A Critique of UK Coalition Government Policy on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller CommunitiesAndrew 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 Bristol3 Dr Margaret Greenfields is Reader in Social Policy and Director of the Institute for Diversity Research, Buckinghamshire New University4 Dr Joanna Richardson is a Principal Lecturer, Centre for Housing Research, De Montfort University5 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

UnfilledVacancies

CutsThreatened

Restructureand Cuts in service provision

Significant numbers of posts lost

Staff Loss ServiceThreatened with closure

ServiceDeleted/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 inter-

ministerial 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 inter-

ministerial 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 inter-

ministerial report notes that Gypsy and Traveller communities are subjected to wide-

spread 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 DiscourseThe 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 inter-

ministerial 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 well-

being, 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 inter-

ministerial 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 cross-

departmental 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, single-

issue 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 inter-

ministerial 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

GRT communities may become more informed and measured than hitherto. Despite

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

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 counter-

productive 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 PressAvebury, 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 ElectiveHome 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 TravellerCommunities 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 TaskGroup 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 andYoung People, www.education.gov.uk/publications. London, Department for Children, Schools

and Families

DH Inclusion Health: improving primary care for socially excluded people 2010http://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-community-nursing/community-nursing-overburdened-warns-rcn/5044715.article?blocktitle=Weekly-news-focus&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'Two-thirds 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 socialconstruction 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 toCommunities Fail Minorities?’, The Political Quarterly, vol 80, no3, 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 IrishAdvisory Service.

Valentine, G. and McDonald, I. (2004) Understanding Prejudice: AttitudesTowards 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 ProgrammeGypsy, Roma and Traveller Core Strand Evaluation Report forthe 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