Memorandum by the Travellers Advice Team,
Community Law Partnership (GTS 14)
The Travellers Advice Team was set up in 1995
and is now based at Community Law Partnership solicitors in Birmingham.
It was set up initially in direct response to the draconian eviction
provisions and the repeal of the duty to provide sites contained
in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Team advises,
assists and represents Gypsies and Travellers across England and
Wales and has had, since April 2002, a national telephone helpline
funded by the Legal Services Commission. The Team has acted in
some of the leading cases on Gypsy and Traveller law such as South
Bucks DC v Porter (on planning injunctions), Wrexham CBC
v Berry (on Gypsy status), R (Piggott) v Bedfordshire
CC (on allocation of pitches), R (Price) v Carmarthenshire
CC (on homelessness), Codona v Mid Beds DC (on suitability
of an offer under Housing Act 1996) and many more.
We detail below our submissions on the issues
identified by the Committee. We wish to make oral submissions
to the Inquiry. Our contact point is the team leader, Chris Johnson.
CURRENT PROVISION
AND LOCATION
OF SITES
When bringing in the 1994 Act and repealing
the duty to provide sites previously contained in the Caravan
Sites Act 1968, the then government indicated that Gypsies and
Travellers should now provide their own sites. Since then it has
become apparent that the planning laws and guidance have failed
to enable Gypsies and Travellers to do this, despite the best
efforts of ourselves and others to achieve planning permission
in individual cases. The present government has now indicated
clearly that the system being set up by the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Bill 2004 will aim to ensure that Regional Spatial Strategies
will identify need for sites in areas and direct local authorities,
in their Local Framework Documents, to identify locations for
sites. It is essential that the awaited amendment of DoE Circular
1/94(Welsh Office 2/94),"Gypsy Sites and Planning",
contains some compulsion on local authorities to actually achieve
these aims (and not to avoid their responsibilities, as at present,
by creating long lists of criteria which are often either extremely
difficult or impossible to comply with) and to urgently undertake
a process that will lead to Gypsies and Travellers finally being
enabled to set up sites in reasonable and suitable locations and
to have a very good chance of obtaining planning permission without
the enormous (and sometimes impossible) struggle currently involved.
In those areas where land is largely or entirely "designated"
(eg Green Belt) the local authority concerned will have to identify
the best locations within those designated areas. A "sieve"
process may achieve these ends. It is also essential though that
such a process does not result in the worst and most unsuitable
pieces of land (see further below) being identified.
The recent Niner report on the Gypsy Count (2004)
identified the undercounting and inaccuracies involved. Her recommendations
must be implemented and some form of independent verification
system and, once again, compulsion on local authorities must be
introduced.
In the Niner report, "Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller
Sites in England" (2003),it was estimated that between 1,000-2,000
permanent and 2,000-2,500 transit pitches were required by 2007
just to keep up with the current Gypsy and Traveller population.
One year on from that report (when, at the very least, 200 permanent
and 400 transit pitches should have been produced if there is
hope of meeting the 2007 target) only a handful of new pitches
have been created. Local authorities have a power to create sites
under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The
vast majority of them are not using this power. It would take
too long to list the influential recent reports that have called
for the return of the duty to provide or facilitate the provision
of sites. Over 100 MPs have signed the Early Day Motion supporting
the Traveller Law Reform Bill (which, inter alia, would
bring back some form of duty). Strong submissions have been made
to the ODPM, and directly to the Housing Minister, Yvette Cooper
MP, by the Traveller Law Reform Coalition. It has been said by
some in government that the 1968 Act did not work. It is true
to say that it ought to have been enforced in a stronger way and
that some local authorities got away with ignoring it. However,
the current sites in existence (see below) would not be there
but for that duty and the exchequer grant. Between 1960 (introduction
of the power and closure of the commons) and 1970 (introduction
of the duty) only some dozen sites were created. The message is
clear: if this is going to work for those Gypsies and Travellers
who cannot afford to set up their own sites or for those who have
failed to succeed in setting up their own sites, the duty must
be brought back.
The some 350 sites that were created in response
to the duty to provide sites under the 1968 Act, were often situated
in entirely unsuitable locations eg next to sewage plants, under
fly-overs, on former refuse tips etc. This has had extremely detrimental
consequences on the health and wellbeing of Gypsy and Traveller
families on such official sites. It is, therefore, also essential
that the locations identified are suitable locations and not,
as previously has often happened, the worst locations that can
be identified. We would suggest that it is essential that the
amendment of 1/94 takes account of the suitability of locations.
The latest ODPM Gypsy Count Figures (July 2003)
indicate that there are some 4,000 caravans on unauthorised encampments.
A large number of these Gypsies and Travellers are not in a position
to purchase their own land and seek planning permission (which,
in itself, as indicated above, can be a daunting/impossible task).
It has been recognised in many reports, not least the reports
by Pat Niner of the University of Birmingham to the ODPM, that
Public site provision must be another essential feature of any
new policy that will resolve the problems faced by Gypsies and
Travellers throughout England and Wales. In her report "Local
Authority Gypsy/Traveller sites in England" (2003) Niner
stated: "the obvious way to [make site provision easier],
as advocated by most participants is to reintroduce some form
of statutory duty on Local Authorities to provide or enable the
provision of Gypsy/Traveller sites, and to provide funding from
Government towards that provision".
DEMAND FOR
AND USE
OF SITES
See above, but also see reference in the ODPM
Guidance on "Managing Unauthorised Camping" (February
2004) to the question of compatibility on sites which is an important
point to take into account. Niner, in her reports, makes many
useful recommendations (which we will not repeat here) concerning
the management of sites. One issue which is not flagged up under
the issues identified by the ODPM Committee, is the question of
security of tenure on official sites. The case of Albert Smith
v The First Secretary of State and the case of Somerset
County Council v Isaacs, were unsuccessful in their attempt
to obtain a declaration of incompatibility regarding the lack
of security of tenure on official sites. Nevertheless, especially
in the Smith case, the Court of Appeal recognises that the Government
were continuing to monitor this situation and that the situation
may change in the future. The experience of the Travellers Advice
Team is that many (if not most) residents of official sites have
been forced (by the acknowledged lack of suitable stopping places
and the lack of adequate site provision to, at the least, greatly
(if not completely) reduce their nomadism. To allow for continued
nomadism alongside the fact that many Gypsies and Travellers have
effectively settled on official sites, the Travellers Advice Team
believe that a dual system of security of tenure may be appropriate,
where the Gypsy or Traveller concerned may be able to choose between
either a full security of tenure (such as that enjoyed by secure
Local Authority tenants under the Housing Act 1985) or the current
minimal security of tenure under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Additionally,
the government should amend the Homelessness Code of Guidance,
in order to cater for continued nomadism, by indicating that where
a Gypsy or Traveller terminates a licence in order to travel,
they should not, in the future if it becomes relevant, be found
to be intentionally homeless.
EXISTING FUNDING
ARRANGEMENTS
The 2003 Niner report (see above) indicated
that in order to deal with the need for accommodation for Gypsies
and Travellers, up to 2,000 permanent pitches were required by
2007 and up to 2,500 transit pitches by the same date. This was
effectively a five year strategy from 2002 to 2007, proposed by
Niner. The statistics (and the experience from the case law of
the Travellers Advice Team) indicates that, only a handful of
pitches have been provided since 2002, which means that, two years
into that five-year period, recommendation of Niner is already
failing to be addressed. It has become abundantly clear that Local
Authorities, faced only with a power under the Caravan Sites and
Control of Development Act 1960 to provide sites, and despite
the (fairly minimal) provision for transit sites contained within
the Gypsy Site Refurbishment Grant Scheme, are not going to provide
the necessary site provision without central government funding
being in place. It was the existence of a 100% exchequer grant,
during the existence of the duty to provide sites under the 1968
Act, that led to the provision (albeit that some Local Authorities
ignored the duty) of the some 350 sites that are now in existence.
Without such direct funding, it now seems very clear that site
provision will not be put in place.
THE GYPSY
SITE REFURBISHMENT
GRANT SCHEME
The Scheme has led to the refurbishment of many
official sites throughout England and Wales which is, obviously,
to be welcomed. However, at the same time, many official sites
have been closed down and this links in to the question of the
reintroduction of a duty to provide, or facilitate the provision
of, sites. Additionally the proportion of the grant currently
available for the creation of transit sites is, in the scale of
things, minimal and needs to be urgently increased. "At What
Cost", by Clements and Morris, has already indicated that
the provision of permanent and transit sites and emergency stopping
places is by far the most sensible solution from the expenditure
point of view, compared with the expenditure involved for Local
Authorities (and others) dealing with the incidences of unauthorised
encampments.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
AND THE
FACILITIES PROVIDED
Apart from the comments made above concerning
the location of sites, we can do no more than endorse the comments
made in the Niner reports, and, additionally, emphasise there
is a need, when creating sites, to take account of the culture,
customs and working practices of the Gypsy and Traveller community.
MANAGEMENT OF
UNAUTHORISED CAMPING
The Government has, it appears arrived at a
conclusion that there is little point in continually evicting
Gypsies and Travellers from unauthorised encampments, when there
is insufficient site provision. The new powers of Police eviction
contained in section 62A to E of the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994 (as inserted by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003)
are clearly addressed to this fact. It appears that this is very
much a case of "the cart before the horse". There is
clearly no point in producing enhanced powers of eviction before
adequate site provision is put in place. The Niner (and other
reports) make clear that such site provision should include permanent
pitches, transit pitches and emergency stopping places.
ODPM STATISTICAL
INFORMATION ON
CARAVANS, SITES
AND FAMILIES
We can do no more than support the conclusions
of the recent Niner report on the ODPM Gypsy Count, which indicates
that the count is inaccurate and fails to provide a proper assessment
of the need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in England and Wales.
In Wales, this is especially so since the Count has been, for
several years now, discontinued. There is evidence of a failure
by many Local Authorities properly to carry out the ODPM count,
and there is a need for independent monitoring of this process.
In conclusion, we believe that the current review
by the ODPM provides an essential opportunity to address the pressing
needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community in England and Wales
and, given the opposition of the Labour party to the 1994 Act
at the time, this is a crucial moment to ensure that the human
rights of that community are finally properly addressed.
There are many other issues that we could have
highlighted and we could have expanded on much of the above. We
strongly wish to have the opportunity of putting our extensive
knowledge of these issues, which derives from our case work, to
the Committee.
|
