Small Task, Big Challenge?

Speech by Sir Brian Briscoe, Chair of Task Group on Site Provision and Enforcement at the 'Developing Services for Gypsies and Travellers' conference on 16 May 2007.

Good Morning.

Before I start talking about the Task Group's work, I'd like to try and put this issue into perspective. Less than one square mile of land across the whole country is needed to solve the shortfall of 4000 authorised pitches. Compare that with the 120,000 new houses that Kate Barker estimates are needed every year, and it immediately strikes you as odd that providing Gypsy and Traveller sites seems to be so difficult. So it is not a huge task, though it may be a big challenge.

When Ministers asked me to chair the Task Group on Site Provision and Enforcement last year, I was happy to accept. The issue of Gypsy and Traveller sites is one that has cropped up many times during my career as a planner and chief executive, it was the subject of one of the better pieces of work completed during my last couple of years at the LGA, and it has never been an issue that lends itself to easy solutions - a real challenge for anyone to take on.

It is a controversial subject. We only need to think back to the last general election, when politicians based their campaigns around the site at Dale Farm in Essex, and the Sun ran their 'Stamp on the Camps' campaign. As the Minister said earlier, it's hard to imagine this type of headline being applied to any other ethnic minority. However, there are many people who believe that Gypsies and Travellers get some kind of special treatment compared to others. Part of our job as a Task Group is to challenge this mistaken belief.

The Task Group was originally set up to look at the variations in the ways that enforcement powers are being applied across the country. We had the advantage that two reports - by CRE and LGA respectively - had researched some of the ground very well and provided us with evidence (and happily the presence of the prime movers in both organisations as members of the Task Group).

It very quickly became obvious that there would be little point in looking at enforcement without also looking at site provision. Without more authorised sites to go to, Gypsies and Travellers being enforced against would only find themselves being moved from place to place, creating a cycle of disruption to settled community and Travellers alike. In these circumstances, continual use of enforcement powers can be seen to be ineffective and a waste of time, effort and money. So our terms of reference were amended.

We reviewed the general operation of Enforcement powers. Planning enforcement is a blunt instrument which takes time and can be subject to frustrating delays. But we concluded, like those who have looked at it before, that changes which could be made would not necessarily lead to better outcomes. In particular we rejected criminalisation. We have invited the Department to consult on a change to the arrangements for linked enforcement and planning refusal appeals so that the time period during which they may be brought is the same. This could have the effect of slightly reducing the whole time period from the onset of an infringement to its resolution, thereby increasing public confidence in the system. The Planning Inspectorate believe it is feasible, but it is probably more a subject for a conference of procedural anoraks and it is by no means only relevant to Gypsy and Traveller sites, so I will leave it there.

We recognise that in some circumstances enforcement action will be unavoidable. But it should be carried out in a sensitive manner. It is simply not acceptable for bailiffs to arrive on a site at 5 o'clock in the morning and make children stand outside in their pyjamas and watch their homes being towed away. Nor should it be necessary for dozens of police officers to attend these evictions when experience elsewhere tells us that when people make the effort to build good community relations the job can be done by one person. These kinds of events only undermine even further the shaky trust that Gypsies and Travellers have in authority. The Task Group has looked at the question of regulation and best practice advice for those engaged in enforcing evictions

It is also crucial to recognise that enforcement becomes much more straightforward, once authorised sites are in place. The presence of an authorised site gives Gypsies and Travellers the chance to avoid staying in places that they will be evicted from, gives the local authority a firmer basis for the use of their powers and makes it more likely that the courts will enforce them. It is the Task Group's view that site provision is the key to effective enforcement against the small minority of Gypsies and Travellers that do not wish to behave in an acceptable manner.

The Minister just gave you some facts in her speech about the social exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers, and I don't want to repeat what she has already said. However, I think it does bear repeating that 42% of Gypsies and Travellers report limiting long-term illnesses compared with 18% of the settled population, and that only 30% of Irish Traveller children and 14% of Gypsy children can expect to get 5 GCSE A-C passes - compared to 52% of the settled population. It cannot be over-emphasised that these are the most excluded ethnic minorities in this country, and that one of the keys to overcoming this exclusion is to increase the number of authorised sites available. Our discussions with Education and Health Departments bear this out.

A lack of access to information and services is another problem faced by Gypsies and Travellers on a regular basis. This has led to many Gypsies and Travellers feeling that authority is too busy talking about them to talk to them. One of the first things the Department and the Task Group agreed was that we should address that criticism head on. So the Task Group invited Gypsies and Travellers to join the group, a first for a Government-led body. Siobhan Spencer, Bridie Jones and more recently Janie Codona have all made valuable contributions to the Group's work, not least of all by helping the rest of us to understand a little of what it must be like to face the problems that confront Gypsies and Travellers.

Once we had recognised that the terms of reference of the Task Group should be changed to include site provision as well as enforcement, we began evidence gathering. We met with Gypsies and Travellers, local authorities and other stakeholders to find out what their experiences of these issues are and what they would like to see changed to improve the situation. We looked at controversial areas, such as fly tipping, and we met with authorities that had experienced difficulties, such as Basildon District Council, because we wanted to be sure that we saw an honest picture of the situation. This work resulted in our interim report, which can be found on the Department's website. In summary, we feel that the Government's policy is sound, and that the main issue is not one of policy but of implementation.

No one is pretending that site provision is easy or popular. But doing the right thing is not always the easy option. Gypsies and Travellers need decent places to live as much as any other member of the community. It is important that local authorities, including elected members, show community leadership and act to deal with this problem.

Apart from any moral justification, showing this kind of leadership can bring other benefits. The Minister has already mentioned the case of Bristol City Council, where enforcement costs fell from £200,000 a year to £5000 a year after a site was built. Put simply, the site paid for itself in 2 to 3 years. Given that authorities without adequate site provision can spend literally millions of pounds on a continuous and futile cycle of enforcement - we reckon about £18m is spent on enforcement in a year - it is clear that providing a site can be a more economically sound proposition.

Each local authority is required by government to make planning provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of their Development Plan Documents. The number of pitches that they are required to plan for is decided as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy, based on an assessment of need that local authorities are required by law to carry out as part of their Housing Act duties. Where there is clear evidence of a high level of need, local authorities can also draw up Development Plan Documents in advance of the Regional Spatial Strategy. There are two complementary process - one to deliver practical investment through Regional Housing Strategies ( and the Housing Corporation are now part of the Task Group) and CLG grant for site provision, and the other to build a more positive cycle of community relations by reducing unauthorised encampments and the need for enforcement.

Those authorities that are advanced in this process have generally not taken any special measures. The East of England region is the furthest advanced of all the English regions. They have got as far as making pitch allocations to local authorities based on the local Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments. The East of England has 25% of the country's caravan dwelling Gypsies and Travellers living in the region, and this has prompted them to take steps. They have not done something that others cannot emulate. But they are now the region that is closest to actually increasing their level of site provision. This has been achieved through strong and proactive leadership from the Government Office and Regional Assembly, and through the engagement of local authorities.

So what do we do next?

First, it is important to recognise the most important underlying principle of all: Gypsies and Travellers have both the same rights and the same responsibilities as everyone else in this country. They have the right to a safe decent home, and the responsibility to abide by the same laws that govern the rest of us.

Second, we need to accelerate the process of implementing policy. A system based on assessed need will be contested and controversial but will ensure that delivery is targeted to the areas that need sites the most. The experience of the Eastern region shows that the policy framework can deliver despite the difficulties.

Third, we need to be more vocal as politicians, officials and citizens in challenging those who promote the negative stereotype of Gypsies and Travellers.

I'd like to see Government, political parties and the media taking the lead. I'd like to see headlines like 'Stamp on the Camps' become as unacceptable as a headline saying 'Stamp on the Mosques' would be. If people living in caravans have this experience, initiated by settled community criminals, how can we tolerate the mindless antagonistic journalism that is so often a feature of media coverage on Gypsy and Traveller issues?

As we move into the implementation stage we need to encourage authorities to go beyond GTAAs to site provision. Regional Housing Budgets and the Departments grant aid provide incentives, reducing enforcement cost another.

We should not be naïve about the challenge this represents to elected members of all parties. It calls for real community leadership to combat the prejudice and deal with the genuinely difficult planning issues.

I started by saying that 4000 pitches is not a large land requirement. It is a big political challenge but not insuperable. With a concerted effort we could

save money wasted on enforcement
give the settled community less disruption and more confidence in the planning system
and give these children a more secure and successful life.

That does seem worth making an effort for.

Speech by Sir Brian Briscoe on 16 May 2007.