I want to draw your attention to some positive aspects of the documents and some potential difficulties.

Section 9, Conclusions (p. 41), records "limited support" in the 98 responses to the consultation for the approach proposed by Communities and Local Government, subject to specified "strongly-held concerns". It also records, among key issues raised by respondents, the need for, "A fair representation of, and clarity on the role and value of, single groups...and their contribution to community cohesion."

Secretary of State Hazel Blears makes a qualified response to this point in her introduction (pp. 5-6) to the document:

"...some respondents have argued that single group funding is vital to support organizations that are particularly helpful to some of society's most vulnerable and marginalized people. They argue that those groups also play a vital role in supporting cohesion, because they help people from a specific group develop the confidence to play a more active role in the wider community. The Government agrees that in some cases single group funding can be an effective use of resources..."

However the most significant part of her introduction is the following passage:

"It is clear that there is often a delicate call to be made about single group funding. Based on the evidence we have received, we consider that it is only local leaders who can properly understand the context, assess the local circumstances, and be in a position to make a truly informed choice. Therefore we have concluded that guidelines from central government are not the way forward. Instead, we look to local leaders to show a measured approach, drawing on their knowledge of what's happening in their neighbourhood: taking tough decisions if necessary and being prepared to explain and answer for them; and using all their ingenuity to bring people from different backgrounds together."

And, finally, she promises that, "We will say more about ways local areas can take positive steps to promote meaningful interaction in guidance shortly." So watch this space!

The difficulty for the Irish community and voluntary sector, under the downward delegation of responsibility suggested above, is the widespread 'invisibility' of Irish needs among leaders and policy makers both national and local. While we are occasionally able to provide, or inform you about data - mostly at national level - which enables us to identify aspects of Irish need, the opposite is still the rule. Today, for example, I have examined two newly released data sets - the Active People Survey 2007-8 and the latest figures for statutory homelessness in which the Irish data is submerged - rendered invisible - in the White data.

While one may welcome warmly one of the recommendations made in this consultation (p. 41) - "Improve the evidence base on local needs, commissioners' skills and knowledge and their ability to interpret the existing evidence base" - the existing data base, in too many cases, contributes to Irish invisibility. Current bad practice exists from the Cabinet Office downwards and needs to be addressed both nationally and locally.

Since the publication of Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage (Policy Studies Institute, 1997) - the variations in terms of disadvantage and achievement demonstrated by the statistical profiles of individual BAMES - within the shared context of the 'ethnic penalty' - have been quite clear; and are replicated, for example, in the Census 2001 data. This suggests that what are needed at a local level - and national level - to support informed planning and decision making are comprehensive and comparable sets of data across all significant communities.

Seán Hutton
Policy Office

Read FIS's response to the consultation (June 2008) here.