A/HRC/41/54/Add.4 1. The UK would like to thank the UN Special Rapporteur (SR) on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance for the opportunity to comment on her report following her visit to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland between 30th April - 11th May 2018. 2. We are pleased to see the SR note that the UK Government has shown leadership in key areas regarding the achievement of racial equality, especially within the legislative framework that prohibits racial discrimination and intolerance. During her visit, the SR learnt about various policy documents that are relevant for the promotion of human rights, equality, non-discrimination and tolerance, including the Integrated Communities Action Plan; the Hate Crime Action Plan 2016-2020; the Crown Prosecution Hate Crime Strategy 2017-2020. 3. We also appreciate the SR’s acknowledgement of the achievement of The Racial Disparity Audit, highlighting its potential to move the UK forward in fulfilling its legal obligations to substantive racial equality under international and domestic law. 4. We have noted the SR’s recommendations and are pleased to state work that is already taking place on a number of these findings. This includes the publication of a refreshed Hate Crime Action Plan in October 2018 (outlined in recommendation D). Furthermore, in response to the Race Disparity Audit, we have made an announcement to tackle ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, through Department of Work and Pension (DWP) in challenging areas, through reviews of school exclusions and the Mental Health Act and through support for a £90m fund aimed at tackling youth unemployment (outlined in recommendation H). The Government has also responded comprehensively to the Lammy review (outlined in recommendation N), increasing diversity of new prison officers, funding educations programmes to prepare lawyers from a range of backgrounds, working with police partners to develop deferred prosecution pilots aimed to rehabilitate offenders but still ensure redress from crime. The Government response to a range of the SR’s recommendations is covered in substantive detail in the response below. I. Introduction 5. Para 2: The Government regrets that the SR did not consider that the conditions for her visit to Harmondsworth to be acceptable. Unfortunately, the SR did not communicate her concerns at the time of the visit, to enable any issues to be remedied. Working to a tight schedule, initial plans were made to facilitate the SR’s visit to Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) to provide as varied an experience of an immigration removal centre as possible. When a venue change was requested to the adjacent centre, Harmondsworth, this was facilitated without delay; the SR was given assistance to observe the facilities unfettered and was able to converse freely with detainees. A request to speak with case owners was not communicated to the IRC in advance; case owners are not located on site, so it was therefore logistically not possible to make arrangements for a meeting within the programme timetable. II. The Law and Policy Governing Racial Equality in the UK A. Legal Framework 6. Para 8: The report states that the s.149 Public Sector Equality Duty does not apply to immigration law and policy and its enforcement, which is not the case. The exemption in schedule 18, para 2 of the duty provides an exemption from the Public Sector Equality Duty in relation to immigration and nationality functions but only in relation to the second limb (s.149(1)(b)) – the duty to advance equality of opportunity between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Further, the exemption is only in relation to the protected characteristics of age, religion or belief, and race (limited to include nationality and ethnic origin but not colour). The remaining two limbs of the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 (1)(a) and (c) - the need to eliminate discrimination and to foster good relation), plus anything not covered by this carve out in relation to (b), still apply in relation to immigration law. This error may also have an impact on the conclusions at paragraph 74 (c). 2