Supplementary memorandum by Hughie Smith,
President of the Gypsy Council (Romani Kris), Est 1966, Springs
Lane Caravan Park, Bickerton, Nr Wetherby, North Yorkshire LS22
5ND
1. This Memorandum is intended to be supplemental
to the verbal evidence given at the Committee Hearing which took
place on the morning of 22 June 2004. It is also intended to clarify
within this Memorandum any issues arising from our mishearing
of questions due to the poor acoustical properties of the Committee
Room (Room 8).
2. Additionally, and whilst appreciating
the time constraints imposed upon Members serving on Committee
and conducting hearings whilst Parliament is sitting, it has to
be stated that there are no "cut and dried" issues when
it comes to considering anything concerning or affecting Gypsies;
rather, there are a great many "grey areas" involved,
all of which need explaining in their appropriate context. In
responding to questions put towards me by both the Chairman (Andrew
F Bennett, MP) and individual Committee Members, I did attempt
to at best answer within context, but unfortunately time constraints
prevented me from fully responding to each question—in fact,
the amount of time allotted was, at least in my view, barely enough
to do other than "scratch the surface" in terms of both
the overall subject matter—ie, Gypsies and their site accommodation
needs and requirements. It is, therefore, hoped that Members of
the Committee will take the time to study this Memorandum, which
will I hope answer in detail both the questions which were put
to me at the Hearing on 22 June and also give them some degree
of insight into other issues which I would respectfully suggest
are connected to this matter.
3. Upon reviewing the notes taken at the
Hearing by Tom Lingard, Assistant Secretary to the Gypsy Council
(who himself experienced difficulty in hearing some of the questions
which were put to me at the time), it becomes clear that the general
topics in which the Committee are interested are as follows:
— Too few sites for too many Gypsies
(point raised by Chris Mole, MP); how many sites need to be provided.
— Types of facilities which should
be provided on sites (Clive Betts; Paul Beresford; David Clelland).
— The need for sites, and whether there
should be a statutory responsibility for provision (David Clelland;
Andrew F Bennett).
— Site Management—what happens
when people break licensing agreements (Andrew F Bennett); the
question of tenant liaison/participation in management (John Cummings);
costs involved in running sites.
— How best can "incursion groups"
be managed (David Clelland).
— What is a reasonable rent charged
on Gypsy sites (Andrew F Bennett).
— Definition ("nomadic habit of
life")—how many Gypsies are still nomadic today (John
Clelland); is it reasonable to expect Gypsies/Travellers who live
on sites but do not follow a "nomadic habit" to move
into permanent housing; do we think that "Group Housing"
(as pioneered in Ireland) should be trialled in England?
— Is it ever reasonable to evict Gypsies
camping illegally (Clive Betts).
— In saying that Local Authorities
should not "pick and choose" residents, do we "pick
and choose" who goes on to sites which we manage? (Andrew
F Bennett).
— Is anti-social behaviour a big issue?
(Clive Betts).
If, in reproducing the above list we have omitted
any questions, or misattributed questions raised by any Member,
please accept our sincere apologies and—in the case of omitted
questions, if this Supplementary Memorandum does not directly
answer questions raised at the Hearing—or raises additional
questions which Members may wish to ask—please feel free
to contact us direct, by telephone or post.
4. Turning to the individual questions raised
at the Hearing, it is proposed to address these below, and also
to set our answers into context. Given my previous comment about
"grey areas", it is hoped that Committee Members will
appreciate the necessity to include information and comment which
is not strictly relevant to the particular question which is being
addressed in the following paragraphs, but which I would respectfully
suggest is necessary to include in this document in order that
Members will hopefully gain a better understanding of the subject
matter.
5. Too few sites for too many Gypsies—the
Gypsy Council's assessment of the need for remaining provision.
As I stated at the Hearing on 22 June, there
are at present approximately 320 official Local Authority-provided
Gypsy sites in England, but to meet the actual need (as estimated
by this organisation) it would take a further 300 or so sites
to be provided, just to accommodate all Gypsies on Local Authority
sites. However, there is an underlying tradition amongst Gypsies
in this country of self-help, and as I also put to the Hearing
not all Gypsies actually want to live on Council-provided
sites; many families would quite literally "jump at the chance"
to provide for themselves, if given the opportunity to do so.
As an organisation which has been all-Gypsy
in membership since 1973, we on the Gypsy Council have for the
past 31 years been active in promoting the concept and benefits
of private site initiatives by Gypsies, and indeed our views on
(and support for) private Gypsy sites have been quoted in previous
Parliamentary debates, including a debate some years ago on the
Caravan Sites (Amendments) Bill.
It would—as I also commented at the 22
June Hearing—be of great benefit not only to Gypsies but
to the settled population throughout this country if more encouragement
and assistance could be shown to Gypsies wishing to provide for
themselves; not only would this help to legalise the situation
of many Gypsy families whose planning applications and/or Appeals
are currently extant, but it would also help to make available
pitches on existing Local Authority sites which are currently
being occupied by families who would much rather be living on
their own premises.
With respect to some of the Members who raised
questions regarding this particular issue, our experience of the
planning process—which stems from our own involvement both
in the submission of individual planning applications and our
attending (or furnishing written statements for submission to)
planning Appeals throughout the length and breadth of this country
during the past 31 years—has led us to the conclusion that
the issue of whether or not to grant planning permission to Gypsy
sites is very much a political one, further one which has over
the years led to to point the finger of accusation at the majority
of Local Authorities in terms of their exhibition of what we can
only term "political cowardice" in refusing such planning
applications; and whilst it is true that Gypsies have not at any
time been "flavour of the month" insofar as politics
are concerned—as I said at the Hearing on 22 June, we have
over the years encountered individuals of all political persuasions
who I can only describe as "crude, vote-catching" Councillors
whose attitude towards Gypsies has been that sites will only be
provided "over their dead bodies"—it is equally
true that, had both Central and Local Government taken on board
the content of a Discussion Document which we as an organisation
published as long ago as in 1979 and worked towards assisting
Gypsy families to provide their own sites, then we would not be
here some 34 years later still discussing the Gypsy accommodation
issue.
Part of the reason for what has over the years
become known as the "Gypsy problem" in this country
has been the widespread reluctance of Local Authorities to accept—during
the tenure of the Caravan Sites Act 1968—that they had a
responsibility in law to provide official caravan sites
for Gypsies; again, as I also said at the Hearing on 22 June,
the failure of the 1968 Act has greatly prejudiced our opinion—as
an all-Gypsy organisation—against any attempts to introduce
legislation which attempts to replicate that of 1968.
Another failing of the 1968 Act—as I also
stated at the 22 June Hearing—was the fact that successive
Secretaries of State themselves failed in their own statutory
duties under Section 9 of the Act to make Direction Orders against
individual Local Authorities who—in their opinion—had
either failed to provide the necessary accommodation or who were
"dragging their feet", so to speak, in so doing. It
is now generally accepted amongst those "in the know"
that the situation was not helped when, in 1974, Local Government
in England and Wales was reorganised, a situation which led to
many former Authorities (especially in the newly-created Metropolitan
County areas) abandoning their original plans—into which
a great deal of time, effort and expense had been poured—to
provide sites and waiting for the Authority upon which responsibility
for site provision had been conferred to "do the necessary"
and come up with a site. In a great many areas so affected, this
did not happen, and because of subsequent experiences caused mainly
through the Authorities concerned accepting poor advice from Central
Government (vis-a"-vis accepting the establishment
of "tolerated" sites in their area), attitudes were
coloured against the acceptance of any form of permanent
provision within individual Districts. Take, for instance, the
situation in Derby, where the City Council there opened a total
of three such "tolerated" sites, all of which failed.
Since that time, the City Council as a body has refused point-blank
to accept any form of official site provision for Gypsies within
the City of Derby, even though we have pointed out on countless
occasions that for them to do so would lead to a massive reduction
in the problems which have been caused through the presence of
unauthorised encampments within the area.
It may, of course, be of benefit to Members
of the Committee to learn that the advice on "toleration"
of sites came from the then Department of the Environment's Advisory
Officer on Gypsy Encampments, the late Mr Don Byrne, who in fact
I had personally recommended to the post; having established a
good working relationship and friendship with Mr Byrne during
his time with the Social Services Department of Hertfordshire
County Council, during which he expressed an interest in the DoE
post, I did in fact suggest to him that the Gypsy Council would
support his recommendation on the grounds that he pressed for
the provision of good-facility sites, which he readly agreed to
do. However, within an extremely short time of his appointment
he complained to me that he was quite literally being "beseiged"
by all manner of people—who we have since come to term the
"armchair theorists" (including individuals who were
at the time officers of Save the Children Fund)—putting
forward their views on what was best for Gypsies that he was being
hard-pressed to come up with a "quick" solution, hence
his advice on "tolerated" sites. It gives me no satisfaction
whatsoever to reiterate my opinion—as voiced to Mr Byrne
at the time—that what he was doing was wrong, and would
in fact set back the cause of Gypsy site provision by a significant
number of years, nor does it give me any satisfaction to report
to the Committee that, in hindsight, my prediction subsequently
was proven correct.
The difficulty which arose during the late Mr
Byrne's tenure of office was that various individuals—amongst
whom I number certain people who we as an organisation have since
come to term the "pretend Gypsies", supported by certain
academics who were at the time active within the London area—suggested
that all that was needed in order to provide a Gypsy site was
a water supply point (ie a standpipe), a disposal point for chemical
toilets and a piece of land on which these could be located. Such
a suggestion was—and remains—ridiculous. Even though
Gypsies as a community lead different lifestyles to that of "conventional"
(ie settled) society, we are no less human beings for it, which
is why—during the lifetime of the Caravan Sites Act 1968—we
on the Gypsy Council were instrumental in campaigning for the
provision of good facility, well-located and above all effectively-managed
caravan sites for our community. Unlike those who have never lived
our lifestyle, or for that matter have never had to deal with
the day-to-day management of sites (as we have), we are above
all Gypsies with a firm and sure knowledge not only of
our community but of our needs and requirements as people, and
also of the types of facilities required to serve those needs
and requirements.
This is why we have long said that, even on
the most "basic" form of site, there should be no reason
in this day and age why individual facilities—in the form
of an individual toilet unit, with a self-circulating water tank—should
not be provided. Individual facilities should, in my own considered
opinion, be the watchword. Photographic evidence has already been
supplied to the Committee (as contained in my response to the
Pat Niner report on the provision and condition of Local Authority
Gypsy/Traveller sites in England, published in 2003, and also
in previous Gypsy Council reports) of the types of individual
toilet block—consisting of a wc, a handbasin, and an externally-mounted
drinking water supply (ie mains water pipe and tap) which I firmly
believe should be regarded as the model for provision on all "transit"
sites as specified in recent Government advice; such units can
be readily disconnected and removed for storage in Council yards
until needed again, which obviates the risk of vandalism when
they are not in use.
As the situation stands, some Authorities have
in the past attempted to serve sites with a towed "bowser"
type of water tanker, and with disposal points for Elsan (or similar
chemical) toilets. The difficulties inherent in this type of provision
are (a) that water tankers are—as experience in different
parts of this country has shown—open to contamination, particularly
from members of the unruly element amongst Gypsies as defined
urinating into them; and (b) where Elsan toilet emptying points
are provided on sites which are used by families with large numbers
of children, they can—and do—rapidly become filled
to overflowing (as I commented during the Hearing, one Irish Traveller
with a large family did say to me some years ago that his family
alone could easily fill the disposal point in a day), and unless
Local Authorities are willing—and able—to meet the
costs of emptying such disposal points on an almost continuous
basis, the overspill from them could very quickly cause health
risks. In any case, there is no reason in this day and age (as
I also mentioned at the Hearing) why proper sanitary arrangements
cannot be put into place, even on short-stay sites.
I feel that I must correct a misconception which—with
respect to the Member of the Committee who asked me the particular
question—arose during my comments at the Hearing about the
types of facilities to be provided on Gypsy sites. The Member
in question (who I believe was David Clelland) appears to have
confused the types of facilities which are provided as standard
fittings in mobile homes (ie toilets, hand basins, baths/showers)
with Gypsy caravans, where such facilities are lacking. As I stated
at the time, Mobile Homes Parks are a far different proposition
to Gypsy sites, and in fact no Gypsy family has to my knowledge
ever been allowed onto a "conventional" residential
Mobile Homes Park.
6. The need for sites—should there
be a statutory responsibility for provision?
From the phrasing of this particular question,
it became clear that what Members of the Committee were referring
to was the proposed "new" legislation (in the shape
of the Traveller Law Reform Bill) which certain individuals and
groups purporting to represent Gypsies in this country have—without
consulting those whose future will be most affected by any such
legislation (ie ourselves, the Gypsies)—managed to have
put before Parliament. Again, in order to clarify my own comments
to the Hearing, and with regard to my preliminary statement (expanded
in more detail in the introduction to this Memorandum), in stating
that we on the Gypsy Council are opposed to any such new legislation
I would seek to make clear the fact that I was specifically referring
to the Traveller Law Reform Bill. In my own opinion—and
those of my colleagues on the Gypsy Council's Executive Committee—the
Bill is an abject waste of time, effort, and Public money. Again,
constraints on time unfortunately prevented me from explaining
what I mean by this in context, but as I did state at the Hearing
we have already gone through a period of 24 years during which
legislation (ie the Caravan Sites Act 1968, Part II of which came
into force on 1 April 1970) was in force which was designed to
solve the so-called "Gypsy problem", but due to a variety
of contributory factors that legislation failed—given that,
from my own reading of the Traveller Law Reform Bill; the proposed
new legislation seeks to emulate the 1968 Act, what chance of
its success?
Part of the failing of the 1968 Act lay in the
fact that no time limit was ever imposed on Local Authorities
to provide sites for Gypsies; also, whereas County Councils were
given an open-ended commitment to site provision, Inner London
Boroughs and Metropolitan Authorities (following Local Government
reorganisation in 1974) were allowed to provide only 15 pitches
in their area; the fact that some Authorities (such as Leeds and
Bradford in West Yorkshire, and Salford in Greater Manchester)
went on to provide more pitches than the 15 allowed for in the
Act is to their credit, but it has to be commented that the Salford
site was only provided as a "last resort" following
the outcome of the West Glamorgan case—hitherto,
Salford had become notorious amongst Gypsies as an extremely hostile
Authority, even to the extent of serving an eviction notice on
a five-year-old spastic girl who used a caravan which had been
converted by her father into a playroom.
Another failing—and perhaps the principle
one—of the 1968 Act was that although successive Secretaries
of State were empowered under Section 9 of the Act to issue Direction
Orders (enforceable by Mandamus) against Local Authorities where
site provision was insufficient or non-existent which compelled
the Authorities concerned to provide sites, only a handful of
such Orders were ever issued; in fact, the very first Order to
be issued was against West Glamorgan County Council, and even
then it took Court proceedings by ourselves to compel the Secretary
of State to issue that Order—it was, in fact, only issued
on the morning of the day on which the case against the Welsh
Secretary was to be heard. And whilst the West Glamorgan Direction
set a precedent, again the Secretary of State did not impose a
time limit upon the County Council for compliance.
In England, our success in obtaining the West
Glamorgan Direction served as a spur for bringing other cases,
such as the one against Surrey County Council—I should,
however, comment that we were not responsible for bringing that
case, and given the fact that Surrey County Council had at least
attempted to meet its statutory responsibilities under the 1968
Act, as we said at the time we were somewhat at a loss to understand
the logic behind the making of the Order, especially when there
were other Authorities whose official site provision was woefully
lacking.
If there is to be any form of new legislation
introduced, then I firmly believe that it should be within the
context of the existing legislative framework, and should in fact
be restricted to an amendment to Housing Law in order to allow
caravan site accommodation to be classed as the equivalent of
conventional housing stock, so that bodies such as the Gypsy Council's
own Caravan Sites Co-operative (a body registered by law in 1988
with the aims of assisting Gypsies to provide their own sites,
through the arrangement of mortgages and loans for development)
could then qualify for funding from bodies such as the Housing
Corporation. As the situation stands, the Co-operative has been
inactive ever since its formation, principally because existing
legislation renders it ineligible to apply for the necessary start-up
funding.
One proposal which I did put to the Committee
at the Hearing on 22 June was that Local Authorities should be
responsible for Gypsy caravan site provision, much in the same
way that they are responsible for the provision of Council houses.
I am not a legislator, nor a qualified solicitor,
and so am not sure whether or not this would require legislation,
although perhaps the Committee may share my opinion that the best
way to address this issue—at least at the present stage—would
be through discussion; alternatively, perhaps the Government could
make clear its expectation that Local Authorities should embrace
Gypsy site provision through the publication of a Circular—I
am aware that the ODPM is in the process of revising Circular
1/94 on Gypsy Sites and Planning, and have (on behalf of the Gypsy
Council) recently submitted our response to the ODPM's consultation.
One of the things which we have suggested in
respect of the proposed revision of Circular 1/94 is that stronger
advice should be issued to Local Authorities to identify in their
Local Plans either specific locations or areas of land which they
consider suitable for the future development of Gypsy sites, whether
by the Public or Private sector. As the situation stands, the
Circular provides Authorities with a "get-out clause",
namely the alternative of including within their plans a list
of criteria against which future planning applications for Gypsy
sites will be judged. As we have commented to ODPM, from the number
of Local Plans which we have seen, the majority of Authorities
have "taken the easy way out" by choosing this "softer"
option—presumably to avoid any political "backlash"
on the part of their electorate were they to be seen to be "grasping
the nettle" and actually identifying sites—but in doing
so have compiled lists of criteria which it is impossible for
any site (even their own existing sites, were they to come up
for consideration under the new criteria) to meet in full.
Perhaps the one other area in which new legislation—or
a change in existing legislation—might be needed would be
if the ODPM were to adopt our suggestion (one which we have made
repeatedly over the past 28 years, and which was echoed by Sir
John Cripps in his report "Accommodation for Gypsies",
HMSO, 1977) that a Gypsy Sites Commission be established, with
powers to identify and if necessary acquire land for the development
of Gypsy sites. A more detailed description of such a Commission
is appended to this Memorandum, but in summary we envisage that
it would consist of representatives from ODPM (providing for much-needed
Ministerial input), the Local Authorities (through their respective
Associations) and ourselves, the Gypsies (as "consumers"),
and given the fact that there is still in Government ownership
sufficient land upon which to provide the number of sites which
we consider to be necessary we firmly believe that such a Commission—whose
operation would in fact remove a great deal of political "heat"
from individual ward Councillors, who on occasion we have come
to accuse of showing political cowardice, or using cheap, underhand
(and above all "vote-catching") tactics to oppose Gypsy
sites—could make significant inroads into solving our community's
accommodation problems within a very short period of its establishment.
7. Gypsy Site Management
I would like to thank the Members of the Committee
for showing a great deal of interest in this issue, and particularly
in showing such interest in the Gypsy Council's own management
of sites. As I explained at the Hearing, we presently manage some
21 sites on behalf of Local Authorities in different parts of
England and Wales, all of which are operating successfully and
at no cost to the Public purse. This compares more than favourably
with sites operated by Local Authorities alone, which are heavily
subsidised. According to an estimate made quite some years ago,
the average level of operating subsidy on Local Authority sites
was in the region of £30,000 per annum, although at that
time there were quite noticeable exceptions—the two sites
in Cardiff (Rover Way and Shirenewton, both of which were provided
against the advice of the Gypsy Council) were operating with a
£330,000 deficit, which has since reduced to £225,000.
One of the possible reasons for the reduction in deficit has been
a corresponding reduction in the numbers of people employed to
manage the site, which has gone down from 11 to six, working on
a shift system.
What I find hard to grasp is the fact that Gypsy
sites owned and operated by Local Authorities are allowed—under
Housing Benefit regulations—to charge what rent the like,
yet still run at a loss. Of course, part of the reason
for this could be that there is a procedural chain to be followed
in connection with repairs/replacements to facilities, which starts
with the Site Warden (or Managing Officer in the case of non-residential
management) and culminates in the workman from whichever Department
is assigned to undertake the work. Each link in the chain charges
for the work it undertakes (such as inspection, estimation, actual
work and final inspection), and these charges accrue to a significant
total. On sites managed by the Gypsy Council, however, the individual
Site Managers are charged with the responsibility for operating
their own budgets, collecting and retaining all incomings from
the sites and paying all outgoings, including the costs of site
maintenance and facility replacement. By "cutting out the
middle men"—and in many cases by the use of direct
labour provided by members of the Manager's own family, or individuals
from the site—significant savings can be made, whilst at
the same time undertaking repairs to both the Manager's and the
Council's satisfaction. I did mention at the Hearing the situation
regarding the Hapsford site in Cheshire, which we actually purchased
from the County Council after it had been twice broken up and
forced to close, then rebuilt using private finance and labour
at a cost of approximately two-thirds less than the Council had
estimated they would have had to spend to rebuild the site.
On management procedure, as I also explained
at the Hearing the best policy which can be operated in respect
of Gypsy site management is one of firmess but fairness—there
has to be a certain degree of "give and take" on all
sides, but where individuals are showing flagrant disregard for
or are in continual breach of site rules and conditions of occupancy
action has to be taken against them. The model site licence which
we published in our response to the Pat Niner report contains
a synthesis of the rules and conditions of occupancy which we
operate on the sites which we manage, and whilst those rules have
in the past been described by certain uninformed individuals as
"harsh and oppressive", the majority of residents are
happy to live by them—they recognise that the rules are
in place for their own—and everyone else's—benefit,
and that powers exist to deal with persistent offenders who would
otherwise cause the law-abiding residents serious problems.
Without wishing to appear vain, I stand by my
comment at the Hearing that ours is the best approach to Local
Authority site management—it is a tried and tested approach,
which is in operation on the 21 sites which we manage on behalf
of Local Authorities in different parts of England and Wales.
Not only do we provide for client participation, through listening
to residents' suggestions about possible improvements to sites,
we also endeavour to keep abreast of all maintenance issues, in
order to prevent large-scale problems arising later, and additionally
channel funding where possible into improvements to the sites
which we manage in order to improve the quality of life of residents
there.
On all the sites which we operate on behalf
of Local Authorities, no form of "selection policy"
is in force in respect of residents—the only criteria which
we operate relates to need, whether this is for a stable base
in order that children can attend school or on grounds of illness
or infirmity. All plotholders either read or have read out to
them the site rules and conditions of occupancy, and sign (or
make their mark) as agreeing to abide by the rules and conditions.
Thus all residents are given the chance to prove themselves good
residents, irrespective of past history or knowledge of their
background, and whilst the odd occasion has arisen over the years
where individual residents have made it clear that they have no
intention of being bound by any form of rules or conditions the
vast majority of residents of the sites we operate have in fact
been extremely appreciative of the way in which we manage sites.
As I have said on many occasions to both Central
and Local Government, Gypsy site management is not—and never
has been—an easy task. Complications can (and do) arise
from such issues as incompatibility, irresponsible and unruly
behaviour on the part of individual residents and/or members of
their family, and even at times from Local Authorities not giving
support to (or still worse, countermanding the decisions of) their
respective site managers or wardens, particularly where such managers
and/or wardens have approached their duties fairly and responsibly.
In my previous evidence to the Committee, I
mentioned the incompatibility problem amongst Gypsies in broad
terms. This is a national problem, caused not only by the broad
interpretation which has been given to the legal definition as
originally laid down in Section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968
by Local Authorities, but by the fact also that amongst certain
Gypsy families in this country there are long-standing "feuds"
or disagreements, the causes for which may have been long forgotten.
In Gloucestershire, for example, there are presently three family
units from the same extended family group amongst whom enmity
exists, to the extent that there have on occasion been incidents
of serious assault and worse, and Committee Members may also be
interested in seeing the appended copy Press cutting from the
"Sligo Champion" newspaper which illustrates the kinds
of weaponry which can be called into play when such feuds escalate
beyond the realms of fisticuffs—in fact, the incident referred
to in the cutting led to two men from the official site in Hemel
Hempstead appearing in court on a murder charge.
In order for sites to be successful, good management
is essential. However, in order to achieve good management, Local
Authorities must show an interest in their sites and must also
be prepared to back-up their site wardens and/or managing officers.
Quite some years ago, in the Borough of Milton Keynes, a site
warden was shot in the back by one individual from an unruly family
simply because he—the warden concerned—was trying
to do his job properly and run the site to the benefit of all
the families there. More recently, in fact only this year, we
were approached for assistance by one Local Authority officer
who is now faced with suing his employers for constructive dismissal
following the actions of his Line Manager in overturning that
officer's decision not to allow a known unruly family onto one
of the Council's sites, in spite of the fact that the head of
that family already had a criminal conviction for assaulting the
officer concerned.
Even on sites where good management is the watchword,
complications can arise when uninformed individuals and "support
groups"—who may have never been active in an area before,
or know anything about the situation there—try to intefere
in site management issues. Members of the Committee may be interested
to see the appended copy correspondence between ourselves and
"Friends, Families and Travellers", a group which claims
to represent Gypsies but who by their own admission know little
about the community they claim to represent and who originally
wrote to Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council to offer their
services the reply which they received from the County Borough
Council is self-explanatory. In spite of repeated offers on our
part for one of their officers to reside for a three-month period
on one of the Neath Port Talbot sites and to gain experience as
an assistant manager, we have still to receive their reply. I
understand also that this group are to give evidence before Committee
and would respectfully request that Members bear the above in
mind when considering what they have to say.
Again, complications can arise through the involvement
of what have become known amongst Gypsies as "Legal Aid solicitors"
in seeking to prolong the eviction process; one such firm is the
Community Law Partnership, from Birmingham, who I also understand
are due to give evidence before the Committee. Such firms tend
to accept instructions over the telephone without first ascertaining
the bona-fides of their clients, and I am personally aware of
one situation where the Community Law Partnership accepted telephone
instructions from a 14-year-old teenage girl who rang them posing
as a married woman with three children.
The Community Law Partnership have in fact been
involved in a number of evictions of families from the sites which
we manage in the Neath Port Talbot County Borough (as I said at
the Hearing, this is the only area where we have had to bring
eviction proceedings), only for their clients to subsequently
vacate the sites prior to the cases coming to court for Hearing.
This, in my opnion, proves that the Community Law Partnership
have—at seemingly great Public expense—been involving
themselves in lost causes without any thought for the consequences
to others of their actions. Through our own solicitors, we are
at present contemplating lodging a complaint with the Legal Services
Commission about the actions of this firm in respect of evictions
from the Neath Port Talbot sites.
With regard to the question of what is a reasonable
rent for occupation of a pitch on an official Gypsy site, from
our own experience we can operate sites both efficiently and effectively
on an income of £45.00 per pitch per week, plus a contribution
of £5.00 per week from plotholders towards water charges
and the income from sales to residents of pre-payment cards for
the electricity meters which are installed in the amenity blocks.
£45.00 is a reasonable sum to expect anyone whose circumstances
are such that they would not qualify for Housing Benefit to pay
for a pitch on a site—which, given the level of facilities
provided within the amenity block (ie wc, handbasin, sink, drainer,
cupboards, worktops and bath/shower), places pitches in a comparable
position with Council housing.
Additionally, in comparison with rents charged
by certain Local Authorities for pitches on their sites (such
as Leeds, who charge £105 for a double pitch, and Hull, who
charge £74), the £45 which we charge on the majority
of our sites is in our opinion a perfectly fair rent—the
question must therefore be asked why it is that the Rent Service
(who, under existing Housing Benefit Regulations, must be called
in to assess an appropriate fair rent for privately-operated caravan
sites) appear to consider (at least in England) the figure of
£25.00 an appropriate level of Housing Benefit to be allowed
on non-Local Authority-operated Gypsy sites? Quite apart from
placing individual families—who may not be judged by respective
Local Authorities to qualify for Discretionary Housing Payments,
which the families are quite entitled to apply for but which,
as their name suggests, are awarded on a discretionary basis—into
a position of serious hardship, this arbitrary but apparently
nationally-decided allowance has had the effect of causing operators
of privately-provided but commercially-operated Gypsy sites to
refuse all applications for pitches from families who are forced
to rely on Housing Benefit in order to meet their weekly rents,
which has in turn deprived the more needy members of our community
the opportunity of securing decent and above all legal accommodation.
Whilst accepting the fact that, within the Gypsy
community as defined, there are many families who are in genuine
need of State assistance—in the form of Housing and other
such Benefits—the difficulty arises when one considers that
there are also amongst this same community those individuals who
are both willing and prepared to "work the system",
through obtaining State Benefit whilst at the same time working.
As I commented in my previous Evidence to the Committee, the Government
itself appears to be to blame for funding—through State
Benefit—the activities of that unruly element who deliberately
go out of their way to disrupt the management of official sites,
and who would if given the opportunity to do so totally destroy
sites, which is why I remain firmly convinced that an in-depth
Commission of Inquiry (at which the Gypsy Council is fully prepared
to give detailed evidence) should be held into the whole system
as it relates to the awarding of Housing and other such State
Benefit to Gypsies/Travellers.
Traditionally, Gypsies have been a community
with a firm belief in the principles of self-help, and have been
"adaptable" in terms of occupations—for example,
during the period in which we were engaged in research for the
West Midlands report the bottom had "dropped out" of
the scrap metal market, but individual families living in that
region had adapted their way of life by turning their hands to
other trades and occupations, such as uPVC cladding and window-fitting.
8. How best can "incursion groups"
be managed?
From the thrust of the question put to me at
the Hearing on 22 June, I took it that Members of the Committee
were interested in the recent events which have taken place near
the village of Cottenham, in Cambridgeshire. However, this is
not the first incident where large groups of Gypsies (as defined)
have gathered together in order to seek planning permission to
provide for themselves a base for their operations—I did
in fact cite the planning applications and Appeals on land at
Wolvey Road, Bulkington, and Ryton on Dunsmoor, in Warwickshire,
as cases in point, and also commented on the case of Billericay,
in Essex. On all these occasions, members of the Long Distance
(Irish) Travellers have been involved.
Having a great many years' knowledge of the
make-up, needs and requirements of this group—stemming from
not only the fact that I am (on my mother's side) related to a
number of families within the various groups but also the fact
that the Gypsy Council has had a special relationship with these
groups ever since they first started coming into this country
in the early 1960s, to the extent that they are in fact represented
on our Executive Committee, I should perhaps comment that it was
this organisation—the Gypsy Council—who did in fact
persuade them quite some years ago to "splinter off"
into smaller factions, in an effort to minimise the impact upon
the local settled community of influxes of the different groups
into any one particular area. Given the fact that the actual impact
of large influxes of Long Distance Travellers into any one town
or district is roughly the equivalent of the population of a small
village moving into the area it is little wonder that the housedwelling
population does express its concern, particularly in cases where—as
has happened in the past, and as unfortunately continues to happen—members
of the irresponsible element become attached to such groups. Committee
Members will note that no charges have to date been brought in
respect of the Cottenham incident which appears to have "sparked
off" the debate, simply because I am informed that those
responsible for the incident—who were not themselves interested
in settling in the area—fled soon after.
However, the Long Distance Travellers are not
the only group to consider here; there are, in addition, groups
of families who we have come to term "Regional" Travellers,
who during the course of a year travel from town to town or district
to district within a particular region, but who may either be
based in one particular Local Authority's area or who may be wishing
to set up a permanent base there. The needs for such groups would,
in my opinion, be best met by a network of transit sites, capable
of absorbing the impact of influxes yet of a size which could
be adequately managed.
9. Definition—is it reasonable
to expect Gypsies who are "settled" on sites to move
into permanent housing, such as the "Group Housing"
pioneered in Ireland?
By legislation, Gypsies are defined as persons
"of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin",
but excluding organised groups of Travelling Showmen or Circus
people, "travelling together as such". And whilst
previous studies (inlcuding one by the former Department of the
Environment) have considered the question of how to improve the
definition, this remains the one which is in force and, accordingly,
the one which we as an organisation work to.
As for "Group Housing", of the type
attempted in Ireland, this is a hypothesis which has not to date
been trialled in this country, and so it is impossible to state
that it would—or would not—work. All I can do when
considering this issue is to point out to Committee Members the
fact that there has previously been—in the New Forest—a
policy of "enforced assimilation" of Gypsies into conventional
housing, which did not work, and with reference to the Irish model
which it is proposed be tried in this country point to the original
New Line site at Clondalkin, which was an estate for Travelling
People costing some £2,000,000 but was far too ambitious.
In providing the Clondalkin estate, the Dublin Corporation (who
would be the first to admit its failure) had hoped that it would
be tenanted by Irish Travellers from all income brackets, but
instead it was solely tenanted by people from the lowest bracket,
who in effect turned it into a "ghetto". During its
first few weeks of existence, the eight site managers (employed
on a shift basis) turned their (Portakabin) offices into virtual
fortresses, surrounded by barbed wire, because they had lost control
of the site.
Additionally, experiments have been trialled
in Europe where permanent housing has been provided for Gypsies;
in Spain, for instance, yet another "Gypsy ghetto" has
been created where families keep goats, chickens, horses, etc,
in their houses, or in areas not designed for the keeping of such
animals.
In this country, there have been numerous instances
in many different areas where Gypsies have moved into houses,
only to encounter problems with enmity from their neighbours (for
example, in the Rochdale area of Greater Manchester), or because
they found it impossible to settle—on one occasion some
years ago in Oldham (again in Greater Manchester), the Local Authority
itself funded the purchase of a caravan for one Travelling family
who had found it impossible to settle into conventional Council
housing, and who wished to return to a travelling way of life.
In yet another case, which again occurred some years ago in the
New Forest, a group of 11 Travelling families moved into conventional
housing as part of the "enforced assimilation" process,
when they left the houses two years later they were in fact joined
"on the road" by another eight housedwelling families
who they had, apparently. "converted" to the Travelling
lifestyle!
Additionally, many Gypsies are registered as
being housed throughout the London Boroughs, and other large industrial
conurbations; in the London Borough of Camden, for instance, groups
of Gypsies are congregating in housing around the Kings Cross
area, and although the converse would be expected such moves have
done nothing to reduce the numbers of caravans which are still
on the road.
Should the Committee wish to see one example
of what might at best be described as "Group Housing"
in England, I would respectfully suggest that Members take a look
at the Lower Hill estate in Wolverhampton, where all manner of
problems have arisen (see appended copy Press cuttings for details).
Local Authority officers from Wolverhampton Council will confirm
that the houses concerned are occupied by one named person (who
is usually female, unemployed, and registered with them for Housing
Benefit) whilst the rest of the family are travelling.
What is not, however, widely known in cases
like this is that whilst other family members may be away travelling,
the house is in fact being used by them as an accommodation address
for all manner of reasons, including—in some circumstances—claims
for State Benefit.
Thus, from this type of evidence, the inference
could be drawn that "Group Housing" is unlikely to be
successful, except for possibly a handful of cases.
One question arising from the 22 June Hearing
was that of how many Gypsies are still nomadic today—the
answer to that question, in my opinion, can only come from a detailed
and accurate count of Gypsy families, which unfortunately (and
in spite of a previous study by the Office of Population Censuses
and Surveys, and the latest ODPM research) has never taken place
in this country.
From a personal viewpoint, I firmly believe
that there has to be an in-depth study of the existing situation
as regards Gypsies and housing—and the collection and consideration
of hard and fast evidence—prior to the implementing of any
new proposals concerning "Group Housing".
In any case, when people talk about "Group
Housing" for Gypsies, it seems that they lose track of the
acceptance over the years by successive Secretaries of State that
Gypsies as a community should be allowed to continue to live their
way of life for as long as they wish. Rather than "Group
Housing", could the Committee not instead consider "group
caravan sites", and a corresponding change in Housing legislation
(as mentioned earlier in this Memorandum) in order to enable bodies
such as the Gypsy Council's own caravan sites co-operative to
qualify for start-up funding?
10. Is anti-social behaviour a big issue,
and is it ever reasonable to evict Gypsies camping illegally?
In considering these questions, I would point
to the 41 sites (minimum estimate) which we as an organisation
have seen forced to close over the years because of the unruly
and anti-social behaviour exhibited by a certain element operating
within the Gypsy community as defined, and also the fact that
previous research conducted by the Police has suggested that there
has been a link between robberies from elderly people by so-called
"bogus callers" and travelling Gypsies, and state that
anti-social behaviour is—insofar as the Gypsy Council is
concerned—definitely a big issue, furthermore one which
we have been warning both Central and Local Government of for
a great many years.
As far as the question as to whether it is ever
reasonable to evict Gypsies camping illegally is concerned, then
the answer to that has to be dependent upon the circumstances—if,
for example, a family (or small group of families) is camped in
an area (either on their own land, or on someone else's land with
the permission of the landowner) and is causing no problems by
their presence there, then it is not reasonable to evict them.
However, if on the other hand an encampment has led to demonstrable
complaints about theft, vandalism, fly-tipping, or other forms
of anti-social behaviour then an eviction would—in my opinion—be
justified. However, even in these circumstances I would advise
caution, in that evidence would need to be obtained prior to a
Local Authority acting, and that evictions should not simply take
place on the complaint of someone who may him/herself be biased
against Gypsies.
Hughie Smith
President
The Gypsy Council
(Romani Kris)
June 2004
|
