WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES; VISIT TO THE UK, 7-10 MARCH 2016 FROM ROMA SUPPORT GROUP 1. We have referenced the following documentation. The Council of Europe resolution in the last monitoring round (2012), as appendix 1. 2. The UK government fourth report (March 2015) under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; available here: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000 16802f299e 3. We would like to note that in addition to the UK government statement, the following progress has been made. 4. The decision by the Department for Education to conduct the annual school census by differentiating between Gypsy and Roma pupils, and maintaining the pupil category of Travellers of Irish Heritage. This change has started with the January 2016 census, the results of which will be available from June 2016. We welcome this change and along with others, RSG argued for this distinction to be made. We still think that self-ascription rates for Roma children vary from school to school, and from education authority to education authority. 5. We note that attainment data for ‘Gypsy/Roma’ pupils at Key Stage 4 (age 16) for 2015 shows a huge under-achievement, and a growing gap between Gypsy/Roma pupils performance and the performance for all pupils. We note for pupils completing primary stage education, a similarly large gap between Gypsy/Roma children and all pupils. Table 1: % attainment for pupils of 5+ GCSEs (A*-C, including English and Maths), KS4

All pupils Traveller of Irish Heritage Gypsy/Roma

2013/14 56.6 14.0 8.2

2014/15 57.1 17.6 8.6

Table 2: % attainment for pupils at KS2 (age 11) in achieving expect level in reading, writing and maths, 2013-15

All pupils Traveller of Irish Heritage Gypsy/Roma

2013-2015 69 31 21

6. In December 2014, Ofsted (the government’s school inspection agency) published its first ever report focusing on Roma children in UK school1, Overcoming barriers – ensuring that Roma children are fully engaged and achieving in education. Despite some shortcomings, we think that this was a significant occasion and the recommendations are important but which we do not consider the Department fro Education to be acting upon, (see also #17). 7. Changes in access to welfare benefits for EU migrants and jobseekers have been particularly sharply felt by Roma families. These changes include23:  Delay in applying for and a limit in time for claiming Job Seekers Allowance  Delay in applying for and a limit in time for claiming Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit  Satisfying a “stronger” habitual residence test, which in its previous form, is the subject of challenge by the European Commission  Severely limiting access to interpretation support in Job Centres  Resultant ineligibility for Housing Benefit where other ‘passporting’ benefits denied. 8. RSG has attempted to catalogue this impact in our report, The impact on Migrant Roma communities of changes to welfare and entitlements (2015)4. 9. The Committee of Ministers agreed after the last report on the UK that the authorities be invited to “take measures to ensure that savings in public expenditure do not have a disproportionately negative impact on the situation of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, for example by means of impact assessments”. 10. In relation to the Migrants Access to Benefits programme (led by DWP and HMRC), the EIA noted that it was unable to assess how many EU migrants affected by the changes to Housing Benefit would be of minority ethnic origin5. But then astoundingly, the EIA suggested that, To comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Department has paid due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations. It is government policy that migrants should contribute to this country and not be drawn here by the attractiveness of our benefits system. Therefore the new policy is also likely to foster good relations by restoring people’s belief in the integrity of the UK benefit system.

1

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ensuring-roma-children-achieve-in-education

2

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/further-curbs-to-migrant-access-to-benefits-announced

3

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eu-jobseekers-barred-from-claiming-universal-credit

4

https://drive.google.com/a/romasupportgroup.org.uk/file/d/0B2lw1_Krq5gnOGRrb3dlamRocm8/view

5

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322808/equality-analysiseea-jobseekers.pdf (p9)

11. In other words, “fostering good relations” (between people of different ethnicities under the PSED) is reduced to good relations being fostered by the supposed integrity of the UK benefits system; not in the assumption that EU migrants will not face discrimination and possible differential treatment by the changes to eligibility for support with housing costs. 12. We were unable to access any other EIA for all the other range of changes affecting EU migrants and out-of-work benefits. We were told by civil servants that the EIA existed, but it was never provided (notes from National Roma Network meetings, 2014 and 2015). 13. Roma Support Group would like to draw the attention of the Advisory Committee to four other issues. 14. First, and most significantly. We think that the UK government fails to recognise Roma communities, now permanently settled in the country, as a ‘national minority’. In the UK submission (March 2015), the only reference to (migrant) Roma is in relation to the lack of educational progress. We think that this is a continuing feature of the UK government policy of non-recognition for (migrant) Roma women and men who have now settled in the UK for nearly thirty years, many of whom are permanent residents and UK nationals. We would not generally support a policy which identifies indigenous Roma (qua Irish Travellers or English Gypsies) and migrant Roma (qua recent heritage in East/Central Europe), but we do believe that in terms of ‘national minorities’, the UK government is forced to recognise the changing character and ethnicity of many cities and towns in the UK. There is no mention of the recent report by Salford University which has estimated that there are about 200,000 (migrant) Roma now living in the UK6. For example, over 1,000 words are used in the report to review issues affecting the Cornish language7; there is not one mention of the recognition, let alone support, for Romanes or Romani languages. We would expect that the Advisory Committee would want to confirm that Roma are a national minority in the UK. 15. Secondly, we think that the issue of Roma children’s experience in school is the most critical factor which could support Roma integration and progress. The second most important reason given by Roma for moving to the UK is the belief that their children will experience and benefit from a good education. This contrasts with the widely criticised nature of the educational systems in CEE countries, notably in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is essential for progress and opportunities for the rising generation of Roma women and men in the UK. 16. But a number of reports continue to raise concerns. The continuing gap in attainment, with “Gypsy/Roma” pupils being markedly the lowest performing group of pupils. Exclusion rates for Roma pupils appear to be rising very quickly, in contrast to generally lower levels of 6

http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/363118/Migrant_Roma_in_the_UK_final_report_Octo ber_2013.pdf 7

A recent report suggests 2,000 speakers with fluent Cornish; and 557 people in the 2011 census said that it was their main language

exclusion for all pupils. In a major northern city, the average exclusion rate for all pupils in the secondary stage (11-16) was 6% in 2014 and down to 5% in 2015. For Gypsy/Roma pupils, the exclusion rate was 15% in 2014 and 26% in 20158. 17. Nevertheless, despite these trends and the Ofsted report, the Department for Education have been “reviewing” whether to maintain their only mechanism for dialogue with Roma, Gypsy, Traveller civic society and expert educationalists. The Gypsy Roma Traveller stakeholder group has existed for well over five years but has not met since March 2015. Recent exchanges of correspondence between government ministers and Baroness Whitaker (the chair of the stakeholder group) has suggested that the government might be minded to discontinue the group as they consider that schools are making “good progress” as a result of the government education reform agenda (see letter from Nick Gibb, 15 January 2016). We would consider that the ending of the GRT stakeholder group represents a serious reversal of government policy, and would expect to see that Department for Education’s review would maintain and strengthen the operation of the DfE stakeholder group. 18. Thirdly, we have serious concerns that another aspect of government policy, covered in the UK government’s submission, is having deleterious effects on opportunities within the UK labour market. European Structural & Investment Funds (ESIF) have been recognised by the European Commission as a way that EU member states can support Roma integration. Our recent survey suggested that in only two (Leeds and Sheffield) of the 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) - who have devolved responsibility by government to develop local strategies and action plans for the use of £6bn of European structural funds between 20142020 under the policy of ‘localism’ – have any plans or strategies to directly and explicitly support Roma beneficiaries. Another two LEPs (The Marches and Worcestershire) have plans which would target Gypsy and Roma beneficiaries. 19. We provide in appendix 2 the initial RSG research report, the DWP response (tabled at the Communities & Local Government GRT liaison group, 3 March 2016) and RSG subsequent rejoinder. We do not believe that the policy of ‘localism’ in respect of the allocation of EU structural and investment funds meets the expectations that the Commission would have in terms of such funds being a major component in members states meeting their commitments for Roma integration. 20. Lastly, we have concerns about the growing use of powers, exercised informally and without due regard, by government agencies – particularly UK Visa & Immigration (UKVI) service – which appear to be leading to the removal of Roma families and individuals from the UK. Since 2012 there have been a series of joint UKVI and Met Police operations (for e.g. Op Nexus/Op Chefornak/Op Encompass) which have been considered to have a disproportionate impact on migrant Roma. 21. While certain operations have attempted to target street homelessness and associated acts such as begging or perceived anti -social behaviour, there is a concern that this process has 8

This was based on 567 students in secondary phase, about 2% of the city’s pupil population

been ‘stepped up’ to target families who have fallen into destitution and subsequently likely to be reliant on either social services and/ or other welfare assistance. 22. This is an issue which is presently being catalogued by Roma civic society and migration support agencies but we believe that it is worthy of drawing to your attention. It is understood that the operation of both ‘voluntary return’ and administrative removals is increasingly based on circumstances of destitution – many of which are a direct result of recent welfare reform affecting EU nationals. 23. There is particular concern for Roma women (and their children) who have derived rights in the UK through a partner who has subsequently left the relationship. If the mother does not have her own work history in the UK – especially where she has been a carer for young children – she is often assessed as ‘without recourse to public funds’. In cases where this has subsequently led to eviction proceedings, the housing department does not accept a duty under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and nor will children’s services accept a duty under s.17 Children Act 1989 as they would for a British national. The operation of Schedule 3 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 permits the local authority to refuse to accommodate the mother and children and instead offer them ‘voluntary’ return to their country of origin. From experience, this is often without full and proper assessment of the child’s education or health needs and without proper consideration of the availability of relevant support services on arrival in the country of origin which is of great concern.

Andy Shallice Laura Greason

Roma Support Group 7th March 2016

APPENDIX 1 Resolution CM/ResCMN(2012)22 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the United Kingdom (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 December 2012 at the 1158th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Articles 24 to 26 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (hereinafter referred to as “the Framework Convention”), Having regard to Resolution Res(97)10 of 17 September 1997 setting out rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers on the monitoring arrangements under Articles 24 to 26 of the Framework Convention; Having regard to the voting rule adopted in the context of adopting Resolution Res(97)10;1 Having regard to the instrument of ratification submitted by the United Kingdom on 15 January 1998; Recalling that the Government of the United Kingdom transmitted its State report in respect of the third monitoring cycle under the Framework Convention on 23 March 2010; Having examined the Advisory Committee’s third opinion on the United Kingdom, adopted on 30 June 2011, and the written comments of the Government of the United Kingdom received on 22 December 2011; Having also taken note of comments by other governments, 1. Adopts the following conclusions in respect of the United Kingdom: a) Positive developments The United Kingdom has continued to take measures to combat discrimination and advance equality and social mobility in society. In particular, a new comprehensive Equality Act was adopted in 2010 which comprises innovative approaches and provisions that pave the way for further improvements in the field of equality and human rights, including protection of minority ethnic communities. This Act could prove a milestone and set new standards in combating discrimination. The authorities have continued to collect an extensive range of data on the situation of persons belonging to minority ethnic communities in various areas of life, as a means to evaluate better the needs of these persons and improve policies and measures to combat both direct and indirect discrimination. Efforts to combat all forms of intolerance and racism have also been pursued by the government and the devolved administrations. Particular emphasis has been placed on combating hate crime and increasing hate crime reporting.

Efforts to achieve reconciliation and reinforce social cohesion in Northern Ireland have been pursued, including through governmental and non-governmental co-operation with Ireland. New schemes to promote the use in public life of languages such as Gaelic and Scots in Scotland have been developed and some progress was achieved. Further steps were also taken to improve teaching of these languages at school. The Welsh authorities have continued to take substantial measures to reinforce the use and presence of the Welsh language in all areas of public life. Additional measures were taken in the field of education to narrow the gap in attainment and achievement between students belonging to some minority ethnic communities and those from the majority population. Pilot projects to improve access to education and equality in education for Gypsy and Traveller pupils were carried out. Participation in elected bodies of persons belonging to minority ethnic communities has increased following recent elections. Important achievements have also been made in reducing inequalities in the fields of employment, housing and health care, with some minority ethnic groups achieving better outcomes than the majority. b) Issues of concern Inequality of outcomes, and discriminatory practices, although gradually decreasing, persist in certain fields for certain ethnic minority groups, including for some of those recently arrived and in a vulnerable situation. Although important measures have been taken to combat discrimination in the conduct of law enforcement officials, persons belonging to ethnic minority communities continue to be disproportionately stopped and searched by the police. Efforts to design comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland as outlined in the St Andrews Agreement, as well as a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement, have so far not yielded results. There have been important budgetary cuts in recent years which have resulted in reduced public funding for various organisations and activities, while localism has moved much decision making, including funding decisions, to the local level. It is important to ensure that these changes do not have a disproportionately adverse impact on persons belonging to ethnic minorities. The situation of Gypsies and Travellers, particularly in the field of access to accommodation and educational attainment and attendance, is of particular concern. There has been a persistent shortage of sites, which can contribute to the establishment of unauthorised developments and encampments, which in turn can generate tensions between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community, and result in evictions. While the number of reported hate crimes decreased slightly, the level of such crimes is a continued cause of concern, and indicates worrying levels of intolerance by some against certain ethnic minority groups, who can be encouraged in some cases by unbalanced or biased media reporting. The authorities have not yet adopted comprehensive legislation on the Irish language in Northern Ireland and more could be done to promote the use of this language in the public sphere. Gypsies, Travellers and Roma continue to experience low rates of attainment in the education system, as well as low rates of enrolment, high dropout rates, the lack of trained teachers working

with pupils from these minorities and the general lack of preparation of schools to integrate children of these minority backgrounds. While measures taken to improve ethnic minority representation in public services since the second opinion have led to improvements, persons belonging to minority ethnic communities continue to be under-represented in some public services, including the police and the judiciary. While persons belonging to minority ethnic communities are, in general, consulted on issues of relevance to them, the absence of a consultative structure may result in insufficient opportunities for dialogue between them and the authorities. 2. Adopts the following recommendations in respect of the United Kingdom: In addition to the measures to be taken to implement the detailed recommendations contained in sections I and II of the Advisory Committee's opinion, the authorities are invited to take the following measures to improve further the implementation of the Framework Convention: Issues for immediate action:2 - take measures to ensure that savings in public expenditure do not have a disproportionately negative impact on the situation of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, for example by means of impact assessments; - take effective measures to address the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers including by encouraging the delivery of sites and improving the co-ordination of the different levels of authorities involved in sites delivery; ensure that local authorities comply with their responsibilities in sites delivery; - enhance efforts to seek consensus on the introduction of legislation on the Irish language in Northern Ireland and continue to take appropriate measures to protect and develop the Irish language in Northern Ireland; Further recommendations:3 - ensure the effective implementation of the Equality Act 2010 and continue to implement strategies to combat discrimination and promote equality; ensure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has appropriate resources to carry out its functions effectively and independently; - step up efforts to develop a single Equality Act in Northern Ireland; - take measures to ensure that the planning policy and process in relation to the development of caravan sites takes appropriate account of the situation of Gypsies and Travellers; - continue to take resolute measures to combat the instigation and dissemination of prejudices and intolerance, in the public sphere, including through the media, while fully respecting editorial freedom; take further steps to combat racism and similar forms of intolerance, and in particular continue to pursue a proactive approach in combating hate crime; - ensure that “stop and search” powers are exercised in a reasonable, proportionate and nondiscriminatory manner, including at all border crossings, ports and airports; - continue to design and implement measures to encourage speakers of Irish, Ulster Scots and Gaelic languages to use their languages in the public sphere and in relations with local administrative authorities, respectively in Northern Ireland and Scotland;

- continue to take measures to improve the attainment and attendance of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma pupils at school; develop more comprehensive and integrated approaches to their education, in close co-operation with representatives of the groups concerned; - continue to ensure that members of ethnic minorities are included in consultations on legislative and policy developments; continue promoting increased participation of persons belonging to minority ethnic communities in public services, particularly in the police and the judiciary. 3. Invites the Government of the United Kingdom, in accordance with Resolution Res(97)10: a. to continue the dialogue in progress with the Advisory Committee; b. to keep the Advisory Committee regularly informed of the measures it has taken in response to the conclusions and recommendations set out in section 1 and 2 above. 1

In the context of adopting Resolution Res(97)10 on 17 September 1997, the Committee of Ministers also adopted the following rule: “Decisions pursuant to Articles 24.1 and 25.2 of the Framework Convention shall be considered to be adopted if two-thirds of the representatives of the Contracting Parties casting a vote, including a majority of the representatives of the Contracting Parties entitled to sit on the Committee of Ministers, vote in favour”. 2

The recommendations below are listed in the order of the corresponding articles of the Framework Convention. 3

The recommendations below are listed in the order of the corresponding articles of the Framework Convention.

APPENDIX 2 EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL & INVESTMENT FUNDING (ESIF), 2014-2020 (NON) INCLUSION OF GYPSY, ROMA, TRAVELLER COMMUNITIES IN STRATEGIES AGREED BY LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS (LEPs) 1. The European Commission is quite explicit about how the strategy to support ‘Roma inclusion’ can be supported by the use of EU funds: The EU supports work done towards Roma integration by EU countries through its European Structural and Investment Funds. The European Union finances projects that contribute to fostering Roma integration across Europe. It supports the work of EU countries to improve the lives of all vulnerable people, including the Roma, through the European Structural and Investment Funds, principally the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). How are the funds allocated? The distribution of these funds and the management of the programmes are the responsibility of national authorities. Funding is provided on the basis of calls for proposals/tenders and never in response to spontaneous requests9. 2. In 2014-2020, just over €6bn of EU funds will be available for UK based projects. 3. The recent record of the use of EU funds in Central & Eastern Europe to support Roma inclusion has been very mixed; there is extensive documentation of state and regional authorities siphoning off funding, secured to support Roma inclusion, and being used for non-Roma beneficiaries10. Nevertheless, within the UK, the 2014-20 ESIF programme provides many potential new opportunities. 4. At a meeting of the National Roma Network (10 Sept 2013), Angus Grey (ESF programme lead at DWP) attended and gave a presentation on the 2014-20 ESIF programme; colleagues from DCLG/NRCP were present at this meeting. The presentation included the following slide: “HM Government Opportunities for supporting Roma  Detail will depend on LEP strategies / priorities and on delivery arrangements in each LEP area.  Some may have very specific objectives; others may take a more generic approach.  Activities could, in theory, include: 9

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/roma/eu-funding/index_en.htm

10

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/beyond-rhetoric-2011-0616.pdf

  

encouraging access to other employment, skills and social inclusion provision; outreach activity; specific projects designed around needs of specific groups”

5. The minute of the meeting also says: It was confirmed that if the UK does not meet the EU criteria for Roma then the LEPs would not be able to allocate funding through that specific funding stream...... there is a requirement that at least 20% of ESF must be spent on social inclusion, which can cover Roma. Angus (Grey) stated that it is easier to focus on areas where it adds value to national programmes and the lack of a national approach on Roma makes it more difficult. He confirmed that he will ensure there is enough flexibility to allow ‘softer’ social inclusion targets for Roma rather than narrow jobs and skills targets 6. At a meeting of the Gypsy Roma Traveller All Party Parliamentary Group (4 December 2013), it was agreed that all relevant Local Enterprise Partnerships in England by approached to confirm that their draft strategies referred to Gypsy Roma Traveller communities/populations in their localities, with a view to ensuring that GRT were explicitly potential beneficiaries for subsequent ESIF programmes, 2014-2020. All LEPs had to submit their strategies to the UK government by January 2014. LEPs are private sector-led local agencies. 7. RSG contacted a number of LEPs in areas which we were aware had settled Roma communities. These LEPs were: Leeds Sheffield Derby/Nottingham, Manchester Birmingham Stoke/Staffordshire Leicester South East (Kent and Essex) London – (via TM) 8. Leeds, Sheffield, Greater Manchester, Stoke/Staffordshire and Derby/Nottingham responded that they would include/had included either explicit reference to Roma migrant communities (Leeds, Sheffield), or Traveller communities (London), or implicit inclusion of GRT (Derby/Nottingham and Stoke/Staffordshire). 9. At a further meeting of the national Roma network (24 January 2014) the progress of completing ESIF strategies by LEPs re Roma was further discussed. This meeting was again attended by colleagues from DCLG/NRCP. It was made clear that without their being explicit reference to the needs/relationship to the labour market/’social inclusion’ of Roma communities in the ESIF, it was very unlikely that any subsequent funding programme would

be developed by the LEP which would explicitly focus (and hopefully benefit) local Roma communities. 10. In 2015, RSG undertook to explore each of the 39 LEPs strategy for the use of ESIF in detail. 11. Only three LEPs specifically referred to Roma – Leeds, Sheffield and to a lesser extent, Birmingham. Leeds ESIF strategy includes an extensive description, analysis and sets of proposals for Roma inclusion11. Similarly, the Sheffield strategy includes extensive description and analysis of Roma communities in South Yorkshire, and proposals for action12. Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP referred (in terms of social inclusion issues) to: “Of particular note has been FE work with young people from the Roma community who have had difficulty engaging with the education and training system13”. 12. Only six LEPs specifically referred to Gypsy and/or Traveller; Cambridgeshire/Peterborough; Leeds; Sheffield; Solent; London and The Marches. Cambridge/Peterborough LEP explicitly refers to, There are complex issues around migration, ranging from movement among the area’s high end workforce and potential future non-EU migration. Parts of the (LEP) area also experience seasonal EU migration to support the agriculture and horticulture sectors and there are specific issues generated by some of the UK’s largest concentrations of gypsy and traveller communities14 (my emphasis) However, despite claiming ‘ownership’ of one of the largest Gypsy/Traveller populations in the country, the only proposals suggested by the LEP in the proposed social inclusion programme are directed at workers “with poor English language skills”15. 13. A number of LEPs specifically referred to migrants; e.g. Black Country, Derby/Nottingham, Humberside, South East Midlands and Cambridge/Peterborough all referred to ‘EU migrants’, and Lancashire, Oxfordshire, New Anglia, Leeds and Sheffield all included ‘migrants’. 14. A larger number of LEPs included standard wording around ethnic minorities, black and minority ethnic communities or BME. This was mainly in terms of describing the local labour market and wider local ‘social inclusion’. 11

http://www.the-lep.com/LEP/media/LCR-Portal/Portal-images/pdf%20downloads/A/Leeds-City-Region-ESIF-FINAL-31-Jan-2014-

Revised-May-2014-FINAL.pdf?ext=.pdf (p79, p167) 12

http://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SCR-ESIF-FINAL-1.pdf (p23, p124)

13

http://centreofenterprise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GBSLEP_A4_070214_v8.pdf (p117) 14

http://www.gcgp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GCGP_European-Structural-and-Investment-FundsStrategy_October_2015_Update_FINAL.pdf (p6) 15

http://www.gcgp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GCGP_European-Structural-and-Investment-FundsStrategy_October_2015_Update_FINAL.pdf (p121)

15. Similarly, a number of non-metropolitan LEPs include analysis of labour markets which feature the extent of non-English speaking workers16, and their origins, as well as including proposals for supporting and investing in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programmes. 16. One LEP (West of England) described their population as ‘white’ and ‘ethnic’ (as though ‘white’ was itself not an ethnicity); Over the last five years white males aged 25-49 claimants have been consistently the largest claimant group in the West of England, followed by white females 25-49. White males 18-24 and 50+ are the following two categories with ethnic males 25-49 making up 6.8% and ethnic females 25-49 3.1% of total claimants17 17. As did Greater Manchester; their strategy includes one reference to “ethnic communities”, and one to “ethnic groups”18. 18. A worrying number of LEPs – and not all in rural sub-regions - made no mention of their communities, populations and labour markets according to ‘race’, ethnicity or national origins; resulting in no proposals designed to address disadvantage or discriminatory practice based on ‘race’, ethnicity or national origins. 19. Big Lottery funds, via Building Better Opportunities (BBO), are matched with European Social Funds (one of the elements of the ESIF) throughout 38 LEPs in England - all except Birmingham/Solihull. The funds are to “tackle poverty and to promote social inclusion”. In 2015, the first tranche of joint Big Lottery/ESF programmes was launched. The project backgrounds, project descriptions and project participants give a clear indication of envisaged impact of the funding. 20. Only two LEPs refer to explicitly to Roma communities or individuals in their projects. These LEPs are:  Leeds (“Marginalised migrants”; value - £2.8m)  Sheffield (“Holistic support”; value - £2.7m) 21. Two other LEPs refer explicitly to “Gypsy, or Roma, or Traveller communities or individuals” as potential beneficiaries in their projects:  The Marches  Worcestershire

16

New Anglia is a good example. http://www.newanglia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2015-11-27-New-Anglia-LEP-EU-InvestmentStrategy-version-Nov-2015-FOR-GOV.pdf (p27 and p58) 17

http://www.westofenglandlep.co.uk/assets/files/Funding/EU%20SIF%20strategy%20FINAL.pdf (p41) 18 https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/downloads/file/118/european_structural_and_investment_plan__investment_funds_2014_-_2020 (p65)

22. A number of other LEPs are hosting programmes which refer to beneficiaries who are of black and minority ethnic origin/people with English as a second language; these programmes might include Roma (but it is unstated), and might include other migrants, and refugees. These LEPs include:  Lincolnshire  New Anglia  Greater Cambridge/Greater Peterborough  West of England  Thames Valley Berkshire 23. The policy direction of the UK government 2010-2015 has been (a) to focus regeneration and the supposed re-balancing of the economy on private-sector led growth and strategy and (b) to devolve (some) decisions down to localities, under the localism agenda. In the case of ESIF, this has taken the form of placing strategic and policy development with new sub-regional, private sector led agencies – the Local Enterprise Partnerships. It is apparent that many of these agencies do not have a focus, the experience, or the commitment to explore how inequality and exclusion operates in both the economic and social spheres. 24. The involvement of the Big Lottery has certainly made an impact in terms of emphasising aspects of the programme and intended beneficiaries. This is apparent from their guidance, produced in October 201519. All of the BBO/ESF programmes require a particular proportion of beneficiaries to be of minority ethnic origin (or similar); it is unlikely that this would be the case if the LEPs were the sole determinants of the project outline, based on their ESIF strategies. 25. What is lacking within the UK context, is the absence of any input and guidance from central government and the NRCP to the LEPs to consider how the ESIF could be used to secure “Roma integration”. 26. A main co-sponsor and co-funder of the ESIF programmes is the Department for Work & Pensions. And yet throughout the 163 pages of the DWP ESF Operational Programme 20142020 guidance, there is no mention of the EU Roma integration programme; or to any mention of the particular needs of Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities re accessing the formal labour market, employment rates, social exclusion etc. This is in contrast to the background information provided by exampling other aspects of inequality and segregation in the labour market and employment opportunities re gender, ethnicity (e.g. Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers/communities) and disability. 27. And again, where there is guidance about the co-ordination with other EU funding arrangements, there is (correctly) particular mention of the needs of particular client groups; for example, asylum, migration and integration funding. However, despite the role that 19

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SWwPr9uVBwcJ:https://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk//media/Files/Programme%2520Documents/Building%2520Better%2520Opportunities/building_better_opportunities_prog_guide.pdf+&c d=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Strategic Migration Partnerships in England have played in relation to Roma migration and settlement (in Yorkshire & the Humber and in Kent/South East), there is no suggestion that these links (with SMPs) could be utilised to explore the use of ESF for Roma settlement. In relation to asylum, migration and integration, the guidance suggests: In order to further support complementarity, the two Managing Authorities will also explore ways of developing a more joined up approach to future, for example, by exploring ways of linking the Strategic Migration Partnerships and Local Enterprise Partnerships20. 28. It is clear that in England, the hopes that the use of EU structural funds would be a major element of achieving “Roma integration” appear to be misplaced. 29. The European Commission concluded its 2015 assessments of member states’ progress in achieving “Roma integration” by recommending that, Member States take the following actions in order to achieve tangible and sustainable results towards the integration of Roma across the EU: 

Make full use of the new tools and funds available under the European Structural and Investment Funds21

30. It seems that the policies of the UK government to allocate ESIF resources will not be used as widely as it could be to support Gypsy, Roma, Traveller inclusion.

Andy Shallice Roma Support Group February 2016

Local Enterprise Partnership, European Funding and the Gypsy, Roma Traveller community This paper sets out to respond to questions raised at the last Liaison Group meeting and to explain how Gypsy Roma Traveller communities can access funding available. DWP are attending the meeting on 3 March and will be providing an update on any approaches in LEPs specifically focussed on the Gypsy, Roma Traveller community.

20

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461596/ESF_Operational_Programme_2014__2020_V.01.pdf (p148-9) 21

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_communication2015_en.pdf (p15)

Background The European Structural and Investment Funds programme provides funds to help local areas grow. The funds support investment in innovation, businesses, skills and employment and create jobs. Running from 2014 to 2020, there are three types of funds involved in the programme.   

European Social Fund (ESF) focuses on improving employment opportunities, promoting social inclusion and investing in skills by providing help people need to fulfil their potential. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) supports research and innovation, small to medium sized enterprises and creation of a low carbon economy. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) supports rural businesses to grow and expand, improve knowledge and skills and get started.

The ESF focus on social inclusion perhaps makes this Programme more relevant than others for the Gypsy Roma Traveler (sic) community. European Social Fund The ESF is the European Union’s main financial instrument for supporting employment in the member states of the European Union as well as promoting economic and social cohesion. The Managing Authority for the delivery of the ESF 2014 – 2020 programme in England sits within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). To align with the approach to devolve growth policy, the ESF 2014-2020 programme is built on the basis of addressing local needs coordinated via the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) network. Funding for ESF projects has to be “matched” by the organisation receiving the funds. Delivery of projects for the programme will primarily be through four co-financing organisations:    

The Skills Funding Agency The National Offender Management Service The Department for Work and Pensions (as a back-to-work provider) The Big Lottery Fund.

There will also be provision delivered through direct bidders - organisations who bid directly to the Managing Authority for funds. Key questions How can Gypsy Roma Traveller groups look to secure support from the ESF? Gypsy Roma Traveller groups are encouraged to work at a local level with local organisations (LEPs) to form effective partnerships with a view to securing access to ESF funded provision. Do LEPs have to have the Gypsy Roma Traveller community in their strategy? The ESF Operational Programme deliberately does not refer to a specific identified group as this would go against the localism theme of the programme. LEPs are required to put forward plans/approaches to deliver against the themes of the programme. Investment Priority 1.4 includes facility to support marginalised individuals and people with complex barriers.

What about the inconsistent approach between LEPs in incorporating Roma inclusion? DWP are gathering information on real time/past evidence from operational colleagues in ESFD as to how LEPs are/have reflected any GRT specific support. Will government intervene directly with LEPs to ensure they have a Gypsy Roma Traveller strategy? The Government have devolved control over ESF funding to LEPs to make decisions on how best funded projects can meet local need. LEPs have assurance frameworks to ensure they spend money appropriately and there is extensive monitoring in place on European funding.

Andy Lowther/Steve Spendlove

February 2016

EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL & INVESTMENT FUNDING (ESIF), 2014-2020 AN UPDATE, MARCH 2016 ABSENCE OF GYPSY, ROMA, TRAVELLER COMMUNITIES IN STRATEGIES AGREED BY LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS (LEPs) Background 1. The paper prepared by Roma Support Group in February 2016 was sent to colleagues at DWP responsible for the European Social Fund (ESF) component of the ESIF operational programme 2014-2020. 2. Both the RSG paper, and the DWP response (attached), were considered at the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller DCLG liaison group meeting on 3 March 2016. 3. The DWP’s response asked four “key questions”: a. How can GRT groups look to secure support from the ESF?  Answer: work with LEPs to form “effective partnerships” b. Do LEPs have to have the GRT community in their strategy?  Answer: no – as it would “go against the localism theme”. But priorities within the programme include supporting “marginalised individuals and people with complex needs”. c. What about the inconsistent approach between LEPs in incorporating Roma inclusion?  Answer: “DWP is gathering information....as to how LEPs are/have reflected any GRT specific support”

d. Will government intervene directly with LEPs to ensure they have a GRT strategy?  Answer: no. The government has devolved control of ESF to LEPs. Discussion at the liaison group 4. Key question (a). The DCLG liaison group meeting heard considerable evidence from Warrington/Cheshire; from Leeds; from Brighton; from Luton/Bedfordshire, and from London that there had been either no attempt by LEPs to reach out to GRT third sector organisations; or where GRT groups had been pro-active, either the LEPs had not responded, or the consortia that GRT third sector agencies had joined were unsuccessful in securing contracts. 5. Key question (b). There was some discussion about what guidance was offered to LEPs. This was referred to by the RSG paper and concerns the DWP publication (September 2015) ESF Operational Programme 2014-202022. The RSG paper contends that this guidance note fails to refer to Gypsy, Roma, Traveller demographics as part of any priority group that might benefit from ESF. The colleague from the DWP replied twice to say that the publication did make reference to Gypsy, Roma, Traveller. 6. The DWP publication makes no mention of Roma, or Gypsy, or Traveller. On p6, it identifies “a range of groups on whom we will focus”:  Unemployed people or those living in economically inactive households, especially people with disabilities, lone parents, older workers and ethnic minorities  Women returners and woman outside the labour market  Young unemployed people, especially NEETs  Those who lack basic skills whether in work or unemployed 7. The DWP makes further reference to certain groups under thematic objective 8 – employment. On pp7-10, it includes:  Gender differences (pay, part time/full time, economic activity rates etc)  Unemployed people  Economically inactive  Young people  Disadvantaged groups, including:  People with disabilities  Ethnic minorities – especially people of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black African origin  Older people over 50  People with few/no qualifications

22

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461596/ESF_Operational_Programme_2014__2020_V.01.pdf

8. No mention of Roma, or Gypsy, or Traveller. 9. Key question (c). No updated information was provided at the meeting apart from saying that Sheffield LEP was “incredibly concerned” about responding to the needs of Roma in the sub-region, and that the Big Lottery BBO programme suggested “a lot of activity”. The Cambridge/Peterborough LEP - which had identified that they included “some of the UK’s largest concentrations of gypsy and traveller communities” – had not responded to requests for further information from the DWP. 10. Key question (d). It was agreed by all parties that there is a clear ‘gap’ between the expectations of the European Commission and the apparent priorities for allocation of ESIF/ESF by the LEPs. It was suggested:  There is a need to challenge the LEPs on non-involvement of Gypsy, Roma, Traveller third sector agencies  How can the LEPs be tested out in their use of e.g. Big Lottery BBO match funds to secure greater impact on Gypsy, Roma, Traveller beneficiaries?  For the next round of calls for ESIF/ESF contracts, DWP would do what might be possible to “get to a better place”. There might be a further two rounds of calls issued in 2016.  The DCLG liaison group could forward information to LEPs about the GRT third sector agencies in England, so that some contact might be established.  Within the DWP, there needed to be involvement “at a more senior level” to push this forward with the LEPs. Considerations 11. It seems clear that the policy and practice of localism and the devolution of responsibility to LEPs is either designed, or operates in practice, to ensure that groups and peoples experiencing exclusion and discrimination cannot expect minimal support from central government agencies. Further, whilst the UK government argues that it adheres to the European Commission’s expectations of member states to support Roma integration - either via adopting a national strategy, or by adapting existing inclusion policies – the allocation of ESIF resources in England in practice appears to suggest that this adherence (to Roma integration) is not effective. 12. We would still contend that only where LEPs have responded to local pressure and investigation (e.g. in Leeds and Sheffield city regions) have the needs of Gypsy Roma Travellers translated into distinct funded project proposals. The role of central government has been nil, unsurprisingly in view of their policy of ‘localism’. 13. It might be useful to approach the Big Lottery BBO programme (as a co-financing agency) to see what they think might be the best way of trying to secure opportunities for funding to support Roma integration. 14. The next meeting of the DCLG liaison group is due in June 2016.

Andy Shallice Roma Support Group

4 March 2016

Roma Support Group submission to the Council of Europe Advisory ...

Page 1 of 20. WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR. THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES; VISIT TO THE UK, 7-10 MARCH 2016. FROM ROMA SUPPORT GROUP. 1. We have referenced the following documentation. The Council of Europe ...

644KB Sizes 1 Downloads 300 Views

Recommend Documents

Roma Support Group paper on Absence of Gypsy, Roma and ...
Roma Support Group paper on Absence of Gypsy, Roma ... y, Roma, Traveller liaison group, February 2016.pdf. Roma Support Group paper on Absence of ...

Indian Education Advisory Council
Dec 16, 2015 - Roosevelt Room, Ramkota, Rapid City, SD. AGENDA ... Review of subcommittee meeting ... Presentation and review of NASAAC Final Report.

Submission to the Inter-Academy Council ... - Ross McKitrick
These kinds of issues came out with disturbing clarity in the CRU emails, and ... portion of the CRU data was attributable to land-use change, thus adding to the ..... 12 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html ...

Submission to the Inter-Academy Council ... - Ross McKitrick
These kinds of issues came out with disturbing clarity in the CRU emails, and ... portion of the CRU data was attributable to land-use change, thus adding to the ..... 12 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html ...

Pedestrian Advisory Council -
and walkable city for people of all abilities;. WHEREAS, the City of Austin Sidewalk Master Plan / ADA Transition Plan promises at least $40 million per year.

Native American Student Achievement Advisory Council
Nov 17, 2015 - SD State Library Commons Room. MacKay Bldg., 800 Governors Dr., Pierre, SD ... Review of Report. 11:00 – 12:00. The Success of Harrisburg.

Approved Minutes_LB Pearson Parent Advisory Council ...
Approved Minutes_LB Pearson Parent Advisory Council Meeting_October_18_2016.pdf. Approved Minutes_LB Pearson Parent Advisory Council ...

Indian Education Advisory Council - SD Indian Education
Indian Education Advisory Council. Wed., Dec. 16, 2015 – 1-4 p.m. MST. Roosevelt Room, Ramkota, Rapid City, SD. AGENDA. 1:00 p.m. – 1:15 p.m..

support group
85 East Newton Street, 5th floor. Boston, MA 02118. Boston Medical Center Campus. Joanne, Operations Manager. The Boston Resource Center. Sponsored by.

support group
SUPPORT GROUP. The Boston. Resource Center. (617) 305-9974. Solomon Carter Fuller Building. 85 East Newton Street, 5th floor. Boston, MA 02118. Boston ...

Mr Dacian CIOLOS Prime Minister Romania ... - Council of Europe
Jun 23, 2016 - certain major issues concerning the human rights of Romania's Roma ... I support the joint call made in April this year from the European Roma ...

With the support of Wellingborough Borough Council
village/school/club/company, then please do get in touch with Sam for her ... LONDON RD. WELLINGBOROUGH ... With the support of. Wellingborough Borough ...

conseil de l'europe council of europe cour ...
of basic rights which were in conflict with the right to freedom of religion. ..... existence of a dispute within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. ..... Cyprus [GC], no.

Mr Dacian CIOLOS Prime Minister Romania ... - Council of Europe
Jun 23, 2016 - Ministry of Education since 2006 makes it difficult, if not impossible, ... collection system by introducing a special criterion in order to gather ...

Report: The Advisory Council to Google on the Right to be Forgotten
Feb 6, 2015 - sources such as individual users on social media sites often provide this ... and will weigh against delisting.20 For example, if a data subject is.

Council of Europe - ETS No. 185 - Convention on Cybercrime.pdf ...
Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. Council of Europe - ETS No. 185 - Convention on Cybercrime.pdf.

The Phoenix Symphony Chorus Advisory Council ...
Host: Marilou Baxter. Attendees: Joel Auernheimer, Marilou Baxter, Jeanne Bookhout, Tom Bookhout,. Erin Entringer, Wendy Gould, Lynn Jech, Katie Jones, ... Brian will write an email, to be sent out by Section Reps, asking current chorus ... Rentals h

Ad hoc Committee for the Rights of the Child ... - Council of Europe
5 days ago - first draft text by the working group, and decided to invite members and observers who had not yet done so, to send ... invited CAHENF members to express interest to pilot and contribute to the implementation of the. Project on Child ...

Trade Advisory Group Final Report.pdf
Trade Advisory Group Final Report.pdf. Trade Advisory Group Final Report.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu.

[Fact Sheet] Overview Of The Tonata Web-based Support Group ...
[Fact Sheet] Overview Of The Tonata Web-based Support Group Database and Map.pdf. [Fact Sheet] Overview Of The Tonata Web-based Support Group ...

Native American Student Achievement Advisory Council - SD Indian ...
November 17, 2015. SD State Library Commons Room. MacKay Bldg., 800 Governors Dr., Pierre, SD. AGENDA. Tuesday, November 17, 2015. 8:00 – 8:15.

Native American Student Achievement Advisory Council June 18-19 ...
Jun 18, 2015 - Melody Schopp, South Dakota Secretary of Education ... Sharla Steever, Learning Specialist, Technology and Innovation in Education.

Native American Student Achievement Advisory Council August 26-27 ...
Aug 26, 2015 - LUNCH: Will be provided on-site. 1:00 – 2:00. Montana Presentation via Skype: Nuts and Bolts of Indian Education for All. 2:00 – 2:15. BREAK.