towards a better Europe   Return to the archives list Worse than a democratic deficit - the United Kindom's treatment of Roma A Review of the needs of "Gypsies residing in and resorting to local areas" Introduction The government of the United Kingdom has recently released papers concerning Gypsies and Travellers in the United Kingdom and both reflect an unsettling trend. This is that their content, like many previous papers, reflects a paucity of background knowledge and a lack of experience and understanding of the particular circumstances of these British Citizens. It is undeniable that in the year 2003, this is an unacceptable state of affairs. Failure to perform British governments have had well over 500 years to get this sort of issue right and continue to fail in everything that is attempted in terms of appropriate actions, from allocating appropriate terrain for the Gypsy's traditional way of life on the one hand and to write documents which reflect some appreciation that, after all, they are writing about British Citizens who should be afforded the same level of consideration and respect, not only by the rest of society but also by their governments. No leadership on the question of discrimination Today our representatives, with ease, will frequently remind us of human rights and yet tolerate a behaviour of administrations which fails to respect, seek solutions for and satisfy basic needs of this community. Indeed, this ongoing prejudicial prevarication represents an evolving state of affairs for which all Englishmen who value freedom and happiness should protest against or they should hang their heads in shame. Prejudicial prevarication Even now, the official policies of prejudicial prevarication continue with an added momentum. This is reflected in the documents circulating in official circles. Although some are well meaning, many have sections which border on the scurrilous and come close to or even overstep the boundary of decency by containing misrepresentation of the facts and libelous comment made up of negative generalizations based upon any specific isolated negative incidents which might exist. God help all of us if this standard of evidence or analysis were applied to the population as a whole. Lack of common humanity In a freedom loving democracy, where mutual respect and a common humanity reigns, any government should, at least, set an example for fair comment and a balanced representation of the facts. Unfortunately the British government fails to do so. Its just fine, when there is no jury Currently, the government seeks comfort in the broad position that, so far, their actions have not been found to transgress the Human Rights Act or, for that matter, the European Convention on Human Rights. Since the European Court on Human Rights judges such cases on the basis of panels of judges voting with no jury present, this is hardly a confirmation of any merit on the government's part. It is ironical that a Government of the United Kingdom, a country which in the past has upheld the jury system as the path to sanity in legal judgments, can find comfort in such political judgments. Similarly in the case of statutory laws within the United Kingdom, some 60% of which now flow in from the European Commission, there is no jury requirement for the judgment of enforcements nor appeals against enforcements. Such matters are "decided" by magistrates, local judges or High Court judges. Intentional emasculation of human rights issues In addition, the "legislators" who adapted the European Convention on Human Rights to a UK version, effectively side stepped the "delivery" of human rights, under such statutory provisions, by simply writing into the Human Rights Act that decisions taken under statutory provisions, and which followed the required procedures, could not be considered to be transgressions of Human Rights. What price the freedom of the citizens of these Isles? The current government, almost at its inception, embarked upon a murky process of improving the "performance" of the legal system by reducing the instances of presence of juries. This was not a process to raise transparency or ensure a broader application of the community conscience, in the form of a jury, which for many would constitute a better performance, of the system, in delivering fair treatment. The government alas had simply lumped the law into a box to be made "more efficient" by reducing costs. This was given impulse by the then Home Secretary (Mr. Straw) who was pleased to claim that this would present an economy of some £250 million. It is remarkable that a Home Secretary, of all people, was even able to remain in his post. Why was he not challenged to state what price do men and women in the British Isles, place upon their freedom? The Straw economy represents one penny per day per head of the population of the United Kingdom. This, on must submit, is too high a price to pay for a removal of the basic right to have one's case be considered by one's community and peers. Economies in this area should not to be tolerated. Indeed, this is where a government, with an eye to fostering a fairer society, should be investing yet further funds to strengthen the jury system and reduce the burden of the centralized legal system to a decentralized one involving a broader application of juries. The status of Gypsies reflects the status of freedoms of all Unfair judgments under statutory arrangements affect us all and include a large range of fines and enforcements against which most of the population, in fact, have no protection. The rise in statutory provisions and the erosion in the use of juries have a disruptive impact upon society. The status of the British Gypsies and Travellers is a litmus test of this lack of an equitable treatment and, underneath this, points to a gradual erosion in basic freedoms. This is something however which should be of concern, not only to Gypsies, but the whole population. England constrains participation of peers in juries of peers In recent cases involving minorities in London (Stephen Lawrence case) there was a call for adding legal transparency and balance to future cases by enabling the community conscience to act through the use of juries amongst whose members would be peers, or representatives of the ethnic group being judged. This would be in line with the common humanity of endeavouring to bring to the courtroom the considerations of community, in the best sense of the word, to bear on the proceedings. However the current Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) refused to entertain such a possibility and was also advised to do so by his own civil servants. An independent civil service? One senses in the evident levels of misrepresentation of Gypsies and Travellers, in public pronouncements and documents circulated, the less-than-expert hand of civil servants. Civil servants, as we know, have no legitimate right to represent, they have even less right to misrepresent, any segment of the community. It is therefore a matter of concern that the civil servants both at national and local government level, can have such a strong influence over decisions which affect Gypsy and Traveller affairs. At the national level, it is well known, for example, that no matter which route people use to complain or call attention to inconsistencies in national planning regulations, they all end up on the same desk. As a result, the majority of concerned people receive almost indentical cut and stuck replies sent on behalf of the "Minister" or "Secretary of State" to quite often different issues. Recently a large international petition to the Prime Minister and the relevant Secretary of State, in support of a review of planning regulations was completely ignored. A long time characteristic, should we say a blighted tradition, in the United Kingdom, has been for government ministers and local government members to be flanked by police officers when addressing questions relating to Gypsies and Travellers. Members of the public in other European countries have often commented on this strange practice. The Gypsy economy, the mainstay of a culture Up until the early 1960s, many Gypsies had followed a traditional life style, of travelling the country to provide seasonal casual labour or to provide artisan services or to sell hand made produce. Travelling was an essential component of the Gypsy economy because it enabled them to sustain a constant income throughout the year until they would settle somewhere for the winter. Sites used to camp included some local authority sites, so-called common lands provided by land owners in respect of old traditions of providing terrain for encampments. This system, although not one characterized by a life of riches, was a preferred lifestyle in which kinship and family values were of essential importance as was the protection of their children and above all looking after their old folk. The Gypsy economy was essentially self-contained and sustainable. Intentional erosion in available camping resources During the 1960s some legislation was introduced under which local authorities were obliged to provide an adequate number of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. Such sites were to have adequate fresh water, washing facilities, WCs, appropriate sewerage conduits and refuse disposal points. In other words there was some consideration given, in the legislation, to these basic needs of the traveling population. The existence of this legislation provided an incentive for many land owners who, previously had provided tracts of common land, fenced such land off and therefore removed thousands of acres, previously used by Gypsies to camp, from the inventory of suitable camp sites. At the same time the English local authorities, with rare exceptions, did not in fact provide sites in adequate number. Some did not provide any at all. Enforced illegality As a result of this failure of the local authorities to carry out their duties the availability of camp sites declined and Gypsy families found themselves being "bumped" onto the wrong side of the law by having to camp on either unsuitable and sometimes dangerous terrain or on what became known as unauthorized sites. The cycle of illegal camping, eviction and movement to the next illegal campsite continues and increases to date. This has increasingly placed Gypsies beyond access to services enjoyed by the rest of the population. This government inflicted process has also effectively denied the traveling Gypsy families access to proper proactive and remedial health care, education, and social services. Failure in duty of care Now the cause of this increasing crisis had nothing to do with any innate characteristics of the Gypsies as being "law breakers" but was in fact created by a massive failure in duty of care and law breaking, on the part of local authorities, the length and breadth of this country. This massive breakdown in duty of care, a wholesale breaking of the national laws by local authorities, caused a rapid decline in the Gypsy economy with Gypsies, especially the majority of law abiding Gypsies, to be unable to find "legal" stopping places. As a result their incomes dried up and the local authorities inaction gradually forced them in the direction of seeking welfare payments and to become a burden on the "state" rather than remaining economically sustainable and proudly independent. The local authority irresponsibility during this period robbed the Gypsies of their much valued independence and freedom. This destruction of the Gypsies' income base, resulting from local authority inaction, is, without doubt, a compensatable crime. The English Gulag In those cases where sites were constructed, they have often been small, on unwanted land, in some cases the concrete pitches for Gypsy caravans are located directly below high-tension cables. This is a circumstance which would not be tolerated for any other members of the British public and constitutes a compensatable risk to health. They generally have little natural amenity or beauty. For many they constitute an out of site British ghetto system, a gulag occupied by hapless Gypsies. Even in such cases, if Gypsies wish to travel from a site they have to pay rent on the vacant pitch or else lose their pitch. This of course is a strong deterrent to travel for economic reasons because of the incurred rental costs and sooner or later a Gypsy and his family will be faced with having no where legal to stop. There is no certainty any more. To add insult to injury, local authorities fix the rental on small caravan pitches at prices which more or less are affordable on the income from social welfare or the dole. In other words the local authorities get back a substantive proportion of what the government pays out, creating a subsistence economy within a free market system. Abuse of responsibility - first count Between the introduction of this obligation on local authorities in 1968 and the removal of this obligation in 1994, there were some seven local authority elections. It is the duty of civil servants to bring before elected members the issues of obligation and law facing the authorities over which the newly elected members govern. It is quite apparent that the failure of the local authorities to carry out the law could be laid at the feet of the failure of responsibility of local authority civil servants, who serve in the planning domain, in not bringing this obligation, under the law, to the attention of the members. If they did, indeed, bring this obligation before their members, and their members declined to act, then the civil servants still remain under an obligation to raise this matter with the government. Since this did not happen, and there is no trace of any whistleblower cases related to this legislation during the 26 years of its effect, there appears to have been collusion between the planning departments and the membership to proactively and knowingly break the law of the land. The commodity in this dirty collusive trade was the welbeing of British Citizens who happen to have been Gypsies. The application casino Government then, after having removed from local authorities the obligation to provide sites, claimed to have solved the issue by asking local authorities to be flexible and sensitive to Gypsy circumstances by being sympathetic to applications by Gypsies to set up camps or even houses on their own land. However, the outcome of this facility has been a process where Gypsies have faced a far higher refusal rate than others in society, for planning permissions. A common interference in many cases of Gypsies requesting planning permission for locating their own caravan on their own land, has been the police contributing to the "process" by registering the "concerns" of "others" in the community concerning possibilities of "crime". As in the case of other civil servants, it is not the duty of the police to represent any group nor misrepresent any group. It is therefore quite extraordinary that this process is even permitted. Dumping sites Now free of their previous obligations, local authorities have closed over 45 Gypsy sites during the last 8 years. Abuse of responsibility - second count Again, when there exists legislation, requesting sympathy and flexibility, in the case of Gypsies, it is the duty of the civil service to assist such individuals in their applications and not sit back and simply state that "they got it wrong". Like their behaviour in response to the legislation requiring that local authorities provide adequate sites, local authorities have continued to fail in their duty of care for Gypsies. Again, civil servants, it would seem, have failed to impress upon their council members the duty of flexibility in cases of Gypsies and they have failed to assist Gypsy applicants to prepare acceptable planning applications; the proof is in the exaggerated refusal rates of Gypsy applications. No matter which way local authority planning departments wish to "explain" this, the track record shows up the significant failure of this service to support a section of the British population in an adequate fashion and this is unacceptable. Oh another eviction, oh, and cheap land The enforcement of planning regulations can result in the physical eviction of occupants as well as the removal of caravans or even constructions from sites. A detail, hidden in the planning regulations, permits local authorities to confiscate land from owners to pay for the security arrangements used to carry out evictions. As a result, it is remarkable to note that there have been several cases, involving Gypsies, where the cost of eviction just happened to equal or exceed the value of the Gypsy family's land. This meant that the result of a planning application for many Gypsies has been the confiscation of their private land and the family thrown out onto a road leading nowhere since there is nowhere to go. This wilderness is one created by the very same people who have managed the process to confiscate the land, that is, British local authorities. Is there a hidden agenda concerning the Gypsies in the United Kingdom? In broad terms, one might write off the treatment of Gypsies in the United Kingdom as bureaucratic bungling, perhaps the fact that they don’t seem to have effective representation, that perhaps they are uneducated, or that there is some paranoid fantasy shared by the whole of the British public, that there is something wrong with Gypsies. But if one seeks an answer to this question, it is worth looking at the definite acts taken by those with the power to help improve the status of Gypsies. It is no good looking at the short term but rather at the medium past. In a recent forum in Wiltshire, the issue of the ineffectiveness of government policy with respect to Gypsies was raised. The most senior participant, a town and regional planner, calmly responded that the government's policy has been completely effective in achieving its objectives. When asked to elaborate, he said: " Since the conclusion to the second world war successive British governments have carried on a consistent policy to discourage Gypsies from following their way of life. As a result, policy has been geared to managing Gypsies as opposed to responding to Gypsy's needs. This has been done by harassing them through the police force and by authorities, in general, not responding to their needs in an effective manner. This has been amply assisted by a campaign of disinformation and misrepresentation largely to discourage non-Gypsies to become associated with any Gypsy cause. By the end of the 1950s the number of visible signs of Gypsy activity persisted in the form of annual caravanning. The effect of the less than adequate response of local authorities to Gypsy site needs was aimed at discouraging them, to destroy their economy and marginalize them. This was achieved by causing any Gypsy family who wishes to persist in traveling to become increasingly at risk, no matter how law-abiding, of being on the wrong side of the law. The move to permit Gypsies to purchase land was never seriously considered to be a solution but rather a means of fixing them in a single spot and again allowing them to slide onto the wrong side of the law, and, in some cases to lose their possessions and their children, their inheritance. This tendency continues today with the government insisting in driving Gypsies off unauthorized sites and not providing new permanent sites." Catch 22 - A Review of needs for "Gypsies residing in and resorting to local areas" Reflecting upon these views expressed by a very senior town and regional planner one begins to appreciate that the oft-repeated term that the needs of Gypsies needs to be set within the context of "a review of the numbers of Gypsies residing in and resorting to local areas" is a complete Catch 22 and means absolutely nothing. Government policy has effectively discouraged Gypsies from traveling (resorting) to any areas by reducing the numbers traveling. Government policy has also reduced the numbers residing in camps. Indeed this has been the trend all the time and continues to be so. So any up to date estimate of those residing and resorting is bound to be less than before. So by falling for the "objective" approach, of reviewing the numbers, will result in a policy which will fail to address the problem. Certainly, in current documentation, cited above, such estimates are now limited to the provision of sites for overnight stopping and not for permanent sites. So the trend is upheld by the failure of policy to actually find out how many Gypsies in fact would like to travel if conditions were improved? A policy FOR Gypsies It is because the government does not run policy for the Gypsies but rather as a means of managing the Gypsies that such questions are never answered. The current documents reflect this abuse of British citizens who happen to be Gypsies and it is time that their representative government should abandon its prejudicial prevarication and piecemeal approach. A fresh start reflecting a modicum of common humanity The government needs to introduce better new planning legislation which requires, at least, more permanent and better sites for Gypsies. Such legislation should have provisions to impose substantive fines on local authorities who do not provide more permanent sites for Gypsies. The ability to forcibly evict and confiscate land should be repealed. Such action should be limited to cases where there is an established risk to public health or security. All such statutory regulations on appeal against enforcement should be subject to jury decision with representatives of Gypsies on any such jury.