In 2011, 87.2 percent of the total population of the United Kingdom were white British. A positive net migration in recent years combined with the resultant international relationships following the wide-reaching former British Empire has contributed to an increasingly diverse population.

Varied ethnic backgrounds

Black British citizens, with African and/or African-Caribbean ancestry, are the largest ethnic minority population, at three percent of the total population. Indian Britons are one of the largest overseas communities of the Indian diaspora and make up 2.3 percent of the total UK population. Pakistani British citizens, who make up almost two percent of the UK population, have one of the highest levels of home ownership in Britain.

Racism in the United Kingdom

Though it has decreased in comparison to the previous century, the UK has seen an increase in racial prejudice during the first decade and a half of this century. Racism and discrimination continues to be part of daily life for Britain’s ethnic minorities, especially in terms of work, housing, and health issues. Moreover, the number of hate crimes motivated by race reported since 2012 has increased, and in 2017/18, there were 3,368 recorded offenses of racially or religiously aggravated assault with injury, almost a thousand more than in 2013/14.

According to the 2021 Census, London was the most ethnically diverse region in England and Wales – 63.2% of residents identified with an ethnic minority group.

According to the 2021 Census, 81.7% of the population of England and Wales was white, 9.3% Asian, 4.0% black, 2.9% mixed and 2.1% from other ethnic groups.

The statistic shows the total population in the United Kingdom from 2015 to 2019, with projections up until 2025. The population grew steadily over this period.

Population of the United Kingdom

Despite a fertility rate just below the replacement rate, the United Kingdom’s population has been slowly but steadily growing, increasing by an average of 0.6 percent every year since 2002. The age distribution has remained roughly the same for the past ten years or so, with the share of the population over 65 years old seeing a slight increase as the baby boomer generation enters into that age bracket. That share is likely to continue growing slightly, as the United Kingdom has one of the highest life expectancies in the world.

The population of the island nation is predominantly white Christians, but a steady net influx of immigrants, part of a legacy of the wide-reaching former British Empire, has helped diversify the population. One of the largest ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom is that of residents of an Indian background, born either in the UK, India, or in other parts of the world. India itself is experiencing problems with rapid population growth, causing some of its population to leave the country in order to find employment. The United Kingdom’s relatively lower levels of unemployment and the historical connection between the two countries (which has also resulted in family connections between individuals) are likely reasons that make it a popular destination for Indian emigrants.

In 2019, people from most ethnic minority groups were more likely than White British people to live in the most deprived neighbourhoods.

Middlesbrough’s current population was estimated to be 140,398 in 2016 by the Office of National Statistics (Mid-year population estimates 2016). With a total area of 5,387 hectares, Middlesbrough is the smallest and second most densely-populated local authority area in the north east. Significant changes in the population demographics of Middlesbrough since the 2001 Census highlight an increasingly diverse and ageing population in the town.Age[1]Middlesbrough has a younger population than both the national and regional averages, however there has been significant growth in the ageing population since Census 2001.20.58% of Middlesbrough’s resident population are Children and Young People aged 0 to 15 years. This is higher than the England rate of 19.05% and the north east rate of 17.74%.63.56% are ‘working age’ between 16 and 64 years. This is higher than both the England rate of 63.07% and the north east rate of 63.01%.15.90% are ‘older people’ aged over 65 years. This is lower than both the England rate of 17.88% and the north east rate of 19.25%.Gender [2]50.85% of Middlesbrough’s population were estimated to be female. This is in line with both the England rate of 50.60% and the north east rate of 50.92%49.15% of Middlesbrough’s population were estimated to be male. This is in line with the England rate of 49.40% and the north east rate of 49.08%.Women in Middlesbrough live longer than men, with 17.62% of women are aged over 65 years. This is lower than both the England rate of 19.75% and the north east rate of 21.43%The gender breakdown of Council employment figures is 70.57% women and 29.42% men. This is not reflective of the wider labour market figures of 47% and 53% respectively[3] though it is broadly comparable with the employment levels in other local authorities.[4]Sexual Orientation[5]Office for National Statistics has estimated that 94.6% of Middlesbrough’s population identify as heterosexual or straight, with 1.2% identifying as gay or lesbian, 0.4% identify as bisexual, as a result of the Annual Population Survey 2016. This is higher than the north east region and England.Ethnic Diversity[6]Middlesbrough is the most ethnically diverse local authority area in the Tees Valley, with a British Minority Ethnic population of 11.7% identified at Census 2011, an increase of 86% since 2001 and which is projected to grow further.88.18% of Middlesbrough’s resident population were classed as White (with various sub-groups) this was lower than the north east rate of 93.63% but higher than the England rate of 79.75%. Middlesbrough is the second most ethnically diverse local authority in the north east, behind Newcastle upon Tyne with 81.92% classed as White.7.78% were classed as Asian/Asian British (with sub-groups), this is higher than the north east rate of 2.87% but slightly lower albeit in lien with the England rate of 7.82%. Again, Middlesbrough is only behind Newcastle upon Tyne on this measure (9.67%), however has the highest percentage in the Tees Valley.1.71% of the population were identified as Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups (with sub-groups), this was higher than the north east rate of 0.86% but slower than the national rate of 2.25%. Middlesbrough had the highest percentage of this group in the north east.1.25% of the population were identified as Black/Africa/Caribbean/Black British, this was higher than the north east rate of 0.51% but lower than the England rate of 3.48%. Middlesbrough is only behind Newcastle upon Tyne on this measure (1.84%), however has the highest percentage in the Tees Valley.1.08% of the population were identified as Other Ethnic Group, this was higher than both the England rate of 1.03% and the north east rate of 0.43%. Middlesbrough is only behind Newcastle upon Tyne with 1.46%, however has the highest percentage in the Tees Valley.8.2% of Middlesbrough’s total population were born outside of the UK as at census 2011, this was lower than the England rate of 8.21% but almost double the north east rate of 4.95%. Middlesbrough has the highest percentage of residents born outside of the UK in the Tees Valley, however it is second behind Newcastle upon Tyne in the north east.15.74% of Asylum seekers in the north east were reported to be resident in Middlesbrough in the period October to December 2017 (Q4). Newcastle upon Tyne has the highest rate with 23.66%, followed by Stockton-on-Tees with 19.73%, this places Middlesbrough third in the north east and second in the Tees Valley.ONS reports a rise in the number of Non-British nationals per 1,000 of the resident population, with 51.1 in 2011 and 72.5 in 2015. This is higher than the north east with 27.7 rising to 34.3 and lower than England at 83.5 rising to 93.2Gender Identity[7]The Gender Identity Research & Education Society (GIRES) estimates that about 1% of the British population are gender nonconforming to some degree. The numbers of Trans boys and Trans girls are about equal. The number of people seeking treatment is growing every year.Based on GIRES estimate, around 1,400 members of Middlesbrough’s population could be gender nonconforming, however this is an estimate.Whilst there is a requirement for data on gender identity, there are currently no means for recording it. The Office for National Statistics is currently considering the addition of a question on Gender Identity for the 2021 Census, however at this time it is under consultation as to how it will be added and worded to best suit this group of the population.Religion and Belief71.59% of Middlesbrough’s resident population were identified as having religion in the 2011 census. This is higher than both England with 68.09% and the north east with 70.52%22.25% of the population were identified as having no religion, this was lower than both England with 24.74% and the north east with 23.40%.6.16% of the population did not state their religion, this was lower than England with 7.18%, but higher than the north east with 6.08%.63.23% of the population were identified as Christian, this was higher than England with 59.38% but lower than the north east with 67.52%.7.05% of the population were identified as Muslim, this was higher than both England with 5.02% and the north east with 1.80%. Middlesbrough has the highest Muslim population in the north east and the Tees Valley.The remaining proportion of the population were identified as Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh and ‘Other religion’ each accounting for less than 1% of the population. This trend is seen in the England and north east averages.

This dataset represents ethnic group (19 tick-box level) by highest level qualification, for England and Wales combined. The data are also broken down by age and by sex.

The ethnic group that the person completing the census feels they belong to. This could be based on their culture, family background, identity, or physical appearance. Respondents could choose one out of 19 tick-box response categories, including write-in response options.

Total counts for some population groups may not match between published tables. This is to protect the confidentiality of individuals' data. Population counts have been rounded to the nearest 5 and any counts below 10 are suppressed, this is signified by a 'c' in the data tables.

"Asian Welsh" and "Black Welsh" ethnic groups were included on the census questionnaire in Wales only, these categories were new for 2021.

This dataset provides Census 2021 estimates that classify usual residents in England and Wales by ethnic group. The estimates are as at Census Day, 21 March 2021. This dataset shows population counts for usual residents aged 16+ Some people aged 16 years old will not have completed key stage 4 yet on census day, and so did not have the opportunity to record any qualifications on the census.

These estimates are not comparable to Department of Education figures on highest level of attainment because they include qualifications obtained outside England and Wales.

For quality information in general, please read more from here.

Ethnic Group (19 tick-box level)

These are the 19 ethnic group used in this dataset:

• Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh
  • Bangladeshi
  • Chinese
  • Indian
  • Pakistani
  • Other Asian
• Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African
  • African
  • Caribbean
  • Other Black
• Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups
  • White and Asian
  • White and Black African
  • White and Black Caribbean
  • Other Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups
• White
  • English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British
  • Gypsy or Irish Traveller
  • Irish
  • Roma
  • Other White
• Other ethnic group
  • Arab
  • Any other ethnic group

No qualifications

No qualifications

Level 1

Level 1 and entry level qualifications: 1 to 4 GCSEs grade A* to C , Any GCSEs at other grades, O levels or CSEs (any grades), 1 AS level, NVQ level 1, Foundation GNVQ, Basic or Essential Skills

Level 2

5 or more GCSEs (A* to C or 9 to 4), O levels (passes), CSEs (grade 1), School Certification, 1 A level, 2 to 3 AS levels, VCEs, Intermediate or Higher Diploma, Welsh Baccalaureate Intermediate Diploma, NVQ level 2, Intermediate GNVQ, City and Guilds Craft, BTEC First or General Diploma, RSA Diploma

Apprenticeship

Apprenticeship

Level 3

2 or more A levels or VCEs, 4 or more AS levels, Higher School Certificate, Progression or Advanced Diploma, Welsh Baccalaureate Advance Diploma, NVQ level 3; Advanced GNVQ, City and Guilds Advanced Craft, ONC, OND, BTEC National, RSA Advanced Diploma

Level 4 +

Degree (BA, BSc), higher degree (MA, PhD, PGCE), NVQ level 4 to 5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher level, professional qualifications (for example, teaching, nursing, accountancy)

Other

Vocational or work-related qualifications, other qualifications achieved in England or Wales, qualifications achieved outside England or Wales (equivalent not stated or unknown)

In 2020/21 there were approximately 696,000 Polish nationals living in the United Kingdom, the highest non-British population at this time. Indian and Irish were the joint second-largest nationalities at approximately 370,000 people.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. The Evidence for Equality National Survey (EVENS) is a national survey that documents the experiences and attitudes of ethnic and religious minorities in Britain. EVENS was developed by the Centre on the Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE) in response to the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 and is the largest and most comprehensive survey of the lives of ethnic and religious minorities in Britain for more than 25 years. EVENS used pioneering, robust survey methods to collect data in 2021 from 14,200 participants of whom 9,700 identify as from an ethnic or religious minority. The EVENS main dataset, which is available from the UK Data Service under SN 9116, covers a large number of topics including racism and discrimination, education, employment, housing and community, health, ethnic and religious identity, and social and political participation.The EVENS Teaching Dataset provides a selection of variables in an accessible form to support the use of EVENS in teaching across a range of subjects and levels of study. The dataset includes demographic data and variables to support the analysis of: racism and belonging health and well-being during COVID-19 political attitudes and trust. Main Topics: Racism, belonging, impact of COVID-19, health, well-being, financial position, political attitudes and trust.

This statistic shows the distribution of ethnic groups of Inner London, United Kingdom (UK) at the time of the 2011 National Census. 'White' is the largest group, at 57.2 percent of the population, followed by 'Black / African / Caribbean / Black British,' and Asian / Asian British.'

This is a late July 2013 YouGov political tracker survey combining data on attitudes to race and immigration with questions on mobility history as well as voting intention, media consumption and other background variables. Data is also geocoded to ward level and ward-level census variables appended. The quantitative research will be based on ONS longitudinal survey and census data, as well the large-scale Citizenship Surveys and Understanding Society surveys. We will identify individual respondents from the quantitative research and explore their responses through qualitative work, in the form of three focus groups - two in Greater London, one in Birmingham. These will probe connections between respondents' local and national identities, their intentions to move neighbourhood, and their opinions on immigration, interethnic relations, community cohesion and voting behaviour.In the past decade in Britain, the 'white working-class' has been the focus of unprecedented media and policy attention. While class is a longstanding discursive category, the prefix 'white' is an important rider. We live in an era of global migration. Population pressure from the global South, and demand for workers in the developed North, will power what some term a 'third demographic transition' involving significant declines in the white majority populations of the western world (Coleman 2010). In the UK, the upsurge in diversity arguably presents a greater challenge for the working-class part of the white British population than for the middle class. Why? First, because for lower-status members of dominant groups, their ethnic identity tends to be their most prestigious social identity (Yiftachel 1999). Second, minorities tend to be from disadvantaged backgrounds and are therefore more likely to compete for housing and jobs with the white working class. Finally, because the white working-class is less comfortable navigating the contours of the new global knowledge economy than the middle class, it is more attached to existential securities rooted in the local and national context (Skey 2011). How might the white working class respond to increasing diversity? Drawing upon Albert O. Hirschman's classic book Exit, Voice and Loyalty (1970), we posit three possible responses: 'exit', 'voice' and 'accommodation.' The first possibility is white 'exit': geographic segregation, or, in the extreme, 'white flight'. A second avenue is 'voice': spearheading an identity politics based on opposition to immigration and voting for white nationalist parties. A third possibility is accommodation, in which members of the white working-class become more comfortable with elevated levels of ethnic diversity in their neighbourhood and nation. From exploratory research and existing literature, we suggest that a three-stage pattern of voice, exit and accommodation may be a useful way of thinking about white working-class responses to diversity in the UK. In other words, initial diversity meets strong white working-class resistance, expressed in attitudes and voting. This is followed by a degree of white out-migration, and then by a decline in anti-immigration sentiment and far right voting. Yet these broad patterns require finer-grained analysis that takes both individual characteristics and local context into account. This project will test these propositions through quantitative and qualitative research. There are three major dimensions of white working class attitudes and behaviour we seek to explain. Namely, whether members of the white working-class: 1) are more likely than other groups to leave or avoid areas with large or growing minority populations; 2) oppose immigration more strongly if they reside in diverse or ethnically changing wards and local authorities; and 3) support far right parties more if they reside in diverse or ethnically changing wards and local authorities. A central question we seek to answer is whether inter-ethnic contact reduces white working-class antagonism toward minorities (the contact hypothesis), or whether increased diversity leads to white flight, leaving relatively tolerant whites remaining in diverse neighbourhoods. The latter, 'hydraulic' process mimics the contact hypothesis but does not signify increased accommodation. Telephone interview of 1869 individuals (YouGov) in Britain. Further details available in the YouGov Archive Birbeck results pdf which is available in the related resources section of this project record.

According to the 2021 Census, there were 30.4 million (51.0%) women and girls and 29.2 million (49.0%) men and boys in England and Wales.

In 2023/24 the stop and search rate for Black people in England and Wales was 22.4 searches per 1,000 people, compared with the stop and search rate for white people of six per one thousand people. People in the categories of 'other', mixed and Asian ethnic backgrounds also had a higher stop and search rate than that of the white population.

The 705 respondents to the Ethnic Minority Survey are a subset of the BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION CROSS-SECTION SURVEY, 1997 (ICPSR 2615) with an ethnic boost generated by a random screening survey. Eligible ethnic minority respondents for this survey were those who considered themselves to be Black, Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi. The aims of this survey were (1) to measure the extent to which ethnic minority voters are integrated into the electoral process, (2) to evaluate, after taking into account social background, whether members of the main ethnic minorities vote differently from each other and from their white counterparts, (3) to examine whether the political attitudes of ethnic minority voters differ significantly from those of white voters, and (4) to explore whether members of ethnic minorities are influenced by different considerations than their white counterparts in deciding how to vote, and to evaluate in particular the importance of issues of race and immigration in voting behavior of ethnic minority and white voters. Fieldwork was conducted between May 1, 1997, the day of the 1997 British general election, and August 1997. Respondents were asked for their opinions on the existence of prejudice against them, recent improvements in Britain for minorities, the role of the government in improving conditions for minorities, the effectiveness of laws against racial discrimination and racial violence, school programs tailored for minority students, Britain's blasphemy law, state funding of religious schools, the stances of British political parties toward minorities, and the presence of minority figures in British politics. Additionally, topics covered in the Cross-Section Survey include the 1997 election campaign, participation in 1997 local elections, political knowledge, trust in government, images of British leadership, and views on British political parties, the European Union, Northern Ireland, nuclear weapons, unemployment, inflation, nationalization and privatization of companies, redistribution of income, women's rights, the role of government in social policy, abortion, ethnic minorities, the British economy, and the future of governmental institutions such as the House of Lords. Background information on respondents includes age, sex, race, ethnicity, political party, political orientation, marital status, number of members in household, social class, employment history, health insurance status, citizenship, country of birth, voter registration and participation history, household income, education, religion, parents' employment history, parents' voting behavior, spouse's employment history, and union membership.

This review summarizes the economic impacts of the pandemic on ethnic minorities, focusing on the city of Manchester. It utilizes multiple reporting sources to explore various dimensions of the economic shock in the UK, linking this to studies of pre-COVID-19 economic and ethnic composition in Manchester and in the combined authority area of Greater Manchester. We then make inferences about the pandemic's short-term impact specific to the city region. Greater Manchester has seen some of the highest rates of COVID-19 and as a result faced particularly stringent “lockdown” regulations. Manchester is the sixth most deprived Local Authority in England, according to 2019 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation. As a consequence, many neighborhoods in the city were always going to be less resilient to the economic shock caused by the pandemic compared with other, less-deprived, areas. Particular challenges for Manchester include the high rates of poor health, low-paid work, low qualifications, poor housing conditions and overcrowding. Ethnic minority groups also faced disparities long before the onset of the pandemic. Within the UK, ethnic minorities were found to be most disadvantaged in terms of employment and housing–particularly in large urban areas containing traditional settlement areas for ethnic minorities. Further, all Black, Asian, and Minority ethnic (BAME) groups in Greater Manchester were less likely to be employed pre-pandemic compared with White people. For example, people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds, especially women, have the lowest levels of employment in Greater Manchester. Finally, unprecedented cuts to public spending as a result of austerity have also disproportionately affected women of an ethnic minority background alongside disabled people, the young and those with no or low-level qualifications. This environment has created and sustained a multiplicative disadvantage for Manchester's ethnic minority residents through the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BackgroundMigrant and ethnic minority groups are often assumed to have poor health relative to the majority population. Few countries have the capacity to study a key indicator, mortality, by ethnicity and country of birth. We hypothesized at least 10% differences in mortality by ethnic group in Scotland that would not be wholly attenuated by adjustment for socio-economic factors or country of birth.Methods and findingsWe linked the Scottish 2001 Census to mortality data (2001–2013) in 4.62 million people (91% of estimated population), calculating age-adjusted mortality rate ratios (RRs; multiplied by 100 as percentages) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 13 ethnic groups, with the White Scottish group as reference (ethnic group classification follows the Scottish 2001 Census). The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, education status, and household tenure were socio-economic status (SES) confounding variables and born in the UK or Republic of Ireland (UK/RoI) an interacting and confounding variable. Smoking and diabetes data were from a primary care sub-sample (about 53,000 people). Males and females in most minority groups had lower age-adjusted mortality RRs than the White Scottish group. The 95% CIs provided good evidence that the RR was more than 10% lower in the following ethnic groups: Other White British (72.3 [95% CI 64.2, 81.3] in males and 75.2 [68.0, 83.2] in females); Other White (80.8 [72.8, 89.8] in males and 76.2 [68.6, 84.7] in females); Indian (62.6 [51.6, 76.0] in males and 60.7 [50.4, 73.1] in females); Pakistani (66.1 [57.4, 76.2] in males and 73.8 [63.7, 85.5] in females); Bangladeshi males (50.7 [32.5, 79.1]); Caribbean females (57.5 [38.5, 85.9]); and Chinese (52.2 [43.7, 62.5] in males and 65.8 [55.3, 78.2] in females). The differences were diminished but not eliminated after adjusting for UK/RoI birth and SES variables. A mortality advantage was evident in all 12 minority groups for those born abroad, but in only 6/12 male groups and 5/12 female groups of those born in the UK/RoI. In the primary care sub-sample, after adjustment for age, UK/RoI born, SES, smoking, and diabetes, the RR was not lower in Indian males (114.7 [95% CI 78.3, 167.9]) and Pakistani females (103.9 [73.9, 145.9]) than in White Scottish males and females, respectively. The main limitations were the inability to include deaths abroad and the small number of deaths in some ethnic minority groups, especially for people born in the UK/RoI.ConclusionsThere was relatively low mortality for many ethnic minority groups compared to the White Scottish majority. The mortality advantage was less clear in UK/RoI-born minority group offspring than in immigrants. These differences need explaining, and health-related behaviours seem important. Similar analyses are required internationally to fulfil agreed goals for monitoring, understanding, and improving health in ethnically diverse societies and to apply to health policy, especially on health inequalities and inequities.

BackgroundThere is international interest in enhancing recruitment of minority ethnic people into research, particularly in disease areas with substantial ethnic inequalities. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that UK South Asians are at three times increased risk of hospitalisation for asthma when compared to white Europeans. US asthma trials are far more likely to report enrolling minority ethnic people into studies than those conducted in Europe. We investigated approaches to bolster recruitment of South Asians into UK asthma studies through qualitative research with US and UK researchers, and UK community leaders.Methods and FindingsInterviews were conducted with 36 researchers (19 UK and 17 US) from diverse disciplinary backgrounds and ten community leaders from a range of ethnic, religious, and linguistic backgrounds, followed by self-completion questionnaires. Interviews were digitally recorded, translated where necessary, and transcribed. The Framework approach was used for analysis. Barriers to ethnic minority participation revolved around five key themes: (i) researchers' own attitudes, which ranged from empathy to antipathy to (in a minority of cases) misgivings about the scientific importance of the question under study; (ii) stereotypes and prejudices about the difficulties in engaging with minority ethnic populations; (iii) the logistical challenges posed by language, cultural differences, and research costs set against the need to demonstrate value for money; (iv) the unique contexts of the two countries; and (v) poorly developed understanding amongst some minority ethnic leaders of what research entails and aims to achieve. US researchers were considerably more positive than their UK counterparts about the importance and logistics of including ethnic minorities, which appeared to a large extent to reflect the longer-term impact of the National Institutes of Health's requirement to include minority ethnic people.ConclusionsMost researchers and community leaders view the broadening of participation in research as important and are reasonably optimistic about the feasibility of recruiting South Asians into asthma studies provided that the barriers can be overcome. Suggested strategies for improving recruitment in the UK included a considerably improved support structure to provide academics with essential contextual information (e.g., languages of particular importance and contact with local gatekeepers), and the need to ensure that care is taken to engage with the minority ethnic communities in ways that are both culturally appropriate and sustainable; ensuring reciprocal benefits was seen as one key way of avoiding gatekeeper fatigue. Although voluntary measures to encourage researchers may have some impact, greater impact might be achieved if UK funding bodies followed the lead of the US National Institutes of Health requiring recruitment of ethnic minorities. Such a move is, however, likely in the short- to medium-term, to prove unpopular with many UK academics because of the added “hassle” factor in engaging with more diverse populations than many have hitherto been accustomed to.Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Ethnic diversity in creative industries differed by sector in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2019. The IT, software, and computer services sector employed a share of ** percent of individuals with BAME background, while the games sector counted for ** percent of BAME employees.   Employment within the creative industries in the UK The number of employees in the creative industries has increased in the UK, rising from nearly *** million workers in 2011 to over *** million in 2018. The highest increase in the number of employees was observed within the IT, software and computer services sector, with *** thousand more individuals employed in 2018 compared to 2011. Over the same period, the number of employees within museums, galleries, and libraries remained at similar levels. Racism in the UK A survey conducted by YouGov in June 2020 revealed that 44 percent of individuals in Great Britain believed that the UK was a fairly racist society, while eight percent considered the UK ‘very racist’. In addition, nearly half of the respondents over 65 years old thought that the UK was a racist society, with ** percent saying it was a ‘fairly racist’ society and **** percent believing it was a very racist one. In comparison, ** percent of the 18-24 year old respondents thought that the UK was a fairly racist society and ** percent believed it to be very racist.