Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 213)
TUESDAY 29 JUNE 2004
DR ANGUS
MURDOCH
Q200 Christine Russell: So your involvement
does not normally happen until the local authority planning enforcement
officer has visited the site?
Dr Murdoch: It varies but often
as soon as the Gypsy pulls onto a site the enforcement officer
arrives and we are contacted at that point. My preference would
be for there to be a proactive approach but currently people's
situation is so desperate that they are taking pieces of land
before coming and taking advice.
Q201 Christine Russell: You mentioned
in your opening statement the human rights of the Gypsies. How
do you weigh those up against the human rights of the local communities
that could be infringed, particularly by the degradation as well
as by the anti-social behaviour that often ensues?
Dr Murdoch: I do not weigh that
up. The courts weigh that up, the planning inspector will weigh
that up, local planning authorities make those decisions; I simply
give advice. Clearly there are conflicting rights but those rights
can be remedied or they can be balanced quite sensibly and if
there is adequate provision then unauthorised sites would no longer
exist. It seems to me it is putting the cart before the horse
if we do not provide provision before dealing with enforcement.
Q202 Mr Cummings: How would you respond
to the criticism that your organisation is in effect shaping public
policy through case law in judicial reviews?
Dr Murdoch: How do I deal with
that? We pursue the cases that are given to us. The Traveller
phones us up, they have a problem, we give them advice, we instruct
and brief counsel. The courts make the decisions as they see fit.
We take every case, we do not cherry-pick a case. We take every
case that comes to us that we have capacity for.
Q203 Mr Cummings: So you take everyone
on board?
Dr Murdoch: Yes, we are the Travellers'
Advice Team, we work for Travellers. If a Traveller phones up
and they want advice that is our job.
Q204 Mr Cummings: Some people would
argue that your organisation should adopt a more proactive role
and try to work with rather than against authorities in order
to benefit Gypsy and Traveller communities. Do you think this
criticism is fair?
Dr Murdoch: We are a private firm
of solicitors. I do not know if our role is to be proactive in
legislative change but, be that as it may, if there were time
to do that, that would be great, but our caseload is so immense
because there are so few legal aid lawyers working in this area
now (we are the only national firm) that it is simply beyond our
capacity. There are six of us altogether who are trying to run
an enormous amount of cases.
Q205 Mr Cummings: How do you believe
local authorities could overcome NIMBYism or racist tendencies
which may emerge when they are considering planning applications
for Gypsy and Traveller sites?
Dr Murdoch: I think we should
return to the issue of being proactive. As I say, we work nationally
and we have worked with very many positive proactive local authorities,
for example South Somerset, in the area where I live, who have
invited Gypsies and Travellers into the policy formation stage,
and not just Gypsies and Travellers but members of the National
Farmers' Union, police officers and all the other interested parties.
I think it is only when you have proactive local authorities like
that that real change occurs at local level. Aside from that kind
of change, legislative change and change in the guidance at national
level is required.
Q206 Mr Cummings: Do you think that
there is a true appreciation of the nature of the way of life
of Travellers and Gypsies?
Dr Murdoch: Not at all.
Q207 Mr Cummings: An appreciation
of their culture?
Dr Murdoch: No, not at all. I
think they are a hidden minority. They are a minority who are
socially excluded from almost all aspects of mainstream life and
for whom the majority of the British public only have contact
through hostile media reports and unauthorised encampments and
have very little real contact.
Q208 Mr Cummings: Your submission
highlights the problem of lack security of tenure on official
sites. I understand that previous court cases have been unsuccessful
in obtaining increased security. Why do you think this is so?
Dr Murdoch: Well, that is as it
was until 27 May of this year when a case in the European Court
of Human Rights called Conners v UK was handed down. The
two cases you are referring to, Dagenham v Smith and Isaacs
v Somerset, were both referred to in the Connors judgment
and I think it is highly likely that reform in the area of security
of tenure will be forthcoming.
Q209 Mr Cummings: What change in
policy is required?
Dr Murdoch: To my mind there are
many things that need to happen. The first thing that needs to
happen is a return of the statutory duty to provide sites, together
with a grant to create those sites. Without that, I think it is
simply untenable to imagine that private provision is going to
make good the substantial shortfall that has existed for many
generations. I think there has to be a compulsion on local authorities
to provide. If they are not compelled to provide they will not
provide. When there was just a power to provide and not a duty
from 1960 to 1968 19 sites were built. That is not going to be
enough to accommodate Gypsies' simple land use requirements. On
top of that I think it would be helpful to have a national task
force for Gypsies and that is one of the elements that the Mayor
for London, Ken Livingston, has recently proposed in a letter,
which the Chairman may well have, addressed to Yvette Cooper on
23 June of this year. I think a task force is essential so that
the views of Gypsies and Travellers and all the interested parties
are addressed.
Q210 Mr Cummings: Do you believe
that the principles of security of tenure and nomadism are rather
incompatible?
Dr Murdoch: No, not at all. I
have always found that to be a rather interesting argument. The
European Court of Human Rights similarly rejected that argument.
That was a central plank of the United Kingdom's case and they
found that not to be the case. For example, currently with the
existing situation where Gypsies only have a licence and can be
evicted after 20 years after being given 28 days' notice, 86%
of Gypsies have been stationary on that site for three years so
I do not see that having greater security of tenure is going to
jeopardise nomadism. What is jeopardising their nomadism is the
ability to travel and the ability to travel has been made very,
very difficult by the repeal of the duty, the lack of transit
sites and the draconian eviction powers that the 1994 Act gave
the local authorities and the police.
Q211 Mr Cummings: Are you satisfied
with the progress made by the ODPM on the implementation of Pat
Niner's recommendations?
Dr Murdoch: No, I think it is
lamentably slow and I think it is a great opportunity that has
been missed. There are fantastic reports and some great noises
at times but no great action following.
Q212 Mr Cummings: Why do you believe
this to be so?
Dr Murdoch: The lack of political
will hitherto, and that may now change.
Q213 Chairman: If we are looking
at value for money, you have a fairly significant income from
legal aid but that is because the Travellers come to you with
a problem, but nobody seems to be going and looking at the structure
plans, whether they are the regional ones or the local authority
ones, and challenging the structure plans at the point at which
they are being put forward to say, "Look, there are no Gypsy
or Traveller accommodation sites in the structure plans."
If there were those sites in the structure plans, would that ease
the situation considerably? Would it not be better if public funds
are coming to an organisation likes yours that the public funds
come so that you can challenge the structure plans and get potential
sites into them rather than have to come in at a later stage when
some Travellers or Gypsies are facing eviction.
Dr Murdoch: We actually do both.
We have the case law on challenging the structure plans in Butler
v North East Somerset. What we are looking at in many of these
situations is local authorities which have ignored the duty effectively
for more than 20 years and had a direction against them from the
Secretary of State to provide further sites, ignored that, and
under threat of mandate have continued to ignore that. When we
moved into a private site provision situation with the development
plan process they still made policies that prevented Gypsy sites
rather than allowed them and there is that letter from Court of
Appeal quashing the structure plan in respect of Gypsy sites in
that local authority case. If only the development plan process
would provide adequate location for Gypsy sites I would be more
than happy to move into another area of employment.
Chairman: On that note, can I thank you
very much for your evidence.
| 
