Book reviews
01 July 2011
“A Big or Divided Society?” Final Recommendations and Report of the Panel Review in to the Coalition Government Policy on Travellers and Gypsies. A.Ryder, S. Alexander, S. Cemlyn, P. Van Cleemput, M. Greenfields and D. Smith, Travellers Aid Trust 11 May 2011, pp. 102. A Panel of academics, lawyers and campaigners produced a report on the coalition government’s policy on Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. The report was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. The report, is based on hearings which took place in parliament where Gypsies, Travellers, service providers, legal and academic experts gave evidence on the implications of proposed government policy. The hearings highlighted concerns including:
• The fact that the removal of central government obligations for developing Traveller sites would see construction come to a standstill;
• That local referenda could be used to block the construction of Traveller sites;
• That Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities could be prevented from becoming part of the “Big Society” because of negative media coverage and the lack of constituted community groups;
• That key health and education services for Gypsies, Roma and Travellers were being threatened by the cuts.
The panel was made up of a number of key experts in the field and included Dr Jo Richardson (De Montfort University), Lord Avebury, David Joyce (Barrister), Professor Acton, Dr Andrew Ryder (Budapest (CUP) University), Sir Brian Briscoe (former chair, Task Group on Site Provision and Enforcement for Gypsies and Travellers), Dr Margaret Greenfields (Bucks New University), Dr Sarah Cemlyn (Bristol University) and Dr Patrice Van Cleemput (University of Sheffield).
Lord Avebury told Institute of Race Relations News (http://www.irr.org.uk): “Eric Pickles, the minister responsible for Gypsies and Travellers, has torn up the strategy that had been developed over the last six years of the previous government, riding roughshod over Liberal Democrat policy of keeping the target numbers of pitches. Now, it’s up to every local authority to decide how much land it will allocate for Gypsy sites and, inevitably, most of them will scale down the numbers or eliminate them altogether as in the case of London. At the same time they are encouraging local authorities to evict Gypsies from unauthorised sites at enormous cost in bailiffs and police. And the pupil premium, intended to help disadvantaged children, will leave out many Gypsy children who don’t attend school because their families have been evicted and they’re on the roadside.”
The current Dale Farm eviction of 400 travellers from Essex Green Belt land is the clearest illustration that Gypsies continue to face discrimination and hostility. Patrick Barkham [The Guardian 3.9.11] reports that the UN committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) was joined in its censure by the Council of Europe’s commissioner for Human rights stating that there was a risk of a human rights violation if 86 families with 100 children were evicted. The UN Committee called for a suspension of the eviction stating that “the planned eviction would disproportionality affect the lives of the Gypsy and Traveller families, particularly women, children and older people, and create hardship, until culturally appropriate accommodation is identified and provided.” TAT website: http://www.travellersaidtrust.org/
Breaking the silence, European Roma Rights Centre & People In Need. March 2011, pp90. The perception that Roma people are often involved in trafficking issues, whether as victims or traffickers, is widespread. Throughout the years, the issue has become increasingly politicised, with some European governments drawing a direct link between the migration of Roma and trafficking networks. This report by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and People In Need (PIN) aims at deconstructing this political discourse and misrepresentations. The aim is to give a realistic picture of how the Roma community is affected by trafficking issues and why. Linking Roma migration to trafficking does not make sense, not least because trafficking may happen within the country of origin (37% of interviewees in this study) and because 95% of the Roma community is reported to be sedentary. This in-depth analysis, covering EU countries with a large Roma community (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia) focuses on all types of trafficking: sexual or labour exploitation, domestic servitude, organ trafficking, illegal adoption and begging. It recalls that contrary to “the widely-held perception that trafficking is a cultural practice of Roma”, the issue is in fact linked with the vulnerability of that community in relation to social and economic issues, institutional and social discrimination, weaknesses in the legal framework and the lack of inclusive integration policies. In that sense, the ERRC finds that “this study did not establish any significant differences between generally known vulnerability factors and the vulnerability factors present in Romani communities”. Nonetheless, this comprehensive study highlights the particular vulnerability of this minority, which is over-represented among victims of trafficking, due to a combination of factors, especially the lack of adequate preventative and protective mechanisms. The ERRC reports in a constructive way, reflecting not only on the discriminatory political agenda which deeply affects Roma (fingerprinting in Italy, forced removals from France and Denmark despite being EU citizens), but also on NGO practices which may be too weak in addressing trafficking as a specific issue, and family complacency which in some cases is a reality in trafficking cases. The ERRC concludes its report with a set of recommendations to European and national authorities as well as non-governmental actors, asking for more cooperation and trust between stakeholders and strong political action to tackle not only trafficking as such, but also the deep roots of Roma’s vulnerability in Europe. The report is available at: http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/file/breaking-the-silence-19-march-2011.pdf]
The Migration Debate, Sarah Spencer. The Policy Press, 2011, pp. 280 (ISBN 978-1-84742-285-9). Migration has become an unavoidable part of public and media discourse, more often than not leading to passionate debate. This book is an attempt to “detoxify migration” and to facilitate a “more reasoned” focus on a field “so evidently lacking” consensus. By looking at UK migration policy over the long term, (i.e. mainly the post-war era), Spencer provides a useful description of migration flows over the past decades and how they have been addressed at a political level. This broad analysis, a snapshot of the different categories used to approach migration (family migration; economic prospects; students; asylum seekers and refugees; irregular migrants; integration policies), gives interesting insights into policy-making processes. How are we to understand the “paradox” that politicians promote tighter controls but people still arrive? Spencer gives two answers: first, the “political hyper activism” over migration is not simply about what politicians want to do, but what they can do. It is about a set of constraints which shape the understanding of migration (e.g. historical links with certain countries), but may also limit governments’ actions: the media, court decisions, legal obligations, economic rationale, the right to family and private life, freedom of circulation for EU citizens etc. The second element is the absence of a systematic understanding of migration: policies may sometimes lack efficiency precisely because the categories in which migrants are meant to fit are not giving a realistic picture of the wider motives which brought them to the UK (an “economic migrant” can have family-related motives to be or stay in the country; a student may also need to be a worker etc.). Likewise, migration should not be understood as a policy domain completely detached from other fields (e.g. the exploitative logic which many migrants may be the victim of is closely linked with “poor working conditions in the labour market”). The aim of the book is not about controversy but about policy-making and balance. In this sense, Spencer manages to sum up the reality of migration in the UK clearly, making this book an important contribution towards a more constructive approach to the “migration debate” in the UK.