A Critique of UK Coalition Government Policy on Gypsy,
Roma and Traveller Communities
Andrew Ryder1, Sarah Cemlyn2, Margaret Greenfields3, Joanna Richardson4,
Patrice Van Cleemput5
Abstract
This paper asserts that equality requires state action, underpinned by a commitment to
social justice and should ideally be mediated and delivered through community
representation and intercultural dialogue, a notion of inclusivity which will ensure
change is relevant and tailored to the needs of excluded people. However, as will be
demonstrated in this paper, this assertion appears to be at odds with Coalition
Government thinking as reflected in the policy framework they apply to Gypsies, Roma
and Travellers. This policy is hierarchical, does not engage with or adequately promote
community groups and opposes forms of positive action; as a consequence of localism
it is reluctant to endorse central government interventions.
Introduction
The Coalition Government statement of agreement pledged to promote improved
community relations and opportunities for ethnic minority communities (Cabinet Office,
2010). Gypsies, Roma and Travellers (GRT) are one of the most marginalised
minorities in society (Cemlyn et al, 2009), therefore actions by the Coalition Government
that impact on this group are a good indicator of the strength of its commitment to
improved community relations and social justice.
Two years into the life of the Coalition Government we are in a position to make such an
assessment with the publication of an inter-ministerial report in April 2012: Progress
report by the ministerial working group on tackling inequalities experienced by Gypsies
1
Dr Andrew Ryder is a Fellow in the School for Policy Studies at the University of Bristol. Visiting Professor at the
Corvinus University Budapest and Associate Fellow with the Third Sector Research Centre
2
Dr Sarah Cemlyn is an Honorary Fellow in the School for Policy Studies at the University of Bristol
3
Dr Margaret Greenfields is Reader in Social Policy and Director of the Institute for Diversity Research,
Buckinghamshire New University
4
Dr Joanna Richardson is a Principal Lecturer, Centre for Housing Research, De Montfort University
5
Dr Patrice Van Cleemput is a Fellow at the School for Health and Related Research at Sheffield University
1
and Travellers (CLG, 2012a).The inter-ministerial group was set up in 2010 and the
foreword by the minister Andrew Stunnell MP notes:
“Across Government we are very concerned that Gypsies and Travellers are being held
back by some of the worst outcomes of any group across a range of social indicators.
The Ministerial Working Group therefore brought together ministers from key
government departments under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government [Eric Pickles] to look at ways to reduce and tackle
these inequalities” (CLG, 2012a, 3).
Expressed concerns and commitments to reducing inequalities are welcome and the
Coalition Government is taking forward some useful proposals. However, this paper
focuses on the weaknesses primarily by analysing the inter-ministerial statement (CLG,
2012a), but also the Coalition integration strategy ‘Creating the conditions for
integration’ (CLG, 2012b). The integration strategy sets out the Coalition Government’s
broader philosophical framework on minority group treatment. The article draws on the
Panel Review, a two day hearing that was held in the Westminster Parliament where a
range of stakeholders including GRT representatives, service providers and politicians
met to discuss the potential impact of Coalition policy on GRT communities. This
dialogical exercise was project managed by the Travellers’ Aid Trust and funded by the
Rowntree Charitable Trust and led to the report ‘A Big or Divided Society?’ (Ryder et al,
2011). Despite offering expert advice and a critique of Coalition policy and commenting
on written responses that the Government made available specifically for the Panel
Review, no reference is made to the Panel Review in the inter-ministerial report.
This article considers the thematic areas of: education, health, accommodation, criminal
justice, financial and economic inclusion, and community and social engagement with
Gypsy and Traveller communities. The article concludes by considering the general
philosophy and rationale for the Coalition’s framework on equality as applied to GRT
communities. Given the breadth of policy covered this article cannot be exhaustive but
seeks to raise a series of key points which the authors believe are of critical importance
to the well-being of GRT communities but also more broadly, equality policy in the UK.
2
Education
The inter-ministerial report notes: “At present, Gypsy and Roma pupils, along with pupils
of Irish Traveller heritage, are amongst the lowest-achieving groups at every Key Stage
of education, although individual pupils can and do achieve very well. In 2011, just 25%
of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils achieved national expectations in English and
mathematics at the end of their primary education, compared with 74% of all pupils. At
the end of secondary education, just 12% of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils
achieved five or more good GCSEs, including English and mathematics, compared with
58.2% of all pupils” (CLG, 2012a, 7 – 2.1).
The Coalition contends that a key policy tool will be the Pupil Premium providing an
additional £488 per pupil in 2010-2011 to help raise their attainment. This figure will rise
to £600 per pupil in 2012-2013 (CLG, 2012, 7 – 2.2). In addition in 2012 the
Government provided just over £201m for ethnic minority achievement via the
Dedicated Schools Grant, to help schools improve the performance of ethnic minority
and GRT pupils, as well as those with English as an Additional language (CLG, 2012a,
7 – 2.3).
43.2% of all registered GRT pupils in primary schools are currently eligible for Free
School Meals; this figure rises to 45.3% in secondary schools and 57.5% in Special
Schools (CLG, 2012a, 7 – 2.2). However, a significant number of GRT pupils are not of
Free School Meal status yet remain highly vulnerable in the school system as a result of
a number of coalescing factors. Some Roma migrants are in fact ineligible to claim
benefits and despite living below the official poverty line (European Dialogue, 2009),
their children if attending school will be ineligible for free school dinners and thus are not
included within the student cohort used to calculate pupil premium numbers in a school.
Despite lobbying, the Government rejected attempts by pressure groups to include
other vulnerable groups under the Pupil Premium umbrella and there is a fear that
reliance on the criteria chosen could lead to a reduction in resources for GRT pupils
(Ryder et al, 2011).
3
What is more, there is no guarantee that schools will use this available money to buy in
specialist Traveller Education Support, in particular in the case of Academy schools
which have greater freedom as to whether they choose to contract local authority
specialist services6. It should be noted that the Panel Review heard evidence from
teachers’ associations working for GRT pupils, namely ACERT (Advisory Committee for
the Education of Romany and other Travellers) and NATT (National Association of
Teachers of Travellers) which were greatly concerned about the impact that local
authority cuts were having on GRT pupils. Written evidence by Brian Foster, Chair of
ACERT, submitted to the Panel Review in 2011 indicates the threats to the Traveller
Education Service network posed by cuts:
Table One - The Future of Traveller Education Support in 69 Local Authorities (Ryder et
al, 2011)
Unknown
Impact
Cuts
Confirmed
Unfilled
Vacancies
Cuts
Threatened
Restructure
and Cuts in
service
provision
Significant
numbers of
posts lost
Staff Loss
Service
Threatened
with
closure
Service
Deleted/merged
with other
education
provision
18 %
13 %
4%
13 %
12 %
14 %
10 %
6%
10 %
Foster concluded in a written submission to the Panel Review:
“It is clear that the future of many services is unsure with most anticipating cuts and
some having already received redundancy notices. Without these services to support
them the most vulnerable pupils, those who are mobile or disengaged from school,
those whose parents are educationally disadvantaged or suffering social, economic and
domestic difficulties, will be the ones who will suffer most” (Ryder, et al, 2011, 60).
In London it has been estimated that 12 out of the 32 Traveller Education Services in
the London Boroughs had been abolished since 2007. Furthermore, front-line full time
equivalent staff posts in these services had been halved from 60 to 30 (Traveller Times,
2011). Given the fragility of the Traveller Education Service and its key role in
supporting educational access and achievement (Foster and Cemlyn, 2012), it is
strange that the Government does not express explicit support for this network in the
6
Local Authority Traveller Education Services are sections of some local authorities which give strategic support
and advice to schools working with GRT pupils but also act as bridging point between schools and these
communities
4
inter-ministerial report under the key section on educational attainment as such top-level
endorsement could be used by practitioners to safeguard and protect the services in the
local authorities in which they work.
Instead, the inter-ministerial report proposes a Virtual Head Teachers pilot for GRT
pupils, which will be run in a small number of Local Authorities from April 2012.
“Funding will be allocated to each authority for the appointment of a senior dedicated
individual to champion the interests of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils across the
authority and to monitor and respond to issues of low attainment and attendance” (CLG,
2012a, 8). This proposal if extended and able to function as a complement to strong
local networks of Traveller Education Services could be a useful mechanism to
encourage greater strategic coordination for educational services for GRT communities.
However, there is a fear that it may become a cheap alternative to Traveller education
services themselves, utilising few staff and offering no potential for the outreach and
mediation work which is currently undertaken by Traveller Education services.
The inter-ministerial report states that Ofsted will continue to play a valuable role in
supporting Traveller children and that GRT communities will be highlighted as a
vulnerable group. However, as at present, the strength of Ofsted’s inspections will be
dependent on the quality of ethnic monitoring data held by a school. Those schools with
the poorest relations with GRT groups are likely to have the lowest level of self
ascription, a problem compounded by the generally low ascription rates of GRT pupils
within pupil censuses (DCSF, 2009).
The inter-ministerial group has noted that it may revise provisions under the 1944
Education Act which currently allows children of nomadic families to attend only 200
school sessions. This proposal is predicated on the belief that some families may be
abusing this provision. However, no reference has been made in the report to elective
home education, where parents choose to provide educational provision at home.
Indeed such ‘home education’ has been a greater cause of concern amongst some
educationalists, with experts claiming it has led to a lack of adequate provision or
educational support for GRT pupils (Foster and Cemlyn, 2012). A review of home
education by the previous government suggested that local authorities should be
5
required to provide greater support for parents electing to home educate (Badman,
2009) and indeed these recommendations were incorporated into the Education Act
2010 but failed to reach the statute books when the Government changed. If the
Coalition Government were to act on this recommendation there is a clear fiscal
implication in that more resources would need to be directed to support services such
as Traveller Education Services.
No reference is made in the inter-ministerial report to Gypsy Roma Traveller History
Month (GRTHM), and this key initiative is not even endorsed as providing a mechanism
for community cohesion. The GRT history month which was initiated in 2008 by the
former Labour Government provided a number of grants through the then Department
for Children Schools and Families, supporting local populations in celebrating GRT
culture in schools and communities. It was widely acclaimed as being a success which
could help to improve relations between schools and GRT communities and in turn
enhance pupils’ achievement and attainment (Ryder et al, 2011). Despite these
plaudits, funding was not renewed for GRTHM after it came to an end in June 2010.
The Coalition Government argued that Black History Month has not received central
government funding and thus parity existed between the two initiatives. However, local
authorities, in particular those with visibly diverse communities, have been generous
supporters of Black history month. In contrast, GRTHM has proved less popular, and
such support is potentially less likely to be forthcoming in future years, particularly
during times of fiscal stress. Given the heightened community stresses and frequently
hostile discourse around GRT groups which tend to focus on planning disputes and
negative media representations, and an associated weaker political and numerical
influence within local authorities it is unlikely that this situation will change in the near
future (Acton and Ryder, 2012).
Health
The inter-ministerial report notes that Gypsies and Travellers suffer from poor health
and lower life expectancy. It highlights research indicating differences in life expectancy
6
of over 10% less than the general population and that the health of Gypsies and
Travellers starts to deteriorate markedly when individuals are over 50. High infant
mortality rates, high maternal mortality rates, low child immunisation levels, mental
health issues, substance misuse issues and diabetes are also highlighted as areas of
concern (CLG, 2012a, 12, 3.1 – 3).
The inter-ministerial report states that the NHS Commissioning Board and Clinical
Commissioning groups will be under a duty to have regard to the need to reduce health
inequalities. After sustained lobbying during the passage of the Health and Social Care
Act 2012, the Coalition government placed a legal duty on the Secretary of State for
Health to reduce health inequalities and implement the Equality Act 2010. Thus the
Health Inequalities Unit in the Department of Health will retain Inclusion Health (DH,
2010). This programme was introduced by the previous government and through its
guidance sought to support improvements in primary care services for socially excluded
groups such as Gypsies and Travellers, by developing specific targeted services (Van
Cleemput, 2012).
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 will have important implications upon the core
principles of the health service, in particular notions of meeting the needs of everyone,
free at the point of ability. Thus there are concerns as to how in the future the health
service will cater for the needs of vulnerable groups like Gypsies, Roma and Travellers.
As a result of NHS reforms fears have been expressed that pressure on general
practitioners to reduce referrals to secondary hospital care, could accentuate tensions
and mistrust between Gypsies and Travellers and health staff (Van Cleemput, 2012).
Increased pressures on community nursing services (Ford 2012) also have implications
for GRT communities who already struggle to access services and are deemed ‘ hard to
reach’ rather than ‘seldom heard or seen’. Such pressures ensure that the National
Service Framework Primary Care Service Framework: Gypsy & Traveller communities
(NHSPCC 2009) will be increasingly hard to implement. This framework recognises the
need for dedicated targeted services to ensure an equitable primary care service for
these communities:
7
This PCSF is not about providing different or separate services for Gypsies and
Travellers; rather, it is about ensuring that these communities can access the same
high quality, mainstream primary care services as everyone else. It may be used to
assist PCTs to design new services where none exist or to adapt or frontend existing
ones to make them accessible to these groups.
Anxieties about the impacts of new reforms are reflected in the concerns over the fate of
Pacesetters, a programme which was aimed at reducing GRT health inequalities
through innovative approaches (Van Cleemput et al 2010) but many of these initiatives
may not be sustained as few were embedded and mainstreamed as envisaged. In
evidence presented to the Panel Review the former Children’s Commissioner Sir Al
Aynsley-Green spoke of the impact of current health reforms:
“I predict with absolute certainty that the outcome will be absolutely catastrophic to
families who already have great difficulty in accessing primary health care and
emergency care etc, so where in the NHS reforms is there any mention of highly
disadvantaged communities like Travellers. What is going to happen to them with the
GP commissioning and other changes in the legislation?” (Ryder, et al, 2011, 65).
The Panel Review noted the trauma, mental and physical health problems endured by
young Gypsies, Roma and Travellers as a result of inadequate accommodation and
experiences of eviction and discrimination. The inter-ministerial report makes no
reference to inter-agency work with young people in this sphere. The Panel Review
representatives from NATT and ACERT expressed deep concern that the ‘Every Child
Matters’ and cross departmental and inter-agency work for young people, which can
potentially improve support for young Gypsies Roma and Travellers, were ‘unraveling’
as a consequence of cutbacks affecting the voluntary sector which have impacted on
large numbers of services (Ryder et al, 2011)7.
7
The idea that "prevention is better than a cure" has also been emphasised in the instrumental report ‘Early
Intervention: The Next Steps’ (Allen, 2011)
8
The Panel Review report noted in the health, care and voluntary sector that there was a
great deal of concern among informants that many BME projects are either ending or
are reducing staff and that much good work on GRT health, care and support is in
jeopardy as a result of deficit reduction and cutbacks. For example, in terms of
accessing social and health care and welfare support GRT communities are being
affecting by the cutbacks in Supporting People services8. Annette Warren a Gypsy
Traveller Liaison Officer informed the Panel in writing: “In Nottinghamshire along with
other counties in the East Midlands we are facing huge spending cuts in the public
spending of local authorities on services. We are going to see an impact on the roles
such as Gypsy Liaison Officers, Supporting People funded specific services for Gypsies
and Travellers..... also not forgetting the cuts with the dissolving of the Primary Care
Trusts which will mean a loss of the much needed Traveller Health Worker. It takes a
long time to build up confidence and trust when working with members of the Travelling
community and it is looking very likely that much needed services will disappear leaving
them once again a seldom heard minority group” (Ryder, et al, 2011, 70). Supporting
People services and inter-agency approaches had been a key component in developing
a more personalised care approach which emphasized tailored, flexible and joined up
support (Duffy, 2010). For GRT communities this had demonstrated the potential for
nurturing pro-active outreach strategies which meant that these communities living on
sites both authorised and unauthorised or in housing for the first time received support
and assistance (Hodges and Cemlyn forthcoming). Despite the rhetoric of the interministerial report to tackle Gypsy and Traveller exclusion, cutbacks will increasingly lead
to social policy agendas, which ignore the needs of more marginalized groups like GRT
communities.
Providing Appropriate Accommodation
The inter-ministerial report notes there are around 3000 caravans (or 20 percent of the
total) located on unauthorised sites, either on sites developed without planning
8
Orr et al (2011) estimate a national cut of 12 percent but the redistribution of supporting people funding in the
Formula Grant for local authorities , has meant amongst the winners and losers that some authorities have lost up
to 60 percent of funding (Hodges and Cemlyn,2012).
9
permission, or on encampments on land not owned by Travellers. Residents of
unauthorised sites experience problems accessing health and education services. The
instability of their accommodation impacts negatively on life chances (CLG, 2012a, 17,
4.2).
The inter-ministerial report declares the Government “….will return decisions on
traveller site provision to local authorities who are best placed to know the needs of their
communities. We will encourage local authorities to provide appropriate sites and it is
important that local planning authorities continue to plan for the needs of all in their
community, including Gypsies and Travellers” (CLGa, 2012, 17, 4.3). It is noteworthy
that the reference to Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTANA),
perhaps the most successful mechanism for engaging with site provision, has been
removed. Instead, in considerably weakened form local authorities are now simply
expected to have a ‘robust evidence base’ to support their decision on site provision.
This contrasts sharply with the policy regime of the previous Government which
compelled all local authorities to conduct GTANA with the figures derived of these
assessments feeding into Regional Assembly spatial strategies (RSS). In turn, RSS fed
into regional evaluation processes which audited assessments and enabled (where
required) adjustment of figures to create regional and local targets for numbers of
pitches. One key element of the GTANA and RSS process was that the possibility
existed for central Government intervention where local authorities had failed to develop
appropriate plans to meet identified need (CLG Task Force, 2007). Returning’ decision
making on sites to local authorities fits in with the aim of ‘empowering’ communities
under the Localism Act 2011. However, there is a real concern that Gypsies and
Travellers are already seen as ‘outsiders’ to local communities (Richardson, 2006) and
that local decision making will see them further excluded.
Whilst this change is of great concern, new planning guidance on the development and
provision of sites issued in March 2012 (CLG, 2012, c) states that if a local planning
authority cannot demonstrate an up–to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this
should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision
(CLG, 2012c, para 25). Such a material consideration may potentially mean that a
10
planning inspector might feel compelled to reject a council’s objection to a site
development where it had failed to demonstrate an adequate plan for supply over the
next five years which takes account of population growth. However, as noted above,
fears exist in relation to how evidence bases will be formulated and the role of local
authorities to influence such findings and decrease the identified numbers of pitches
through objections and challenges to methodologies and assumptions used by
consultants. Thus there is a serious cause of concern that future site provision may be
slower, and inadequate to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population who are
estimated to increase at 3-4% per annum (Greenfields, et. al., 2007). Emergent
evidence suggests such processes for diminishing site allocation are already very much
in evidence, as indicated by research undertaken by the Traveller Law Reform Project
and Irish Traveller Movement in Britain and presented to the Panel Review in 2011 (see
further below).
Steve Staines of the Traveller Law Reform Project reported to the Panel Review in 2011
that a survey of 34 councils (excluding those in Greater London) revealed a reduction of
360 pitches at the time that plans were accepted by councils, when compared to the
targets that had previously been set by Regional Assemblies under the older regime.
Whilst some councils were proceeding with a certain amount of site development, this
was overwhelmingly based on figures established by the local GTANA which in many
cases (after ‘massaging’ and challenge over data and assumptions operationalised)
identified lower levels of need than had been set by Regional Assemblies who were
able to take a wider view of all available evidence and had no local political agenda
(Ryder et al, 2011). Similarly, a survey by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain (2011)
has estimated a similar dramatic shortfall in ongoing pitch provision, based upon
responses from 100 out of 152 local authorities surveyed in three different English
regions (East, South East and South West). The number of residential pitches which
were identified as being in need of planning permission (either self-provided or by local
authorities) fell by more than half, from 2,919 pitches identified as being required when
Regional Strategies were analysed, to a mere 1,395 according to the plans passed by
local authorities (ITMB, 2011). Moreover, the time frame for delivery of such pitches was
11
expected to be significantly slower than under the RSS process. Experienced
practitioners suggest that if such proposals actually move beyond a broad planning
aspiration and eventually become concrete plans then local opposition to delivery of
such sites invariably becomes more intense. In such circumstances it is likely that these
figures for deliverable pitch numbers will be reduced still further (Richardson, 2007).
In terms of current funding for local authority driven, site provision up until 2015, £60m
has been made available under the Traveller Pitch Funding scheme as part of the
Homes and Communities Agency’s Affordable Homes Programme (CLG, 2012, 17,
4.5). This sum is noticeably lower than that made available under the former Labour
regimes and (when inflation is taken into account) compares poorly with the grant
funding in earlier years of the Century (Source of data: Richardson, 2011, 23):
2006 – 08 £56m (over 2 year period - £28m per year)
2008 – 11 £97m (over 3 year period - £32m per year)
2011 – 15 £60m (over 4 year period - £15m per year)
In addition to the above, the inter-ministerial report makes reference to the New Homes
Bonus which it is noted will include households accommodated under the Traveller Site
provision. This Bonus match funds (through Central Government sources) additional
council tax raised - using the national average income in each council tax band – and is
focused on the provision of new homes and income derived from bringing long term
empty properties back into use, paying a premium for the delivery of affordable homes,
for the six years following delivery (CLG, 2012a, 17, 4.6). However, policy analysts and
critics feel that this incentive will not be enough to attract the support of many local
authorities in developing new pitches, given the level of local opposition to site
development (Ryder et al, 2011).
“Private provision is a key element of traveller pitch supply…” says the Inter-ministerial
report; however it is important that the government does not lose sight of the need for
affordable social sites too. Much as broader housing policy recognises the need for
12
social rented homes through housing associations and local councils, so too is there a
need for affordable social-rented Gypsy and Traveller pitches. Regarding social site
provision the application of the Mobile Homes Act to Gypsy and Traveller sites does
now provide better protection from eviction, ending the anomaly where until recently
Gypsies and Travellers living on local authority sites were not afforded security of tenure
by the Mobile Homes Act (MHA) 1983 (Johnson and Willers, 2007). There are now
duties for both parties to a pitch tenancy that should ensure better conditions on sites,
but the mention of a review after two years, in the inter-ministerial report, is to be
welcomed as this will enable a chance to review progress.
One central tenet of the inter-ministerial committee report hinges on the argument that
that the previous Government’s policy, (in particular Planning Circular 1/2006), created
a “perception of unfairness” amongst the public, with a popular belief that the system
was geared in favour of allowing Gypsies and Travellers to develop new
accommodation in rural and urban areas, often at the expense of other local
householders who were in opposition to such plans (CLG, 2012a) through the RSS
mechanisms explored above. The 2011 Panel Review report however challenged the
validity of this perception, providing evidence to support the argument that the 1994
abolition of the duty on local authorities to provide sites, coupled with earlier planning
regimes exacerbated the shortage of sites (Clark and Greenfields, 2006; Ryder et al,
2011). To tackle the long-term shortage of site provision and the intense public
opposition to site development (CRE, 2006, Richardson, 2007) Circular 2006/1 (see
above) had been implemented. By abolishing these duties as recommended in the interministerial report it is suggested by critics that the Government’s current policy which is
aimed at ‘localising’ planning decisions in essence offers nothing more than a return to
--- earlier failed policies which were reformed under the Labour planning review with
resulting policies gradually starting to increase the numbers of pitches. As such
concerns exist that the progress made in recent years will be reversed and that the new
policy will be doomed to failure and increased rates of hardship for caravan dwelling
families (Ryder et al, 2011).
13
The Inter-ministerial report talks about the need to ‘change perceptions of sites’. This
notion is welcomed, as traditionally the negative perceptions of Gypsy and Traveller
communities have been compounded through media and political campaigns, such as
the ‘Stamp on the Camps’ campaign run by The Sun in 2005 and endorsed as part of
the rhetoric of the Conservative leader at the time in his election bid (Richardson and
O’Neill, 2012). It is the job of politicians to act on realities, rather than perceptions, and
to seek to shape and lead public opinion and where necessary challenge and override
forms of prejudice that undermine equality. In her work for the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, Richardson (2007) set out four key ‘foundation stones’ to success in the
provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites:

Setting a positive context for debate by addressing media and local perception
(this is touched on in the inter-ministerial report through the need to change
perceptions of sites and commitment).

Effective management of sites and unauthorised encampments and
developments

Effective consideration of new sites through good local communications plans
and policies

Strong leadership (again the inter-ministerial report looks at this through support
for elected members and the commitment to continue funding the Local
Government Group training).
In the Inter-ministerial report, it is recognised that suitable accommodation supports
healthy lifestyles, and this is evidenced in numerous health studies. Commitment to
continue to promote health outcomes through the planning system is to be applauded
as an aim; but there is scepticism on how this might be practically applied – if local
settled communities continue to object to new site development, and if it is only the local
voice (rather than the regional voice under the previous regime) that is heard, then it is
not clear how health outcomes will be promoted through the localist planning system
going forward.
14
Policing and Criminal Justice
Drawing upon substantial extant evidence (e.g. Cemlyn et. al., 2009) the interministerial report notes that Gypsy and Traveller communities are subjected to widespread hostility and discrimination, which impacts on their levels of mistrust of criminal
justice agencies and beliefs that such agencies are biased towards the interests of the
settled community (CLG, 2012a, 20, 5.2). It appears clear that such mistrust amongst
GRT populations, stems both from the wider context of evictions from unauthorised
sites experienced by many community members and the associated disruption and
threats from police services to move on which may replace due legal processes
(Cemlyn et. al., 2009; James, 2007); and secondly, from experiences of negative
treatment within the criminal justice system including accelerated processes of
criminalisation experienced by Gypsies and Travellers (Pizani Williams, 1996; Power,
2003). It has been noted that there is a clear inter-relationship between the impact of
accommodation difficulties on access to employment, education and ability to gain bail
for individuals who have been arrested (Cemlyn et al, 2009; Power, 2004), and the
effect of stereotypes and lack of cultural awareness which means many police services
have not embedded positive equality actions for Gypsies and Travellers into their
processes (Coxhead, 2007).
Hate Crime and Public Discourse
The inter-ministerial report seeks to engage with suspicion and low levels of crime
reporting amongst GRT populations through the promotion of third party reporting and
enhanced hate crime action plans which include updated guidance for police on
supporting Gypsies and Travellers. The role of the media and negative public discourse
around GRT communities are once again evident in terms of increased risk for
members of these minority communities. Findings of research undertaken by Stonewall
indeed found a strong link between negative media reporting and hostility towards
particular groups (Valentine, 2004).
15
Over the years GRT groups have lobbied the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to
revise their code of conduct to include wider protection for ethnic minorities and for a
duty to emphasise and maintain stable community relations. The most concerted effort
on the part of GRT populations was initiated through the Equality and Diversity Forum
but the PCC rejected these overtures and at present GRT groups remain relatively
unprotected (Richardson and O’Neil, 2012). It remains to be seen whether the impact of
the Leveson inquiry will prompt radical reform of the PCC to offer greater protection to
vilified minorities like Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. In this way, the inter-ministerial
report’s recommendations for improved action on hate crime against Gypsies and
Travellers are greatly welcomed. It is important however that steps are taken to ensure
monitoring and compliance with this guidance given evidence that in the past, police
forces have not always fulfilled their equalities duties appropriately. The degree of
compliance and support for such measures are therefore likely to reflect geographical
trends and familiarity with GRT populations as well as political will to tackle internal
prejudice and discrimination towards Gypsies and Travellers, and to provide appropriate
training resources (Coxhead, 2007). It is of concern that cutbacks equating to
approximately twenty percent of police force budgets are likely to reduce the number
and scope of race equality and liaison officers and services within police forces, with the
potential to weaken the impact of this positive new improved guidance on working with
GRT communities (Guardian, 26th April, 2012).
Serious concerns have been expressed over the ability of the Equality and Human
Rights Commission (EHRC) to promote human rights, monitoring the law and provide
legal assistance and advice and conducting inquiries and judicial reviews. It has been
reported that staff at the EHRC are deeply concerned about the attack on equalities
represented by the proposed 62% budget cut and 72% staffing cut by 2015 from the
original levels in 2007 (Hansard, 24/4/2012). This reduction of capacity will be of
particular concern for GRT communities given the levels of hate crime and
discrimination directed at this group.
For GRT community members who are within the criminal justice process the interministerial report has taken a positive lead in referring to the racism and discrimination
16
experienced by Gypsies and Travellers in prisons. Such impacts are frequently linked to
popular prejudice amongst both prisoners and staff; lack of cultural awareness training
for prison officers, and literacy difficulties which preclude or inhibit access to prison
educational programmes, use of complaints procedures, the ability to earn remission
through attendance on courses, and disrupted contact with family. These elements are
all considered within a broader review of race equality in prisons (Ministry of Justice,
2008) and other studies on GRT populations in prison (Cemlyn et al, 2009; Power,
2004). A recent cutting edge research study by the Irish Chaplaincy in Britain (ICB)
revealed in detail the extent of these difficulties for Irish Travellers (Mac Gabhann,
2011) and the associated risk of suicide and mental ill health amongst isolated prisoners
from this community.
Positively, the inter-ministerial report makes a number of commitments for monitoring
the provision for Gypsies and Travellers in prison as well as those in receipt of probation
supervision and community orders. For example, identifying such individuals through
the planned inclusion of ‘Gypsy or Irish Traveller’ within the ethnicity categories of the
prison information system, P-Nomis), and developing enhanced good practice
guidance which ensures Gypsy and Traveller issues are included in race equality
training, and educational provision is accessible to individuals with impaired literacy
skills. These recommendations restate and reflect a number of proposals in the Irish
Chaplaincy in Britain and other third sector research studies.
We note however the review undertaken by the Ministry of Justice ( 2008) made similar
commitments to addressing Gypsies’ and Travellers’ needs in prison, but
implementation has to date remained problematic, reflecting a number of wider
difficulties in promoting race equality within prisons (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Prisons, 2005) as despite the fact systems and procedures have improved differential
outcomes for BME prisoners persist, largely because of problems in staff-prisoner
interaction (Cooper, 2010). Accordingly, whilst acknowledging some very positive
localised initiatives we assert that a robust national strategy for working with Gypsies
and Travellers in prison needs to be accompanied by sustained work to change staffing
attitudes and improve the prison services at local level, for example through involving
17
Gypsies and Travellers in the provision of training, acting as role models and providing
mutual support (Mac Gabhann, 2011)
Financial and Economic Inclusion
The inter-ministerial report provides anecdotal and qualitative evidence from recent
research which indicates that Gypsies and Travellers have made little use of Jobcentre
Plus work-related programmes and services. In part this is attributed to Gypsy and
Traveller populations having a cultural bias against claiming out-of-work benefits (see
further Ryder and Greenfields/ITMB, 2010), and the fact that some members of GRT
communities may be leaving traditional work areas and moving into new spheres of
economic activity (CLG, 2012a, 29, 7.2).The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
did not in the past routinely collect data on Gypsies and Travellers but following their
inclusion as an ethnic category in the 2011 census the DWP will now (commendably)
include them as a category in the Labour Force Survey as well as in general monitoring
systems.
The inter-ministerial report makes substantive reference to the research report ‘Roads
to Success: Economic and Social Inclusion for Gypsies and Travellers’ (Ryder and
Greenfields/ITMB, 2010). However, it fails to endorse some of the key proposals which
have relevance to economic inclusion, notably, that more targeted support is required
from the business support service Business Links to help GRT communities to establish
their own businesses and develop forms of sustainable social enterprise. Ryder and
Greenfields/ITMB (2010) emphasised that authorised sites provide a major impetus to
the development of stable Gypsy and Traveller business whilst conversely
homelessness and the threat of eviction is highly counter-productive to economic wellbeing, this key linkage failed however to be referenced or embedded into the
recommendations of this section of the inter-ministerial report. Whilst the ‘Roads to
Success’ study (Ryder and Greenfields/ITMB, 2010) also noted that there was a
growing recognition of the value of formal vocational training amongst GRT populations,
the authors found that the scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowance and
erosion of the Connexions Service would have a negative impact on the uptake of
18
training opportunities regrettably this intersection of policy impacts is excluded from
discussion in the inter-ministerial report.
It is noteworthy that Roma are virtually ignored within the inter-ministerial report, and
thus there is no reference to work restrictions which impact on A8 (Poland, Slovakia,
Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) migrants and A2
(Romania and Bulgaria) nationals in the UK (from which countries many Roma migrants
originate). These restrictions have been found to place huge obstacles in the way of
Roma who wish to become financially independent through seeking employment. Thus
it has been reported that many Roma in the UK are trapped in casual self-employment
and earn a fraction of the legal minimum wage which has consigned them to residence
in overcrowded and substandard accommodation (European Dialogue, 2009; Ryder and
Greenfields/ITMB, 2010). We would therefore urge that any review or response to the
inter-ministerial report should explicitly engage with issues around Roma equality in
terms of access to employment and economic inclusion.
Engagement
The Coalition Government in its equality strategy (HM, 2010) and equality strategy
progress report (HM, 2012) cites listening to and involving the public and partners in the
development of policy as central objectives. Despite this aim and the fact that the interministerial report considers community engagement an important enough subject to
warrant an entire chapter, the materials pertaining to the importance of Gypsy/Traveller
equality and ‘voice’ are meagre in the extreme. The report stresses that the Gypsy and
Traveller Knowledge Network (hosted by the Department for Communities and Local
Government) will promote examples of positive engagement through the Knowledge
Hub website (CLG, 2012a, 8.3) and as such the network will act as a mechanism for
disseminating and discussing good practice examples in community engagement.
Despite this commitment, no clear cut examples of such good practice are however,
provided within the report which we consider to be a wasted opportunity given the
breadth of readership. Whilst we do welcome this initiative, we suggest that the report
would have been significantly strengthened by reference to existing initiatives which can
19
be shown to create a measurable difference to a range of community cohesion and
engagements measures, for example, those (such as became common in GTANAs –
see further Greenfields and Ryder, 2012) leading to full GRT participation in
development, research and employment initiatives, which in turn build bridges between
GRT populations and statutory service providers through positive engagement
processes.
One such model for community engagement is the Ethnic Minority Advisory Group an
independent body (supported by the DWP) whose main focus is to improve the
employment rate amongst minority ethnic communities. We note with pleasure that
there will now be GRT organisational representation on this body (CLG, 2012a, 7.12).
The inter-ministerial report also notes that the Department for Education has
established a group of representatives from the GRT communities, providing a forum for
sharing effective practice in raising attainment and aspirations and promoting more
positive school / community links (CLG, 2012a, 11, 2.12)9.
A long standing aim of members of the GRT communities who are politically engaged
with policy development, has been the establishment of a GRT Task Force. It has
frequently been suggested that such a Taskforce should be composed of GRT
representatives who are able to provide advice to Ministers working in a number of
Departments, in a similar manner to that being offered by the GRT advisory group to the
Department of Education. Thus, for example, in the field of accommodation, this
Taskforce could be utilised to monitor and benchmark need assessments and provide
guidance on achieving ‘robust’ assessments as well as overseeing inclusive community
engagement (Avebury et al, 2010). This proposal is both logical and fiscally efficient
given that the civil service division within the CLG has been significantly scaled down
and mainstreamed within the Ethnicities Unit, minimising the expertise available within
the CLG and to Ministerial enquiries. Accordingly a Taskforce of experts and community
representatives such as the group of activists who have been recognised in the
Honours Lists for their work on behalf of their communities, could continue to work with
9
This committee was a continuation of one initiated by the Labour Government in 2008 by the Education Minister
Lord Adonis at the request of Lord Avebury the Liberal Peer and architect of the 1968 Caravan Sites Act who has a
life-long commitment to GRT issues.
20
a range of Government bodies to ensure that the accumulated body of knowledge
formerly held by the CLG and their networks is not lost. Potentially members of such an
advisory group/Taskforce could be paid a daily rate or expenses rather than a standing
salary such as was required for CLG staff, and as such this recommendation, if fulfilled
could go some way to filling the vacuum which currently exists regarding expertise and
advice whilst increasing routes for community engagement. Moreover, should a
standing or specially convened project focused Taskforce come into existence, it could
also play a critical role in the drafting of follow up monitoring reports such as the next
inter-ministerial review, preventing a repetition of the complaints which surrounded the
2012 inter-ministerial report pertaining to lack of GRT involvement in its preparation,
and in addition, act as a conduit of community ‘voice’ for Ministers and civil servants .
With regard to the question of the extent of community engagement in identifying
response strategies to identified key areas, it is noteworthy that serious disquiet exists
amongst GRT groups over their lack of involvement in the Coalition Government’s
required report to the EU on GRT Integration. The development of European Union
National Roma Integration Strategy (NRIS) also known as a Roma Framework, is a
strongly recommended output for all EU members states and is based on the Open
Method of Coordination (OMC), a framework for national policy development and
coordination for EU members. As such, there is an expectation that each member state
will develop a strategy which seeks to mitigate GRT exclusion which acts as a ‘soft form
of governance’ (Meyer, 2010). The rationale of such formats for policy formation within
EU institutions is that states will examine their policies critically, and this reflexive review
combined with peer pressure will lead to the exchange of good practice and crossdepartmental and international improvements. This mechanism is key to the Roma
Framework mode of governance, as the EC has repeatedly stressed the importance of
on-going dialogue and partnerships between government and GRT groups stated that
resulting national strategies should "be designed, implemented and monitored in close
cooperation and continuous dialogue with Roma civil society, regional and local
authorities" (European Commission, 2011, 9).
21
Accordingly, British GRT groups, (which include a number of individuals actively
engaged in European policy development) were outraged at their exclusion from the
work of the UK inter-ministerial committee on Gypsies and Travellers and the decision
by the Coalition Government not to submit a formal NRIS to the Roma Framework. In
response a number of activists and GRT led agencies are forming autonomous policy
hubs to work on accommodation, education, health and employment fields: the key
action areas to be included within the Roma Framework. Through these deliberative
hubs, opinions and evidence are being collected from activists and individual
respondents to produce a ‘snapshot’ of community aspirations which can be compared
and contrasted to the ‘formal’ outcomes of the inter-ministerial committee report, and
which in turn can be relayed to the European Commission (TAT, 2011). Thus,
Government agencies may find it conducive to good relations with GRT groups not only
to establish formal channels of engagement as identified and advocated for in this
paper, but equally to be seen to engage more directly with the principles and processes
of the Roma Framework in case Governmental commitment to the project is called into
question at the EU level.
In terms of processes of community engagement a further surprising omission in the
inter-ministerial report is a lack of clear reference to the Coalition Government’s flagship
Big Society policy, and the ways in which this approach could be utilised to enhance
communication with GRT groups. The ‘Big Society’ initiative has been headlined as a
method for promoting new partnerships between community groups, wider service
providers and decision making forums (Cabinet Office, 2010). Within this process social
enterprise is to be actively encouraged and community groups given the chance to
tender for and deliver services (Guardian, 27/5/2011). Despite this positive rhetoric,
policy analysts have expressed concerns that the complex processes involved in
accessing funding and the resource intensive nature of engagement with such
mechanism will limit engagement in such community led delivery to more established
and relatively well resourced community groups rather than grass-roots organisations
who are best suited to the delivery of tailored initiatives for ‘hard to reach’ or
marginalised groups (Bartlett, 2009; Greenfields, 2011). In contrast to the large, singleissue national organisations who are most likely to develop opportunities through the
22
mechanisms of opportunities available under the umbrella of the ‘Big Society’ GRT
community development is at a more fragile stage of progression and moreover is often
fragmented and piece-meal in terms of services offered. There are only a small number
of GRT local and national community groups who hold adequate resources and an
appropriate knowledge base to operate under formalized constitutional procedures as
evidenced by the fact that approximately twenty groups exist on the Charities register
(Ryder, 2011).
It can be argued that if the Coalition Government wished to visibly demonstrate a
commitment to community engagement across a wide social spectrum, there is a need
to be more direct and proactive in its support for the fledgling GRT third sector rather
than leaving it to agencies such as the small national charity Travellers Aid Trust who
have been at the forefront of promoting skills development and ‘set-up’ support for GRT
community groups. It is to be hoped that ‘Big Society Capital’, the funding stream of the
Big Society agenda, will prove attentive to the community development needs of
disempowered groups and work with advisors to devise a long term and targeted
strategy, less driven by procurement and commercial pressures than by a desire to
bring about sustainable change. A further reason why the Coalition Government should
prioritise this aspect of policy development, is that under the Localism agenda (see
above under accommodation discussion) the number of planning consultations on
Traveller sites will need to increase from the eight under the previous RSS governance
mechanism to an estimated 326 as local authorities regain control of the planning
process (Ryder et al, 2011). By upskilling GRT community groups and enhancing
community cohesion initiatives the path will be smoothed to meaningful community
consultation with those communities and individuals most affected and whose
involvement must be demonstrated in terms of legally required impact assessments.
Indeed, the necessity of undertaking such impact assessments and the likelihood of
substantial sedentary opposition to such sites has not gone unnoticed by Government
departments (CLG, 2012d), although there has been a noticeable official silence over
the dearth of GRT engagement in such processes.
23
Finally within this section, we note that GRT community engagement in research
agendas is critical to ensure that community ‘voice’ and monitoring of ethical practice
ensues. The inter-ministerial report makes substantial reference to the requirements for
further research and monitoring concerning the Mobile Homes Act, health, education
and criminal justice (CLGa, 2012, 4.14). Only in one area does the inter-ministerial
committee directly refer to working with GRT communities in its investigations and this
in relation to a proposed study where Gypsy and Traveller group representatives will
lead on collecting examples of well-kept small private family sites (CLG, 2012a, 4.8)10.
The inter-ministerial committee may indeed wish to consider extending community
involvement to the other research priorities it has identified through the use of
participatory action research which is proven to enhance trust in policy outcomes which
emerge following research engagements (Greenfields and Ryder, 2010). One of the
reports quoted by the inter-ministerial committee ‘Roads to Success’ (Ryder and
Greenfields/ITMB, 2010) adopted such research approaches and this, and other studies
(including numerous GTANA’s) has demonstrated that GRT groups can play an active
role in the design, data collection and analysis of research, with impacts on credibility of
outcome and longer-term policy and community cohesion impacts.
Equality
Despite the significant reservations we have expressed in this critical review of the interministerial report, we note that the document does represent some progress on dealing
with GRT issues, and demonstrates a more sophisticated approach to engaging with
such issues than was apparent when the Conservative party was in opposition
(Richardson, 200611) . We commend the more nuanced sentiments expressed in the
inter-ministerial report, and express a hope that these sentiments will filter down more
widely amongst politicians and local authority councilors , that political discourse on
10
It will be of policy interest to calculate the number of such ’well run’ private sites which were initially
unauthorised developments and to contemplate the most likely outcomes which would have occured if the new
planning regime (which incorporates restrictions and sanctions against granting planning permission for
unauthorised developments were in operation when they came into existence.
11
One memorable example of intemperate language occurred when the Conservative MP Andrew McKay declared
that Travellers who ‘invade’ public space are “scum that do not deserve the same human rights as other citizens”
(Guardian, 2002)
24
GRT communities may become more informed and measured than hitherto. Despite
this we still consider that elements of the inter-ministerial report and supporting policy
frameworks are flawed and that there is a need to operationalise the broader
philosophical conception of Coalition thought on equality, which was captured within the
statement on its integration strategy ‘Creating the conditions for integration’ (CLG,
2012b). Indeed a key statement on equality notes:
“We believe that core values and experience must be held in common. We should be
robustly promoting British values such as democracy, rule of law, equality of opportunity
and treatment, freedom of speech and the rights of all men and women to live free from
persecution of any kind.” (CLG, 2012b, 4)
Whilst this paper is not the forum to deconstruct the notion of ’core British values’ and
how the depiction of this unproblematised ideal may marginalise the experiences and
voice of some communities or populations, we identify that the trend set by recent
British administrations and indeed some equality spokespersons which joins with
increasingly disparaging European discourse around multiculturalism (Vertovec and
Wessendorf, 2010) and instead reifies narrow integrationism appears set to continue
(Grillo, 2010). Indeed, as argued by Bourne (2006) at present it appears that prevailing
philosophies on diversity have come full circle with a reduction in respect of ‘difference’
and a returning to explicit assimilation policies under the rubric of an ‘integration
agenda’, which essentially ‘tolerates’ minority practices as long as there is adherence
to centrally mandated values and behaviours, in essence mandating “a one-way
process in which minorities are to be absorbed into the non-existent homogeneous
cultural structure of the 'majority'” (Richardson, 2000, Preface x).
We therefore, as practitioners and academics are committed to the conceptualisation of
a diverse and pluralistic society which provide recognition and space for minorities to
practice their culture. Whilst on occasion there will be times when criticism of values and
practices of minorities and majoritarian culture occur, and indeed we believe that such
debate is correct and evidence of a vibrant tradition of dissent, we propose that such
debate should preclude prescription and emotive exhortations to conform to
‘Britishness’ which implies a project of the nation-state and adherence to majoritarian
conceptions of culture and identity which can alienate and exclude entire communities.
25
Instead, a more measurable and universal framework is needed to provide a point of
reference for such debates whilst also acting as an arbitrator of intercultural dialogue.
Such a framework is provided by the European Convention for Human Rights, which
has been transferred into the UK legal system through the 1998 Human Rights Act, a
piece of legislation which is under review and is subject to frequent hostile comment
amongst parliamentarians and the media (Hansard, 15/1/2002; 8/9/2010), particularly
when it arises within the framework of GRT rights Given the importance and indeed
controversy which has frequently surrounded the interplay between the Human Rights
Act and GRT issues (EHRC, 2009) it is somewhat surprising that in the inter-ministerial
report on GRT communities and in the statement on integration, no reference is made
to the relevant legislation, perhaps reflecting the somewhat uneasy relationship
between the current administration and the extant legislation. The omission of this
statute from the report indeed prevents a fuller and more rounded discussion of equality
in this responsive paper, but also indicates the cleavage between the UK and Europe
on engagement with equality discourse, a divide which, as noted above, is underlined
by the Coalition Government’s failure to participate more directly in the EU Framework
for National Roma Integration Strategies. Whilst in a pluralistic and intercultural society
there must clearly be space for dialogue pertaining to rights and freedoms and equally
clarity of the tenor of disagreements and coalitions, we suggest that mechanisms for
constructive dialogue have not been sufficiently established to enable GRT communities
to engage fully in equal debates in relation to Coalition policy framework. In this sense,
the conception of equality embedded into the inter-ministerial report may prove counterproductive to declared aims of reducing community tensions, as adherence to an
essentially mono-cultural conception of shared ‘Britishness’ may not provide adequate
or appropriate space for intercultural dialogue and negotiation which fulfill the needs of
diverse communities who may be perceived of as ‘non-normative’ in policy frameworks.
Thus a failure to acknowledge ‘difference’ may leave minority groups such as GRT
communities wary of engagement, and unsure about the parameters of their relations
with mainstream institutions. In turn such unease and reluctance to participate in
dialogue may be interpreted as culturally reactive and separatist (Ryder, 2011).
26
We have already noted that the mechanisms to negotiate and support participation for
GRT communities are being systematically eroded as a consequence of deficit
reduction (see Ryder et. al., 2011) but would reiterate again that the
Traveller
Education Services have over the years acted as an efficient and trusted bridge
between local institutions and GRT communities, and thus the substantive reduction in
their capacity following cutbacks will greatly impede the process of dialogue as well the
ability of a range of institutions to provide personalized and tailored services for GRT
populations, given that such processes tend to require long term relationship building
and flexible negotiated resources In these times of fiscal austerity The reality is that
GRT communities (alongside many other marginalised populations) will be likely be
offered a ‘one size fits all’ menu of policy interventions, such as are proposed within the
integration strategy (CLG, 2012a) on the assumption that targeted approaches create
community tensions and hostility over resource competition.
Whilst the underlying assumptions behind reduction of specialist targeted services
appears to be that Big Society agendas will provide, a greater say for local communities
in determining how services are designed and delivered, as indicated elsewhere GRT
populations are acutely disadvantaged to compete in this arena given the low base of
formal community organization and political capital they enjoy and the levels of hostility
which are likely to accrue to any agency seen to favour the provision of services to this
group. The inter-ministerial report simply fails to recognise this key fact and indeed
there seems to be no tailored strategy in the Big Society policy format to nurture ‘below
the radar’ communities and vulnerable groups. When coupled with the limited scope for
GRT stakeholders to negotiate national policy (demonstrated by their exclusion from
involvement in developing the inter-ministerial report) and the general absence of
marginalised communities input into the formation of the integration strategy as critiques
by the Runnymede Trust (Runnymede Trust, 2012) abundant evidence exists over the
growing lacuna between recipients of inclusion policies and policy makers. Further
divisions also exist in terms of those groups who are to some limited extent ‘recognised’
by policy makers as able to meaningfully participate in debate, and others who are likely
to be included under the umbrella of ‘migrant workers’. Thus the inter-ministerial
committee’s failure to include Roma communities in any deliberations has been
27
interpreted as a tiered approach in Government thinking on GRT communities where
indigenous Gypsies and Travellers are viewed as having more legitimate concerns and
interests than those of Roma communities who have arrived more recently (Roma
Support Group, 2012). This process of ‘legitimisation’ of ownership of
‘hierarchical
knowledge’ is core to much of the thought which underpins the inter-ministerial report
and integration strategies as there is a real risk that parochialism will prevail,
disadvantaging GRT communities in settings where vested interests or limited
awareness or interest exists on equality and diversity matters, not least in relation to
planning processes where site development (alongside - affordable housing provision
and other ‘controversial’ schemes) is likely to be bitterly opposed by many local
residents.
The notion that the views of the ‘majority’ in a given area should always prevail should
we suggest be open to question on the grounds that such a model may conflict with the
interests of the ’greater good’, a principle which is already regularly applied to transport,
energy and environmental protection planning (Parvin, 2009, 2011). Indeed during the
Communities and Local Government Select Committee inquiry into localism it was
noted that “A range of organisations representing the interests of vulnerable,
marginalised or minority groups expressed fears that a decentralised system in which
'bureaucratic accountability' mechanisms had been dismantled would leave services for
such groups at the mercy of the vagaries of local politics and funding choices made
under the pressure of cuts“ (CLG, 2011 point 59). Thus, it is surely incumbent on
Government to ensure that the practice of localism is monitored to limit negative
impacts on the basis that that the ‘British liberal tradition’ emphasises the protection of
vulnerable minority groups through a commitment to seeing ‘fair play’.
Conclusion
To return to our opening statement, to ensure equality for citizens, there is a
requirement for state action, underpinned by a commitment to social justice (Kisby,
2010). Such actions should, ideally, be mediated and delivered through community
representation as this will ensure that change is relevant, not unduly harsh, and is
tailored to the needs of excluded people (Fung and Wright, 2001). Accordingly if
28
progress is to be made in increasing the social inclusion of GRT communities we assert
that there is a need for greater levels of empowerment of these populations. We
propose therefore to enable the state to ensure equality rather than acting as a
passive spectator, some form of positive action mechanism may be required to counter
institutional racism as well as overt, race based opposition to the delivery of tailored
services and particularly, Traveller sites12. We suggest that given the prior history and
largely extant mechanisms as well as existing professional knowledge base, such
mechanisms could take the form of a return to a statutory obligation or duty on local
authorities to provide sites, as well as formal recognition of the disadvantages
experienced by vulnerable groups (such as former prisoners in bail hostels, learning
disabled adults or residents of social housing) experience in the planning sphere.
Should such a duty be re-introduced, forcing local authorities to provide and facilitate
affordable accommodation for a range of low income and vulnerable groups it is likely
that such a policy response would resonate with large swathes of the public frustrated in
their desire to achieve decent accommodation by the vagaries of market driven
accommodation mechanisms and parochial opposition to affordable housing.
Yet this critical review does not merely focus on planning issues and it should not be
forgotten that amongst the myriad other elements considered in the inter-ministerial
report equality and access to services are perhaps the strongest abiding theme. Access
to economic, health and education inclusion as well as ways of delivering stronger
political capital for GRT populations must therefore form the focus of any practical
engagement with the Coalition Government policies. We reiterate therefore, that to bring
about change, there is a clear need for representation and open access to policy
makers by GRT communities. By recognising that only when marginalised voices are
heard and their claims given credence can change occur, we call clearly upon the
Government to embrace democratic change to enhance the ‘greater good’ through
12
The Communities and Local Government Select Committee has expressed similar sentiments arguing
that Gypsy and Traveller sites are a contentious issue and “…without a statutory requirement for local
authorities to provide sufficient sites, there is great concern that Gypsies and Travellers will not have
adequate accommodation and that the new system of planning may discriminate against communities”
(CLG Select Committee, 2011, Point 57).
29
principled and altruistic commitment to partnership working in a way which will enable
genuine and meaningful equality agendas to be progressed (Habermas, 2011)
References
Acton, T and Ryder, A (2012) Recognising Gypsy/Roma/Traveller history and culture in in
Gypsies and Travellers: Accommodation, Empowerment and Inclusion in British Society’ .
Bristol, Policy Press
Avebury, E, Acton, T, Ryder, A and Willers, M (2010) ’Notes on the new Conservative Traveller
policy’ Institute for Race Relations
Badman, G. (2009) Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective
Home Education in England, London: HMSO.
Bartlett, J. (2009) Getting more for less: efficiency in the public sector. London: Demos
Bourne, J. (2006) ‘In Defense of Multiculturalism’, Institute for Race Relations Briefing Paper
No. 2
Brown, P. and Niner, P. (2009) Assessing Local Housing Authorities:
Progress in Meeting the Accommodation Needs of Gypsy and Traveller
Communities in England. London. Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Cabinet Office (2010) The Coalition: our programme for government, 2010, Cabinet Office
http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/
Cemlyn, S, Greenfields, M, Burnett, S, Matthews, Z and Whitwell, C. (2009) Inequalities
experienced by Gypsy and Traveller communities: a review. (Research Report no. 12), London:
Equality and Human Rights Commission
CLG Task Force . (2007) The Road Ahead: Final Report of the Independent Task
Group on Site Provision and Enforcement for Gypsies and Travellers, London:
Communities and Local Government.
CLG (2012a) Progress report by the ministerial working group on tackling inequalities
experienced by Gypsies and Travellers. London. Communities and Local Government.
CLG (2012b) Creating the conditions for integration’. London. Communities and Local
Government.
30
CLG (2012c) Planning policy for traveller sites. London. Communities and Local
Government.
CLG (2012d) Planning policy for traveller sites – impact assessment. London. Communities
and Local Government
CLG (2011 Press Release) ‘Eric Pickles: time for fair play for all on planning’ 13th April 2011
London, Communities and Local Government.
Commission for Racial Equality (2006) ‘Common Ground: Equality, good relations and sites for
Gypsies and Irish Travellers’
Cooper, C. (2010) Equality in the Prison Service - a lot done a lot still to do. Prison Service
Journal, 191, pp.11-14
Coxhead, J. (2007) The last bastion of racism. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
DCSF (2009) The Inclusion of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Children and
Young People, www.education.gov.uk/publications. London, Department for Children, Schools
and Families
DH Inclusion Health: improving primary care for socially excluded people 2010
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/
DH_114067
Duffy, S (2010) The Citizenship Theory of Social Justice: Exloring the Meaning of
Personalisation for Social Workers – Journal of Social Work Practice
European Dialogue. (2009) Mapping Survey of A2 and A8 Roma in England (London: prepared
for the DCSF by European Dialogue) London. European Dialogue
European Commission (2011) ‘Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions - An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020’.
EHRC (2009) Simple Solutions for living together
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/gypsies_and_travellers.pdf. London,
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Ford S (2012) Community nursing 'overburdened', warns RCN
http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/district-and-communitynursing/community-nursing-overburdened-warns-rcn/5044715.article?blocktitle=Weekly-newsfocus&contentID=8361
31
Foster, B and Cemlyn, S (2012) Education, inclusion and government policy in Gypsies and
Travellers: Accommodation, Empowerment and Inclusion in British Society’ . Bristol. Policy
Press
Greenfields M, Home R, Cemlyn S, Bloxham J, Lishman R (2007) West of England Gypsy &
Traveller accommodation assessment 2007-2012. A Report for Bristol, South Gloucestershire
and North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset Councils. High Wycombe: BNU
Greenfields, M (2011) Bigger Societies, Smaller Governments?" The Impact of the Big Society
on Gendered Community Employment Opportunities for Minority Ethnic Women ‐ threat or
promise? Unpublished Conference Paper presented to the Social Policy Association
Conference, University of Lincoln, 4-6th July 2011
Greenfields, M and Ryder, A (2010) The Traveller Economic Inclusion Project: An inclusive and
intercultural approach to research Combining Policy, Practice and Community in Action
Research (unpublished conference paper delivered at the University of Gray conference in
Applied Interculturality Research 7 – 10th April 2012)
http://www.uni-graz.at/fAIR/cAIR10/text/procs/Greenfields_Ryder_cAIR10.pdf
Grillo R (2010) in Vertovec and Wessendorf (below)
Guardian, 15th January 2002 ‘Tory rails against Traveller ‘scum’
Guardian (2011) ‘Big Society and Civil Society’ Paul Emery – the Guardian, 27th March 2011
Guardian (2012) ‘Police face deeper cuts after spending watchdog finds £500m 'black hole'Twothirds of police forces have failed to meet government savings targets, says National Audit
Office – 26th April – Alan Travis Guardian
Habermas, J (2011) Europe's post-democratic era – The Guardian 10th November 2011
Hansard (15/1/2002) (8/9/2010)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100908/halltext/100908h0002
.htm
Hansard (24/4/2012)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120424/halltext/120424h0002
.htm#12042446000001
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) (2003) Diversity Matters. London : Home
Office Communication Directorate
Hodges, N. and Cemlyn, S. (forthcoming) The Accommodation Experiences of Older Gypsies
and Travellers: Personalisation of Support and Coalition Policy. Social Policy and Society.
32
Home Office (2010) The Equality Strategy – Building a Fairer Britain. London, HM Government
Home Office (2012) The Equality Strategy – Building a Fairer Britain. Progress Report. London,
HM Government
Irish Traveller Movement in Britain (2011) Planning for Gypsies & Travellers in England:
Preliminary Findings
James, Z. (2007) Policing marginal spaces: Controlling Gypsies and Travellers.
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7, pp. 367-89
Johnson, C. and Willers, M. (ed.) (2007/9) ‘Gypsy and Traveller Law’, London, Legal Action
Group
Kisby, (B) (2010) The Big Society: Power to the People? – The Political Quarterly Vol 81, Issue
4 pp 484–491
Mac Gabhann, C. (2011) Voices Unheard. A Study of Irish Travellers in Prison. London, Irish
Chaplaincy in Britain. Available at:
http://www.iprt.ie/files/Voices_Unheard_June_2011.pdf. Accessed 16th May 2012.
Meyer, H. (2010) ‘The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) – A Governance Mechanism for the
G20?’, Social Europe Journal Website.
Ministry of Justice (2008) Race Review 2008. Implementing Race Equality in Prisons: Five
Years On. National Offender Management Service, Ministry of Justice.
Available at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/hmps/2008/noms-race-review-part-1.pdf.
Accessed 16th May 2012
NHS PCC. Primary care service framework for Gypsies and Travellers.
http://www.library.nhs.uk/COMMISSIONING/ViewResource.aspx?resID=316159 . 2009. NHS
Primary Care Contracting. 31-8-2009.
Richardson, J. (2007) Contentious Spaces: The Gypsy/Traveller Site Issue,
York/Coventry: JRF/CIH.
Richardson, J. (2006) ‘The Gypsy Debate: Can Discourse Control?’, Exeter and Charlottesville,
Imprint Academic
Richardson, J and O’Neil, R (2012) Stamp on the Camps’: the social
construction of Gypsies and Travellers in media and political debate in in Gypsies and
Travellers: Accommodation, Empowerment and Inclusion in British Society’ . Bristol, Policy
Press
Richardson, R. (ed.) (2000) ‘The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain – The Parekh Report’, London,
Profile Books
Roma Support Group (2012) unpublished correspondence to Communities and Local
33
Government
Runnymede Trust (2012) Runnymede Trust response to the government’s Integration Strategy:
“A dangerous and ill-advised reversion to assimilationist policy” (Press Release 21st February,
2012)
Ryder, A and Greenfields, M (Principal Authors) (2010) ‘Roads to Success: Routes to Economic
and Social Inclusion for Gypsies and Travellers’ (A report by the Irish Traveller Movement in
Britain funded by Big Lottery Research). London, ITMB
Ryder, A., Acton, T., Alexander, S., Cemlyn, S., van Cleemput, P., Greenfields, M.,
Richardson, J., and Smith, D. 2011. A Big or Divided Society? Interim Recommendations and
Report of the Panel Review into the Impact of the Localism Bill and Coalition Government Policy
of Gypsies and Travellers. Kidwelly: Travellers Aid Trust.
Ryder, A (2011) ‘Gypsies and Travellers and the Third Sector. Birmingham, Third Sector
Research Centre Discussion Paper
Travellers Advice Team (2011) TAT News E-Bulletin December 2011
Parvin, P. (2009) ‘Against Localism: Does Decentralising Power to
Communities Fail Minorities?’, The Political Quarterly, vol 80, no
3, pp 351-360.
Parvin, P. (2011) ’Localism and the Left’, Renewal, vol, 19, no 2.
Pizani Williams, L. (1998) Gypsies and Travellers in the Criminal Justice System – The
Forgotten Minority. Cropwood Occasional Papers no 23. University of Cambridge, Institute of
Criminology
Power, C. (2003) Irish Travellers: Ethnicity, racism and pre-sentence reports. Probation Journal,
vol 50, no 3,pp. 252-266
Power, C. (2004) Room to Roam: England’s Irish Travellers. London: Brent Irish
Advisory Service.
Valentine, G. and McDonald, I. (2004) Understanding Prejudice: Attitudes
Towards Minorities, London: Stonewall.
Vertovec and Wessendorf (2010 eds.) Multcultural Backlash, European discourses polices and
practice London: Routledge
Van Cleemput, P., Bissell, P. and Harris, J. (2010) ‘Pacesetters Programme
Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Core Strand Evaluation Report for
the Department of Health’, www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/ph/
research/h_i/hiresearch.
Van Cleemput, P (2012) Gypsy and Traveller Health in Gypsies and Travellers:
Accommodation, Empowerment and Inclusion in British Society’. Bristol.Policy Press
34
35