Dealing with Welfare Conditionality

Implementation and Effects

Peter Dwyer, Dwyer, Peter, Peter Dwyer

• Publisher: Policy Press
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781447341840
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Social Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This edited collection considers how conditional welfare policies and services are implemented and experienced by a diverse range of welfare service users across a range of UK policy domains including social security, homelessness, migration and criminal justice.

The book showcases the insights and findings of a series of distinct, independent studies undertaken by early career researchers associated with the ESRC funded Welfare Conditionality project. Each chapter presents a new empirical analysis of data generated in fieldwork conducted with practitioners charged with interpreting and delivering policy, and welfare service users who are at the sharp end of welfare services shaped by behavioural conditionality.

Six

Exploring the impact of welfare conditionality on Roma migrants in the UK

Liviu Dinu and Lisa Scullion

Introduction

Roma are recognised as one of Europe’s largest minority ethnic groups, with estimates of more than 10 million Roma residing across the European Union (EU) (Council of Europe, 2011a; European Commission, 2012), with around 8 million thought to reside within Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (Tanner, 2005; Soros Foundation, 2012). Although the term ‘Roma’ is sometimes contested (see, for example, Kovats, 2001; Matras, 2013), it is now widely used across Europe as a generic descriptor for a diverse range of communities and there is a consensus that Roma remain one of the most socially disadvantaged communities across Europe (Amnesty International, 2011; Bartlett et al, 2011).

Following the Accession of the ten CEE countries in 2004¹ and 2007,² it is suggested that approximately 1.7 million CEE nationals now reside in the UK (Hawkins, 2016), which includes a significant Roma population. The arrival of large numbers of CEE migrants to the UK has been met with political and public debate around the need to curtail migration due to perceived impacts on indigenous labour market opportunities coupled with fears about the demands placed on the welfare system (Cook et al, 2012). There is little doubt, though, that public debates surrounding Roma migrants, within this broader category of CEE migration, has triggered particularly prejudiced reactions and specific attention in the wider anti-immigration rhetoric (Cahn, 2004; Dougherty, 2013; Okely, 2014), resulting in Roma often being framed as ‘benefit tourists’ (Clark and Campbell, 2000; Martin et al, 2017). Although counter-narratives have been offered (Martin et al, 2017), little is known about how Roma actually experience navigating the social security system in the UK, particularly in a situation of increasingly conditional rights for European migrants (Dwyer and Scullion, 2014; O’Brien, 2015).

The aim of this chapter is to begin to explore some of these issues in more detail, providing an important starting point for understanding the multifaceted and overlapping forms of conditionality that impact on Roma. Members of this community can be subject to targeted policies within their home countries, but can also subsequently experience restricted access to welfare in the UK as ‘migrants’ and in their everyday interactions with the increasingly conditional unemployment benefits system (Dwyer et al, 2018).

The chapter begins by highlighting some of the pervasive narratives in relation to Roma that focus on their supposed disproportionate representation in benefits systems, and the subsequent responses of some member states to such (mis)representations. We then focus specifically on Roma migrants in the UK, providing a brief overview of where Roma feature in current research around social welfare experiences. Finally, drawing upon ongoing exploratory research with Roma migrants who are currently claiming social security benefits in the UK, we provide insights into their experiences of navigating this system, how they respond to the conditionality inherent in the UK social security system, and also their wider employment experiences.

While recognising that these are emerging findings, we highlight how claiming benefits appears to be a last resort after multiple job search attempts. Furthermore, there are suggestions that the welfare conditionality embedded in the UK social welfare system has the potential to lead Roma to disengage with the benefits system altogether and seek informal employment in order to meet their basic needs.

Who are Roma?

Due to complexities associated with linguistic and cultural identities, ‘“the Roma” are a particularly difficult social group to conceptualise accurately’ (Kovats, 2001: 7-8). Regardless of debates around the conceptualisation of Roma, it is now widely accepted across the EU as a generic term to describe a diverse range of communities, tribes and clans. The term ‘Roma’ was first chosen at the inaugural World Romani Congress held in London in 1971 and can include people who identify themselves as Roma, Sinti and Kale, whose ancestors originate from northern India (Council of Europe, 2006). However, it can also include other indigenous groups such as Gypsies and Travellers resident in Ireland and the UK, and Yenish communities living in Switzerland and France, who do not routinely see themselves as part of the Roma community (Council of Europe, 2011a).

Regardless of ongoing debates around ethnicity and membership of ethnic groups, it is recognised that Roma face entrenched and ongoing discrimination and exclusion across a number of areas of everyday life. These include:

•housing, with Roma often living in poor quality accommodation, segregated from the majority population (Phillips, 2010; Molnár et al, 2011; Škobla and Filčák, 2016; Gatti et al, 2016);

•health, with Roma life expectancy being 8–15 years lower than majority populations (Council of Europe, 2011b);

•education, with illiteracy rates among Roma estimated as being in excess of 50%, and segregated schooling common in some countries (Farkas, 2007; Symeou et al, 2009);

•employment – discrimination against Roma is widespread (Cace and Preoteasa, 2010; Bartlett et al, 2011), and Roma labour market experiences are characterised in terms of horizontal and vertical segregation, that is segregation into low-skilled, low-paid and precarious employment coupled with limited opportunities to progress (Scullion et al, 2014).

Furthermore, employment rates of Roma are much lower than that of the non-Roma population, with a recent survey across nine EU member states suggesting that an average of 30% of Roma are in paid work compared to 70% across the non-Roma population (FRA, 2016: 10). This polarisation is even greater in relation to young people (those aged 16 to 24 years), with an estimated 63% of Roma young people not in education or employment, compared to 12% of non-Roma young people (FRA, 2016: 21).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the endemic exclusion in their countries of origin, some Roma have made use of their rights to free movement and have migrated to other European member states, including the UK. It is often difficult to enumerate migrant populations (Hillygus et al, 2006), and Roma especially (Clark, 1998), but it has been suggested that there are around 200,000 Roma living in the UK (Brown et al, 2013, 2014), although estimates vary greatly from 80,000 (European Commission, 2014) to up to one million (Craig, 2011). Regardless of the statistics, the portrayal of Roma as ‘benefit tourists’ has become common in the media in the UK (Martin at al, 2017), but also in other locations across Europe that have experienced a significant migration of Roma (FRA, 2009).

Roma and conditionality: a response to the ‘welfare dependency’ narrative?

Existing research has highlighted competing discourses around Roma exclusion, which are reminiscent of long-standing individualist versus structuralist debates in relation to poverty (Lister, 2004). Drawing on research with both Roma and non-Roma populations, for example, Brown et al (2013) found that Roma typically emphasised poverty, discrimination and racism as impacting on their daily lives, while non-Roma (including some policy makers) focused on the supposed ‘dysfunctional behaviour or culture of Roma themselves’ (Brown et al, 2013: 54).

The experiences of exclusion from the labour market, in particular, have played a role in shaping a range of pejorative stereotypes applied to Roma, including accusations of laziness, welfare dependency, inherent dishonesty and criminality (Sigona and Trehan, 2009; Balibar, 2009; Fox et al, 2012; McGarry, 2013; Parker and López Catalán, 2014; Okely, 2014; Kóczé, 2017). Some commentators go so far as to suggest that, instead of protecting this minority, certain actors in the institutions of member states are implicated in reinforcing and legitimising the stigmatisation of Roma (Dougherty, 2013). Indeed, it is evident that welfare conditionality is increasingly playing a role in the lives of Roma across Europe as a means of addressing some of the supposed ‘dysfunctional behaviour’ noted earlier, with Roma being subject to multiple and overlapping forms of conditionality as ‘migrants’ but also as individuals accessing unemployment benefits.

Across Europe, access to many unemployment welfare benefits has become increasingly conditional upon recipients accepting compulsory work or training opportunities (Lødemel and Trickey, 2001; Dean, 2006). Concerns that linking basic rights to welfare to activity in the paid labour market can potentially exacerbate the social exclusion of those who are not in paid employment or training have a wider resonance (Dwyer, 2004) – particularly in relation to Roma who, in some member states, are disproportionately impacted by such measures. For example, state-subsidised job creation schemes are a common feature of some CEE countries (for example Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia), which have used long-standing ‘public works programmes’ as a means of addressing long-term unemployment, by providing work for those who are registered for social welfare benefits (Koltai, 2012). It is acknowledged that Roma are often disproportionately represented in these programmes (Lajčáková, 2014; Muhič Dizdarevič, 2014). In some countries (for example Hungary and Slovakia), such programmes appear to be the main (or in some cases the only) employment available to unemployed Roma (Brown et al, 2014). Concerns have been raised about the high level of conditionality inherent in such programmes, with suggestions that refusal to take part in, or dismissal from, the Hungarian scheme, for example, could result in a loss of benefit for up to two years (Kóczé, 2014). The concentration of Roma in such schemes has also been criticised on ‘racialised’ grounds (Lajčáková, 2014), with concerns raised around such schemes creating ‘a permanent underclass of unskilled workers’ (Byrne, 2015), trapping people in an ‘employment-benefits cycle’ (Brown et al, 2014: 34).

However, applying conditions to the receipt of social welfare benefits is not solely a feature of labour market activation policy, but it is also used as a coercive tool in relation to school attendance in some countries. Discussions on the educational attainment of Roma are long-standing, focusing on combinations of ‘structural’ and ‘individual’ factors, such as: ‘systemic’ educational segregation in some member states (O’Nions, 2010); ‘sporadic and unsystematic school attendance’ (Symeou et al, 2009: 514); and the low value placed on education by some Roma parents (Cozma et al, 2000). Some member states (Romania, Hungary and Slovakia) have implemented policies, whereby benefits can be stopped, if parents do not ensure that their children regularly engage in education (Barany, 2002; Ringold et al, 2005). Again, such measures can disproportionately impact on Roma populations (Barany, 2002), with suggestions that for some Roma parents, education becomes ‘an obligation to the state rather than to their children’ (Ringold et al, 2005: 79).

From ‘welfare dependency’ to ‘benefit tourism’: UK policy responses

Following the enlargement of the EU, and the unprecedented movement of people from CEE countries to Western Europe, it is apparent that this migration has reinforced some of the existing prejudices towards Roma (Martin et al, 2017). It is acknowledged that the reasons for Roma migration differ to some extent from other CEE migrants – with their migration triggered by economic factors but also by ‘a wish to escape the endemic prejudice and persecution they face in their country of origin’ (Cook et al, 2011: 60). However, the arrival of Roma migrants in the UK has been presented by politicians and by the media as a significant challenge, because of the perceived difficulties of integrating Roma into British society.

Central to some of the debates surrounding Roma migrants have been questions around their motivations for migration. Rather than focusing on the widespread exclusion of Roma, these have determined their migration as welfare-motivated, depicting Roma as ‘benefits tourists’ – a term often used to describe someone who purportedly travels to the UK with the primary objective of claiming benefits – or ‘undeserving migrants’ (Stevens, 2003; Tanner, 2005; Shutes, 2014; Ginsburg, 2015; Martin et al, 2017). Fox et al (2012) suggest that the image of Roma migrants in the UK has followed a ‘Roma frame’ that not only emphasises their so-called deviant behaviour, but also implies ‘racial inferiority’ and ‘cultural backwardness’. It is not the purpose of this chapter to provide an in-depth analysis of political, public and media debate in relation to Roma, as this has been addressed in detail by other researchers (see, for example, Clark and Campbell, 2000; Tremlett, 2012; Richardson, 2014). What is clear from their research is that in the UK (and across Europe), discussions around ‘benefit tourism’ have become central to the narratives in relation to Roma, not only in the media but also among the political elite (Martin et al, 2017), with EU enlargement amplifying some of these discussions (Harris, 2016, 2018).

However, these debates have been in existence for many years in the UK (Clark and Campbell, 2000; Tremlett, 2012), and have often been accompanied by the introduction of more restrictive policy measures. During the 1990s and early 2000s, many Roma were arriving in the UK seeking asylum. This was an era when the issue of asylum had been placed high on the political, public and media agenda, and a threat had been identified in the shape of the ‘undeserving’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seekers (Bloch and Schuster, 2002; Sales, 2002). There was a view that the increase in asylum applications – including applications from Roma – was due to perceptions of an overgenerous welfare benefits system in the UK (Tanner, 2005). Consequently, a succession of legislation was introduced, which aimed to restrict entry to the UK, but also to reduce the rights of those who had managed to enter. This included the introduction of the ‘White List’ as part of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 – a list of seven countries that were considered ‘safe’ for their citizens to live in. As such, applicants from these countries could be automatically excluded and their claims deemed unfounded. The ‘White List’ included most of the countries from which Roma were arriving and, consequently, very few were granted refugee status and allowed to stay in the UK during that time (Horton and Grayson, 2008).

For migrants in the UK, it is evident that conditionality operates in overlapping ways (Dwyer and Scullion, 2014; Dwyer et al, 2018). At a broad level, migrants’ rights are stratified by a complex regime of entitlements depending on their sociolegal status (Dwyer et al, 2011). For EU migrants specifically, recent years have seen the introduction of a series of measures that have reduced or removed the social welfare rights of EU nationals migrating to, or residing in, the UK (Dwyer and Scullion, 2014; Kennedy, 2014; O’Brien, 2015) and other EU member states (see, for example, Heindlmaier and Blauberger, 2017; Dwyer et al, 2018). As then UK Prime Minister, David Cameron stated in a press release in 2014: ‘we have clamped down on abuses, making sure the right people are coming for the right reason’.

These restrictive measures include:

•a minimum earnings threshold;

•the ‘Genuine Prospect of Work’ (GPoW) test;

•a loss of entitlement to Housing Benefit for newly arrived EU nationals who are ‘jobseekers’ (Kennedy, 2014);

•a stricter interpretation of the ‘habitual residency test’ (Dwyer et al, 2016).

Furthermore, a language acquisition element has been added for some claimants, who can be mandated to learn English and face having their benefits stopped if they refuse these classes (Porter, 2011; HM Treasury/DWP, 2014).

Consequently, it is suggested that there is now a greater ‘burden of proof’ o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• one: Editor’s introduction
• two: Supporting people? Universal Credit, conditionality and the recalibration of vulnerability
• three: Punishment, powerlessness and bounded agency: exploring the role of welfare conditionality with ‘at risk’ women attempting to live ‘a good life’
• four: Resisting welfare conditionality: constraint, choice and dissent among homeless migrants
• five: No strings attached? An exploration of employment support services offered by third sector homelessness organisations
• six: Exploring the impact of welfare conditionality on Roma migrants in the UK
• seven: Exploring the behavioural outcomes of family-based intensive interventions
• eight: Editor’s afterword