown of the sample, 58% were male and 42% were female.
3.4. Religious Beliefs
The majority of respondents were Christian (96%). The Latvian respondent indicated that they were Buddhist, while one of the Polish respondents was Hindu.
Table 7 - Religious Beliefs
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Christian | 155 | 96 |
| No religious beliefs | 3 | 2 |
| Buddhist | 1 | 1 |
| Hindu | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
3.5. Household Information
Table 8 below shows the marital status of the respondents. This includes how many people were living with their husband/wife in Tameside and how many had a husband/wife/ partner living in their home country. As can be seen, just over a third of the sample were single (34%); 28% were living with their spouse in Tameside; while 26%were cohabiting. A smaller number of respondents (11%) indicated that their spouse or partner was living in their home country.
Table 8 - Marital Status
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Single | 55 | 34 |
| Husband/wife living with them in Tameside | 44 | 28 |
| Cohabiting in Tameside | 41 | 26 |
| Husband/wife/partner living in home country | 18 | 11 |
| Husband/wife/partner living elsewhere in the UK | 2 | |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
We also wanted to explore how many respondents had children; sixty-three respondents (39% of the sample) indicated that they did. The number of children that people had ranged from one to three, with over half (56%) indicating that they had one child.
Table 9 - Number of children
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| One | 35 | 556 |
| Two | 23 | 37 |
| Three | 5 | 8 |
| Total | 63 | 100 |
There were 101 children in total amongst the respondents; these were divided fairly evenly between the different age ranges.
Table 10 - Age Range of Children
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| 0 - 5 | 35 | 34 |
| 6 - 10 | 32 | 31 |
| 11 - 17 | 34 | 33 |
| Total | 101 | 100 |
3.6. Town of Residence
Table 11 below indicates which town within the Metropolitan Borough of Tameside people were currently living in. As can be seen, participants were living in each of the towns within the Borough, with the majority living in Ashton-under-Lyne (79%) followed by Dukinfield (9%). Stakeholder consultation also suggested that there was a large population of CEE migrants living in Ashton-under-Lyne (particularly around the town centre). They also made reference to known populations in Hyde as well as a growing community in Mossley.
Table 11 - Current Town of Residence
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Ashton-under-Lyne | 126 | 79 |
| Dukinfield | 15 | 9 |
| Stalybridge | 8 | 5 |
| Denton | 3 | 2 |
| Droylsden | 3 | 2 |
| Hyde | 3 | 2 |
| Audenshaw | 1 | 1 |
| Mossley | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
Chapter 4 - Migration Experiences
This chapter provides some information on the respondents’ migration experiences, focusing specifically on their migration within the UK as well as the reasons given for moving to Tameside.
4.1. Migration patterns prior to Tameside
Respondents were asked if they had lived somewhere else in the UK before moving to the study area; 27% of the sample indicated that they had lived somewhere else. Just over a quarter of these people had lived in two other places, while 21% indicated three other places before Tameside. With regards to where people had previously lived, the responses given in the interviews are listed below. The towns/cities mentioned most frequently were Manchester (31%) and Oldham (15%), with around two thirds of respondents moving from within Greater Manchester
Table 12 - List of previous towns/cities/areas
| Greater Manchester | North West Region | Other area of the UK |
|---|---|---|
| Bolton Bury Manchester Oldham Sale Salford Stockport |
Blackburn Blackpool Chester Liverpool Preston |
Aberdeen Birmingham Derbyshire Edinburgh Huddersfield London Sheffield Wales Yorkshire |
4.2. Reasons for Living in Tameside
Respondents were asked to indicate their reasons for living in Tameside. Respondents were able to select ALL responses that applied from the list of options shown in Table 13 below.
Table 13 - Reasons for living in Tameside
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| I had accommodation already arranged in Tameside | 87 | 54 |
| Friends already living in Tameside | 80 | 50 |
| Family/partner already living in Tameside | 62 | 39 |
| I had heard about the job opportunities in Tameside from other people | 62 | 39 |
| I had a job to come to in the Tameside area | 51 | 32 |
| Total | 51 | 32 |
As can be seen, having accommodation arranged in Tameside was mentioned frequently with over half of the sample (54%) giving this reason. Social networks were also important, with 50% having friends already living in Tameside and 39% having family in the area.
With regards to employment opportunities, 39% of the sample stated that they had heard about job opportunities from other people, while just under a third (32%) indicated that they had a job to come to in the area.
Of the reasons listed above, we asked respondents to indicate the main reason for choosing to live in Tameside (see Figure 4 and Table 14). As can be seen, having family or a partner living in Tameside was mentioned most frequently as the main reason (29%); however, having a job or employment opportunities were also key. While a number of people listed accommodation as one of the reasons for living in Tameside, this appeared to be lower down in terms of importance.
Table 14 - Main reason for living in Tameside
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Family/partner already living in Tameside | 44 | 29 |
| I had a job to come to in the Tameside area | 39 | 26 |
| I had heard about the job opportunities in Tameside from other people | 30 | 20 |
| I had accommodation already arranged in Tameside | 22 | 14 |
| Friends already living in Tameside | 17 | 11 |
| Total | 152 | 100 |
4.3. Frequency of visits to home country
Table 15 below shows the frequency of home country visits. The majority of respondents (84%) went home for a visit once or twice a year.
Table 15 - Frequency of visits to home country
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly | 1 | 1 |
| Three times a year | 10 | 6 |
| Twice Yearly | 57 | 36 |
| Once Yearly | 77 | 48 |
| Once every two years | 5 | 3 |
| Once every three years | 1 | 1 |
| Never | 5 | 3 |
| Other | 4 | 3 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
With regards to those who indicated ‘other’, two people indicated they had not been home yet, while the other two respondents said the following:
- 'I went in May to sort out legal document; that was first time in four years’
- ‘When needed’.
5. Chapter 5 - Education and Qualifications
This chapter focuses on the respondents’ level of education, training and qualifications, including exploring people’s English language skills.
5.1. Qualifications
Highest level of qualification
Respondents were asked to provide information about their highest level of educational qualification. This included both academic and vocational qualifications. The list of qualifications ranged from no formal qualifications through to higher/postgraduate degree (see Figure 5 and Table 16 below).
Table 16 - Highest level of educational qualification
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Postgraduate Degree | 16 | 10 |
| Undergraduate Degree 16 | 16 | 10 |
| Technical High School | 54 | 34 |
| Non Technical High School | 45 | 28 |
| Basic School | 26 | 16 |
| No Qualifications | 2 | 1 |
| Total | 159 | 100 |
Technical high school, non technical high school and basic school were included after consultation with community interviewers in a previous study3. They indicated that technical high school relates to those who have taken a vocational route, ending with a high-school diploma (for example, mechanic). Non technical high school is aimed at preparing people for higher education. Basic school relates to those who are not strong enough to pass exams to enter higher levels of education. These individuals can finish basic school, which prepare them to go into industry (for example, assistant car mechanic). However, we also consulted on this issue during the community interviewer training session in Tameside and the interviewers indicated that this range of qualifications would be understood by most respondents.
The majority of the sample (62%) had high school level qualifications (either technical or non technical). As can be seen, however, 20% of respondents had degree level qualifications, which was divided equally between undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. The degree level subjects that people had studied included: accounting; applied linguistics; banking and finance; biology; business administration; chemistry; economics; engineering law; marketing; recreation and tourism; sociology; theology ;as well as teaching qualifications.
With regards to the technical high school subjects, people made reference to agriculture; construction related trades (joiner, plumber, decorator, etc.); engineering; food production; health and beauty related subjects; mechanics; and textiles.
Putting the qualification data in the context of the wider Tameside population, ONS Annual Population Survey data (2009) indicates that 41% of the population are qualified to NVQ Level 3 (equivalent to A – Level), 19% are qualified to NVQ Level 4 or above (equivalent to HND, degree or higher degree), while just under 17% have no qualifications.
5.2. English Language Skills
We asked respondents to rate their English language skills. English language skills were broken down to include:
- Ability to speak English
- Ability to write English
- Understanding of spoken English and
- Understanding of written English.
As can be seen from Figures 6 – 9 below, 39% of the sample indicated that their ability to speak English was good or very good, while 31% indicated that it was poor or very poor. Comparing the different types of English language skills, ability to write English was the skill that people were least confident with, with over half of the sample (52%) indicating that they were poor or very poor at this. Understanding spoken English was the skill that people appeared to be most confident with, with 60% of respondents saying their ability was good or very good. The way the respondents in Tameside have rated the different English language skills is similar to that found in other studies carried out in Greater Manchester, but also across the UK.
Table 17 - English Language Skills
| Ability to speak English | Ability to write English | Understanding of spoken English | Understanding of written English | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | |
| Very Good | 18 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 35 | 22 | 24 | 15 |
| Good | 45 | 28 | 34 | 21 | 60 | 37 | 35 | 22 |
| Neither good nor poor | 45 | 28 | 29 | 18 | 30 | 19 | 38 | 23 |
| Poor | 28 | 18 | 36 | 23 | 17 | 11 | 27 | 17 |
| Very Poor | 21 | 13 | 47 | 29 | 18 | 11 | 36 | 23 |
| Don't Know | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 160 | 100 | 160 | 100 | 160 | 100 | 160 | 100 |
Enrolment on language courses
We asked people to indicate, from a range of options, what their current situation was in relation to studying English. Fifteen respondents (9%) were currently undertaking an English language course; 31% stated that they didn’t need to because they had already completed one (either in the UK or in their home country). Over a third of the sample (35%) indicated that they did not have time to study an English language course because of work commitments.
Table 18 - English language courses – which of the following apply to you?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Don’t have time – due to work commitments | 56 | 35 |
| Don’t need – completed course in home country | 27 | 17 |
| Don’t need – completed course in UK | 22 | 14 |
| Currently doing an English language course | 15 | 9 |
| Don’t have time – due to family commitments | 12 | 8 |
| On the waiting list for an English language course | 10 | 6 |
| Not interested – only here temporarily | 7 | 4 |
| Other | 7 | 4 |
| Not interested – it is too expensive | 4 | 3 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
With regards to the people who indicated ‘other’, when asked to elaborate, some respondents suggested that they were intending to put their name down for a course. Responses also made reference to the following issues:
- I feel too old to attend classes
- I would like to do a course but not many available
- I would like to learn but don’t know how to start and where to go to get started and find more about it.
Additional consultation with CEE migrants suggested mixed views on willingness to learn English. Some would proactively seek out classes, while others would be self taught (through work colleagues, friends, TV, etc.). Age was seen to influence willingness to learn English, with older people sometimes having more difficulty or less confidence. It was suggested, however, that some people simply did not want to prioritise language skills, particularly if they were living and working with people from their home country and did not intend to stay in the UK permanently. Migrants in this situation would often have very little interaction with British people. From a stakeholder perspective, language was perceived as the main barrier for migrants trying to access services in the area. It was highlighted that there had previously been a number of ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) providers in Tameside, but this had reduced when free provision came to an end. The library for example, used to host classes and suggested a decline in demand.
- We used to provide a rolling programme of 10 week courses in ESOL, but this was stopped when we noticed a demand for the classes.
Overall, however, it was felt that demand exceeded current supply. Consultation with Tameside Borough Council, for example, suggested that there were currently 74 ESOL learners on provision, with 141 people on the waiting list. They felt that demand had increased over the last few years (not just in relation to CEE migrants but migrant communities generally). In terms of ethnicity of learners, around 19% were White European. However, nearly a quarter (24%) of people on the waiting list were White European. They indicated that they did not have enough staff to meet the current demand, which would obviously require additional resources. Additional consultation with CEE migrants revealed that in some cases people had tried three times to get onto language courses but had been unsuccessful.
Chapter 6 - Employment
This chapter explores the data in relation to issues of employment. It focuses on issues relating to their current employment such as rates of pay, hours worked and overall satisfaction with employment. In order to assist analysis of employment, the information in relation to current employment has been reclassified using the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 20006, which provides a hierarchical classification of occupational skill. The relevant guidance has been used in relation to the application of these classification systems to the data gathered in Tameside.
6.1. Employment in home country
We wanted to explore how many people were in employment prior to coming to the UK. Just under half of the sample (49%) were employed in their home country, while 23% were unemployed. As can be seen, 17% of respondents indicated that they were in full time education prior to coming to the UK.
Table 19 - Employment status before coming to the UK
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Employed | 78 | 48 |
| Unemployed | 36 | 23 |
| Full time student | 27 | 17 |
| Unemployed homemaker/carer 11 | 11 | 7 |
| Self-employed | 8 | 5 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
The occupations that people referred to are listed below:
- Accountant
- Administrator
- Armed forces
- Assistant in cake shop
- Assistant manager in meat shop
- Assistant production manager
- Assistant to Managing Director
- Bar staff
- Book Keeper in Tax Offices
- Builder
- Bus Driver
- Butcher
- Car mechanic
- Car painter
- Cashier
- Clerk
- Confectioner
- Cook in a Hospital
- Driver
- Driving Instructor
- Factory Worker
- Food operative
- Hairdresser
- IT Technician
- Joiner
- Labourer
- Lake resort supervisor
- Manufacturing worker
- Market trader
- Nurse
- Owner of restaurant/pub
- Painter/decorator
- Petrol station attendant
- Police officer
- Sales person
- Seamstress
- Sewing machinist
- Shop assistant
- Taxi driver
- Teacher
- Upholstery technician
- Waitress
- Warehouse worker
- Welder
6.2. Employment experiences in the UK
This section focuses on the current employment experiences of the respondents. Employment status. With regards to current employment status, 81% of the sample were currently in paid employment, while 19% were not. With regards to the gender of the respondents who were currently without paid employment, 66% were female. A large proportion of these were also married or cohabiting, which may suggest dependence on a spouse or partner. Looking at this data in the context of the wider population, ONS Annual Population Survey data for Tameside (April 2009 – March 2010) suggests that 24% of the resident population were ‘economically inactive’.
With regards to how many different jobs people had had in the UK, this ranged from one job to having six or more jobs; around two thirds of respondents suggested that they had had between two and four different jobs. When asked why they had changed jobs people made reference to the following: the jobs were temporary, seasonal or agency work; they moved to a better paid job; they moved to a different area; or changes in personal circumstances. A small number of people also made reference to being made redundant in previous jobs.
We asked those who were not in employment how long they had been without a job;5 0% indicated that they had been without paid employment for less than three months, while 36% had been without paid employment for more than twelve months (the majority of these were married female respondents, which may suggest dependence on their spouse).
Table 20 - How long have you been without paid employment?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 1 month | 5 | 18 |
| 1 - 3 months | 9 | 32 |
| 4 - 6 months | 1 | 4 |
| 7 - 9 months | 2 | 7 |
| 10 - 12 months | 1 | 4 |
| More than 12 months | 10 | 36 |
| Total | 28 | 100 |
Current Occupation
The job titles that respondents gave in the interviews are listed below:
- Accountant
- Administration manager/Administrator
- Area manager
- Baker/Bakery operative
- Bus driver
- Butcher
- Car painter
- Care assistant
- Cashier
- Cleaner
- Community development worker
- Company representative
- Cook
- Factory line operative
- General assistant/operative
- Handyman
- Housing officer
- Joiner
- Labourer
- Laundry presser and packer
- Lettings negotiator
- Machine operator
- Maintenance support
- Oven operator
- Packer/picker
- Plant operator
- Production operative
- Projects co-ordinator
- Property administrator
- Purchasing co-ordinator
- Quality controller
- Recruitment consultant
- Sewing machinist
- Shop assistant
- Shop owner
- Tattooist
- Truck driver
- Warehouse operative
As highlighted previously, in order to aid analysis this information has been reclassified using the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). In line with previous research and national data, a large proportion of respondents (61%) were working in elementary occupations, which are primarily lower skilled jobs. This was followed by process, plant and machine occupations and skilled trades (13% and 10% respectively).
Table 21 - Current job (Standard Occupational Classification)
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Managers and Senior Officials | 4 | 3 |
| Professional Occupations | 1 | 1 |
| Associated Professional and Technical Occupations | 8 | 6 |
| Administrative and Secretarial Occupations | 2 | 2 |
| Skilled Trades Occupations | 13 | 10 |
| Personal Service Occupations | 1 | 1 |
| Sales and Customer Service Occupations | 4 | 3 |
| Process, Plant and Machine Operatives | 17 | 13 |
| Elementary Occupations | 79 | 61 |
| Total | 129 | 100 |
Table 22 below shows the occupational level by highest level of educational qualification. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the respondents with postgraduate and undergraduate degrees were least likely to be working in elementary occupations, while those with basic school qualifications were more likely to be undertaking lower skilled occupations.
Table 22 - Current job (Standard Occupational Classification, SOC) by educational qualification
| All | Postgraduate Degree | Undergraduate Degree | Technical high school | Non-tech high school | Basic school | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | |
| Managers and Senior Professionals | 4 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 5 | - | - | - | - |
| Professional Occupations | 1 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 7 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Associated Professional and Technical Occupations | 8 | 6 | 4 | 25 | 2 | 14 | 1 | 3 | - | - | 1 | 4 |
| Administrative and Secretarial Occupations | 2 | 2 | - | - | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| Skilled Trades Occupations | 13 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 14 | 4 | 11 | 5 | 13 | 1 | 4 |
| Personal Service Occupations | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Sales and Customer Service Occupations | 4 | 3 | - | - | 2 | 14 | - | - | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Process, Plant and Machine Operatives | 17 | 13 | 2 | 13 | - | - | 4 | 11 | 8 | 21 | 3 | 13 |
| Elementary Occupations | 79 | 61 | 7 | 44 | 5 | 36 | 25 | 68 | 24 | 63 | 17 | 74 |
| Total | 129 | 100 | 16 | 100 | 14 | 100 | 37 | 100 | 38 | 100 | 23 | 100 |
Location of current employment
The majority of respondents (72%) were working within the Borough of Tameside, with 50% of people working in Ashton-under-Lyne. This was followed by working in Manchester (21% of those who were working). Nearly all of the respondents were working within Greater Manchester, with the exception of four people who said they worked in various locations in the North West.
Table 23 - Location of Current Employment
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Tameside | ||
| Ashton-under-Lyne | 64 | 50 |
| Tameside (town not specified) | 9 | 7 |
| Denton | 7 | 5 |
| Dukinfield | 7 | 5 |
| Hyde | 2 | 2 |
| Audenshaw | 1 | 1 |
| Mossley | 1 | 1 |
| Stalybridge | 1 | 1 |
| Outside Tameside | ||
| Manchester | 27 | 21 |
| Various locations in the North West | 4 | 3 |
| Oldham | 3 | 2 |
| Salford | 1 | 1 |
| Stockport | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 129 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case. This information is based on the actual responses given by participants in an open ended question.
Recruitment
We wanted to explore how people had found their current job in the UK. Again social networks were a key factor with 42% of respondents suggesting they had found their current job through friends or relatives; however, nearly a quarter (24%) were employed through a UK employment/recruitment agency.
Table 24 - How did you find your current job in the UK?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Through friends/relatives already here | 54 | 42 |
| Employment/recruitment agency in UK | 31 | 24 |
| Other | 19 | 15 |
| Contacted employer myself directly | 18 | 14 |
| Job Centre Plus | 7 | 5 |
| Total | 129 | 100 |
With regards to the respondents who indicated some other means of finding their current job, some people indicated that they were self employed, others had used the internet. Interestingly, ten respondents (8% of those who were in paid employment)stated that they had been contacted/recruited directly by an employer. The majority of these indicated that they were working as general operatives in the manufacturing industry.
Security of employment
Just over three quarters (77%) of those who were working had a permanent job, while 16% indicated that their employment was temporary. As can be seen, four people did not know the security of their employment; two were packers, one was a bakery operative and one a cleaner. The majority of those who were in paid employment (82%) indicated that they had a written contract of employment; 14% said they did not.
Table 25 - Security of Employment
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Permanent | 99 | 77 |
| Temporary | 20 | 16 |
| Don’t know | 4 | 3 |
| Fixed term contract | 3 | 2 |
| Self employed | 3 | 2 |
| Total | 129 | 100 |
Official registration
We asked those who were currently working to indicate whether or not they were currently registered on the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS); 97% of respondents indicated that they were. As highlighted in Chapter 1, people from Romania and Bulgaria (A2 countries) have different access to the labour market. The Romanian respondent who was included in the sample indicated that they had authorisation to work in the UK. We also asked respondents if they had registered for a National Insurance number (NINo); 99% of those who were working indicated that they were, with just one respondent stating that they were not.
Hours worked
The number of hours worked per week ranged from sixteen hours or less to sixty-one to seventy hours. Over half of those who were working (55%) worked thirty to forty hours per week. Just over a quarter (27%) worked forty-one to fifty hours per week, while 12% worked over fifty hours.
Table 26 - Hours worked per week
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| 16 or less | 1 | 1 |
| 17 – 29 | 7 | 5 |
| 30 – 40 | 71 | 55 |
| 41 – 50 | 34 | 27 |
| 51 – 60 | 13 | 10 |
| 61 – 70 | 2 | 2 |
| Total | 128 | 100 |
With regards to the eight respondents who were currently working twenty-nine hours or less, seven of these were female. The majority of these were married or cohabiting.
Current pay level
Table 27 below shows respondents’ current weekly pay. Over half of the sample (55%) were being paid between £200 and £300 per week.
Table 27 - Current Weekly Pay
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| £100 or less | 1 | 1 |
| £101 - £150 | 7 | 6 |
| £151 - £200 | 10 | 9 |
| £201 - £250 | 37 | 32 |
| £251 - £300 | 26 | 23 |
| £301 - £350 | 13 | 11 |
| £351 - £400 | 6 | 5 |
| £401 - £450 | 7 | 6 |
| £451 or more | 8 | 7 |
| Total | 115 | 100 |
Note: excludes fourteen people who indicated that they would prefer not to say
The respondents who were earning £150 or less were working part time hours, with the exception of one respondent who indicated that they were earning less than £100 but working between forty-one to fifty hours per week (approximately £2 to £2.44 per hour). This individual was working in a warehouse. A total of twelve people (9%) 50 appeared to be earning under the national minimum wage; however, given that a range was provided for both wages and hours per week, this number may be higher. With regards to who paid them, 83% were paid directly by their employer, while 14% were paid by a recruitment/employment agency. Three respondents indicated that they were paid by customers as they were self employed.
Table 28 - Who Pays You
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Employer | 104 | 83 |
| Recruitment agency/labour provider | 18 | 14 |
| Self employed – paid by customers | 3 | 3 |
| Total | 125 | 100 |
Note: excludes four missing cases
Support provided by employer
We wanted to explore whether any employers provided advice or assistance to employees in relation to local services or language support (Tables 29 and 30 below). As can be seen, 21% people indicated that their employer had provided advice/assistance in relation to local services and accommodation.
Table 29 - Does your employer provide advice/assistance on any of the following?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| How to locate local services (i.e. Drs, dentist, etc.) | 27 | 21 |
| How to get accommodation | 27 | 21 |
| How access benefits/tax credits | 10 | 8 |
Note: this excludes the people who indicated that they were self employed
With regards to English language support, fifty-one people (40%) indicated that they did not need English language support at work as they could speak English, while 23% said that they did not need language support for their job. Additional consultation with CEE migrants suggested that this latter group of people are those referred to previously, who are currently working and living with people from their home country and therefore have limited contact with British people. Within the workplace, there would be an individual who would provide language support when required.
However, 43% of the respondents who were currently working indicated that work colleagues would help with translation if required, while 21% said that there was someone employed within their organisation to assist with translation. One person stated that they had English classes at work; they were currently working in a warehouse.
Table 30 - Does your employer provide English language support?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| My work colleagues translate for me | 55 | 43 |
| We have a person employed specifically to help with translation | 27 | 21 |
| My employer advises on where to go to learn English | 9 | 7 |
| Employer provides professional interpreters when required | 2 | 2 |
| We have English classes at work | 1 | 1 |
Level of satisfaction with current job
We also wanted to explore people’s level of satisfaction with the following aspects of their current job:
- Rates of pay
- Hours of work
- The skill level at which they work
- The way they are treated by their employer and
- The way they are treated by other workers.
| Pay | Hours | Skill Level | Employer | Other Workers | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | No | % | |
| Very satisfied | 28 | 22 | 33 | 26 | 31 | 24 | 35 | 28 | 36 | 28 |
| Satisfied | 44 | 34 | 61 | 47 | 44 | 34 | 65 | 51 | 72 | 57 |
| Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 20 | 16 | 23 | 18 | 22 | 17 | 12 | 9 | 12 | 9 |
| Dissatisfied | 21 | 16 | 5 | 4 | 19 | 15 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 2 |
| Very dissatisfied | 15 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 13 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Don’t know | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Total | 129 | 100 | 129 | 100 | 129 | 100 | 127 | 100 | 127 | 100 |
Note: responses for treatment by employer and treatment by other workers excludes two missing cases.
Overall levels of satisfaction with current employment appeared to be quite high. The areas where people expressed most satisfaction in relation to employment were treatment by other workers (85% satisfied or very satisfied) and treatment by employers (79% were satisfied or very satisfied).
The issue which people appeared to have least satisfaction with was rate of pay, with 28% being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with this. This was followed by the skills level at which they were working, compared to their skills and qualifications, with a quarter of respondents being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with this aspect of their employment.
With regards to any issues or problems with current employment, the majority of respondents (77%) said there were no problems with their current employment. The respondents who did have issues or problems with their employment made reference to two main issues: the level of pay and the perception of unfair treatment/discrimination. The following are some of the comments that were made:
- ‘I feel discriminated and victimized by British fellow employees’.
- ‘Lack of promotion, feel that English people are preferred’.
- ‘Not fair treatment - overtime pay, UK citizens get double [even though we are] employed by the same agency’.
- ‘The pay is not very good and treatment is poor’.
- ‘Unfair treatment, no pay rises for Polish employees’.
A couple of respondents also made reference to the job not being in line with their skill level:
- ‘[The] job does not comply to my skills, so my only problem is I don't like it’.
- ‘It’s very hard to work with uneducated people’.
Changes in employment opportunities
We asked all respondents – both those employed and those currently without paid employment – whether they felt that employment opportunities had changed since their arrival in the UK. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) felt that it had become more difficult to find employment since their arrival in the UK, while just two respondents thought it had become easier. Nearly a quarter of people did not know.
Table 32 - Changes in Employment Opportunities since coming to the UK.
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| It has got harder to find work | 105 | 66 |
| Don’t know | 38 | 24 |
| Employment opportunities have not changed | 15 | 9 |
| It has got easier to find work | 2 | 1 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
We asked all respondents what assistance they needed to make better use of their skills in the local job market. Training to improve English language skills and new/higher qualifications were mentioned most frequently (69% and 56% respectively). However, 39% of people also made reference to needing more work experience and nearly a quarter (24%) felt that being able to convert their qualifications would help. The issue around lack of recognition of overseas qualifications has been acknowledged in previous studies. A survey carried out by the Chambers of Commerce North West, for example, revealed that 71% of the businesses they interviewed who employed migrant workers did not have procedures for recognising qualifications from home countries. There is evidence that initiatives have been developed in order to recognise the skills of new migrants and assist with occupational mobility. This includes skills recognition and vocational adaptation pathways projects which include carrying out skills audits of migrant communities and providing vocational ESOL.
Table 33 - Assistance needed to make better use of skills
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Training to improve English language skills | 110 | 69 |
| New or higher qualifications | 90 | 56 |
| More work experience | 62 | 39 |
| Help converting existing qualifications to UK equivalents | 39 | 24 |
| References from UK employers | 28 | 18 |
| More or better childcare | 21 | 13 |
| Other | 2 | 1 |
With regards to the two people who indicated ‘other’, one indicated that they were not interested in progression because of the temporary nature of their stay: ‘[I] don’t want to change job, [I am] here temporarily’, while the other respondent wanted practical experience related to their profession.
Chapter 7 - Accommodation
This chapter looks at the accommodation experiences of the respondents interviewed in Tameside. It focuses specifically on their current housing situation, as well as looking at future accommodation preferences and aspirations.
7.1 Accommodation Experiences in Tameside
The following section looks at the number of homes; current tenure; property size; levels of overcrowding; rent levels; and overall satisfaction with accommodation.
Previous accommodation
The number of properties people had lived in ranged from one to six or more, with the majority indicating one or two properties. With regards to the respondents who had lived in five or more properties, the majority of these had been in the UK the longest (i.e. arrived between 2004 and 2006). Additional consultation with CEE migrants indicated that people often had a similar accommodation ‘pathway’ in the UK; for example, starting in lower quality (and sometimes exploitative)accommodation or living with friends/family, until they could afford to move to another property and had a better understanding of what was available.
Table 34 - Number of Properties
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| One | 49 | 31 |
| Two | 34 | 21 |
| Three | 28 | 18 |
| Four | 27 | 17 |
| Five | 11 | 7 |
| Six or more | 10 | 6 |
| Total | 159 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case
In terms of the type of accommodation people were currently living in, nearly half (48%) lived in a terraced house. Over a third of respondents were currently living in a flat, the majority of whom were living in a purpose-built block of flats.
Table 35 - Current Accommodation Type
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Terraced house | 77 | 48 |
| Flat (purpose built block) | 46 | 29 |
| Flat (converted house) | 15 | 9 |
| Semi-detached house | 14 | 9 |
| Detached house | 5 | 3 |
| Other bungalow | 1 | 1 |
| Other | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 159 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case
The respondent who indicated ‘other’ stated that they were currently homeless.
With regards to the tenure of their current accommodation, 59% were living in the private rented sector (either through a letting agency or private landlord), while 14% were living in socially rented accommodation, particularly through a housing association. In addition, there were also a number of respondents whose accommodation was provided by their employer (16%). Additional consultation with CEE migrants revealed that these respondents were all working for a particular manufacturing company. Many of them had been directly recruited from overseas for the job and the employer had found their accommodation. They were therefore all concentrated in flats in one particular area. These migrants were referred to previously in relation to language skills and employment. They were currently living and working with people from their home country and had limited contact beyond this network.
Table 36 - Current Tenure
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Renting from a letting agency | 48 | 30 |
| Renting from a private landlord | 46 | 29 |
| Accommodation provided by employer | 26 | 16 |
| Renting from a social landlord | 23 | 14 |
| Owns (with a mortgage) | 6 | 4 |
| Other | 6 | 4 |
| Owns (without a mortgage) | 3 | 2 |
| Shared ownership | 2 | 1 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
With regards to the respondents who indicated ‘other’, the majority indicated that they were staying at family or friends houses.
Social networks were important in accessing accommodation, with nearly half of the sample (47%) stating that they had found their current property through friends/family. Given the current tenures identified above, a number of people indicated that they had found properties through letting agencies or contact with housing associations. With regards to the respondents whose accommodation had been arranged for them prior to their arrival in the UK, the majority of these (eight people) said that this had been organised by their employer.
Table 37 - How did you find your current home in Tameside?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Friends/family already living in Tameside | 73 | 47 |
| Letting agent | 34 | 22 |
| Local newspapers | 12 | 8 |
| Arranged for me before I arrived in the UK | 10 | 6 |
| Through housing association | 8 | 5 |
| Local estate agent | 9 | 6 |
| UK employer arranged it for me | 4 | 3 |
| Other | 4 | 3 |
| Internet | 3 | 2 |
| Total | 157 | 100 |
Note: excludes three missing cases
Rent or mortgage payments
The rent or mortgage payments per month range from less than £200 to £600 or more per month. Just over half of the sample (54%) paid between £351 and £500 per month. The accommodation that was less than £200 per month was primarily that provided by an employer, while those that were paying £601 or more were buying their own home.
Table 38 - Rent or mortgage level paid per month
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Less than £200 | 19 | 12 |
| £201 – £250 | 6 | 4 |
| £251 – £300 | 5 | 3 |
| £301 – £350 | 14 | 9 |
| £351 – £400 | 21 | 13 |
| £401 – £450 | 47 | 30 |
| £451 – £500 | 17 | 11 |
| £501 – £550 | 10 | 6 |
| £551 – £600 | 3 | 2 |
| £601 or more | 2 | 1 |
| Don’t know | 7 | 4 |
| Don’t pay rent/mortgage | 7 | 4 |
| Total | 157 | 100 |
Note: excludes two missing cases
Living arrangements
In terms of the size of the properties, these ranged from one to five bedrooms, with the majority of people living in two or three bedroom properties (62% and 26% respectively).
Table 39 - Number of bedrooms in current home
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| One | 12 | 8 |
| Two | 99 | 62 |
| Three | 42 | 26 |
| Four | 5 | 3 |
| Five | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 159 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case
When asked if people felt that they had enough space in their current accommodation; 85% of the sample said yes, 11% said no, while 3% did not know. The people who did not have enough space made reference to not having enough bedrooms for the number of people living in the property, with twenty two respondents (14%) indicating that other rooms in their property – for example, lounge/living room – were used to sleep in by household members. Additional consultation with CEE migrants suggested that landlords were not necessarily aware of overcrowding in properties as it was common for people to accommodate friends/family who were trying to save for their own place, but also common for people to try to reduce expenditure on accommodation by subletting.
Issues or problems with accommodation
We asked respondents a general question about any issues or problems they had experienced in relation to accommodation in Tameside; 92% of the sample said they had not experienced any problems. The respondents who had experienced problems made reference to issues with landlords/letting agencies; not being able to access 60 socially rented accommodation; and general problems finding suitable accommodation. These were some of the comments made:
- ‘[I had a] big problem with agency, [it was] not possible to get [my] deposit back. [The] landlord was letting himself in while I was away from the property, not doing jobs, [the] boiler broken for three weeks during winter.’
- ‘[I] can’t get a council house or flat’.
- ‘It is not very easy to find a good house’.
- ‘When I first arrived I couldn't rent a property as I didn't have UK references’.
7.2 Homelessness / Rough Sleeping
The survey also sought some information in relation to any experiences of homelessness and rough sleeping. This included not only rough sleeping but also those who had stayed with friends/family because they had nowhere else to live. This section looks at how many people had experienced these situations and the causes.
Seven people (4% of the sample) indicated that they had slept rough since living in Tameside, while thirty-seven people (23%) had stayed with friends/family because they had nowhere else to live. The people who had slept rough made reference to a range of causes, including: financial problems and lack of employment; domestic issues; and eviction. The following are some of the comments that were made:
- ‘[I was] evicted by previous occupier’.
- ‘[I] had nowhere to sleep and didn't have a job, [I] fell out with my boyfriend, he locked me out’.
- ‘Since I lost [my] job I couldn't afford to rent’.
- ‘There was no empty bedroom for me and not enough money to rent own property, agencies required too much paperwork - references, bonds - which I didn't have at the time’.
In terms of how they came out of this situation, three people had gone on to rent properties in Tameside and two people had moved in with friends/family. One respondent did not indicate how they came out of this situation, while one indicated that they were currently still homeless and looking for a suitable property.
With regards to those who had stayed with friends/family because they had nowhere else to live, again, people made reference to not being able to afford their own place and not having the required bond and references for accommodation. A number of people also indicated that they had lived with family/friends when they first arrived until they were able to find their own place.
7.3 Accommodation Aspirations
This final section focuses on whether or not respondents intended moving to a different property in the next twelve months. Nearly half of the sample (48%) indicated that they would not be moving in the next twelve months as they are happy where they are, while 23% said that they did intend moving. A further 28% of respondents did not know. The respondents who indicated that they were likely to move were primarily those that were single or cohabiting, rather than those who were married.
Table 40 - Do you think you will move to a different property in the future?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| No – I am happy where I am | 76 | 48 |
| Don’t know | 45 | 28 |
| Yes – I will move | 37 | 23 |
| Other | 2 | 1 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
With regards to the two respondents who indicated ‘other’, one was waiting to hear from a housing association and one indicated that they would be returning to their home country.
We asked those who indicated that they wanted to move what their housing preference would be. The majority of those who wanted to move to a different property wanted to live in rented accommodation, either through a private landlord or socially rented accommodation (see Figure 21 and Table 41). Five people wanted to buy their own home (14%). The three respondents who indicated ‘other’ said they wanted to live with their friends or partner, while two respondents said they wanted to move but did not know the housing options available to them.
Table 41 - Future Accommodation Preference
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Rent from private landlord | 16 | 43 |
| Rent from social landlord | 11 | 30 |
| Buying own home | 5 | 14 |
| Other | 3 | 8 |
| Don’t know the housing options | 2 | 5 |
| Total | 37 | 100 |
Across the sample as a whole, 88% understood entitlement to housing (141 respondents) while 12% did not.
Chapter 8 - Community and Neighbourhood
This chapter aims to offer some insight in relation to respondents’ lives in Tameside outside of the workplace. In particular it offers an analysis of the data with regard to issues of community relations, focusing on people’s views on living in Tameside and sense of involvement with the local community.
8.1 Views on Tameside
This section focuses on people’s general views of living and working in Tameside, as well as focusing on their experiences in their specific neighbourhood.
Views on Tameside as places to live and work
Nearly three quarters of the sample (74%) indicated that they would recommend Tameside as a place to live and work to friends/family (just eight respondents said they would not).
With regards to those who would recommend Tameside as a place to live and work, people made reference to it being a nice place to live; affordable accommodation; and a convenient location in terms of access to facilities. The following are a few of the comments that were made:
- ‘Because it’s convenient, fairly clean and friendly to foreigners’.
- ‘[There are] a lot of recruitment agencies, [I’ve] never been without a job for longer than two weeks’
- ‘In my opinion it’s a very safe and convenient place to live’.
- ‘Job opportunities, people are friendly, nice place, good connections’.
- ‘Nice area, not as violent or hectic as Manchester’.
- ‘People are friendly, nice to work with, [I am] in [the] process of purchasing [a] house in Tameside’.
With regards to those who said they would not recommend Tameside, the comments mainly related to difficulties finding work:
- ‘It is hard to get a job’.
- ‘No work after credit crunch, payments at work went down, pound is weaker than against Euro. Ashton, where most of my friends live, is not safe, too many ‘smack heads’.
- ‘[I] prefer bigger and better industrial cities in the UK.
However, a very small number of people also made reference to experiences of racism in their responses:
- ‘Racist place with dirty streets’.
- ‘Work is difficult to find, people are racist’.
Views on their specific area
Before exploring people’s views on the area they live in we wanted to find out the reason they lived in that particular area of Tameside. Respondents were able to select all responses that applied from the list of options shown in Figure 22 and Table 42 below. These have been analysed by the different area that people were currently living in; however, we need to take into account that some areas had only one or two respondents.
Looking at the sample as a whole, having friends living in the area, affordable accommodation, and proximity to work and local facilities were the factors mentioned most frequently.
Table 42 - Reasons for living in their specific area of Tameside
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| I have friends living in this area | 92 | 58 |
| Affordable accommodation in area | 92 | 58 |
| It is near work | 88 | 55 |
| It is near local facilities (i.e. shops, etc.) | 83 | 52 |
| I have family living in this area | 51 | 32 |
| It is near local schools | 35 | 22 |
| I have no choice | 20 | 13 |
| Other | 4 | 3 |
With regards to the respondents who indicated that they had no choice in terms of area, twelve respondents (60% of those with no choice) stated that their employer chose/provided their accommodation. Four respondents (20%) had no choice because they were housed by a housing association. Two people had been forced to a leave a previous property, one lived in that area because their partner did, while one person indicated that they had no choice because they had no job or money: ‘[I have] no job, no money – [I] feel helpless’.
With regards to those who stated ‘other’, again respondents made reference to living in an area because their partner was there; however, two people also stated that they lived there because they liked the area.
Of the reasons listed above, we asked respondents to indicate the main reason for choosing to live in their particular area. Just over a quarter of respondents (26%) gave proximity to work as the main reason for living in that area, followed by affordable accommodation (20%).
Table 43 - Main reason for living in area
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| It is near work | 41 | 27 |
| Affordable accommodation in area | 32 | 21 |
| I have family living in this area | 28 | 18 |
| I have friends living in this area | 19 | 12 |
| It is near local schools | 10 | 7 |
| Employer provided/chose accommodation | 9 | 6 |
| Other | 8 | 5 |
| It is near local facilities (i.e. shops, etc.) | 7 | 4 |
| Total | 154 | 100 |
Just over three quarters of respondents (76%) were satisfied with their local area as a place to live (with over a fifth of these respondents indicating that they were very satisfied). This is higher than in the Place Survey for Tameside, which indicated that 67.2% of people were satisfied with their local area as a place to live.
Table 44 - Satisfaction with local area as a place to live
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Very satisfied | 33 | 21 |
| Fairly satisfied | 88 | 54 |
| Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 33 | 21 |
| Fairly dissatisfied | 4 | 3 |
| Very dissatisfied | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 159 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case
Just five people said they were dissatisfied with their local area. These respondents primarily made reference to issues with local teenagers and generally not feeling safe. For example, the person who was very dissatisfied said the following:
- ‘Problems with teenagers, people in general are very racist towards foreigners’.
One respondent also felt they were too far from local facilities.
8.2 Community engagement
This section will look at the data in relation to contact with members of the wider community and indicators of cohesion.
Sense of cohesion
Over two thirds of respondents (69%) were living in an area which had people from different ethnic backgrounds. This percentage was highest for the respondents who were living in Ashton-under-Lyne (75%).
With regards to whether or not respondents felt that people from different ethnic backgrounds mixed well together, 46% agreed that they did, 20% were ambivalent,while 12% disagreed. A number of respondents (19%) indicated that they did not know. The Place Survey for Tameside suggested that 67.1% of respondents agreed people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area.
Table 45 - Do you agree/disagree that your area is a place where people from different backgrounds mix well together?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 5 | 3 |
| Agree | 69 | 43 |
| Neither agree or disagree | 32 | 20 |
| Disagree | 14 | 9 |
| Strongly disagree | 5 | 3 |
| Don’t know | 30 | 19 |
| The people are all from the same background | 5 | 3 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
With regards to community tensions, the service providers who took part in the consultation generally felt that there was little evidence of community tensions or threats to social cohesion as a result of the presence of Central and Eastern European migrants. It was suggested that in previous years there may have been a perception from some members of the indigenous population that migrants 'had come to take our jobs'; however, it was seen as less of an issue now. Overall, the stakeholders interviewed in Tameside felt that Central and Eastern European migrants had integrated into the local community.
Belonging to their neighbourhood.
Over half of the sample (53%) had a fairly strong sense of belonging to their local neighbourhood, while a quarter indicated that their sense of belonging was not very strong. Fourteen respondents (9%) stated that they did not know. The Place Survey for Tameside indicated that 54.9% of respondents had a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood.
Table 46 - Sense of belonging to their neighbourhood
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Very strongly | 7 | 4 |
| Fairly strongly | 84 | 53 |
| Not very strongly | 40 | 25 |
| Not at all strongly | 14 | 9 |
| Don’t know | 14 | 9 |
| Total | 159 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case
Contact with other people
We wanted to explore how much contact the respondents in our sample had with people from their own country and with British people. Overall, respondents had some contact with people from their home country, with only one person having no contact. This person indicated that they worked twelve hours a day so did not have time.
Table 47 - Contact with people from home country
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| A lot | 58 | 36 |
| Quite a lot | 68 | 42 |
| A little | 33 | 21 |
| None at all | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
We asked those who had contact with people from their home country, where this contact took place. Nearly three quarters of respondents indicated that they had contact with people at work. Following this, churches/places of worship or people’s houses were mentioned most frequently.
Table 48 - Places where you meet people from your home country
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Work | 118 | 74 |
| Church/place of worship | 77 | 48 |
| Own or friends houses | 77 | 48 |
| Pubs | 36 | 23 |
| Sports centres/events | 32 | 20 |
| Community groups (i.e. Polish, etc.) | 21 | 13 |
| Social clubs/community groups | 14 | 9 |
| Shops | 14 | 9 |
In addition to the places listed above, a small number of people had contact with people from their home country at local schools.
Nearly all respondents had some form of contact with British people. Six people said that they had no contact with British people; these people all indicated that this was because they could not speak English. Nobody indicated that they didn’t want contact with British people.
Table 49 - Contact with British People
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| A lot | 28 | 18 |
| Quite a lot | 64 | 40 |
| A little | 60 | 38 |
| None at all | 6 | 4 |
| Total | 158 | 100 |
8.3 Perceptions of safety and security
This section focuses on respondents’ experiences of crime in Tameside, as well as overall feelings of safety in their local area.
Experiences of crime and hate crime
We wanted to establish the extent to which people or members of their household had been the victim of any crime, including hate crime, while living in Tameside. As can be seen, 70% of respondents indicated that they had not experienced any crime/hate crime. With regards to those who had experienced some form of crime, crime against property was most common (14%), followed by hate crime (12%).
Table 50 - Experiences of crime/hate crime
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Not experienced crime/hate crime | 112 | 70 |
| Crime against property (e.g. burglary) | 22 | 14 |
| Hate crime | 19 | 12 |
| Crime against person (e.g. mugging) | 14 | 9 |
Some of the people who had experienced hate crime made reference to the following incidents:
- ‘English people don’t like the Polish; [they] called me names and told me to go home’.
- ‘[I] experience racial discrimination at work’.
- ‘I fought with guys who didn't like my accent’.
- ‘Teenagers attacked me in winter, shouting ‘go back to Poland'.
- ‘[We were] kicked out of a pub because we spoke Polish’.
Forty respondents (25%) indicated that they had had contact with the Police since living in Tameside. Three of these respondents indicated that their actions were the reason for Police contact (they referred to driving offence, assault and ‘causing trouble’). The remaining respondents primarily had contact with the Police as victims of crime, particularly in burglary cases. A small number of people had also had contact with the Police as witnesses to a crime.
Consultation with a Police representative suggested that they have had contact with Central and Eastern European migrants as both victims and perpetrators of crime in Tameside. The types of crime that people have been known to commit are primarily around driving or traffic offences, such as parking on double yellow lines, but also drink-driving. With regards to being victims of crime, one stakeholder suggested that this sometimes related to hate crime:
‘This has usually taken the form of verbal abuse but sometimes physical too’.
Overall feelings of safety and security
We also wanted to ascertain if people felt safe or unsafe when outside in their local area during the day and after dark. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, feelings of safety in their local area decreased after dark; for example, the percentage of people who felt safe reduced from 87% during the day to 47% after dark, with over a quarter of respondents (27%) indicating that they felt unsafe after dark.
Table 51 - How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area?
| During the Day | After Dark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | |
| Very Safe | 39 | 24 | 15 | 9 |
| Fairly safe | 101 | 63 | 61 | 68 |
| Neither safe nor unsafe | 17 | 11 | 36 | 23 |
| Fairly unsafe | 3 | 2 | 33 | 21 |
| Very unsafe | - | - | 9 | 6 |
| Don’t know | - | - | 6 | 4 |
| Total | 160 | 100 | 160 | 100 |
Chapter 9 - Access to Goods, Services and Facilities
This chapter looks at people’s level of engagement with local facilities and services.
9.1 Use of health care services
Services used
Respondents were asked to indicate which health care services they used. A total of sixteen people (10%) stated that they did not use any health care services in Tameside. The majority of respondents (88%) indicated that they were registered with or used a doctor/GP, while 45% used a dentist.
With regards to the respondents who did not use any health services, the majority suggested that they would return home for treatment; however, a small number indicated that they had not yet needed to use any health services but would go to hospital if they did.
Table 52 - Use of health services
| Number | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percentage | ||
| GP/Dr | 141 | 88 |
| Dentist | 72 | 45 |
| Accident & Emergency (A & E) | 50 | 31 |
| Walk-in centre | 25 | 18 |
| NHS Direct | 18 | 11 |
| Health visitor | 12 | 8 |
| Midwife | 12 | 8 |
Consultation with a health care representative highlighted that previously there was a system of allocating new patients to GP surgeries. However, this system had been changed with the expectation that migrants, just like any new patient, would register directly with their local GP. It was felt that this reconfiguring of the service complemented the greater familiarity that migrants now have with health care services in the area.
9.2 Education for children
Just under a quarter of respondents (22%) indicated that they had children attending local schools (see Table 53). With regards to the respondent who indicated ‘other’, they stated that their children lived with their partner.
Table 53 - Do you have children attending a local school?
| Number | Percentage | |
| I don’t have children | 73 | 46 |
| Yes | 36 | 22 |
| My children are in my home country | 26 | 16 |
| No – my children are too young to attend school | 14 | 9 |
| No – my children are too old to attend school | 10 | 6 |
| Other | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 160 | 100 |
|---|
Three primary schools in Tameside took part in the stakeholder consultation (all located in Ashton-under-Lyne). One school indicated that they did not have any Central and Eastern European children as the families had moved their children to a Catholic school. A strong preference for children attending faith schools has been highlighted in previous studies carried out with CEE migrants15. One of the schools had only a small number (four children). Although this was a Catholic school, they indicated that the number of pupils had reduced as people were choosing to transfer to other Catholic schools which were closer to the Polish community in that area. It was suggested that parents were often unaware that the UK has both faith and non faith schools, as in their home country there are primarily faith schools. It can, therefore, be a few months until they realise and then they request that the child be moved to a faith school. It was highlighted that there is now a system in place whereby upon application to the schools the family are interviewed and their expectations and suitability can be established prior to placing them in a school. As one stakeholder pointed out:
‘This seems to work well for both the families and the schools’.
The third school had around twenty children from Central and Eastern Europe.
Again, language was highlighted as a key issue. Although the children were becoming settled in local schools now, a representative from one of the schools described the children’s progress as a ‘long-term project’. It was suggested that children were able to progress better if they had joined the school at a young age and remained in the school long term. It was seen to be more difficult for those who join school at an older age:
‘If the children have joined the school quite late then it may not be possible for them to sit the SATS exams in Year 6 – this means that they are held back a year, and not begin high school until a year later either’.
It was suggested that the parents have expectations that more individual help should be given to ensure children can progress. Previously, schools were able to access funds so they could provide this additional support; however, it was highlighted that this funding had now come to an end.
There was an additional issue in relation to access to school places. It was highlighted that because of the way the system monitors achievement (i.e. statistically), even though CEE children may have made good progress individually, compared to other pupils they can be seen as failing. This is then reflected in a school’s overall achievements and it was suggested that this may act as a disincentive for schools to take on migrant children.
Finally, representatives from the schools highlighted issues around attendance. It was suggested that parents sometimes want to be able to take children out of school for longer periods to visit their home country; however, this can be disruptive to their education. Again this issue has been highlighted in previous studies.
9.3 Other goods, services and facilities
This section looks at respondents’ use of a range of other services and local facilities.
Local facilities/services
Respondents were asked if they currently used any other local services or facilities (see Table 54 below). Perhaps unsurprisingly, local shops were most commonly used (98% of respondents). This was followed by public transport (72%). However, it was evident that a number of other local services and facilities were being used; for example, churches/places of worship (58% of respondents); libraries (41%); and sports facilities (40%).
Table 54 - Use of selected local services and facilities
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Shops | 157 | 98 |
| Public transport | 115 | 72 |
| Local church/place of worship | 92 | 58 |
| Libraries | 65 | 41 |
| Sports facilities | 64 | 40 |
| Local colleges | 42 | 46 |
| Local schools | 35 | 22 |
| Children’s centres | 28 | 18 |
| Job Centre Plus | 28 | 18 |
| Community centre/social club | 18 | 11 |
Benefit take-up
This section explores the level of benefit take-up amongst the respondents, including looking at people’s understanding of their entitlement.
The data suggests that 43% of the sample were currently accessing some form of benefit in the UK. The data reveals that the benefits that were taken up most frequently were those relating to children or low income employment. Just two respondents were in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance and four were receiving Income Support. No respondents were receiving Incapacity Benefit/Employment and Support Allowance or Statutory Sick pay. With regards to understanding of entitlement, 90% of respondents (144 people) stated that they understood their entitlement to benefits, while 10% did not.
Table 55 - Levels of benefit take up
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Working Tax Credit | 38 | 24 |
| Child Benefit | 37 | 23 |
| Child Tax Credit | 35 | 22 |
| Housing Benefit | 15 | 9 |
| Council Tax Benefit | 11 | 7 |
| Income Support | 4 | 3 |
| Job Seekers Allowance | 2 | 1 |
Interpretation services
We asked all respondents if they had been able to access interpretation or translation services (if required) during their contact with any of the services and facilities highlighted in this chapter (see Table 56 below). As can be seen, 43% indicated that an interpreter was provided, if required, while 18% had relied upon informal assistance (i.e. family or friends).
Three people indicated that they had not been able to use an interpreter. When asked if this had caused any problems for them, the following responses were given:
- ‘I did not ask and one was not provided’.
- ‘I managed by myself’.
- ‘When I was sorting out my insurance number and [an] incident with the local youths I never got an interpreter and had difficulty understanding what was going on’.
With regards to the respondent who indicated ‘other’, this person stated that they had not used any services or facilities yet.
Table 56 - Were you able to use an interpreter?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes – an interpreter was provided | 69 | 43 |
| I do not need an interpreter | 57 | 36 |
| Family/ friends helped with interpreting | 29 | 18 |
| No – I was not able to use one | 3 | 2 |
| Other | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 159 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case
Stakeholder consultation revealed mixed views on levels of use of interpretation/ translation services. The stakeholders who took part in the study were not using interpretation and translation services with any regularity. Three main reasons were highlighted for this. Firstly, some stakeholders reported that migrant communities’ language skills had improved so no longer required as much assistance. Secondly, the resource implications were highlighted by some stakeholders who suggested that they no longer had access to funds to pay for external interpretation services. Thirdly, some services had employed workers with language skills, which meant they no longer required external services. However, it was suggested by stakeholders that they used services such as Language Line as and when required.
Issues with local services
We asked respondents if they had experienced any issues or problems when using services in Tameside. The majority of people (84%) indicated that they had experienced no problems with the services. Twenty-five respondents made reference to specific issues. Nearly a third of these referred to waiting a long time for appointments, particularly in relation to health care services. However, a small number of people made reference to other problems they had experienced, again a number of these appeared to relate to health care, although not exclusively. These comments appeared to relate to issues with staff they had come into contact with rather than services as a whole:
- 'Once, the nurses and doctor were arrogant and ignorant’.
- ‘Nurses weren't polite, didn't like Polish people’.
- ‘Job Centre Plus was not helpful’.
- ‘Sometimes the translation was inaccurate’.
- ‘On one occasion interpreter failed to arrive’.
From a stakeholder perspective, overall the service providers who took part in this consultation did not feel that the arrival of CEE migrants had had any significant impact upon their services. The issues that were raised primarily related to language barriers.
Information needs
Finally, we wanted respondents to talk about what information would have been helpful to them on arrival in the UK. The respondents who had been directly recruited and accommodated by their employer indicated that their employer had provided them with all the information they needed when they arrived in the UK. The most common information needs were advice on housing; benefits; and information about jobs (including how to find jobs but also employment rights). Furthermore, people made reference to needing information on wider services such as GPs, bank accounts and language courses. These are some of the comments that were made:
- ‘Employment, buying bus tickets, stopping a bus, GPs, libraries, WRS, tax returns, etc’.
- ‘How to find accommodation and job, some advice on how to support myself’.
- Information concerning local house options, job offers, education and benefits available’.
- ‘‘Maybe a starter pack with information about jobs and housing’.
- ‘[I] think it would be good if there was a centre designed for foreign people to go and find everything they need to function in this country’.
We also asked respondents if there was any information that they needed now. Just over three-quarters of respondents (76%) indicated that they had no information needs; eight people (5%) said they did need information; while the remainder did not know. With regards to the eight people who indicated that they needed information at the moment, the following responses were given:
- ‘Help with benefits’.
- ‘How to get help with education’.
- ‘I would like to have a better chance with finding a job, feel discriminated against as I am not English’.
- ‘Lack of effective and consistent information’.
- ‘More information about housing, jobs, etc. [Need] leaflets in job centre ,Tameside offices, bus stations, etc’
- ‘More information about tax returns’.
- ‘Would like to be kept informed about English courses in my local area’.
Additional consultation with CEE migrants highlighted that people relied upon social networks to provide information.
Chapter 10 - Future Intentions
This chapter provides information with regard to people’s future intentions and aspirations. It focuses specifically on how long people anticipate staying in Tameside, whether or not they will return to their home country and whether there are any intentions to be joined by other family members.
10.1 Intended length of stay in Tameside
Figure 33 and Table 57 below shows people’s intended length of stay. As can be seen, nearly half of the sample (49%) said that they intended to live in Tameside indefinitely; while 23% gave a time limit to their stay (over a third of which said they would stay for five years or more). A number of people were also unsure about their intentions (30%).
Stakeholder consultation suggested that the number of CEE migrants living in the study area had remained relatively stable in recent years. It was felt that although there were fewer opportunities for employment, it had not affected people’s desire to stay in Tameside to a great extent. Some stakeholders suggested that there were still people migrating into the area.
Additional consultation with CEE migrants highlighted that while initially people had relatively short-term intentions, there was often a transition to more longer term intentions as the UK (despite the economic climate) provided a better standard of living, with greater employment opportunities but also support in terms of benefits and tax credits.
Table 57 - Intended length of stay in Tameside
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 6 months | 4 | 3 |
| 6 – 12 months | 2 | 1 |
| 1 – 2 years | 6 | 4 |
| 2 – 3 years | 4 | 3 |
| 3 – 4 years | 4 | 3 |
| 4 – 5 years | 1 | 1 |
| 5 years or more | 13 | 8 |
| Indefinitely | 78 | 49 |
| Don’t know | 47 | 30 |
| Total | 159 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case
10.2 Future destination
We asked the respondents who had given a time limit on their length of stay in Tameside or were unsure about their length of stay where they intended to move to in the future; 71% said they would return to their home country. When asked why they would return home, a number of interesting comments were made. These often related to wanting to return to what they classed as home, but also to their family and friends:
- ‘Poland is my home’.
- ‘I came here only for a few months to work and save some money. I need to get back to my home country because I have a family waiting for me’.
- ‘My daughter lives there and I would like to be near her’.
- ‘I would like to come back to my home country as I have there all my family and friends’.
Just under a quarter of those who were here temporarily stated that they would move to another part of the UK. Eight of these respondents (42%) did not indicate where. Of those who provided a specific location, the following places were mentioned: London, Manchester and Somerset. Two people indicated that they would move wherever they could find a new place to rent. When asked to elaborate on why they wanted to move to a specific area, this often related to having social networks in that area. With regards to the respondents who suggested that they would go to another country, Australia, Canada and the USA were mentioned.
Table 58 - Future Destination
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Home country | 57 | 71 |
| Another part of the UK | 19 | 24 |
| Another country | 4 | 5 |
| Total | 80 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case
We asked those people who indicated that they would be going back to their home country if they thought they would come back to the UK again in the future (see Figure 35 and Table 59 below). As can be seen, 29% indicated that they would not be coming back, while 20% would be returning for work and 13% going home to live but returning to visit friends/family. However, a large number of the respondents who were going home did not know if they would return to the UK.
Table 49 - Will you come to the UK again in the future?
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Don’t know | 22 | 38 |
| No – I am going home permanently | 16 | 29 |
| Yes – I am going home for a few months then coming back again for work | 11 | 20 |
| Yes – I am going home to live but will come back to visit friends/family | 7 | 13 |
| Total | 56 | 100 |
Note: excludes one missing case
10.3 Family reunification
We wanted to explore whether the respondents in our sample would be joined by other members of their family from their home country; 17% said yes, 65% said no and 18% did not know. With regards to those whose family members would be joining them, the majority made reference to potentially multiple people joining them; for example, ‘wife and kids’, ‘dad, brother, sisters’, ‘sister, mum and dad’. Additional consultation with CEE migrants highlighted that people who had children with them were more likely to make the UK their permanent home.
Chapter 11 - Conclusions
This final chapter brings together the findings of the study to highlight some of the key issues that have emerged and the implications of these, offering some suggested ways forward for stakeholders in Tameside. The aim of this study was to provide information on a range of different issues, including employment; housing; education and training; community integration; access to selected services; and future intentions. It has revealed a number of interesting findings, some of which reiterate previous research carried out with migrant communities, while others highlight the need to take into account different local contexts. Naturally, given the broad spectrum of issues covered in this study, it also highlights issues which potentially require further investigation.
11.1 Language barriers
Perhaps unsurprisingly, language barriers remain an issue for migrant communities. There is a huge body of previous research that has highlighted the importance of English language in terms of settling into communities, interacting with local people and also occupational mobility. Indeed, both CEE migrants and key stakeholders in this study made reference to the issue of language.
Across the sample as a whole, just over a third (35%) said that they did not have time to complete an English language course due to work commitments. However, it was apparent that while some people will actively seek English classes, others want to learn a basic level of English that will enable them to ‘get by’. Furthermore, there are also those who are not interested in learning English as their work/home life is spent with people from their home country.
Migrant communities therefore need to be encouraged to access English language courses, with more emphasis placed on the importance of acquisition of English language. In order to do so, however, there is a need to continue and develop flexible learning opportunities. For example, consultation with Tameside Council indicated that they were providing shorter courses as they had found that retention was an issue with longer courses. Previous studies have also shown that more ‘informal’ methods – such as conversation classes, etc – were popular with migrant communities. Overall, what was apparent was that ESOL providers were often having difficulty meeting demand; however, this issue could only be resolved with additional resources.
11.2 Reliance on social networks
A common theme running throughout the study was the reliance on social networks. Having friends/family living in Tameside was vital for many people, not only influencing their decision to move to particular areas, but assisting with access to employment, accommodation and services. For example, there was evidence of a particular accommodation ‘pathway’ in the UK, whereby people lived in lower quality accommodation or lived with friends/family, until they could afford to move to another property and had a better understanding of what was available. While there are clearly positive benefits to these social networks, we cannot guarantee that the advice and assistance provided by social networks provides the best option for people. There will also be ‘gaps’ in people’s knowledge, which means that people can be unaware of particular services. Furthermore, it was apparent that there were groups of migrants who are not engaged with local services, particularly those whose contact is limited to people from their home country. It is these migrants who are potentially vulnerable to exploitation or do not understand their rights. There was evidence in this study, for example, that people sometimes did not understand rights in relation to accommodation (i.e. in terms of eviction, deposits being withheld, etc). There is a need to explore how to provide information to migrant communities who are less engaged with local services (this could include targeting places where there are known populations, as well as through local churches, libraries and sports facilities, which were commonly being used by migrant communities).
11.3 Perceived and actual issues
A number of interesting issues have emerged from the study, which highlights potential discrepancies between perceptions of key issues for migrants and the views of migrants themselves. For example, there can sometimes be a perception of exploitation of migrant workers in employment. The survey suggested largely positive views on treatment by employers, suggesting that poor treatment was not the majority experience for those interviewed in this study.
Furthermore, previous research has highlighted problems in relation to accommodation, particularly around the private rented sector and HMOs. While it is recognised that some migrants had experienced problems with private landlords, the study indicated that it is perhaps too simplistic to focus solely on the actions of landlords. Rather, we need to also acknowledge the actions and choices of migrants themselves, particularly in relation to economic opportunities. For example, there was evidence that people sometimes choose to live in overcrowded accommodation – often sub-letting without landlord’s knowledge – as it enabled them to minimise rental costs.
11.4 Future considerations
Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict future intentions, particularly with regards to a population whose migration is predominantly linked to economic opportunities and social networks. While it was often the case that people initially had short-term intentions, it was apparent that a number of people had actually been in the UK longer-term; for example, 59% of respondents had arrived in the UK between 2004 and 2007. Furthermore, while it was acknowledged that employment opportunities had decreased in recent years, over three quarters (77%) of those in employment had a permanent contract. It was also highlighted that opportunities in the UK – not just employment, but also in relation to education, welfare, etc – were still better than opportunities in their home countries and a high proportion of people had intentions to stay indefinitely (49% of respondents).
In addition, a number of participants had children (39% of the sample). Consultation with CEE migrants in this study – as well as previous research – highlighted that families were more likely to settle in the UK. This study did not focus on the needs and experiences of children, or cover in depth the implications of an increase in CEE migrants’ children on local services such as early years and nursery provision, plus health care and schools. This may therefore be an area for further consideration.
Finally, this study represents a ‘snap shot’ of a population, providing a starting point for key stakeholders to begin looking at how to take the findings of the report forward and where further information is required. Service providers need to ensure that they are frequently monitoring population changes within their local area and sharing this information and good practice at a wider level.
Twitter
Facebook
