Understanding Inequality in Surrey

Theme 5: Personal and Community Engagement

Skip to:

What does the data tell us about Surrey?

It can be difficult to measure how able people feel to participate in their communities and to influence decisions that may affect them and their families. We know that there are some ways in which people can be excluded from engaging, such as through digital exclusion or by support services not meeting their specific needs. There is limited data to evidence this unless services consistently record the demographics of people accessing them and compare this to their target population. What evidence we do have is set out below.

Recent research carried out by Citizen’s Online for Surrey County Council showed that around 50,000 adults in Surrey are not online, nearly 1 in 17 of the population, and 1 in 13 people live in a home without internet access. Around 1 in 5 don’t have a laptop or computer, and lack the essential digital skills for work and life. While we don’t have the breakdown of the characteristics of these digitally excluded people in Surrey, we know from national research that they are likely to live in more deprived areas, may be older and more likely to be disabled. ONS data shows that 15% of disabled people have never used the internet compared to 3% of those who are not disabled. Research into issues facing rural communities in Surrey shows that that our rural areas experience worse broadband connectivity and mobile coverage than our urban areas, and that our rural areas have an older than average population profile.

Lack of transport can be an aggravating factor for exclusion in Surrey, and while we all want to encourage sustainable transport options, there are many areas of the county which are inaccessible by public transport and travel between areas can also be costly and difficult without a car. Census data shows how many households do not have access to a car. Data for Surrey shows that 12% of households with residents from White ethnic backgrounds do not have access to a car, while this rises to 27% of households with residents from Black and Mixed ethnic backgrounds, 22% for residents from ‘Other’ ethnic backgrounds and 16% for residents from Asian ethnic backgrounds.

The Surrey-wide Immigration Strategy(draft) highlights a number of areas where sanctuary seeking populations experience inequality in our county. It also sets out our ambitions for better supporting sanctuary seeking populations to integrate into our communities and play active roles within them. While this work is at an early stage, it is important to recognise the many difficulties facing our recently arrived populations. We know that many who arrive here will have faced significant trauma both in their home countries and on the route to the UK. There are also wide differences in the support that is available for sanctuary seeking populations depending on whether they reached the UK by regular or irregular means, and even among those who arrived through national schemes there are wide differences in the support different groups of people are offered. Research for the Migration Strategy noted issues such as access to transport, discriminatory practices by landlords, the need for therapeutic support particularly for younger, unaccompanied asylum seekers, and the impact on the mental wellbeing and feelings of safety for many newly arrived groups of the riots over the summer of 2024.

Every quarter, SCC and Surrey Police carry out a survey with 2,000 residents to find out their attitudes on things as varied as concerns about crime, to environmental issues and how engaged they are with local services. While numbers are relatively small compared to the Surrey population, answers to this survey can give us an indication of how people are experiencing life in Surrey.

In our most recent survey, 1 in 7 respondents said they had struggled with fuel bills, a number which leaps up to more than 1 in 4 of respondents from ethnically diverse backgrounds. Despite this evidence that people from ethnically diverse backgrounds are more likely to be struggling with the cost of living, they were no more likely to access food banks and financial assistance than people from White backgrounds. This could indicate that people from ethnically diverse backgrounds are not accessing support services in line with their levels of need. Disabled respondents were also much more likely to struggle with fuel bills than the general population (1 in 4 of disabled people compared to 1 in 7 of all residents). However, this group were slightly more likely to access foodbanks and financial support than the general population.

Disabled respondents were also more likely (37%) to report taking on additional borrowing, accessing financial support from family and friends, and accessing holiday payments or extension than the Surrey average (31%). The Surrey Coalition of Disabled People produced a report on the cost of living crisis in Surrey, which highlights the disproportionate ways in which disabled people are affected by rising costs. This report highlights the fact that there is a 44% gap between the disposable incomes of the disabled and non-disabled populations, and how disabled people are more vulnerable to rising costs of essential items, which make up a higher proportion of their expenditure.

As set out in the section on Surrey’s demographics, there are around 10,000 people in Surrey who don’t have good levels of English. The main languages of this group are varied, including Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Urdu, Bengali, Cantonese, Mandarin and BSL. More research may be needed into provision and uptake of interpreting services in Surrey.

In 2022/23 Surrey Police recorded 2,329 hate crimes in the county, an increase of 3% on the previous year and a nearly 30% increase over the previous 5 years. Of these, over 2 in every 3 crimes was related to a person’s race or ethnicity (67%), with the next highest proportion being related to a person’s sexual orientation (14%) and disability (10%). 5% of crimes related to a person’s religion and 4% to a transgender identity. We know from national research and local intelligence, though, that hate crimes that target disabled people are significantly underreported.

The Youth Justic Plan for Surrey recognises that there are disparities in the proportions of young people from different groups become engaged in the criminal justice system. The plan acknowledges the overrepresentation of certain ethnic groups, particularly Black and dual heritage children, in the youth criminal justice system. There is also a higher rate of young people with current or former Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) or Special Education Needs (SEN) support who are within the criminal justice system. For Black and White young people, those with EHCPs or SEN support are 5 times more likely to be engaged with the Youth Justice System than those without an EHCP. For young people with mixed ethnic backgrounds, the figure is 4 times more likely.

National data analysed by the Crown Prosecution Service also recognises that there appear to be racial biases in the criminal justice system that affect outcomes for some ethnic monitory groups that cannot be readily explained by other factors.

While the Residents Survey is only a small population sample, it can give some indications of how people in our communities are feeling. In a recent survey, people from ethnic backgrounds other than White were twice as likely to view Hate Crime as a significant issue than people from White backgrounds (10% vs 5%). People from ethnic backgrounds are also likely to have higher rates of concern about vehicle crime and burglary, but lower rates of worry about speeding and antisocial driving.

Women are nearly 4 times as likely to say they feel unsafe walking at night than men (23% versus 6%). 25-39 year olds are much more likely to feel unsafe (23%) than the Surrey average of 16%, with 16-24 year olds the least likely age group to feel worried (6%).

LGBTQ+ respondents showed lower confidence that police would treat people fairly and with respect.

Rates of people agreeing with the statement that ‘people in my neighbourhood are there for me’ and ‘I belong in my local area’ goes up with age.

On average, 5% of people in Surrey said they didn’t think people from different backgrounds get along in their area, but among 16-24 year olds this rises to 10% and among of 25-39 year olds it rises to 12%.

It is difficult to find data on voting and participation rates locally, but national research by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) shows significant differences in rates of participation between different groups in society and that this has grown significantly in the last 60 years. In the 1960s there was only a small gap in rates of voting between renters and homeowners, those who did and did not attend university at general elections, and those at the top and bottom of the income distribution. In the 2010s, the turnout gap had grown to 18% between top and bottom income terciles, to 23% between renters and homeowners, and to 15% between those who did and did not attend university. These differences in who participates in our democracy extend far beyond voting. Almost 1 in 3 university graduates has directly contacted a politician, while around 1 in 10 has joined a protest or lawful public demonstration. By comparison, only 1 in 7 people without degrees have contacted a politician and fewer than 1 in 25 has joined a protest.

When looking at voter registration nationally, there are also significant variations by age and ethnicity. Around 60% of 18-19 year olds are registered to vote, compared to 96% of over 65s. People from White ethnic backgrounds are more likely to be registered to vote (87%), compared to those from Asian (80%), Black (72%), mixed (72%) and other (71%) ethnic backgrounds. Voter registration among Black potential voters has also declined since 2018. While we don’t have data for local registration rates, it is likely that similar patterns are replicated among Surrey residents who are eligible to vote.

What does this mean for Surrey?

We need to think about the many different ways in which people in our communities may feel excluded from participating in the life of the community. This can range from facing barriers such as being shut out from using digital services, due to not having access to technology or data, or by a lack of confidence and skills to use them. In a rural area such as Surrey, access to transport can be another major factor in preventing people from accessing equal outcomes. Both of these issues affect some communities more than others and we need to be aware of this when thinking about how to support those affected.

The data also suggests that issues around crime and safety have different effects on some sections of our community. This relates to people’s fear of crime, but also we have to recognise that there are some groups who are disproportionately caught up in the criminal justice system. It is important that we continue to work to understand the causes of these disparities and what we can do to address them.

We need to ensure that services we provide to support people in society, such as emergency food support and crisis funding, is welcoming and appropriate for all those who need it. We also should recognise the additional costs and barriers that face disabled residents and ensure that support is accessible, particularly for those who are most in need of it.

Community cohesion is also an issue we should be considering. The recent Khan Review highlighted how a variety of internal and external factors are coming together to pose challenges to community cohesion across the UK. We need ensure that all stakeholders in Surrey are meeting our obligations under the Equality Act to enhance understanding and good relations between different groups in our communities, and we need to be aware of the importance of ensuring that all sections of our society feel they have a stake in our democratic system. We need to consider how we can meet the needs of sanctuary seeking populations in ways that enable them to actively participate in society.