16 UNAUTHORISED ENCAMPMENTS
208. Unauthorised camping continues to be a problem
for both the travelling and settled communities. The travelling
community argue that there are insufficient places to stop so
they are forced to camp on unauthorised sites which lack facilities
and services, and where constant evictions disrupt children's
education:
"In practice, 30% of Travellers in Britain
are hounded from one unauthorised place to another, with all the
associated problems of unofficial camping, clean-up costs and
no chance of proper education for the children. Furthermore poor
living conditions have a detrimental impact on the health of Traveller
families, who have the lowest life expectancy and the highest
child mortality rates of any group in Britain.[284]
[…]. Every week an average of 10 Traveller families - 80
to 90 people in 30 caravans - are living on unauthorised sites
with no sanitation, no utilities and no refuse collection. There
are an average of three evictions a week that cost about £2500
a time excluding police costs, staff costs and possible legal
costs."[285]
The settled community views unauthorised camping
as an invasion of its environment, and objects to the costs which
result from evicting illegal campers and cleaning the site:
"There is a sense of injustice over the
fact that the council tax payer has to keep shelling out substantial
funds to clear up behind these people." [286]
"It is absolutely essential that we get
away from Travellers camping illegally. The amount of grief and
despair that it causes in a community is untold. Residents cannot
understand why this group of people are able to come in - whether
they own the land or do not own the land - set up camp and live
there when, in my particular part of the world, if they want to
put a garden shed up they would have to go through the planning
system. I think what we are trying to get across is that we want
to be part of this equation as local authorities and work with
the travelling community but we want to make sure that it is done
within the legal framework and not done illegally as it is at
the moment."[287]
Alistair McWhirter, Chief Constable of Suffolk and
representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, told
us that the settled community often react badly to the arrival
of Gypsies and Travellers:
"I can honestly say that I have never seen
such racism in communities other than when Travellers move into
an area; there is a naked racism which is not there with other
minority ethnic groups who are even more visible in many ways.
The public reaction to Travellers can be very much equated to
the nineteenth century Punch cartoon where a man is standing on
the edge of a village with another man and a villager from the
next village is walking towards them and in the caption underneath
one man says to another: "Who's him, Jim?" The other
one says, "'E be a foreigner" and the first one says,
"We'll heave half a brick at him then". That is still
the attitude that communities have to strangers moving in generally,
we do not see it only with Gypsies and Travellers. In my own county
at the moment we have problems with Portuguese families moving
into rural communities and so on. We know from the reaction we
get when Travellers move into an area when we will constantly
get telephone calls saying that crime has gone up and so on and
very often the figures do not match that. Travellers arriving
in an area does not mean that there is going to be an increase
in crime; what it often means is a feeling of unease in the local
community and as a result tensions are raised particularly if
Travellers then go into a pub and take that pub over very often
in large numbers and you end up with conflict in the community.
Sometimes that is very difficult to deal with."[288]
209. ACPO emphasised the difficulties of managing
unauthorised camping:
"Managing unauthorised camping is a very
difficult task. Practitioners involved have to constantly bear
in mind the law, the rights of the landowner, the human rights
of the campers, the needs and wants of the settled community and
the practical difficulties of where the Travellers will move to
if not allowed to stay. All this needs to be set against a backdrop
of institutionalised prejudice among the settled community who
are much more prepared to make racist comments and take physical
action against Travellers than any other minority group. This
is evidenced by the press who also write articles about Travellers
in terms which they would not entertain using about other minority
groups."[289]
And of evicting unauthorised campers:
"If you serve a notice under Section 61
to require someone to leave a site you actually have to have the
resources available once you have given the people a period of
notice to take all of the caravans into your possession and keep
them safely, you have to find homes for the people you are making
homeless and so on. You have to have a huge number of people involved,
it is not as easy as saying, "Okay, go off by 12 o'clock
tomorrow" and sending a police officer along to make sure
that that happens. It is not as simple as people think; it is
the logistics of actually making it happen that are very difficult."[290]
210. Gypsy and Traveller groups have argued that
local authorities have failed to recognise the difficulties faced
by the travelling community because of the lack of authorised
sites:
"Account must be taken of those authorities
who - supported by the Police - operate harsh eviction policies
against Gypsies forced to camp illegally by the national shortfall
of official caravan sites, and measures taken (possibly though
an amendment to Circular 18/94, and perhaps Planning Legislation)
to introduce short-term toleration of families camped on their
own land but not causing any problems by their presence there
in order to afford those families an albeit limited measure of
security until such times as their situation can be legitimised
through the planning process. Under no circumstances should authorities
be allowed to evict Gypsies from unauthorised encampments if they
have not already provided official sites within their area, or
if such sites are provided they are either sub-standard in terms
of quality of facilities, suffer from incompatibility problems
or are in isolated, "hole and corner" Or otherwise unacceptable
locations."[291]
The Commission for Racial Equality also expressed
concerns that unauthorised encampments are not being handled appropriately:
"Unauthorised encampments and developments
- largely as a result of severe site shortages - have a hugely
negative impact on community relations."[292]
[…]. The CRE is concerned that local authorities and police
forces are not adequately aware of, and not adequately implementing
the statutory race equality duty in relation to Gypsies and Travellers
in the context of unauthorised encampments. The race equality
duty should be embedded in any strategy for managing unauthorised
camping, and in all practice stemming from this. The CRE is regularly
contacted by individuals and agencies expressing concern that
authorities are: introducing new policies that are likely to impact
negatively on Gypsies and Travellers; actively encouraging reporting
of unauthorised encampments; making public statements that fuel
hostile media coverage; failing to manage evictions in a manner
that promotes good race relations; failing to respond appropriately
to members of the settled community who express hostility; contracting
private eviction companies without any apparent consideration
of race equality."[293]
211. In response to an adjournment debate on 19 May
2004 Yvette Cooper MP highlighted that the levels of unauthorised
encampments have stayed broadly stable over the past few years,
but the levels of unauthorised developments have increased significantly.[294]
Unauthorised developments are where the land is legally owned
by the Gypsy or Traveller but planning permission for a site has
not been granted. The Gypsy Council for Education, Culture, Welfare
and Civil Rights want a moratorium on evictions from such sites
until sufficient legal places to stop are provided:
"This [a moratorium] is essential because
the powers for police in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 are
being used when it is patently obvious that there are not enough
sites. In particular evictions of families on private sites which
do not have planning permission. The eviction in Chelmsford was
a private site and the families were told that there were places
in Epsom, Surry. There were no places in Epsom. The mob handed
eviction with hundreds of bailiffs and police in riot gear and
circulating helicopter saw caravans (homes) damaged whilst being
dragged off the site. Later some caravans (homes) were fire damaged;
earth mounds were built to prevent access to the site which was
sprayed with pig slurry making it unusable. This would just not
happen if the land did not belong to Gypsy and Traveller people.
Until there are enough sites for Gypsy and Traveller families
to occupy, these evictions must stop."[295]
212. Many local authorities and private landowners
have told us of the large costs encountered in evicting travellers:
"As local authorities cannot budget for
Traveller invasions, the Government need to consider ways of either
assisting local government with such costs or in some way enabling
a collaborative scheme to spread the enormous costs of removing
Travellers and clearing up the sites." [296]
"Private landowners can be virtually bankrupted
by a major invasion on their land and the procedures for getting
a court order are time consuming and expensive. The removal of
Travellers after an illegal occupation normally takes 8 to 10
days at best. Whilst district and county councils and the police
have been given considerable powers in respect of removing travellers
most are reluctant to use them because of the human rights issues.
Nationally millions of pounds are being wasted by local authorities
for the removal of the Travellers from their land, dealing with
enforcement on private sites without planning approval and also
for the fortification of their landholding to try to prevent further
invasions." [297]
"There is no doubt that the money we spend
on enforcement would be better spent on management of Gypsy sites
but unless we have a duty to provide sites it is very difficult
to see how any local authority will provide residential sites.
That is half the answer. The other half of the answer is the transit
or short-stay sites where people travel around and move around.
In the summer period the majority of people go off their sites,
they travel and move around with nowhere lawfully to stop, so
therefore they camp on the road and that is where the amount of
our expenditure goes. We spend an absolute fortune each year evicting
and moving Travellers round and round in a circle. It is totally
unnecessary. If there were a legal place for them to stop which
could be authorised that had decent facilities then they could
move around and stop quite legally."[298]
Dr Robert Home told us that development of authorised
accommodation would offer better value for money than evictions:
"With unauthorised encampment now criminalised,
large sums of public money have been spent on legal action against
Gypsies by police and local authorities, and a recent study by
the Traveller Law Research Unit at Cardiff University (Morris
and Clements 2002) estimated that each unauthorised caravan costs
land-owners (public and private) an average of about £3000
a year. A Best Value approach (as recommended in Home Office 2003)
would consider alternative ways to spend that money positively
to secure appropriate authorised accommodation."[299]
[…]. Local authorities and the police should be encouraged
towards a 'Best Value approach', comparing the costs (both direct
and indirect) of dealing with unauthorised Gypsy encampments with
the possible costs and benefits of taking a more pro-active approach
to site provision. This could include a more positive approach
to combating prejudice and discrimination towards Gypsies."[300]
213. The ODPM and Home Office published new "Guidance
on Managing Unauthorised Camping" in February 2004. The guidance
emphasised that "all public authorities, not just local authorities,
must take account of "humanitarian considerations" before
considering eviction." The Guide has been welcomed by the
Association of Chief Police Officers, particularly because it
is felt to clarify which authority (police or local authority)
is responsible for taking the lead in formulating a strategy.
It was suggested that in the past, authorities had failed to work
in a coherent manner.[301]
The Traveller Law Reform Coalition also welcomed the guidance.
They explain:
"We also welcome aspects of the guidance
which set a framework within which appropriate decisions can be
made on unauthorised encampments to minimise disruption, linking
the approach to unauthorised camping firmly to other strategies
and policies affecting Gypsies and Travellers (site provision,
planning, health, education, housing etc) and with the potential
to involve all those with an interest in the process of developing
the strategy."[302]
Police Powers
214. The AntiSocial Behaviour Act introduced
into the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act new powers of eviction,
meaning that where suitable sites are available, police can evict
encampments where they are considerably smaller than they would
have been previously and move them on to those sites. Many witnesses
support the intention of the Act but believe it useless without
provision of additional sites. In an adjournment debate on Travellers'
Sites in West Leeds, John Battle MP commented, "We cannot
toughen up the law to move Travellers on if there is nowhere for
them to go."[303]
215. The Commission for Racial Equality agrees with
these sentiments:
"That [provision of sites and ability to
evict illegal campers] is a link that we support but in the absence
of those sites being provided demonstrated by the fact
that those powers have not been used yet at all since they were
introduced it is very clear that in order for that system
to work the provision has to take place alongside if not before
the powers of eviction can be used in order for the system to
be workable."[304]
Although they stress that there are some sites where
eviction is necessary regardless of the level of provision:
"Clearly if the site were completely unsuitable,
for instance if the encampment is on a school playing field, even
if there is no alternative provision then the eviction powers
should still apply but in other circumstances they should not.
We are not giving you a precise formulation but we are suggesting
that it should be a consideration whether they can use the powers
and as to whether the eviction can take place. In a sense it is
about rights and responsibilities. They have a responsibility
to provide sites and the greater extent to which they have exercised
the responsibility for providing or facilitating sites the greater
should be their powers to evict people who are not using those
sites."[305]
216. NAGTO also argue that the additional police
powers will be ineffective if not linked to the provision of accommodation,
both permanent and transitory, and the provision of funding to
provide infrastructure for sites. The Association believe that
the Government needs to rethink its strategy of enforcement with
a strategy of determining provision of sites based on the assessment
of need of the travelling community.[306]
Ian Cairns, Gypsy Liaison Officer, Somerset County Council, argues
that if sufficient numbers of sites were provided, local authorities
would be much more inclined to use the powers available and adopt
a tough attitude towards any Gypsies and Travellers that still
camped illegally:
"There will always be those Travellers who
will stay outside the law and providing a local authority has
a decent level of provision they can go before the courts and
inform the courts that they have been made an offer of accommodation,
that there are transit facilities there, and they have been identified
to them to use, and if they prefer not to use that then you will
obtain your order to move them on. As there was with the 1968
Caravan Sites Act, where there was the designation process, I
think that there should be that carrot and stick so that local
authorities who do have provision on there to be used and it is
not being used by the Travellers have the power to move them on."[307]
217. NAGTO believe that the inconsistent approach
to transit site provision and permanent residential accommodation
makes the enhanced powers unworkable, and provides confusion to
both the settled and travelling communities. They argue that:
"There should not be the ability within
the legislation that any group encamping on land in a specific
area would be guaranteed a place on a transit site or temporary
stopping place for at least three months. The accommodation should
be dependent on the behaviour of the group and the compliance
with a licence agreement to adhere to a certain code of conduct
while on the temporary and short-stay site. It is recognised that
the travelling population have unique needs, however, the presumption
of occupancy for a minimum of three months will only lead to disruptive
behaviour and the settled community objecting to the location
of the permanent and residential site."[308]
218. The Traveller Law Reform Coalition are concerned
that local authorities or the police may force Gypsies and Travellers
onto any site with a vacant pitch, regardless of compatibility,
and that authorities may develop poorly located sites in order
to use their new powers:
"We have grave concerns over the provisions
of the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003, which will give the police
extra eviction powers against Gypsies and Travellers where local
authorities are able to direct Gypsies and Travellers to vacant
pitches/stopping places. […]. To date the powers in the Anti
Social Behaviour Act have not been invoked because there are not
vacant pitches. It is our fear though that if local authorities
develop sites they will have limited facilities because of the
lack of funds available to develop sites, some may be allowed
to be quickly run down and become highly undesirable places to
live yet satisfy some local authorities as their existence will
give them enhanced eviction powers even if Gypsies and Travellers
are hesitant to move onto them. It should also be noted that some
Gypsies and Travellers might be hesitant to share such sites with
different travelling groups, again this will lead to a reluctance
to move onto sites which are large and accommodate families from
different travelling groups. It is our fear that some Gypsy and
Traveller families will be subjected to a greater cycle of enforced
movement and this will have a hugely negative impact on their
health and access to services."[309]
The National Association for Gypsy and Traveller
Officers also have concerns about compatibility:
"The availability of permanent residential
accommodation on permanent sites should not be an immediate trigger
for the police to assume that the vacant pitches represent alternatives
to temporary site provision. If inappropriate families are placed
on the vacant pitches on permanent sites this will, in itself,
lead to the incompatibility between site residents and problems
with the local community. Furthermore, this incompatibility of
certain travelling elements would disrupt the permanent site and
possibly closure."[310]
219. Local authorities have taken different approaches
to the new powers:
"In Somerset we do not use the Criminal
Justice Bill and we try not to use the AntiSocial Behaviour
Act because we see it as a social issue. It is not a criminal
issue, it is a social issue and that is how we try to address
it. We have no interest in criminalising any families at all.
All we are trying to do is to protect the integrity of our property."[311]
"In Buckinghamshire we take a rather different
attitude to Somerset in that we currently concentrate on procedures
under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act basically because
when it was issued it said that it was there in order to protect
the interests of private owners of land. It is impossible for
local authorities to use county court action on private land whereas
they can use it for private owners' own land. It is clearly the
concern of the landowner in law to look after his land. In the
case of a highway that would be the Highways Authority. In the
case of private land it would be the private land owner. In practice,
that is probably totally unfair on the private land owner whose
land is invaded and who may find it covered with rubbish, but
there is no getting out of that situation. However, they should
be able to depend upon support from the local authority and the
police. I believe that provided that those authorities stay within
the reasonable confines of their working affairs, in other words,
if the Gypsies are on the land and they can be persuaded to come
to an agreement with the landowner and not do damage to the land,
just as that might happen on local authority land, then there
should not be a need for immediate eviction. If they are harming
the land and they will not move in other ways then there should
be immediate action taken against them by the authorities on behalf
of the landowner."[312]
220. Chief Constable Alistair McWhirter, representative
of the Association of Chief Police Officers told us that the police
do not think that they need any additional powers, but he explained
that the powers alone were insufficient. For example, an unauthorised
encampment may be made up of more caravans than there are spaces
on a site, and the group may refuse to be split up. In addition
the numbers of Gypsies and Travellers on a site may require additional
resources be complied to implement the powers:
"For all the things that we deal with in
terms of Travellers one has to have sufficient resources. Frequently
we are asked why we do not use Section 61 more often. If you serve
a notice under Section 61 to require someone to leave a site you
actually have to have the resources available once you have given
the people a period of notice to take all of the caravans into
your possession and keep them safely, you have to find homes for
the people you are making homeless and so on. You have to have
a huge number of people involved, it is not as easy as saying,
"Okay, go off by 12 o'clock tomorrow" and sending a
police officer along to make sure that that happens. It is not
as simple as people think; it is the logistics of actually making
it happen that are very difficult. […]. We have to have sufficient
resources and we will get sufficient resources and we do get sufficient
resources to do it. We have had tactics adopted by the travelling
community of moving in large numbers and certainly a couple of
years ago it was at its height when we were getting groups of
150 caravans going round in large groups descending on, for example,
a large shopping centre car park, taking over that car park completely
at night and then dominating that area for some days. As the guidance
says, there are areas where it will always be unacceptable for
people to camp unlawfully and we will take action and do that,
but we have to then get the resources together to do that and
they are very expensive resources to get together. You also then
have to have an idea where those 150 caravans are going to go
although it is unlikely that people will actually allow us to
seize them. So they will probably pull off which is what happens
very often; we get all the resources together, we ready to do
it and then they will pull away because they do not want to lose
their homes, who would? Then it becomes a game of cat and mouse
with people being followed and then they settle on a piece of
land. Eventually once they move out of that district council area
- and this is coming back to the silo point - or indeed out of
that force area it is no longer that area's problem."[313]
221. The Minister of State for Housing and Planning,
the Rt. Hon Keith Hill MP appears to accept that the new powers
may, in George Summers' words, "be putting the cart before
the horse"[314]:
"It is partly the issue of the provision
of transit sites. I think the Chief Constable was absolutely right.
It is very difficult to take action in terms of moving people
on if the legislation requires that there should be sites they
can move on to and they are not there of course, as you know.
We have had a funding stream in the past period which has been
about both the refurbishment of existing sites and the provision
of transit sites. Within the context of the spending review we
will obviously want to look at future allocations."[315]
222. The Association also argue that enhanced powers
do not tackle anti-social behaviour within the travelling community.
They stress that anti-social Travellers should not be directed
to sites, because they will disrupt the settled and travelling
communities in their immediate area. They suggest the enhanced
powers should include "the ability for the local authority
to remove disruptive elements of the travelling community irrespective
of the accommodation provided for unauthorised camping".[316]
They add, "It is this minority of disruptive travellers that
are causing problems for the majority of the travelling community".[317]
It has been suggested that Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
should be taken out against anti-social Gypsies and Travellers,
but the National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Officers argue
that these are impractical:
"Anti-Social Behaviour Orders are not a
practical solution for encampments that by their very nature are
transient and of a short-stay duration. To obtain Anti-Social
Behaviour orders a significant amount of evidence is required
plus the ability of the occupants to remain in one place, therefore
unless the encampment is allowed o remain in-situ over an extended
lengthy period, the Anti-Social Behaviour Order will be ineffective.
When addressing temporary and shirt-stay sites, the occupants
will merely move before such an order is even obtained. Using
the new powers of enhanced possession will negate any such Anti-Social
Behaviour Order objective."[318]
223. Chief Constable Alistair McWhirter, ACPO representative,
told us that managing anti-social behaviour in the Gypsy and Traveller
community is as tough as it is in the settled community. He stresses
the need to set standards and for all relevant parties to communicate:
"I think the only thing that can be done
at a local level in terms of reducing anti-social behaviour is
to keep dialogue going right from the start. I think the new guidance
[ODPM guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping ] which has been
issued is extremely helpful in relation to giving good examples
of how that dialogue can be first of all made and then maintained.
I think it comes down to having good Gypsy and Traveller liaison
officers; it comes down to having named individuals in police
forces.[…]. In the local authority but then having named
police officers who are also liaison people so that the local
authority and the police are working together as one. That is
why I am pleased that the guidance - although it has not yet been
formally launched in a broader sense - gives clear plans as to
how you can set up a local strategy and to work that through.
I think that if those areas that are affected by Gypsies and Travellers
moving in do have plans in place in relation to that you will
at least be able to start the process of being able to create
a dialogue with the Gypsy and Traveller community to be able to
help them to eradicate that sort of behaviour while people are
camping in their particular area. I think that is about setting
up agreements at a local level about what you will do about rubbish,
about behaviour generally and all those sorts of things which
is saying that if there is a period of toleration then they will
only be tolerated if they comply with these sets of standards.
I think the standards that are applied should be the same standards
that apply to the settled community; we are not asking for more
of Gypsies and Travellers than we are of the settled community."[319]
224. We have received evidence from a number of
organisations and individuals highlighting the anger they feel
when groups of Gypsies and Travellers camp illegally on land which
they do not own. It can be a long and difficult process, entailing
huge expense, to move people on. However, most illegal encampments
stem from lack of legal places to stop. If the Government were
to re-introduce a statutory duty, and to require local authorities
to take swift action to implement the duty, then many Gypsies
and Travellers would move onto legal sites. The police would then
be able to use their powers to move on illegal campers much more
quickly because there would be spaces on sites to move Gypsies
and Travellers onto. The Gypsy and Traveller community would have
a responsibility to recognise that if sites were provided, illegal
encampments would not be accepted nor tolerated. With adequate
site provision the legal profession should be able to support
landowners seeking to evict Gypsies and Travellers from illegal
encampments. We recommend that when sufficient numbers of sites
are in place, the number of days that must pass before evictions
can be enacted should be reduced.
225. We have been told that the police have sufficient
powers to deal with illegal encampments provided that there are
enough sites. However we have concerns that the police may have
insufficient powers to tackle anti-social behaviour within the
travelling community. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders are not workable
for Gypsies and Travellers who are not resident on permanent sites.
We recommend the Government use the proposed Gypsy and Traveller
Taskforce to identify ways in which anti-social behaviour within
the travelling community can be addressed.
284 HC deb, 19 May 2002, col 1071 Back
285
HC deb, 19 May 2004, col 1072 Back
286
West Sussex County Council, A Strategy on Gypsies and Travellers
in West Sussex, January 2003, pg 12 Back
287
Q 295 [Councillor Susie Kemp, West Berkshire Council and chairman
of the Local Government Association Planning Executive Back
288
Q 266 Back
289
HC 63-III, Ev 42, [Association of Chief Police Officers] Back
290
Q 268 Back
291
Ev 18 [The Gypsy Council (Romani Kris)] Back
292
Ev 69 [The Commission for Racial Equality] Back
293
Ev 69 [The Commission for Racial Equality] Back
294
HC deb, 19 May 2004, col 1074-5 Back
295
HC 63-III, Ev 92, [The Gypsy Council for Education, Culture, Welfare
and Civil Rights] Back
296
Totton and Eling Town Council, Views and Responses in respect
of Travellers, 14th July 2004, Press release Back
297
Totton and Eling Town Council, Views and Responses in respect
of Travellers, 14th July 2004, Press release Back
298
Q 236 [George Summers, Gypsy and Traveller Service Manager for
Hampshire County Council and Secretary of the National Association
of Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officers] Back
299
Ev 86 [Dr Robert Home] Back
300
Ev 86 [Dr Robert Home] Back
301
HC 63-III, Ev 88, [Association of Chief Police Officers] Back
302
Ev 34 [Traveller Law Reform Coalition] Back
303
HC deb, 19 May 2004, col 1070 Back
304
Q 156 [Sasha Barton, Senior Policy Officer, Gypsies and Travellers,
Commission for Racial Equality] Back
305
Q 158 [Sarah Spencer, Deputy Chair, Commission for Racial Equality] Back
306
HC 63-III, Ev 78, [National Association of Gypsy and Traveller
Officers] Back
307
Q 255 [Ian Cairns, Gypsy Liaison Officer, Somerset County Council] Back
308
HC 63-III, Ev 78, [National Association of Gypsy and Traveller
Officers] Back
309
Ev 34 [Traveller Law Reform Coalition] Back
310
HC 63-III, Ev 78, [National Association of Gypsy and Traveller
Officers] Back
311
Q 254 [Ian Cairns, Gypsy Liaison Officer, Somerset County Council] Back
312
Q 254 [Terry Holland, Gypsy Services Manager of Buckinghamshire
County Council] Back
313
Q 268-9 [Alistair McWhirter, Chief Constable of Suffolk and representative
of the Association of Chief Police Officers] Back
314
Q 256 [George Summers, Gypsy and Traveller Service Manager for
Hampshire County Council and Secretary of the National Association
of Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officers] Back
315
Q 356 [Rt. Hon Keith Hill, a Member of the House, Minister of
State for Housing and Planning, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister] Back
316
HC 63-III, Ev 78, [National Association of Gypsy and Traveller
Officers] Back
317
HC 63-III, Ev 78, [National Association of Gypsy and Traveller
Officers] Back
318
HC 63-III, Ev 78, [National Association of Gypsy and Traveller
Officers] Back
319
Q272-3 [Alistair McWhirter, Chief Constable of Suffolk and representative
of the Association of Chief Police Officers] Back
|
