Search the Community

An interesting piece from today's Times about the traveller community. "A slavery case highlights the danger of allowing a force-field of cultural sensitivity to get in the way of hard truths Dumped in filthy caravans, strung out on drugs, fed leftovers, worked like dogs. Reading how modern-day slaves were treated by the Rooney family in Lincolnshire, a question from anti-slavery campaigns centuries ago came to mind: “Am I not a man and a brother?” The case begs 21st-century questions too: how on earth could this carry on for so long? Why wasn’t it detected sooner? One answer may lie in the location of the crimes. The captives were held on traveller sites; out of the mainstream, out of sight. One abhorrent case does not taint all travellers, just as terror attacks should not taint all Muslims or paedophile priests all Catholics. But it is a reminder of how closed-off parts of the traveller community are; how behind this wall of separateness some choose to live by their own rules, and how damaging this can be. Britain is a pretty liberal country. We respect people’s freedom to live as they please, within the law. But when separateness grows to mean a scant regard for the laws and courtesies that frame life for most of us, we have a serious problem. A force-field of cultural sensitivity surrounds gypsies, Roma and travellers, at least in officialdom. Recognised as ethnic minorities, any criticism of their way of life can be labelled racist. Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has said that for gypsies and travellers “Great Britain is still like the American Deep South for black people in the 1950s”. Phillips is a sensible man but his analogy isn’t. It suggests that the prejudice (which undoubtedly exists) is not connected to behaviour. You do not need to be a racist of the white hood-wearing tendency to groan at the prospect of a traveller encampment pitching up in your local park. Reports of antisocial behaviour and intimidation are common, as are complaints of mess when the camp moves on. In the past couple of months travellers have issued death threats to council officers who tried to move them on in Sutton Coldfield; forced a school in West Sussex into lockdown after they broke on to their property; set up camp in an Ocado warehouse in Kent, having to be forced out by the police; dumped tonnes of rubbish in Bromley; and smashed into a playing field in West Bromwich with a mechanical digger. The response of the authorities can seem painfully weak. Before going to court to get an eviction order councils must first assess the welfare needs of those on the site. Money that might have been spent on services is sucked up by legal fees. An endless game of cat and mouse is played, with councils evicting groups from one unauthorised site only for them to move to another. The authorities seem weak too on the issue of schooling for traveller children. The law states that you must ensure your child receives an education from five to 16. Yet in many traveller communities secondary education is seen as optional. According to one think tank 12,000 traveller pupils are not enrolled in secondary school. For those who do attend the truancy rate is four times the national average. Literacy rates are dire. An estimated 3 to 4 per cent of travellers go to university, compared with 43 per cent of young people nationally. And so the wall of separation and suspicion between travellers and the rest of us remains. This is the current approach: an endless cycle of evictions but otherwise turning a “culturally sensitive” blind eye when travellers don’t follow the rules. Well, it isn’t working. It is wasting money and causing distress. It is deepening the divisions between travellers and the rest of society. And it is failing the children who grow up with few qualifications and severely limited chances in life (not to mention poorer health and lower life expectancy). Central and local government need to grasp the nettle and forge a new contract with travellers. This must reconcile the desire of many to lead nomadic lives with their responsibilities as citizens. Crucially, it must offer carrot as well as stick. The first action should be a major building programme to create an adequate number of authorised traveller pitches, with proper sanitation and energy facilities. Some might balk at the investment but it is no good asking people to move on if there is nowhere to go. If local opposition makes it tough to find suitable land, the green belt should be considered. Travellers could move between these sites but in each they would be obliged to register. With proper information on where they were, local authorities could monitor everything from truancy to the paying of council tax. Those refusing to pay tax or educate their children would be pursued through normal legal routes. To ensure travellers use authorised sites, councils and police must be swifter in evicting them from illegal sites or preventing them setting up in the first place. In June Harlow council won a three-year injunction that bans travellers from setting up unauthorised camps in the town. With 320 sites protected, anyone breaching the injunction faces a fine or custodial sentence. Other councils should follow suit. If this is not workable the law should be changed to give police the power to evict anyone setting up camp on public land immediately. They have powers to move travellers on under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 but this requires evidence of serious criminality. The bar for eviction is too high and must be brought down. There are many travellers who wish to live peaceably and lawfully while keeping alive their culture. This approach is fair to them because it recognises the desire to move around and provides the space to do so. It is fair to the settled population too, because of the principle at its heart: whatever our lifestyle we are all British citizens and must abide by the same rules and the same laws."