In recent weeks, there has been some reporting locally about issues with a transient Gypsy community in Hull, temporarily setting up home on unauthorised sites. This was met with some concern locally. A local Gypsy project worker suggested it was due to there being insufficient fixed berths locally to accommodate the community. Nationally, it is estimated that approximately 300 families are displaced at any one time.
On the national stage, this week saw the introduction of the new measures for dealing with Gypsy – Travellers and related planning application. Eric Pickles MP introduces this new system, purporting a fairer, more equitable process for all concerned.
At first glance, this is good news for a community who have been marginalised, targeted and abused for many years. They are also a community who are frequently misunderstood.
Who are we talking about?
Are we talking about the much-maligned participants of the Channel 4 show ‘Big Fat Gypsy Wedding?’ which focused on a select group of travellers, who many from the community have protested are not representative of their culture or way of life. Much in the same way that Frank Gallagher of Shameless fame does not represent all middle aged, white working class men.
The community is diverse in its racial background and living conditions. In terms of size, estimates vary but are currently placed between 120,000 to 300,000 people. Despite popular misconceptions about the community, around half of all Gypsy -Travellers live in houses, the other half live in caravans on private caravan sites, public (council) caravan sites. Due to lack of approved pitches or sites, coupled with the incessant prejudice and attacks they face, many however are forced to live on unauthorised encampments, wherever they can find land that is suitable. Wherever the community is situated, they often face hostility, prejudice and attacks. Worryingly, those in all walks of life, often accept this as a social norm both within the community and outside. A useful examination of the sites and rights of the community is highlighted here
Pickled Fairness?
Communities Minister Andrew Stunell commented this week:
"The majority of travellers are law-abiding citizens and they should be given the same opportunities as everyone else to live in a safe place where they can bring up their children.”
This sounds hopeful then, surely? After years of abuse and socially acceptable prejudice, we are now to understand that we will have a fairer system.
Whether or not this is a fairer process will largely depend on the concept of fairness being used to develop the policy.
David Cameron has an interesting perception of fairness and has indicated his belief that fairness should be based upon what people deserve
He states, “Fairness means giving people what they deserve – and what people deserve depends on how they behave."
This approach has very different consequences for any policy development. One immediate question that springs to mind here is – who decides what people deserve and what is that based upon?
One of the major causes of conflict in any community arises when people think things are not fair. By fair, we usually include the ideas of just, equal, good, ethical or moral, and the ways we can achieve these things.
As with many minority groups, the perception of this community is often negative to those who live outside of it. Many people have a perspective of the community, which is not based upon personal experience, but is a combination of negative stereotypes, which have become the norm in recent decades. There is also a lack of understanding about the payment of rates or taxes, which is a common line of argument against the community. The frequent negative media coverage about Travellers, often about unauthorised sites coupled with the popular Channel 4 sensationalist show Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, may not particularly support the perception of this community.
There is a need for further information and education for many groups in society to understand the needs and culture of the Gypsy community. We should seek to understand, rather than condemn. Only by enabling people to understand will progress ever really be made.
What has been ‘improved?’
Measures to ‘improve’ the provision and process of establishing (and more specifically disestablishing) Traveller sites include:
- Stronger enforcement powers for councils
- Stronger powers for councils to limit the opportunities for retrospective planning applications
- Dale Farm funding (Basildon Council given £1.2m to clear unauthorised pitches)
- Stronger rights for residents of authorised council sites -New incentives to build authorised sites
- Training for councillors - the Government will provide £50,000 (NATIONALLY) to support training for councillors about their leadership role in relation to traveller site provision and planning
The recent guidance states that Ministers believe that local planning authorities are best placed to know the needs of their communities, not unelected regional bodies. There is no mention here about the needs of the Gypsy community and their right to articulate their needs, or indeed have them met.
At present we fail to see any improvements or ‘fairness’ from the perspective of the Gypsy community here. Predominantly, we see a strengthening of power to evict and remove travellers, with weight added to the ‘not in my back yard’ approach to planning.
This is a community, who are as large in numbers as the Bangladeshi community in Britain. It would be interesting to see the approach people would take if it were decided that the Government would now target blacks, Jews or the Bangladeshi communities in the same way.
View this interview with Luke Clements of Cardiff University to understand why more Gypsy and Traveller pitches and stopping places are needed, and why the shortage of sites has arisen.
Are these inequalities really justifiable?
In terms of the prejudice and marginalisation many within this community face, it is perhaps not difficult to argue that those who are displaced are among the least advantaged within Britain.
Considering John Rawl's "difference principle" for a second, he says that treating people unequally is only justifiable if by doing so, the least advantaged member of society is made better off.
I don’t think as a society we’ve passed this test yet. What we’ve got is a community further open to abuse and another example of ‘Pickled Fairness.’
Best,
HullRePublic Team
Get in touch. Share. Make the Change.
No comments:
Post a Comment