Dear Sir or Madam,

I have been referred to the DCLG by the Home Office.

On ratifying the Council of Europes Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities, the government was obligated,
within twelve months of ratification, to submit to the Council of
Europe a report on the existing conditions of U.K. national
minorities together with a resume of legislative and other measures
taken to give effect to Convention principles. The Council of
Europe received the UK 1st report on 26 July 1999. Comment 48 of
the report stated that, in spite of receiving many representations
about the Cornish from individuals, groups, MP’s and MEP’s, the
Cornish were to be excluded from the Convention. Out of many dozens
of UK groups, only the Cornish were specifically named, identified
and targeted by government within its report as a group to be
deprived of Convention benefits. No other group was similarly
singled out for such attention.

It should be remembered that the Cornish are the only UK group with
a justified, but unresolved, territorial claim - see
www.duchyofcornwall.eu. This unwarranted and wholly exceptional
adverse treatment is a manifestation of the government’s
determination to keep Cornish history, language and culture out of
schools. By taking such action, the assimilation programme is kept
on course and the duchy/private estate deception is maintained.

Paragraphs 2 and 46 of the 1st UK Convention report said: "National
Minority is not a legally defined term within the UK. Our report is
therefore based on the definition of racial group as set out in the
Race Relations Act 1976." Therefore the basis for excluding the
Cornish seemed to be the fact that they were not a Race Relations
Act 1976 case-law recognised group. The authorities have always
used this as an excuse to discriminate against the Cornish with
impunity.

However, although government was implying that UK groups covered by
the Convention were all Race Relations Act case law recognised
groups, the 1st UK report to the Council of Europe detailed
measures to be taken to develop and promote the educational rights
of groups labelled: Afro-Caribbean, Muslim, the Deaf, Hindu,
visible women, black men, Travellers, Bengali, Christian,
Ulster-Scot, Black-Jewish and Gaelic. As none of these groups were
Race Relations Act case law recognised groups, government were
operating an exclusion mechanism that was rigorously applied to the
Cornish, but not to others. This proved in time to be an
unwarranted difference in treatment that government could not
justify, and therefore refused to address.

Following release of the UK 1st Compliance Report, the Advisory
Committee visited the UK to seek out the views of those affected by
the content prior to formulating its own detailed response.

In June of 2001, a number of Cornish campaigners travelled to
London to meet representatives from the Advisory Committee. They
gave an overview of the long history, unique culture and different
origins of the Cornish people. They also pointed out the legally
extant territorial rights of the people of Cornwall. The
representatives did not need reminding that the purpose of the
Convention is to protect and promote threatened minorities, and
those most in need of the protection afforded by the Convention are
those minorities who are in danger of being assimilated out of
existence, i.e. the Cornish. The Committee was impressed both by
our numerous representations to date and our presentation that day,
for the subsequent Advisory Committee Opinion stated that the
Cornish should be included within the Convention.

The follow-up July 2001 Home Office response to a list of Advisory
Committee questions detailed the plethora of measures to be taken,
and the many millions of pounds to be spent, enhancing the
Convention rights of the likes of the Ulster-Scots and Gael groups.
Yet these were not Race Relations Act case law recognised groups.
In that same Home Office document, government told the Advisory
Committee that, as the Cornish were not a Race Relations Act case
law recognised group, the Cornish must remain excluded from the
Convention.

Throughout the intervening period, the Cornish continued to be
excluded from the Convention and their children continued to be
subjected to forced assimilation. However, Convention reporting
obligations placed an onus on government to submit a second
compliance report to the Secretary General by May of 2004. Although
Cornwall 2000 and others had made many unsuccessful attempts to get
the government to explain why it included some non-case law
recognised groups in the Convention, but excluded the Cornish, we
failed to obtain any coherent response.

Why have the Cornish been excluded? What government bodies,
organisations and individuals have been consulted on this issue?
What were their responses? Please explain the inconsistencies in
treatment described above and why you provided a reason for
excluding the Cornish that was clearly false.

Yours faithfully,

Philip Hosking

Dear Mr Hosking

Thank you for your request below dated 22nd January 2009 seeking information about the Cornish and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Your request was received by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 22nd January.

We are considering your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and you may expect to receive a reply by 19th February. The reference number for your request is F0002922

In some circumstances a fee may be chargeable and if that is the case, I will let you know the likely charges before proceeding.

If you have any queries regarding this letter, please contact me. Please quote the above reference number in any future communications.

Yours sincerely

Ian Naysmith
Race Equality and Diversity Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Eland House (7/K10)
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU

Tel: + 44 (0)20 7944 6416
Fax: +44 (0)20 7944 2460

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hosking

Our reference: F0002922

Further to my email to you dated 27 January, I am writing in
response to your email of 22nd January requesting information,
under the Freedom of Information Act, relating to the Cornish and
the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities.

At the end of your message you ask four questions, which I have
numbered as follows for ease of reference:

1. Why have the Cornish been excluded?
2. What government bodies, organisations and individuals have been
consulted on this issue?
3. What were their responses?
4. Please explain the inconsistencies in treatment described above
and why you provided a reason for excluding the Cornish that was
clearly false.

We consider that questions 2 and 3 are requests for information
within the meaning of the FOI Act.

We do not consider that Questions 1 and 4 are requests for
information within the meaning of the FOI Act, but requests for
explanations of Government policy, which I will therefore answer
on that basis.

To start with question 1: the United Kingdom ratified the
Framework Convention on the understanding that it would be applied
with reference to "racial groups" within the meaning of Section
3(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976, which is to say any group of
persons defined by "colour, race, nationality or national or
ethnic origins". For the purposes of the Framework Convention it
would of course also be necessary for the group to be a minority
in the UK. Since the United Kingdom Government ratified the
Framework Convention, a number of Cornish organisations and
individuals have made representations to the Government arguing
that the Cornish should be considered within the scope of the
Framework Convention's application in the United Kingdom. The
Government therefore included Cornish organisations in its
consultation prior to the preparation of the 2nd report under the
Framework Convention. It also circulated the draft report to a
number of Cornish organisations and individuals which had
approached the Government on the issue since then. A number of
these organisations and individuals submitted comments on the
draft report. The Government considered the arguments put forward
for the inclusion, but was not convinced that a move away from the
definition of racial group in Section 3(1) of the Race Relations
Act 1976 could be justified.

On question 4, the Government does not accept that there are
"inconsistencies of treatment" in relation to the application of
the Framework Convention, nor does it accept that reasons given
for the exclusion of the Cornish from the Framework Convention are
"false." The fact that the Government's 1st and 2nd reports to
the Advisory Committee refer to a number of groups which do not
constitute "racial groups" within the meaning of the Race
Relations Act does not mean that the Government considers them to
be "national minorities" within the meaning of the Framework
Convention. For example, the 2nd report provides the Advisory
Committee with some information about measures to support the
Cornish language. Furthermore the initiatives described in the
Government's 1st and 2nd compliance reports are not a consequence
of the Framework Convention, but rather illustrations of some of
the ways in which legislation and policies in the UK help meet the
aims of the Framework Convention. Therefore, the matters reported
on in the Government's 1st and 2nd compliance reports are not
necessarily specific to the Framework Convention, but rather are
relevant to the sort of discrimination issues in which the
Committee is likely to be interested. It is therefore not correct
to assume that all groups which are mentioned in the 1st and 2nd
compliance reports are indeed recognised by the UK as coming
within the Framework Convention.

Turning to Questions 2 and 3, I can confirm that the Department
holds this information. The Government has not consulted
non-governmental organisations specifically on the question of
whether or not the Cornish should be included under the Framework
Convention, but as stated above, it circulated its draft 2nd
compliance report under the Framework Convention to a wide range
of organisations, including Cornish ones, and a number of them
commented on this issue. Lists of those organisations consulted
and those that commented are in the public domain. They can be
found at Annexes A and B of the Government's second compliance
report under the Framework Convention:
[1]http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitorings/mi...

Of the organisations listed in Annex B, the following expressed
support for the inclusion of the Cornish under the Framework
Convention:

Celtic League
Celtic League (Cornish Branch)
Cornish Ethnicity Data Tracking Group
Cornish Language Fellowship
Cornish National Minority Group
Cornish Stannary Parliament
Cornish Steering Group, FCPNM
Cornwall 2000
Cornwall County Council
EUROLANG
European Bureau of Lesser Used Languages (UK)
European Parliament Intergroup for Traditional National
Minorities
Gorseth Kernow
Mebyon Kernow
Tyr-Gwyr-Gweryn

The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) submitted a shadow report
to the Council of Europe which is a public document and can be
viewed via the Council of Europe website at
[2]http://www.minelres.lv/reports/uk/CRE_sh...
The CRE report states that "in relation to the meaning of
"national minorities" the government should take a broader
approach than only using the criteria of a racial group that has
been recognised in case law and should reconsider its position on
groups such as the Cornish and Muslims."

The other organisations listed in Annex B expressed no view on the
position of the Cornish under the Framework Convention.

I can confirm that the Department holds information on which
government departments have been consulted in relation to the
inclusion or otherwise of the Cornish within the Framework
Convention. However, this information is being withheld as it is
exempt by virtue of Section 35(1) (a) and (b) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. Section 35(1)(a) provides that information
is exempt if it relates to the formulation or development of
government policy or (s 35(1)(b)) Ministerial communications,
including proceedings of any committee of the Cabinet.

Section 35 is a qualified exemption. Therefore, we have had to
consider whether the public interest in withholding the
information is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing it.

We believe that there is a public interest in having access to the
Government's internal consideration of the question of whether the
Cornish should be included under the Framework Convention. This
information is of particular interest to you and to others who
support the inclusion of the Cornish. In addition, we recognise
that as knowledge of the way Government works increases, the
public contribution to the policy making process could become more
effective.

However, in order to reach the best possible decision on any
matter of policy, Ministers need to feel free to discuss all the
available options freely and frankly with one another and with
their officials without fearing that these discussions will be
made public. Such a concern would be likely to have an inhibiting
and detrimental effect on the candour of advice and views
expressed in such discussions, which would jeopardise the fully
informed and thoroughly considered decision-making process that
currently exists through impairing the quality of advice presented
to Ministers. This would, in turn, undermine the quality of policy
making. There is in particular a strong public interest in
maintaining the convention of Ministerial collective
responsibility for government policy, and it is this convention
which section 35(1)(b) is designed to protect.

We have therefore concluded that the public interest in
maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in
disclosing the information.

The Department, as an organisation, aims to be as helpful as
possible in the way it deals with requests for information under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004. If, however, you are not satisfied
with the way in which your request has been handled or the
outcome, information about the Department's review procedures and
how to apply for an internal review of your case is contained on
the Department's website at [3]www.communities.gov.uk. This also
explains your right to apply directly to the Information
Commissioner for a decision in the event that you remain
dissatisfied following the authority's review.

Please contact me if you have any queries about this email.

Ian Naysmith
Race Equality and Diversity Division
European & International Policy
Department for Communities and Local Government
Eland House (7/K10)
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU

Tel: + 44 (0)20 7944 6416
Fax: +44 (0)20 7944 2460

show quoted sections

Dear Ian Naysmith,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Communities and Local Government's handling of my FOI request 'Why
have the Cornish been excluded from the framework convention for
the protection of national minorities?'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wh...

Firstly the government has clearly given the impression in both its
reports to the Council of Europe that groups not defined under race
relations case law where covered by the FCNM. Indeed the
considerable funding and efforts listed for the benefit of
minorities such as Ulster-Scots and Gael groups (not recognised by
race relations case law) is striking compared to the efforts made
by the government for the Cornish national minority. Why have
minorities like the Ulster Scots and Gaels been singled out for
exemplary treatment, clearly being vaunted as covered by the FCNM,
whereas the Cornish have not?

The question is not if the government has been misleading but why.
For this reason:

Firstly; it is vital that the Cornish know which individual
politicians, civil servents, government departments and other
establishment bodies were consulted or offered input on the subject
of Cornish inclusion under the FCNM.

Secondly; clearly it is important we know what opinion they
offered.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Hosking

<<090206 acknowledgement Hosking F0002922.doc>>

Mr Hosking

Please see the attached.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Mr Hosking,

I am the appointed FOI internal reviewer for your case, please see
attached my reply to your request for a review.

Thanks

Katharine Rees

<<2009 03 30 Final Reply to Mr Hosking.doc>>

Katharine Rees
Olympics Programme Officer
Thames Gateway and Olympics Directorate
Communities and Local Government
Zone A2
3rd Floor
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU

Tel: 020 7944 4574

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Katharine Rees,

I'm sorry to say that the governments position on this is totally
unacceptable. You have been shown to be lying on this issue, namely
why have the Cornish been excluded from the FCNM, and you have
refused to release information that would help the public ascertain
the real reasons for this exclusion.

It is with regret that I hand this over to the Information
Commissioners Office. Is the credibility of government worth so
little to the extent that you are happy to tell bare faced lies in
order to avoid uncomfortable truths?

Yours sincerely,

Philip Hosking

Dear Mr Hoskings,

Thank you for your reply to my letter. I apologise for the delay in replying to you. My role as internal reviewer of this case has now formally concluded. If you wish to pursue the case further you will need to write to the information commissioner at the address below:

The Office of the Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Thanks

Katharine

Katharine Rees
Olympics Programme Officer
Thames Gateway and Olympics Directorate
Communities and Local Government
Zone A2
3rd Floor
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU

Tel: 020 7944 4574

show quoted sections