Briefing to GRT APPG re: A Call for Evidence: the impact of benefit changes on Roma communities in the UK.

Wednesday 4th March 2015 1pm – Room 15

Summary of main findings of the call for evidence: (Full report is available on RSG website): A CALL FOR EVIDENCE – HOW ARE MIGRANT ROMA FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES AFFECTED? In the summer of 2014, Roma Support Group (RSG) led a national “call for evidence” about the impact of these changes. Through the direct advice and advocacy services that RSG provides, there was extensive evidence about the impact that these changes were starting to have on Roma clients, many of whom had lived in the UK for well over ten years and some of whom had permanent residence. But RSG was keen to understand if 

other cities and towns with migrant Roma communities were experiencing the same impacts;  what were those impacts;  how were they different to other (non-Roma) EU migrants;  what was the wider impact on both Roma communities, neighbourhoods in which Roma families live;  and the impact on other services which Roma communities use or should have access to. This ‘call for evidence’ was supported by other voluntary and community organisations1, and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Gypsies, Roma and Travellers also indicated that they were keen to receive more information. The invitation to submit evidence was made on 24 September 20142. Submissions were received from Liverpool Citizens Advice; Sheffield Citizens Advice; Bradford Met District Council; Medway Council; Aire Centre; Roma Support Group and Sheffield City Council. Just over 50 (anonymised) cases of Roma families’ experience of benefit changes have been received. The structure of the report begins with the wider political context of the 2014 benefit changes, and the circumstances of Roma migration from East & Central Europe to the UK. The report then traces in detail the particular changes that have been implemented. The key findings of the ‘call for evidence’ are outlined, illustrated and supported by some of case studies provided. The report concludes with a series of recommendations.

FREE MOVEMENT: TO WORK OR TO SEEK WORK 1

Aire Centre; Europa Roma; Traveller Movement; London Gypsy & Traveller Unit; East European Advice Centre (London); Roma Community Care (Derby); rightsnet.org 2 http://romasupportgroup.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sept-2014-newsletter.pdf

All EU citizens have a right to live in another EU country for three months. Every EU migrant has the right to seek work, and to work, in another EU country. This constitutes the right to reside and is acquired by virtue of working, having worked (self-employed or employed), being a family member of a worker, or having lived in the country for more than five years – thereby acquiring permanent residence (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004)3. In the UK, for the last twenty years, EU migrants have had to pass a UK test to prove that they are habitually resident in the UK. This test confirms they no longer have the centre of their lives in the country they have left, and have decided to settle and make their home in the UK. However, they also have to satisfy a ‘right to reside’ test which the European Commission think that is an unnecessary potential infringement on free movement. If you have both the right to reside and are judged to be habitually resident in the UK, then you are eligible to apply for welfare benefits.

THE CHANGES TO BENEFITS, ENTITLEMENTS AND ACCESS TO BENEFITS Since 2014, the government has made the following changes, as heralded in David Cameron’s speech: The changes introduced since 2014 include: a. There has been a “toughening up” of the test of whether someone is habitually resident; there are now potentially up to 300 questions to be answered b. No one now is eligible for any social assistance for the first three months after arrival in the UK. This includes child benefit and tax credit. c. No one now is eligible for a range of benefits – as a ‘retained worker’ - until (a) you have worked for over a year, and (b) you have proved that you have been employed in “genuine and effective work”, and (c) if you are unemployed, you have compelling evidence that you are likely to find work d. If you are not judged to have ‘retained worker’ status - and so are judged to be a ‘jobseeker’ - you have severe limitations on how long you can claim benefits (e.g. JSA for only three months) as well as not being eligible for passporting benefits such as housing benefit. These changes are enacted by state agencies – primarily Job Centre Plus in terms of work related benefits (e.g. JSA and ESA); by HMRC (re child benefit and child tax credits); and by local authorities (e.g. for housing benefit). The Liverpool submission: “The publicly stated aims of the changes are twofold – to reduce European immigration and to reduce benefit tourism. However the A8 restrictions on claiming benefit which were not lifted until May 2011 seemed to have little effect on preventing mass migration between 2004 when those countries acceded to the European Union and 2011. Also when the restrictions were lifted in 2011 there did not appear to be a significant increase in migrants from the A8 countries. It seems that using the benefits system as a means of controlling immigration may be much less effective than the Government is 3

https://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/

hoping and that in anticipation of the changes failing to produce the desired results more draconian measures are being contemplated such as the deportation of EU migrants who have been “economically inactive” for more than 6 months.” The call for evidence has started to reveal the way in which these changes are beginning to impact on people’s lives. Of particularly importance is that the process of assessing lawful claims by migrants is causing considerable misery. Many people with experience of the welfare rights system refer to the highly complex mix of EU law, UK law and UK administration which as well as having impacts on EU migrants lawfully living in this country, also puts enormous pressure on staff within the JCP, HMRC and housing benefit departments who are required to administer the changes. Again, the Liverpool submission stated: “Two major problems have already emerged with the application of the 3 month residence rule. 

First, all EU nationals are now being asked to prove that they have been living in this country for 3 months up to the date of the claim for JSA. Even previous receipt of JSA or other benefits is not accepted as proof as they may have left the UK in the meantime and then returned. Because EU nationals do not carry Home Office documentation and many upon arrival stay with relatives or friends they may have difficulty proving to the DWP that they have been here for at least 3 months. At best this causes further delay in the processing of their claim for JSA and at worst the claim may be refused altogether due to lack of evidence.



Secondly – the lack of any discretion to make exceptions to the 3 month rule can produce real hardship for those most in need of financial support. Women, sometimes with young children, fleeing domestic violence in another European country were frequently awarded JSA after only 1 month’s residence here if they were too frightened to return to their own country. In the course of fleeing they usually bring little or no money with them and may not be able to access any bank accounts they have, and so need financial support as quickly as possible. A 3 month wait for JSA to become payable in these cases will cause considerable hardship for these individuals and families in circumstances that have arisen through no fault of their own.”

But not all EU migrants are affected though. EU migrants who are not affected by any of the recent changes are those who: 

Can show that they are permanent residents in the UK. This means that they have lived here legally (as a worker etc) and continuously (without a break of more than six months) for more than five years, and they can demonstrate this (e.g. with pay slips). If they have reached pension age, lived in the UK for three years and worked for at least 12 months, they can acquire ‘early permanent residence’. Similarly, if they have lived in the UK for two years but have had to cease work due to permanent incapacity, disability or occupational accident/disease.



Is a family member of someone who is exercising their rights to work etc. This includes spouses and durable partners; all children (including step-children) under 21; all direct dependants (including children and grandchildren); and all dependent direct relatives (e.g. parents)



Are the primary carer for a child in full time education

HOW HAVE THE CHANGES AFFECTED MIGRANT ROMA COMMUNITIES? As a result, the main issues that have emerged from the ‘call for evidence’ are: 

Claimants deemed not to have a right to reside for benefit purposes despite their length of residence in the UK, or their history of employment in the UK



Claimants being defined not as workers but as jobseekers, and so denying their right to housing benefit



Administrative delays as a route to destitution



Destitution as a result of the new ineligibility



The extensive and pervasive impact on other public services

We provide case studies for each finding. (PLEASE SEE FULL REPORT).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Nick Robinson might have let the cat out of the bag in the media/political-inspired panic of December 2013. But it is maybe more illuminating to listen to the thoughts of a senior ex-civil servant who worked for Department for Education as an HMI advisor; “Whenever I think and hear about our government’s thoughts about EU treaty changes, about restricting freedom of movement in Europe, and about EU migrants who supposedly come here only to claim benefits....I sometimes wonder whether David Cameron doesn’t just really want to talk about the Roma?” (Arthur Ivatts) Roma families have rights as European citizens. Just because many – but not all – of the Roma might not have a lot of money doesn’t jeopardise their rights. Just because many – but not all – of the Roma experience harsh and continuing discrimination in their countries of origin doesn’t jeopardise their rights. In fact, the rights of the Roma should be strengthened given their circumstances. And it is a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated, that migrant Roma have come to the UK to live off benefits. They have an absolutely right to claim benefits if they, along with others in this country, are in need. But the right of Roma migrants to live in the UK is dependent on their rights as European citizens to seek and find work throughout the European Union. The UK is not a poor country; it spends £26,000m – that’s £26 billion a year – on subsidising landlords and employers by paying housing benefits; it is trying to reduce this by £10m a year, by denying the rights of some EU migrant workers to be eligible for housing benefits.

That’s a reduction of 0.04% in the annual total housing benefits bill – which is still forecast by this government to increase year by year by £500m4. This report has centred on the treatment of Roma as EU migrants. At the time of Romania and Bulgaria having full EU accession rights in the winter of 2013, poor EU migrants were the subject of intense media speculation and vilification (e.g. arrivals at Luton Airport). In the summer of 2015, poor migrants from outside the EU occupy front pages and lead items on broadcast media (e.g. the informal settlements at Calais). Very occasionally and rarely, rich migrants are subject to examination – for instance, the contribution that hot foreign money plays in over-heating London housing prices (The Great Property Race: BBC Inside Out, 3 February 2014). The impact of the changes in benefits, and access to benefits, is being felt by local public services. Children’s services departments have to fill the gaps created by the withdrawal of the DWP. Schools are having their resources depleted, rather than supported; in Sheffield, in 2013, just over 60% of Roma children were eligible for the pupil premium; in 2015, this has dropped to just 22%. Based on the evidence presented here we have real concerns as to, 

Welfare of Roma families and in particular children, the elderly and those with long term serious health complaints.



Increased likelihood of children’s services intervention and the likely removal of children from their parent’s care.



Scapegoating of the Roma in the current efforts to renegotiate the UK’s membership of the EU.

We propose a number of recommendations below, to European and UK agencies – including third sector organisations. But potentially, the most important outcome of this ‘call for evidence’ is the need for Roma migrant communities in the UK to be able to speak directly about the way in which they have been increasingly subject to a range of policy changes and political attack. Organisations working with Roma communities across the UK, including those who have been concerned enough to use their already limited time to contribute to this call for evidence, are aware that the impact of the reforms highlighted will only increase. Steps must be taken now to prepare for what is still to come and we therefore urge consideration of the following recommendations: Department for Work and Pensions: 1. That the DWP provide clear guidance to their staff on the number of ways it is possible to prove eligibility for the right to reside, including the questions and documentation that might be relevant to illustrate this right. For example, this would highlight the rights of parents/carers of children in full time education and the rights of elderly parents dependent on working children and vice versa. 4

DWP outturn and forecast; Budget 2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/benefit-expenditure-andcaseload-tables-2015

2. That the DWP release the equality impact assessment of the range of benefit changes overseen by the Migrants Access to Benefits programme, in relation to all protected characteristics (including Roma heritage). Department for Communities and Local Government: 1. That the Department consider the impact of destitute Roma families in its work to implement its National Roma Integration Strategy and that it is transparent in reporting its findings in its periodic reports to the European Commission. Local Government: 1. That all local authorities should work towards better identifying their Roma communities and ensure that services available to support destitute families are accessible to this community. 2. That all local authorities should be aware of the potential impact of welfare benefit changes on local migrant Roma communities, for example, on accessing resources for schools (via calculations of the pupil premium), provision within the private rented sector including conditions (via the loss of eligibility for housing benefits) and conditions and risks within the local labour market (via the loss of access to any social assistance). 3. That local authorities (via their children’s services teams) be alert to the possible impacts on long term residents and their settled children who are wrongly denied access to benefits. This also includes updating the information provided by the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) network particularly about all EU migrants who might be wrongly denied access to benefits. 4. To ensure greater coordination between Housing/Homelessness departments and social services to ensure families are not simply passed between the two without provision of appropriate advice and services. 5. To provide adequate training to staff across all departments so as to make correct initial decisions as to welfare entitlements as well as the need to better identify destitute families and provide relevant services. Fundamental Rights Agency: 1. That the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) as part of its Roma programme, explore if welfare changes affecting (migrant) and non-migrant Roma communities affects social inclusion including the role of racism. European Commission: 1. That the European Commission consider whether the UK government is meeting its commitments under the call for national Roma integration strategies in the light of the evidence about a significant impact on Roma communities in the UK of changes to benefit entitlements and access to benefits; and especially the evidence of maladministration and slow administration that is also intensifying problems of poverty in Roma communities. Local voluntary and community sector:

1. That what remains of voluntary and community sector services in specific regions become more aware of the needs of its local Roma community and provide relevant training for staff on entitlements of EU nationals and support services available locally for destitute families. No Recourse to Public Funds Network: 1. To raise the profile of EU migrants unable to access welfare support and drawing particular attention to the number of Roma families residing in the UK for many years who are being wrongly refused welfare benefits. All party Parliamentary Group for Gypsies, Roma, Travellers (APPG – GRT) 1. To consider how changes presented as ‘welfare reforms’ are having a differential impact on members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities throughout the UK 2. To make representations to the major government departments of DWP and HMRC about any reported differential impact that ‘welfare reforms’ on GRT families in the UK