BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Journals |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Journals >> The Marginalisation of Gypsies URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/articles3/onions3.html |
||
[New search] [Help]
Copyright © 1995 Helen O'Nions.
First Published in Web Journal of Current Legal Issues in association with Blackstone
Press Ltd.
Despite the recognition that Gypsies constitute a racial group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976, they have persistently suffered discrimination and prejudice from the rest of society. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (hereinafter CJPOA) contains provisions which will reduce the number of authorised Gypsy sites available in an attempt to discourage the nomadic way of life which has been central to the lives of many Gypsies for over five-hundred years. The effect of this legislation will be to worsen the hostility shown towards the Gypsy community. It is also likely to have severe implications for the welfare of the Gypsy family unit. Ultimately however, a comparison with other European jurisdictions will illustrate that this legislation will not succeed in persuading Gypsies to abandon their traditions because it is founded on a myth, namely that Gypsies are simply a social bonding of nomads with no distinctive culture or group identity.
Contents
There are estimated to be around 12,600 Gypsy families in England and Wales (D/E 1994) who regularly find themselves subjected to a unique amount of abuse and hostility from the dominant society:
"The history of the Romani people is a story of relentless persecution. From the Middle Ages to the present day, they have been the target of racial discrimination and outright genocide"(Puxon 1987, p12).
Since their arrival in the United Kingdom, estimated to be around the turn of the sixteenth century (Kendrick & Puxon 1972, ch 1), the Gypsy lifestyle has been resented and much of this resentment has found expression through the legal system. In 1530, Henry VIII ordered their departure within forty days unless they chose to abandon their 'naughty, idle and ungodly life'. Similarly, in 1959, s27 of the Highways Act directly discriminated against Gypsies by prohibiting camping on highways, an offence which could not be committed by 'Gorgios'.(1)
Contempt has also been expressed by regional media who have been quick to yield to the temptation of sensationalism:
"It is a tragedy that our society continues to tolerate and even subsidise these ragbag vagabonds who sponge off the state and steal it blind....Set up a Gypsy site next to Sellafield where they can pinch as much radiation as they like" (High Wycombe Midweek, Editorial, 6 July 1993; see generally National Gypsy Council, (1981).(2)
Allegations of Gypsy misbehaviour are regularly reported as fact. The following is a typical example: Gypsy spokesperson John Nash told a Buckingham reporter "all his people wanted was a bit or peace and quiet", the paper responded "try telling that to the owner of the £55,000 barn which was set alight by what police believe were Gypsies" [emphasis added]. (High Wycombe Midweek, 6 July 1993, in National Gypsy Council 1992.)
With the help of the media, local opposition to Gypsy encampments is intensified and anti-Gypsy pressure groups emerge with frightening frequency. In the Somerset village of Middlezoy, local residents went all the way to the High Court in a vain attempt to frustrate the Council's statutory duty of site provision. When accused, by a reporter, of racism, one female villager retorted:
"A bullet in the head is what they need....If I were dying of cancer I'd buy a shotgun and take out six of them." (The Independent, 16 June 1993.)
For local Councillors, there are few votes to be won in accommodating Gypsies. Sir John Cripps found that hostile public opinion was the major force preventing Local Authorities from honouring their Caravan Sites Act 1968 S6 duty to provide sites:
"it is not possible, however, to overstate the intensity of feeling, bordering on the frenetic, aroused by a proposal to establish a site for Gypsies in almost any reasonable location." (D/E 1977 para 3.19)
An analysis of the inaccuracy of the assumptions underlying this entrenched intolerance is of paramount importance to the question of how and why Gypsies should maintain their own culture and traditions, free from persecution.
"We believe that good old-fashioned Gypsies and their descendants do need some consideration but that there numbers are small and could be accommodated in existing private and public sites." (Letter from Bayley Hill Residents Association to D/E 1992)
In fact, after five-hundred years of co-existence with the dominant population, such categories are meaningless. They serve only to provide an excuse for Local Authorities who have failed to comply with their Caravan Sites Act duty to provide adequate accommodation for Gypsies, enabling them to argue that there are no 'true-gypsies' only 'tinkers' in the locality.
The alternative image in the dichotomy is particularly damaging, focusing on the alleged criminality and laziness supposedly inherent to the Gypsy nature. The propensity of such stereo-types to inform public policy will become all to apparent in an analysis of the legislation. These prejudices must be addressed in order that the legislation can be properly criticised.
"Excrement was smeared in a bus shelter earlier in the week. Many blamed the gypsies, but when ...a parish councillor and staunch supporter of the fair investigated, the man who cleans the toilets revealed he had seen the culprits at work - two local girls. Even so, the council had set up a hotline for people to report any similar incidents." ('Fair or foul, gypsies go to town' The Observer, 15 May 1994).
Accusations of theft are rife when Gypsies reside in a new area, although again, they tend to be unsubstantiated. A survey in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1968 found that recorded incidents of theft by the Gypsy community were only 0.46% higher than that for the house dwelling community; although many more crimes were alleged, including cannibalism and murder! (Adams et al 1975, p 163). The Association of Chief Police Officers have also recently confirmed in a recent letter to the Department of Environment that the Gypsy community cause no major policing problems (ACPO Letter to the D/E 1992).
Gypsies have been so incensed by these contemptuous labels that they have directed their anger towards the newer forms of travelling people, notably the 'New Age Travellers':
"Gypsies are being blamed by the Government for the hippies. Hippies are not travellers-they don't work, they don't do anything. They just roam around and we are getting the blame." (Thomas & Campbell 1992).
In fact, the lifestyle of most Gypsies is very different from that of the newer travelling groups and the popular conceptions fail to appreciate the importance the community attaches to customs and traditions, many of which have been inherited from the original Gypsy settlers.
This versatility has often led to criticism from those trying to identify the elusive concept of the 'true-gypsy'. Traditional modes of transport are now largely obsolete as the Gypsy unit often has to travel much further to find employment and unfortunately many people still believe that 'true gypsies' live in painted trailers and indulge in fortune telling as did their ancestors (see Fitzgerald 1973).
Nevertheless, patterns of descent and ancestry are still extremely important to the Gypsy. Thomas and Campbell in their survey of housing attitudes among Cardiff Gypsies quote several sources who stress their ancestral heritage; for example:
"I'm a proper Gypsy. I can go back three generations and I've got photos to prove it...."(Thomas & Campbell 1992).
Okely also notes that the status of Gypsy is ascribed at birth and is the one fundamental requirement for belonging to the community (Okely 1983, ch 5). Even those Gorgios who have married a Gypsy and live with other Gypsies have found that they are required to 'Gypsify' themselves before being accepted by the community in which they live (Adams et al 1975, p 61). The importance of the extended family group is also stressed by many Gypsies who prefer to reside in large family groups, a fact which is often forgotten by Gypsy site planners.
Whilst nomadism is still central to the lives of many Gypsies in Britain, equally important to all Gypsies is their travelling tradition. Those who have now adopted settled residence are still keen to stress the ancestral pattern of nomadism, and many say that one day they may return to the road (see Thomas & Campbell 1992 and Leigeois 1987). The National Gypsy Council emphasise the importance of the nomadic tradition in their definition of Gypsies as opposed to the definition in the Caravan Sites Act 1968, s 16 which concentrated on the nomadic habit of life (National Gypsy Council 1992).
Indeed, there are many things about the Gypsy lifestyle which are misunderstood, such as their personal hygiene codes and pollution taboos, which are discussed at length by Okely (see generally Okely 1983). Their reliance on the family group and their preference for self-employment have been interpreted as anti-social behavioural traits and the importance of tradition has been constantly ignored. Alec Samuels consolidates the reasons why Gypsies, despite there being many sectional ethnic groups within the population,(3) comprise a racial group:
"A long shared history. A conscious sense of distinctiveness or difference. Distinctive customs. Their own folklore. A tightly knit community. Birth into the community. Intermarriage. A minority group. A distinctive dialect. Nomadic" (Samuels 1992).
It is indisputable that all too often these factors are ignored by legislators and planners. A report by the Council of Europe sums up:
"The fact that the Gypsy way of life is different from that of the total society has, unfortunately, caused many biased judgements on the Gypsies, and in many instances discrimination. Discrimination has often occurred in Europe and because of their prejudice many people cannot yet accept that Gypsies should occupy sites or houses in their neighbourhood" (Wiklund, 1969).
Section 6(1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 introduced a mandatory duty on Local Authorities to provide 'adequate accommodation for gypsies residing or resorting to their area'. In return for supplying a sufficient number of pitches, the Local Authority could apply to the Secretary of State to become a 'designated' area. Section 10 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 gave designated Authorities additional powers to remove Gypsies from unauthorised land within their region. Eric Lubbock MP explained the rationale of this dual element to the House of Commons:
"The stick is the Minister's direction and the carrot is the much stronger powers, once sites have been made available, for Local Authorities to move Gypsies from land they are occupying without permission" (HC Deb 1968).
Hailed by the press as the 'Gypsies Charter' and welcomed in the most part by Gypsy groups, it seemed an almost perfect solution to an intractable problem. For a while at least, all parties were contented; today, twenty-seven years on, approximately one-third of caravan-dwelling Gypsies still have no legal right of abode (D/E 1994) and public pressure is evidently as hostile as ever. The problems with the operation of the Caravan Sites Act are fundamental to the origins of the new legislative framework and therefore deserve some attention.
"Whatever the difficulties, the figures demonstrate a failure, and a growing failure, to perform a statutory duty" (D/E 1977).
Despite the availability of central Government funding following the recommendations of Sir John Cripps, contained in the Local Government and Planning Act 1980 s 70, many Local Authorities persistently failed to comply with their statutory duty.
The remedy of judicial review has been invoked successfully in some cases to prevent eviction by non-compliant Local Authorities, but in practice its use was limited as it could apply only where there had been a failure to provide even the most minimal accommodation (West Glamorgan County Council v Rafferty [1987] 1 All ER 1005).
There are also numerous examples of Local Authorities achieving designation on the premise that they had either adequate accommodation or that it was not expedient/necessary to provide such accommodation (Caravan Sites Act 1968 s 12) when in fact there were several unauthorised encampments in the region. For example: Plymouth City Council was designated in 1973 but the site has since been closed and never replaced, in 1993/4 they failed to submit a return to the Department of Environment on the number of unauthorised encampments in the vicinity. Similarly, Leeds achieved designation in the early stages of the legislation with a fifteen pitch site but now have over one-hundred Gypsy families residing locally (D/E 1994).
The problems for families occupying these unauthorised sites are notorious: no running water, rubbish disposal or sanitation and inadequate access to education, health care and social services, to name but a few. However, many of the residents accommodated on authorised sites fair no better. A survey of sixty-five sites in 1974 revealed that while 12% were adjacent to rubbish dumping grounds, 28% were situated in close proximity to industrial development (Sibely, 1974). Sir John Cripps commented that:
"No non-Gypsy family would be expected to live in such places" (D/E 1977 para 3.17).
Following on from this decision it appears that many Councils will not be calculating 'new age travellers' in their twice yearly count of Gypsy caravans to the Department of the Environment. It therefore makes it impossible precisely to calculate the need for site accommodation and further marginalises those travellers who do not fit neatly into judicial categories. Effectively, there will be no record of many of these people, there identity will be obscured and their existence can then be denied.
Introducing the new proposals, Sir George Young somewhat ominously declared:
"The 1968 Act is too loosely defined. It has become an open-ended commitment to provide sites, which inevitably leads to a drain on tax payer's money and undermines gypsies' responsibility to provide for themselves" (D/E News Release 1992).
It is not disputed that the 1968 Act is ill-drafted in that the lack of time limit for site provision has allowed Local Authorities to continuously evade their duty. However, it is difficult to support this concern for the tax-payer in the light of persistent attempts to persuade Gypsies to adopt settled housing which would ultimately be more costly.(4)
The new Act not only abolishes the site provision duty, it also makes the stationing of
caravans on any highway, unoccupied ground, common land or land without the owners
consent, a criminal offence (CJPOA s 77). The undoubted aim of this legislation is to
force Gypsies into settled accommodation.(5)
Although the House of Lords attempted to grant a five year reprieve for the removal of
the site provision duty, this was rejected in the House of Commons (HL Deb 1994b and
1994c and HC Deb 1994b). Since November 3rd 1994 Councillors have no
longer been able to wield the statutory duty sword in the face of strong local opposition
and the money for site provision will compete against more appealing projects. During
the House of Lords debate, Lord Avebury reported on the decision of Hertfordshire
Council to construct one site instead of three as originally intended due to the possibility
of grant withdrawal (HL Deb 1994a) .
Even some of the most unlikely Gypsy allies condemned the decision to abolish the site
provision duty. The legal representative of the Country Landowners Association
exhibited concern at the social implications of criminalising Gypsies. She expressed the
view of her members that their grievance was with the 'New Age Travellers' rather than
Gypsies (Letter to D/E 6. November 1992). Similarly, Tony Burton, a senior planning
officer with the Council for the Protection of Rural England stated:
It was not simply a humanitarian concern for Gypsies that prompted these responses;
there is a recognition that the new legislation will exacerbate the volatile situation
between landowners and travellers and confrontation may become a frequent occurrence.
The legislation must also be viewed in the light of the recent decision of the European
Commission in Buckley v UK (App 20348/92 11.1.95). The Commission
heard the evidence of June Buckley, a Gypsy, who had been residing on privately owned
land without planning permission and who had subsequently been evicted by the Local
Authority. Despite the existence of an authorised site nearby, the Commission found that
there had been no respect for the applicant’s private and home life contrary to Article 8 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. In reaching this decision they further
commented that the concept of home:
It is not inconceivable therefore that new challenges may be bought under Article 8 with
respect to evictions taking place under the new legislation. It is clear that the members of
the Commission are prepared to recognise the need for Gypsy site provision as
fundamental for the maintenance of their culture. They accepted:
The Caravan Sites Act has already proved that the cost of eviction, both socially and
financially, is great. Leicester City Council alone estimate spending of around £375,000
on evictions in one financial year ('Call to Fight Gypsy Camp' Leicester Herald &
Post, 3.5.95 ). The initial Government response, to propose the seizure of caravans until
alternative accommodation was obtained has fortunately been rejected (D/E 1992, para
21) but the fact that it was once considered as a possible option indicates the extent of the
Government's disrespect for travelling people and their lifestyle.
In the House of Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg moved an amendment stating that an eviction
order should not be made unless the Gypsies could be accommodated on an authorised
site in the region, the location of which should be specified in the court order (HL Deb
1994c col 1516). He described this principle as a :"simple matter of common humanity",
the amendment, however, was defeated.
The fact that unlawful camping is potentially a criminal offence in every instance implies
that the police will be involved in enforcing evictions. They are only too aware that they
will be placed in the 'firing line' and are understandably reluctant to get involved (Police
Review 1992). The spectre of security firms specialising in the speedy eviction
of Gypsy families looms large.
There are already some 3169 private sites in England and Wales (around 35% of total
provision) (D/E Count 1994). Providing their own sites is something Gypsies
have wanted to do on a larger scale for some time; it would reduce the cost of
maintenance and sites would reflect Gypsy tradition which is often neglected by Council
developers (National Gypsy Council 1992).
When Gypsies make a planning application however, they come across a blanket refusal
in 90% of cases from the Local Authority (Sir David Mitchell, HC Deb 1994a). In
Waverley, Surrey there have already been five planning inquiries to decide whether a
group of Gypsies can remain on the land they have owned and illegally occupied for
twelve years. The Council recently decided in favour of granting lawful residence but the
Environment Minister has intervened, on behalf of local residents, to establish a sixth
inquiry ('Gummer Blocks Gypsy Site Permit' The Times, 6 February 1995).
In 1985, Bill Forrester described the UK planning system as:
In 1991, the Planning and Compensation Act strengthened the power of Local Authorities
so that Gypsies occupying a caravan on land without planning permission could be fined
up to £20,000 for failing to comply with a stop-notice (Town and Country Planning Act
1991 s 183, as amended). This situation is likely to worsen as previously planners could
consider green-belt and other normally exempted land as suitable for Gypsy sites, which
was largely a recognition of the difficulty of finding suitable sites in suburbia.
Department of Environment Circular 00/93 removes this special consideration, the
justification being that "Gypsies enjoy a privileged position in the planning system" (D/E
1992 para 29). This move must be seen in the light of government guidance giving
increased powers to Councils who wish to develop green-belt land for building and for
redevelopment (‘Building on green belt sites to be encouraged’ The Independent,
18 August 1994).
The only Local Authority duty that may now be challenged by way of judicial review is
simply a requirement that Local Authorities make a development plan outlining their
policy for accommodating Gypsies (D/E Circular 1/94). The County Planning Officers
Society believe that the policy of promoting self-help yet removing the special
consideration is wholly inconsistent and:
The Department of Environment have suggested some form of financial assistance to aid
Gypsies in their transition (ibid, para 28). Regulations made under s 67(3) CJPOA which
deals with the confiscation of vehicles failing to leave the scene of a public order offence
state that:
This provision is subject to para 6(5) which exempts vehicles which have not been held
by the authority for three months. Although s 67 of the legislation is intended to cover
situations of mass trespass, the reduction of vehicles from twelve (under Public Order Act
1986 s 39 ) to six, including caravans, means that it is possible for Gypsies to find the
provision being used against them and their homes being confiscated, possibly
destroyed.
Whilst it is clear that some Gypsies, particularly the elderly and those with young
children, do show a desire to adopt settled housing, this is not suitable for the large
majority of Gypsies (Thomas & Campbell 1992 and see below)
Earlier legislation also can be perceived as attempting to assimilate Gypsies. The
Environmental Protection Act 1990, which expressly prohibits the occupation of scrap-
metal collection (Schedule 1, part b), strikes at the heart of Gypsy employment traditions
(see generally Okely 1983).
There is no recognition that such a conscious pressure to assimilate is inherently
discriminatory. It is accepted as axiomatic that all racism is wrong; the Race Relations
Act 1976 and the British signature on the European Convention on Human Rights set out
the Government's commitment to equality of opportunity. They also have clearly
accepted that treating all persons equally does not mean treating them identically;
speaking to the Muslim community in February 1989 Douglas Hurd MP stated:
Different groups within society require different types of support from the state; everyone
demands security and shelter - for British Gypsies generally, this manifests itself in a
desire to live legally in trailers on their own land.
The Government clearly believes that by condemning the travelling lifestyle they will
force Gypsies and other travellers to move off the road. They believe that Gypsy people
will simply surrender their travelling instincts and move into council housing. In the
words of Lord Irvine, this is "unjustifiable discrimination against those residing in
vehicles" (HL Deb 1994b col 1527).
There appears to be no research or other evidence to suggest that Gypsies as a group wish
to adopt conventional housing. On the contrary there is great opposition to this notion, as
one Gypsy comments:
The National Gypsy Council also reject "enforced assimilation":
The Government may well hope that in attempting to make the travelling lifestyle
impossible and encouraging Gypsies to adopt settled accommodation, they will be able to
prevent the growth of the modern traveller movement and substantially reduce the
number of existing travellers. Whilst this may have some success in relation to socially
constructed groups such as 'New Age travellers', against Gypsies the exercise is likely to
be futile.
Attempts to assimilate adopt a variety of forms. In France since 1969, Gypsies have had
to carry the 'carnet de circulation', an identity card which is regularly checked by officials
who can decide which commune nomads should be assigned. Some states, for example
Switzerland and later Italy, apparently concerned for the welfare of Gypsy children, have
sanctioned their forcible adoption (Puxon 1987 p 4-8).
The effects of Gypsy housing programmes on the settled community has also been
underestimated: in Socialist Spain there have been many incidents of violence and rioting
provoked by the Government's benevolent housing initiatives. Francisco Hernandez, a
member of the Secretariardo, explains the plight of his people:
In Italy, the problems for the Gypsy community have been created by the states hostility
towards nomadism:
In the Eastern European countries where the Gypsy population is greater, forcible
coercion was adopted as voluntary integration failed. Even when Gypsies were required
to adopt new identities (as in Bulgaria) assimilation has never been successful in the long
term, merely leading to worse incidents of violence and hostility. In Germany, Gypsies
are used by right-wing antagonists to support a restriction on liberal asylum laws ('New
Gypsies give Germans old ideas' The Guardian, 1 September 1990).
Gypsies fleeing the conflict in the former Yugoslavia have added to the tension, with
violent clashes occurring all over Eastern Europe. In Mlawa, Poland, violence against the
Gypsy community has intensified. This has been attributed, ironically, to their
comparative prosperity:
Policies of assimilation are not successful because Gypsy people, whether they live
in houses, settlements, trailers or tents, are not simply a social group but a racial group
The Gypsy community has only survived through their adaptability in various situations
and this has enabled people to claim that they are not 'true-gypsies' as they no longer have
a common language, religion and independently mobile lifestyle. In short, there is no one
single factor which identifies a Gypsy to a Gorgio. However, it would be foolish to
conclude that they have no common identity as a racial group. As Nicholls LJ stated in
CRE v Dutton [1989] 1 All ER 306:
It is this self-awareness which has enabled Gypsies to maintain their own culture, whilst
resisting full integration, in the most adverse of circumstances; which have included
forced settlement, assimilation, sterilisation and even mass extermination.
There is no evidence to suggest that the provisions in the CJPOA will succeed in their
objective of assimilating the Gypsy community.
Footnotes
(1). Gorgios or Gadjes- the Gypsy word to describe those not of the Gypsy race (see
Okely 1983, Fraser1992 et al) Back to text
(2). Other recent headlines include 'A threat to tourism', Grimsby Evening Telegraph
26 April 1993, 'Ban the Gypsies demand', Bournemouth Evening Echo 4 June 1993. Back to text
(3). For example the Irish Gypsies or 'tinkers', Scottish Kale, Welsh Gypsies and the
Sinti and Rom in Germany. Back to text
(4). National Gypsy Council 1992 compares the cost of an average council house,
estimated @ £50,000 to a typical gypsy pitch @ £25,000. Back to text
(5). The consultation paper proposed that Gypsies should be given advice to help them
settle into accommodation and the seizure of caravans was also considered to be a
possible option. (para 26 and para 21). Back to text
Acton, T (1974) Gypsy Politics and Social Change (London:
Routledge).
Adams, Okely, Morgan and Smith (1975) Gypsies and Government Policy in England
(London: Heinemann).
Clements, L (1992) "Gypsy Bashing" Legal Action November 1992 p 10.
Department of Education (1985) Education for All, Lord Swann (London:
D/Ed).
Department of Environment (1993 and 1994) Count of Gypsy Caravans 20.1.93 -
20.7.94.
D/E Circular (1994) 1/94 (London: HMSO).
D/E Circular (1993) 00/93 (London: HMSO).
D/E (1992) Consultation Paper Reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (London:
D/E).
D/E (1991) Todd and Clark Gypsy Sites Provision and Policy (London:
HMSO).
D/E (1981) Circular 8/81 (London: D/E).
D/E (1977)Sir John Cripps Accommodation for Gypsies (London; HMSO).
Forrester, B (1985) The Travellers Handbook (London: Interchange).
Fraser, A (1992) The Gypsies (Oxford: Blackwell).
Hawes and Perez (1995) The Gypsy and the State the Ethnic Cleansing of British
Society (Bristol: SAUS).
HC Deb (1968) House of Commons, Official Report 5th Series, Vol 759, col 1930.
HC Deb (1994a) House of Commons, Official Report 6th Series, Vol 241, cols 315-
320.
HC Deb (1994b) House of Commons, Official Report 6th Series, Vol 248, cols 355-
379.
HL Deb (1994a) House of Lords, Official Report 5th Series, Vol 554 col 469.
HL Deb (1994b) House of Lords, Official Report 5th Series, Vol 555 cols 355-379; 1111-
1149; 1527.
HL Deb (1994c) House of Lords, Official Report 5th Series, Vol 556 cols 1516-1564.
Interface 1991-5 (Centre for Gypsy Research: Paris).
Kendrick and Puxon (1972) The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies (London: Sussex
University Press).
Leigeois, JP (1987) Gypsies and Travellers (Strasbourg: Council of Europe).
Liberty (1993a) Alternative proposals for the Constructive reform of the 1968
Caravan Sites Act (London: Liberty).
Liberty (1993b) The Road to Nowhere (London: Liberty).
Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1967) Gypsies and Other Travellers
(London: MHLG).
National Gypsy Council (1981) Report on Discrimination (Oldham: National
Gypsy Council).
National Gypsy Council (1992) Response to the Government's Consultation Paper on
the Reform of the Caravan sites Act 1968 (Oldham: National Gypsy Council).
Okely, J (1983) The Traveller Gypsies (London: Cambridge University
Press).
Police Review Editorial 28 August 1992.
Pollock, J (1993) "Travellers: Home Office Gets Tough" Country Landowners
Association Journal, May 1993.
Puxon, G (1987) Roma: Europes' Gypsies (London: Minority Rights Group).
Samuels, A (1992) "Gypsy Law" (1992) Journal of Planning and
Environment Law 719.
Sibely, D (1983) Outsiders In Urban Society (London: Oxford University
Press).
The Gypsy Council for Education, Culture, Welfare and Civil Rights (1994) The First
Romani Congress of the European Union, Seville 18-21 May 1994 (Essex:
GCECWCR).
Thomas, P (1992) "Housing Gypsies" 142 New Law Journal 1714.
Thomas and Campbell (1992) Housing Gypsies (Cardiff: Cardiff University Law
School).
Vesey-Fitzgerald (1973) Gypsies in Britain: An introduction to their History
(Newton Abbot: David and Charles).
Wiklund, D (1969) The Position of Gypsies in Member States (Strasbourg:
Council of Europe).
Removal of the
Statutory Duty and Central Government Funding
At present 32% of nomadic Gypsies do not have an authorised caravan site (D/E Count
1994), so clearly, even with the statutory duty and the designation provisions, some
Authorities were intent on not accommodating Gypsies. It is difficult to support the
contention that an abolition of the duty will lead to councils providing more Gypsy
accommodation."CPRE believes the overriding objective of gypsy site policy should be to secure
sufficient sites for the accommodation of travellers in the most environmentally
acceptable locations" (Letter to D/E 4 November 1993).
"is not limited to those which are lawfully occupied or which have been lawfully
established." (para 63)
"that living in a caravan home is an integral and deeply-felt part of her gypsy life-
style." (para 64)
Reducing the Social
and Financial Implications of Eviction.
Section 77 CJPOA makes it a criminal offence to occupy an unauthorised site.
Effectively, those Local Authorities who have shirked their responsibility to provide
adequate sites in the past are being rewarded for their behaviour by being granted new
powers to control Gypsies without having to supply any Gypsy accommodation.The Government Solution
: Private Provision
"[T]he Exchequer should no longer have an open-ended commitment to meet
gypsies' accommodation needs; more gypsies should be encouraged to find their
own sites" (D/E News Release 1 March 1993).
"The single biggest obstacle to the proper provision of adequate traveller caravan
sites...."(Forrester 1985 p 8).
"...could result in Gypsies' becoming more hostile in their attitudes, possibly
resulting in more frequent confrontation" (Letter to the D/E 1993).
Discrimination
and the Inherent Control Policy
An examination of the Consultation Paper 'Proposals for the Constructive Reform of the
Caravan Sites Act 1968' will reveal at once a desire to persuade Gypsies to adopt a settled
lifestyle:"...the Government believes that it may be necessary to provide advice on
education, health and housing which encourages gypsies and other travellers to
settle and, in time, to transfer into traditional housing" (D/E 1993 paras 27 &
28).
"If the authority are satisfied that the person on whom they have served or
attempted to serve the removal notice is the owner of the vehicle, they may
dispose of or destroy the vehicle at any time.."(SI 1995 No 723 The Police
Retention and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1995 10.3.95 para 6(2)).
"In no case has the majority living here sought to eradicate minority customs or
beliefs" (Reported in Liberty 1993b).
"I've spent all my life living in a caravan - this is all I've been used to....You feel
closed in in a house when you're not used to walls around you". (Thomas
1992)
"We Gypsies do not want to and will not move into houses, since this form of
lifestyle is alien to us, and in any case...insufficient housing stock is available to
meet the needs of the settled community, let alone Gypsies...."(National Gypsy
Council 1992).
The Futility of
Assimilation
In the rest of Europe, as in Britain, there have often been measures aimed at diminishing
the number of Gypsy people. It would be unwise to generalise as to the reasons for these
initiatives; they vary from being one element in an ethnic cleansing programme (as in
Nazi Germany) to resentment at their success in times of economic depression (as in
Romania) (Fraser 1992). However, an examination of the assimilation strategy is a useful
indicator for the future of British policy. "many of our people live in misery in huts made up from scraps. When it rains
they are flooded. Then flat-building begins on the site and our people are thrown
out. We want a dignified life - not paternalism but tolerance and understanding."
(Puxon 1987, p 4)
"Problem with nomadism. Need to settle to obtain work and schooling. Major problem
with discrimination, violence from police in encampments during the night, petitions
raised to remove Gypsies...." (Gypsy Council for Education, Culture, Welfare and Civil
Rights 1994).
"In June, a group of 150 drunken hooligans, mostly young people, tore through
the Paczkowskas' home and eight other luxurious Gypsy homes, breaking
windows and looting goods, setting six cars on fire and beating two men."
('Poland's well-off Gypsies pay violent price for their riches' The
Guardian, 27 July 1991)
"The fact that some have been absorbed and are indistinguishable from any
ordinary member of the public, is not sufficient in itself to establish loss of...an
historically determined social identity in [the group's] own eyes and in the eyes of
those outside the group...despite their long presence in England, gypsies have not
merged wholly in the population as have the Saxons and the Danes....They, or
many of them, have retained a separateness, a self-awareness, of still being
gypsies." (paras 313(j)-314(a)).
Conclusion
The depth of anti-Gypsy prejudice, despite the inaccuracy of its' foundations, cannot
be over-estimated. Although draconian, an analysis of similar policies throughout Europe
has indicated that the measures contained in the CJPOA are unlikely to succeed in their
objective of forcing the Gypsy community to abandon their culture and traditions.
Nevertheless, there is still a very apparent need to monitor the consequences of the
legislation. The relationship between the sedentary population and travelling people has
always been problematic and 'anti-nomadic' legislation can only serve to exacerbate an
already volatile situation. There are likely to be severe consequences for the welfare of
the Gypsy family unit, as those families unwilling or simply unable to find an authorised
site will find it impossible to obtain adequate schooling for children and to access social
services; it may also prove extremely difficult to obtain essential basic human necessities
such as clean water and secure shelter. In short, despite persistent, expensive attempts to
administer the new legislation, ultimately, it will prove ineffective. It is most unfortunate
that in the meantime it is bound to present severe detrimental effects on the welfare of
several thousand citizens who wish to maintain their ethnic identity.
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/articles3/onions3.html
