Policing Unauthorized Camping

JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETYVOLUME 30, NUMBER 2, JUNE 2003ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 283–308

Policing Unauthorized Camping

Dave Cowan* and Delia Lomax**

We argue that the links between welfare, policing, and exclusion, thoughrarely made explicit, nevertheless form the undercurrent of the modernneo-liberal state. In making this argument, we draw particularly upon thevoluminous literature which amplifies the seminal work of Foucault,especially as it relates to government. Thereafter, we apply this set ofunderstandings to the way in which the unauthorized encampments ofGypsies and Travellers are policed. We concentrate first on theconstruction of legislation and its legal aftermath. Subsequently, wedraw upon case study evidence to illustrate our thesis, particularlyfocusing on the sorting processes of decision-makers.

At the heart of the welfare state lies a concern with exclusion. This is not justabout delimiting entitlements, but also ‘policing of the borders . . . of thecategories defining those who are to come under the greater control,surveillance and administration by the state’.1 The welfare assessment isboth positive (in determining entitlement to state largesse) as well asnegative (in categorizing those most in need of state control). The

283

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

* Department of Law, Wills Memorial Building, University of Bristol, BristolBS8 1RJ, England** School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, EdinburghEH14 4AS, Scotland

We are grateful to Paddy Hillyard, Morag McDermont, John Morison, Andrew Sanders,and Kevin Stenson who read and commented on this article in draft; many thanks also totheJournal reviewers for their helpful comments. The usual caveats apply. This paper isbased in part upon research undertaken for the Department of Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions, published as D. Lomax, D. Cowan, F. Donson, P. Higate,and H. Third,The Management of Unauthorised Camping: Monitoring the Good PracticeGuidance, Research Paper No 77 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh College of Art/Heriot-WattUniversity, 2001). We would like to thank the Department for their financial andorganizational support for the research. The views expressed in this paper are, however,those of the authors and should not be ascribed to the Department.

1 M. Neocleous,The Fabrication of Social Order(2000) 82.

relationshipbetweenpoliceandpolicing on theonehandandwelfareon theother is crucial to our understandingof welfaredecision-making.We arguethatbothpolicing andwelfarerequireandreinforceconformity to particularnormsaspreconditionsto legalentitlements,andsociallyexcludethosewhofail to conform.

We apply this setof understandingsto themanagementof one‘different’community:that of GypsiesandTravellers.The links betweenpolicing andwelfare in this context have been made crystal clear by a panoply ofhierarchicalregulatorytechniques,local initiatives (which generallypull avarietyof differentagenciesinto thepolicing network),financial incentives,and discretionary decision-makingat the sharp end. Local authoritiesexplicitly havebothapublic orderpolicingandwelfarerole.Both rolesmustbe ‘managed’– to use the interestingword adoptedby the good practiceguidancein regardto the creationof sitesand the control of unauthorizedcamping– throughthedecision-makingprismof ‘toleration’.2 We arguethatthe conditionsplacedon toleranceof suchcamps– togetherwith the socialsurveillanceand monitoring techniquesused by welfare professionalstodeterminecompliance– effectively enforceandsanctionparticularcodesofconductandwaysof life. Thustoleranceaswell aslegalenforcementfulfil apolicing function. What emergesfrom our position is an interesting,disturbing set of continuities and discontinuities between policing andwelfare,inclusionandexclusion.

In this article, we first outline somefoundationalissues.Although thesecondpart of the article concentratesuponthe mechanismsusedto policeTravellers,we setout our centralthesisin the first part. There,we developour argumentaboutthe links betweenwelfare,policing, andexclusion.Wedrawparticularlyuponthevoluminousliteraturewhichamplifiestheseminalwork of Foucault,especiallyas it relatesto government.3 In the secondsection, we develop those ideas in the context of the construction oflegislation, specifically the Criminal Justiceand Public Order Act 1994(hereafter‘the 1994Act’), and its legal aftermath.In the third section,wedevelop case study evidenceto demonstrateour thesis, consideringthesortingprocessesof decision-makers.

284

2 Department of the Environment (DoE), Gypsy Sites Policy and UnauthorisedCampingLAC 18/94(1994).

3 M. Foucault,‘Governmentality’in TheFoucaultEffect: Studiesin Governmentality,eds.G. Burchell, C. Gordon,andP. Miller (1991).

ß Blackwell PublishingLtd 2003

FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES

1. Policing and welfare

The relationshipbetweenpolicing and welfare is relatively clear, albeitsomewhat obscured by the subsequent conjunction of police andsecurity.4 In theirpost-1829role, theuniformedpolicewereresponsiblefor anumberof administrativefunctions related to the general ‘regulation’ ofpopulations, as part of the ‘administrative state’ concerned with the‘ ‘‘social’’ or ‘‘moral’’ regulationof the poor’.5 Dean,for example,drawsattentionto ‘one key, overlapping,rationale’ for the new police ‘that is thesameas that of the reformedpoor law, the fear of the moral descentofpovertyinto pauperism’.6 In this articlewe seekto invert this conjunctionbyrelatingwelfareto policing; ratherthantheestablishedpolice-welfarenexus,our concernlies with the welfare-policenexus.

Researchinto welfare bureaucraciesin recent years has noted the‘information bingeing’ of gatekeepingagents,7 the routinenessof thoseagents’activities,aswell astherelationshipbetweenagents’understandingsof socialorderandtheir decision-making.Hillyard andWatsonhavearguedthat ‘social policy could not exist without [the confession]’,which enablestheconsistentsurveillanceandmonitoringof thewelfarepoor.8 Thesanctionlies not only in thedividing processof entitlementdecision-makingbut alsoin amultiplicity of otherways.Powersrecentlygivento local authoritiesandotheragenciesto deal/copewith fraudulentclaims(aswell asthoseto whomsuchrolesarecontractedout) andin relationto anti-socialbehaviourprovidepotent remindersof this elementof welfare.9 Thus, successfulclaims canleadto more intrusivepolicing thanunsuccessfulclaims.

Commensurate with the liberal and neo-liberal problematization ofgovernment – how to rule without ruling10 – direct control has beensubstituted by a variety of different programmesof governmentbeyondthe state in which individuals have been made active in their self-

285

4 Neocleous,op. cit., n. 1, p. 32.5 L. Johnston,TheRebirth of Private Policing (1992)4–5; see,also,J. Donzelot,The

Policing of Families (1979).6 M. Dean, ‘A genealogyof the governmentof poverty’ (1992) 21 Economyand

Society215,241; alsoM. Dean,TheConstitutionof Poverty, (1991)ch. 10.7 See, for example,S. Halliday, ‘The influence of judicial review on bureaucratic

decision-making’[2000] Public Law 110.8 P. Hillyard and S. Watson,‘Postmodernsocial policy: a contradictionin terms?’

(1996)25 J. of SocialPolicy 321,329;M. Foucault,TheHistory of Sexuality, Vol. 1:An Introduction (1979).

9 SeeDepartmentof Transport,Local Governmentandthe Regions(DTLR), TacklingAnti-SocialBehaviour:A ConsultationPaper (2002).

10 N. Rose,‘Government,authority and expertisein advancedliberalism’ (1993) 22Economyand Society283.


government.11 Shearing and others have illustrated the diversity ofpolicing techniquesdrawing upon notionsof ‘governanceat a distance’,particularly through concepts of community, security, and surveil-lance.12 In this context, it is readily understoodthat policing takesplacebeyondthe state‘in which non-stateagenciesgovernexpansesof formerlysocialspacewith aview to securing‘‘communityinterests’’.’ 13 Thenotionofcommunity interestis implicated in the bottom-upcontrol of unauthorizedcamping. Local complaints basedupon notions of the exclusive use ofprivate propertycommonly impact upon regulationfrom aboveseekingtorespondto thoseconcerns(but, at the sametime, criticizing them).14

Drawing on Foucault’s observationthat neo-liberalismhasbeenmoreinnovative than it hasbeencredited,Roseassertsthat therehasbeena‘more durable transformation in the rationalities and technologiesofgovernment’. This form of government ‘entails theadoptionof a rangeofdevicesthat seekto recreatethe distancebetweenthe decisionsof formalpolitical institutionsandothersocialactors,andto actupontheseactorsinnew ways, through shaping and utilizing their freedom’.15 Advancedliberalism involves a new relationship between strategies for thegovernment of others and techniques for the governmentof the self,developed through the use of ‘community’ .16 Ethical character isimportantin the constructionof community: ‘the subjectis addressedasa moral individual with bonds of obligation and responsibilities forconduct’; the subjectbecomesan ‘active andresponsibleagent’.17 Thus,Stensonobservesan ethical relation betweenpolicing andcitizenship,in‘the attemptto createcitizenswho arereflectiveandlargelyself-policing,behavingin wayswhicharebroadlyacceptable to a rangeof authorities’.18

It is, however,important, particularly when consideringthe critique of

286

11 See, for example,P. Miller and N. Rose, ‘Governing economic life’ (1990) 19EconomyandSociety1; N. Rose,‘The deathof thesocial?Refiguringtheterritory ofgovernment’(1996)25 Economyand Society327.

12 See,for example,C. Shearingand P. Stenning,‘From the Panopticonto DisneyWorld: the Developmentof Discipline’ in Perspectivesin Criminal Law, eds. A.Doob andE. Greenspan(1985).

13 C. Shearing,‘‘ ‘A New Beginning’’ for Policing’ (2000)27 J. of LawandSociety386,392; compareP. Hillyard and M. Tomlinson, ‘Patternsof Policing and PolicingPatten’(2000)27J. of LawandSociety394,at 404:‘. . . thestatehasbeeneclipsedorjettisonedasan analyticalcategory’which hasmeantthat crucial underlyingissues‘at the heartof the state’havebeenmissed;alsoP. Hillyard, ‘Invoking Indignation:Reflectionson FutureDirectionsof Socio-LegalStudies’ (2002) 29 J. of Law andSociety645.

14 This drawsuponthe terminologyin A. Hunt, GoverningMorals: A SocialHistory ofMoral Regulation(1999)4–6.

15 Rose,op. cit., n. 10, at p. 295.16 Rose,op. cit., n. 11, at p. 331.17 id., p. 332.18 K. Stenson,‘Communitypolicing asa governmentaltechnology’(1993)22 Economy

and Society373,at 375.


Hillyard andTomlinson(essentially that we losesight of the stateat ourperil),19 that the shift to community implies anti-communities andmarginalized others. That recognition has ‘been accompaniedby theintensificationof direct,disciplinary,oftencoerciveandcarceral,politicalinterventions in relation to particularzonesand persons.’20 GypsiesandTravellersprovidea pertinentexampleof suchan implication.

2. Exclusion,despotism,and sovereignty

The questionof exclusion,highlighted above is most clearly articulatedtoday through the various governmentprogrammesconcernedwith thequestionof ‘fraud’ on the welfare state.Advertising hoardings,televisionadverts,‘hotlines’, andotherincentivesto inform onfraudulentclaimantsareeverywhere.21 Concentrationon the residualcategoryof fraud hascausedgreater care in the processingof claims.22 The need for formality andchecking means that targets for benefit payment are often missed.23

However, the questionof exclusionhas always been inherent in welfareprogrammes.So, for example,SteveCohenhas stressedthe relationshipbetweenthedevelopmentof welfareby theLiberal governmentin 1906andthe internalcontrol of immigration in the Aliens Act 1905.24

The focusuponexclusionwithin the welfare statehighlights one of thefundamental contradictions of liberalism and neo-liberali sm. Valverdedemonstratesthe‘persistenceof illiberal moralregulationnot only alongsidebut even within liberal ethics’25 in part through an analysis of Mill’scommentin On Liberty that ‘despotismis a legitimatemodeof governmentin dealingwith barbarians,providedthe endbe their development’.26 Thus,Valverdeargues:

287

19 Hillyard and Tomlinson, op. cit., n. 13; see,also, P. O’Malley, L. Weir, and C.Shearing,‘Governmentality,criticism, politics’ (1997)26 EconomyandSociety501.

20 Rose,op. cit., n. 11, p. 345.21 See, also, the various reports by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate at <http://

www.bfi.gov.uk> – as R. Geary and P. Leith suggest,theseshow problemswith‘IT andimplementationandsecurityat the lower levelsof therunningof thewelfaresystem’:‘From operationalstrategiesto servingthe customer:technologyandethicsin welfarelaw’ (2001)15 InternationalRev.of Law,ComputersandTechnology213.

22 GearyandLeith, id., arguethat this hasalsobeena productof thecomputerizationofwelfare benefit s systems in the United Kingdom, leading to increased rule-specification

23 SeeN. Pettigrew,A. Thomas,S. Candy,L. Joyce,and T. Saunders,The VerificationFramework:Early Experiencesof Implementation, DSSResearchReportNo 137(2001).

24 S. Cohen,‘Anti-semitism, immigration controls and the welfare state’ in CriticalSocialPolicy, ed. D Taylor (1996).

25 M. Valverde,‘‘ ‘Despotism’’ andethical liberal governance’(1996)25 EconomyandSociety357,359.

26 J.S.Mill, On Liberty (1859)16.


Thejustificationof ‘gooddespots’by referenceto adefectof thewill, a failureof desire,is thekey to ‘workfare’ programmesaimedat the remoralizationofthe long-termunemployedandotherswhose‘habitsandwhosevery soulsareperceivedas requiring somecombinationof liberal-therapeutic,disciplinaryand morally coercive techniquesto bring them up to the level of liberalsubjects.27

This form of despotic liberalism or, as Dean refers to it, ‘authoritariangovernmentality’,28 seemscrucial to our understandingof the dividingpracticesof governmentsin the administrationof welfare, and thus at theheartof the policing role of welfare.

Yet it is also,fundamentally,a problemof sovereignty.Post-Foucauldiangovernmentalitystudies have tended to focus on action at a distance,marginalizingsovereignty.Foucault,on the other hand,did not draw suchexplicit distinctions. Rather, ‘in reality, one has a triangle, sovereignty-discipline-government, which hasasits primary targetthepopulationandasits essentialmechanismthe apparatusesof security.’29 Whilst it hasbeenpointedout that Foucault’spositionwasat bestinconsistenton this point,30

Stensonhas developeda ‘synchronic-contemporaneous’ approachwhichlinks both sovereignty and technologies of governance as ‘mutuallyconstitutiveandreinforcing logics of government’.31 In particular,Stensonarguesthat there ‘should be an emphasison the establishmentand main-tenanceof sovereigncontrol over territory asa coreprinciple of sovereignrule’.32 This perspectiveis significant for our argument,aswe developthepoint in the next sectionthat law hasbeena key tool in the developmentofGypsy and Traveller ethical self-governancebut also attemptsto exercisecontrol over the spaceof unlawful encampments,a legitimate sovereignaction.Indeed,asHuntandWickhamacknowledgein developingaspaceforlaw in governance,‘legal mechanismsare increasingly directed towardsetting up the proceduralmechanismsof a wide variety of systemsofsurveillance’.33 Our argument,then, goes to the root of the interactionbetweensovereignty,discipline, and government.At the sametime, this

288

27 id., p. 361; compareM. Dean,‘Liberal governmentandauthoritarianism’(2002)31Economyand Society37, at 39-40.Deanarguesthat authoritarianmeasuresare ‘aconsequenceof the understandingof governmentas a limited spherethat mustoperatethroughthe forms of regulationthat exist outsideitself . . . ’.

28 M. Dean,Governmentality:Powerand Rule in ModernSociety(1999)ch. 7.29 Foucault,op. cit., n. 3, p. 102.30 A. Hunt and G. Wickham, Foucault and Law: Towards a Sociologyof Law as

Governance(1994)51.31 K. Stenson,‘Beyond historiesof the present’(1998)27 Economyand Society333,

342; K. Stenson,‘Crime control, governmentalityand sovereignty’ in GovernablePlaces:Readingson Governmentalityand Crime Control, ed.R. Smandych(1999);compareD. Garland,‘The limits of thesovereignstate:Strategiesof crimecontrol incontemporarysociety’ (1996)36 British J. of Criminology445.

32 Stenson,id. (1999),p. 50.33 id., p. 57.


interaction exhibits differencesin different areas: ‘Every area of moralregulationexhibitsa distinctivecombinationof techniquesof governance’.34

This interactionhasa definingimpactuponthe‘circuits of exclusion’andmay lead to the intensiveexerciseof sovereigntyover certainpersons.So,for example,Roselinks welfare dependenceto ‘a problematizationat thelevel of individual subjectivity – the threatto individual well-being and tocollective security posed by the dependentunemployedyouth, welfarereceipient,lonemother,disabledperson.’35 A distinctionis drawnin welfareprogrammesbetweenthosewho arewilling to adhereto the corevaluesofthe moral communityand:

Thosewho refuseto becomeresponsible,to governthemselvesethically,havealsorefusedtheoffer to becomemembersof ourmoralcommunity.Hence,forthem,harshmeasuresare entirely appropriate.Threestrikesand you’re out:citizenshipbecomesconditionaluponconduct.36

Levitasdemonstratesthat exclusionis a nebulousconcept.37 Indeed,it is akey idea in the thesisof this article (asdevelopedbelow) that inclusion,asoccurs when welfare claims are accepted, often leads to increasedmanagerialpolicing associatedwith the marginalized.

In summary,then,our thesisis that the welfare relationshipis balancedaroundthe questionof exclusion.The welfare relationshipbetweencitizenandstateis premiseduponthepolicing role undertakenby welfareagencieson theassumptionthatthecitizenis a powerfulandactiveagentin their ownself-regulation.Thecitizenexerciseschoicewithin certainconstraints.Whencitizensareunableor unwilling to be active, for whateverreason,the stateengagesin, andcan justify, more intrusivesurveillancetechniques.This isparticularly true of those whose welfare claims are accepted.We havestressedthe importanceof sovereigntyto our understandings,not as acontrastto alternativepracticesbut operatinginterdependentlywith othergoverningpractices.

POLICING TRAVELLERS I: ‘ETHNIC CLEANSING’ AND THE 1994ACT

In this section,we providea shortanalysisof the reformsto thesetof rulesconstructedduring the 1960s. We show how the problematizationsofGypsiesand Travellersshifted from the 1960sconcernswith appropriatestopping places for them to concernsin the 1990s around GypsiesandTravellersthemselves.Therewasa fairly dramaticshift at thelevel of policyand law from a problematizationof spaceto a problematizationof this

289

34 Hunt, op. cit., n. 14, p. 199.35 N. Rose,Powersof Freedom:ReframingPolitical Thought(1999)269.36 id., p. 267.37 R. Levitas,TheInclusiveSociety:SocialExclusionand NewLabour (1998).


population;andthis shift wasa productof a combinationof diversepolitico-legalforcesactinguponeachotherwithoutnecessarilyconsciouslydoingso.This shift took placeat a time when, for Garland,the sovereignstatewasadoptingan increasinglyhystericalapproachto crime control.38 O’Malleyhassoughtto showhow theconjunctionof neo-conservativeandneo-liberalrationalitieshasbroughtcontradictoryresponses:

At onepole, the policy oscillationthat favoursthe statetaking commandandclampingdownon crimecanbeidentifiedwith neo-conservatism.Conversely,the policy moment that swings toward devolving responsibility to thecommunity, or even moving out of intervention altogether,is largely anoutgrowthof neo-liberalrationalities.39

Both of thesepolescan be seenoperatingat the levels discussedhere.However, we should also point out that law and its developmentareunfamiliar terrain for governmentalitystudies.40 Our questions,however,relateto the emergenceof certainnormswhich soughtto impact upon theactivechoicesof GypsyandTravellercommunities,whilst excludingthosewho sought the ‘wrong’ choices. It is about the way in which the‘governmentof thenewpoverty’ soughtto takecontrolof space,‘attemptingto establishanddemarcatea territorial divisionbetweentheexcludedandtheincluded,betweenthe spacesof consumptionand civility and the savagespaceson the margins’.41 Yet, whenstatelaws changedandstarteddustingover,a newproblematizationoccurredwhich dependeduponmanagerialismandexplicitly involvedsettledcommunitiesin thatdecision-makingprocess.Managerialismin itself is a decentringoperation,relying upon differentnorms(suchaslocal risk, audit,trust)andprocessesthanthosewhich appearin policy debates.

What is interestingfor us is that thesechangestook placenot, as somegovernmentalitystudiesmight haveit, asa resultof statisticalcalculations,butof moralcalculationsaboutthedangersposedby GypsiesandTravellers.Although there is little empirical evidence associating Gypsies andTravellerswith criminal activity, there is little doubt that they have beenconstructedasa groupfor whomtheuseof public orderpolicing methodsisparticularlyapt.42

290

38 Garland,op. cit., n. 31.39 P O’Malley, ‘Volatile and contradictory punishment’ (1999) 3 Theoretical

Criminology175, 190.40 See,especially,A. Hunt, ‘Foucault’sexpulsionof law: towardsa retrieval’ (1992)17

Law and Social Inquiry 1; F. Ewald, ‘Norms, discipline and the law’ 30Representations138.

41 N. RoseandM. Valverde,‘Governedby law?’ (1998)7 SocialandLegalStudies541,549.

42 SeeR. Hester,‘Policing NewAgeTravellers:conflict andcontrolin thecountryside?’in Crime and Conflict in the Countryside, eds.R. Dingwall andS. Moody (1999).


1. Thedevelopmentof policy

Sinceat leastthe CaravanSitesandControl of DevelopmentAct 1960,asamendedby theCaravanSitesAct 1968,thestateassumeda welfarerole ofsortstowardsa sub-groupof Travellers– Gypsies– througha requirementtoprovidepermanentsitesandservicesto suchsites.Therewere,however,keyproblems with enforcementmechanismsso that the majority of localauthoritiesdid not provide any or sufficient sitesto meet the needsof theTraveller communities.Behind the fine statutory words was an unevenresponsereflecting popular conceptionsof this ‘suspectcommunity’ andconcernsover thesecurityof privateproperty.Equally, legal rulingscreatedfine distinctionsaboutwho wasentitled to be referredto as‘Gypsy’.43

In their 1992 manifesto,the Conservativeparty madeit clear that theybelieved that controls were required to deal with the nuisanceof illegalcamping.Although this is not the placefor contentanalysis,the subsequentconsultationpapergives indicationsof the way in which Travellerswereperceivedby thethengovernment.Throughout,it refersto anddiscussesthe‘problem(s)’ of Travellers:in termsof growingnumbers;typesof Traveller(particularlyNewAgeTravellersandothers‘who travelwidely earningtheirliving by laying tarmacadam’);44 particularproblemencampments– that is,all unlawful encampments;the effectivenessof the powers to deal with‘illegal and unlawful camping’; the lack of justification for Gypsies tooccupy a ‘privileged position’ in the planning system.45 Linking theproposalsto broaderprocessesof rolling back the frontiers of the welfarestateprovidesan importantcounterpointto moreknee-jerkanalyses.46

This level of problematizationpresupposeda particularset of solutionswhich were duly served up by the consultationpaper. It proposedtheremovalof the dutieson local authoritiesto provide sitesas well as newpowers to provide ‘a straightforward and speedy remedy’ through thecreationof criminal offencesandexpeditedpowersto moveTravellerson,togetherwith expropriationof caravansto ensuretheir effectiveness.47 Whatis interestingfor our purposesis that these‘remedies’were to be matchedwith the provisionof settledaccommodationfor Travellers.For thosewho‘may find transferinto traditional housingdifficult’, a transitionalprocesswas suggestedtogether with the government’sbelief that ‘it may benecessaryto provide advice on education, health and housing whichencouragesgypsiesandotherTravellersto settleand,in time, to transferinto

291

43 R. Sandland,‘The Real,the Simulacrum,andthe Constructionof ‘‘Gypsy’’ in Law’(1996)23 J. of Law and Society383.

44 DoE, Reformof the CaravanSitesAct (1992)para.12.45 id., paras.12–19.46 L. Lloyd, ‘ProposedReformof the 1968CaravanSitesAct: producinga problemto

suit a solution?’ (1993)38 Critical SocialPolicy 77, 82.47 id., para20.


traditionalhousing.’48 Thustheconsultationpaper’srequirementof culturalreadjustmentby Travellersto thevaluesof thesettledpopulationsuggestedaseriesof value judgmentsaboutTraveller lifestyles.

On one level, then, the consultation paper sought to ‘remoralize’Travellers through settlementand training, combinedwith (the threat of)authoritarianpolicing.49 It was no surprisethat someacademicsdescribedtheproposalsasanattemptat ‘ethnic cleansing’.50 Yet theway in which theproposalswereframedwaswithin therealmsof choice– equallyprovidinganeatexampleof theoperationof Rose’scircuitsof exclusion.TheyrequiredTravellersto exercisetheir choicenot through‘a privileged positionunderthe law or an entitlementto a greaterdegreeof supportfrom the taxpayerthanis madeavailableto thosewho choosea moresettledexistence.’51 Partof the remoralizationof Travellers was the requirementupon them toexercise ethical self-governance through the provision of their ownaccommodation(‘seekingplanningpermissionwherenecessarylike anyoneelse’).52 Those who did not do so, for whatever reason,were thereforeconstructedby the consultationpaperas legitimate targetsof authoritarianpolicing on the basisof the sovereigncontrol over territory andrespectforprivatepropertysecurity.

3. Theconstructionof the 1994Act: legislation,quasi-legislation, policy

The formulation in the 1994 Act was, however, subtly different. Extrapowersweregiven to local authoritiesandthepolice,andtheCaravanSitesAct 1968 duties were repealed.However, in retrospect,the consultationpaperrepresenteda high-watermarkof appealsto sovereigncontrol.Indeed,from this point on, rather than concentratingon ‘the nuisanceof illegalencampments’,the problematizationshifted towards the managementofunauthorizedcamping.This linguistic turn was,it is argued,significantasitimplied a rather lessdraconianapproachthan had originally beenmooted.Indeed,it could plausiblybe arguedthat expertisesuperimposeditself uponthe hystericalsovereignreaction.

The extra powersgiven to local authoritieswere in two sectionsof the1994 Act. Section77 of the 1994 Act enableda local authority to give a

292

48 id., para.27.49 Hunt, op. cit., n. 14, pp. 194–6drawsupontheconceptof ‘ideological retraditionalism’

to understandtherevitalizationof moralpolitics.His workingof thisconceptis dual:theinvocationof newjustificationsfor reinstating‘traditional formsof socialrelations’(andasa responseto ‘new anddisturbingsocialchanges’),andthe advancementof ‘a newconfigurationof social values’.The discursiveframeworkadoptedby the consultationpaperprovidesa further exampleof that concept.

50 D. Hawesand B. Perez,The Gypsyand the State:The Ethnic Cleasingof BritishSociety(1996).

51 DoE, op. cit., n. 44, para.23.52 id.


direction to person(s)and any otherswith them to leave land and removevehicle(s)andany otherpropertywith them.The land hadto be within thelocal authority’s area and either form part of a highway, any otherunoccupiedland,or anyoccupiedlandwithout theoccupier’sconsent.53 Anoffenceis committedwherethe occupantfails to leavethe land or removeanypropertyfrom the land,or re-entersthe land within threemonthsof thedirection.54 After making a section77 direction, the local authority mayapplyto a Magistrates’courtfor anorderrequiringtheremovalof personsorpropertyfrom the land.55

The powersgiven to the police were containedin two other sections.Section61(1)of the1994Act gavea seniorpoliceofficer thepowerto directanypersonto leavelandandto removeanyvehiclesor otherproperty from theland. This power is exercisablewherethat officer ‘reasonablybelievesthattwo or more personsare trespassing on land’ with the intention of residingthere,that ‘reasonablesteps’havebeentakenby or on behalfof theoccupierto askthemto leaveand,eithertherearesix or morevehicleson the landorthosepersonshavecauseddamageor insultedother personson the land.

Shortlyafterpublicationof theAct, the thenDepartmentof Environmentissued guidance to local authorities on the use of their powers. Afteroutlining the new powersavailableto local authorities,the guidancethenoutlined a ‘policy of toleration’ towardsunauthorizedencampments.Thus,the rhetoricaldevicesdeployedin theconsultationprocessleadingup to the1994 Act had shifted by this point. Although not framed in managerialterminology,this policy of tolerationnecessitateda managerialapproach.56

This guidancethusrepresenteda turningpoint in thegovernment’sapproach– it recognizedthat moving Travellers on ‘might result in unauthorizedcampingon a site elsewherein the areawhich could give rise to greaternuisance’.57 A balancewasrequired(at this stagethe balancewasbetweensites) in the decisionby local authoritiesaboutwhetheror not to exercisetheir policing powers.Indeed,the balance,it seemed,was to be weightedmostoften in favour of the original stoppingsite:

The Secretariesof Stateconsiderthat local authoritiesshouldnot use theirpowersto evict gypsiesneedlessly.They shouldusethe powersin a humaneand compassionatefashionand primarily to reducenuisanceand to afford ahigher level of protectionto privateownersof land.58

293

53 Criminal JusticeandPublic OrderAct 1994s. 77(1).54 id., s. 77(3).55 id., s. 78(1). R v. WolverhamptonMetropolitan Borough Area ex parte Dunne &

Rafferty (1997)29 H.L.R. 745,754–5.56 As K. Jacobs and T. Manzi point out in another context, managerialismis

‘consensual,unitarist and oppositional to organizationalconflict’: ‘Performanceindicatorsand social constructivism:conflict and control in housingmanagement’(2000)62 Critical SocialPolicy 85, 92.

57 DoE, op. cit., n. 2, para.6.58 id., para.9.


The managerial ethos was also apparent in subsequent substantiveparagraphsof the circular. Thesestressedthe welfare obligationsof localauthorities59 exercisedthroughtheir housingand social servicesorganiza-tions: ‘The Secretariesof Stateexpectauthoritiesto takecarefulaccountoftheseobligationswhentakingdecisionsabout. . . theevictionof personsfromunauthorizedsites.’60 It wastheseparagraphs,ratherthanthoserelatingto the‘policy of toleration’, which subsequentlybecamethe focus of judicialattention.In R v. LincolnshireCountyAreaexparteAtkinson,61 counselforthe local authoritiesconcededthat their obligationsunderother legislationwerematerialconsiderationswhendecidingwhetherto exercisetheir powersunderthe1994Act. SedleyJ.arguedthatsuchaconcessionwasrightly made‘becausethoseconsiderations. . . are considerationsof commonhumanity,noneof which canproperlybe ignoredwhendealingwith oneof the mostfundamentalhumanneeds,theneedfor shelterwith a modicumof security.’

Additional factors to be consideredby the local authority included the‘sentimentsof others living in the community’ as well as the ‘objectiveappraisalof the situation’ by the local authority.Thus,not only were localauthoritiesrequiredto makeenquiriesbeforeconsideringwhetherto exercisetheir powers,the caseintroduceda further balancenot recognizedto anyextentin the circular – the views of the local settledcommunity.From thispoint on, themanagementresponsibilitiesof local authoritieshavegenerallybeenrelatedto this conflict betweensettledcommunitiesandTravellers.Theoriginal goodpracticeguidanceexplicitly refersto ‘managingunauthorizedencampments’in its title, aswell asmakingit clearthat, in decidinguponapolicy of tolerationon anyparticularsite,‘a balancemustbestruckbetweentheneedsof theGypsiesandTravellers(for somewhereto stay)andthoseofthesettledcommunity’.62 Our point is not thatsucha conflict exists,but thatit hasgrown up in policy guidanceandcaselaw, ratherthanin the originalcircular. In this process,the original rationalefor the policy of toleration–that thecurrentsitemaybe‘better’ thananyotherpotentialstoppingplace–hasoften beenthe neglectedconsideration.

In summary, the 1994 Act powers clearly require the policing ofTravellers.This is notonly throughtheevictionpower.Indeed,thecircular’spolicy of tolerationenhancedthis policing role asany particular‘tolerated’unauthorizedencampmentmustnow be closely watchedto ensurethat the

294

59 Under the then HousingAct 1985,Part III (now HousingAct 1996,Part VII) andChildren Act 1989, Part III. Generally,thesereflect the consultationpaper’sethosaboutgovernment’sdesirefor settlement.

60 DoE, op. cit., n. 2, para.10.61 Unreported,QueensBench,31 August1995.62 Dept. of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), Managing

UnauthorisedCamping: A Good Practice Guide (1998) para. 5.2; see, also, P.Niner,H. Davis,andB. Walker,Local AuthorityPowersfor ManagingUnauthorisedCamping(1998),which, for example,refersto ‘conflicts [which] canarisewith thesettledpopulationover propertyrights andlifestyle clashes’(para1.2).


Travellersdo not somehowcooperatewith the local authority.Revisionstothecircular in 2000madeit clearthat ‘severenuisanceanddisruptionto theneighbourhood’or ‘anti-socialor criminal behaviour’shouldeithernot leadto, or end, any toleration of that particular encampment.63 As the revisedcircularmakesclear‘BUT encampmentsshouldbekeptunderreview’.64 Atthe sametime, the local authority must also engagein an enquiry processdesignedfor the settled community which, in itself, is designedwithsurveillancein mind and to root out fraud. It is this which makes theapplication processan intensive exercise in surveillance,key questionsincluding,for example,somewhatinappropriately,theapplicant’slastsettledaddressover a periodrangingbetweenthreeandfive yearsdependinguponlocal practice.

Of course,if local authoritieswish to short-circuitthis role, theyareableto drawuponavastarrayof otherpowerswhichdonot lackpotency.Thus,ifthe encampmentis on local authorityownedor licensedland, that authoritycan simply draw upon its right to possessionor other powers.Indeed,theright to possessionprovides a more potent power than the 1994 Act.65

Importantly,theuseof suchpowerswasregardedby thosewho took part inour studyassucha mundane,everydaypractice,that in onestudyareatheofficershadtypedthetechnicalprocedureonapieceof A4 paperandstuckiton the sideof a filing cabinet.

POLICING TRAVELLERS II: CASE STUDY EVIDENCE

1. Methods

Thestudywasconductedin two stages.Thefirst stageinvolveda telephonequestionnairewith an appropriateofficer in local authoritiesand policeforces in England.The rest of this article, however,concentrateson thequalitative data gainedduring the secondstageof the project. That stagecomprisedcasestudiesin twelve local authorityareas.Casestudiesofferedanopportunityto explorekey issuesin greaterdepththanwaspossiblein thetelephonesurvey.Someof thecontentof the topic guidesthereforecoveredthesamegroundasthe telephonesurveybut gatheredmoredetail.Threeofthecasestudiesinvolveda district arealinked with thecountyareain whichtheywerelocated(areasC, K andL). The purposeherewasto examinetherelationship betweenpolicy approachesand the impact on inter-agency

295

63 DETR, id. paras.5.1, 5.2.64 id., para.5.13,original emphasis.65 The1994Act powersoperatein personam; theright to possessionis a right in rem: R

v. WandsworthCountyCourt exparteWandsworthLondonBoroughCouncil [1975]1 W.L.R. 1314.


working. The remaininglocal authoritieswere:a countyarea(areaE), fiveunitary authorities(areasA, B, D, H and J), two metropolitancity areas(areasG and I) and a London borough(areaF). Eight of the casestudieswerein urbanareas,whilst thefour district/countyareasincludedrural areasandtowns.

In eachcasestudyarea,it wasanticipatedthatbetweenfour andsix, semi-structuredinterviews would be carried out. Respondentsincluded in eacharea: the Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer (hereafter‘GTO’) and arepresentativeof thepolice force.Additionally, representativesfrom a rangeof differentdepartmentsandorganizationswerealsointerviewed,dependentupontheir activity in relationto unauthorizedcamping.Thesecouldinclude:the housing department; planning department; environmental healthdepartment;legal servicesdepartment;health service; educationservice/Traveller EducationService; local electedmember;Gypsy and Travellerrepresentativegroup; voluntary organization working with Gypsies andTravellers.

The topic guide identif ied three key areas for discussion withinterviewees. First, interviewees were prompted to discuss the localincidenceof unauthorizedencampment(s),reasonsfor them,andthe issuesthat arise as a result of them. Second,the topic guide was designedtogeneratediscussionabouttheinterviewee’sgeneralapproachto dealingwithunauthorizedencampments,including the developmentof any strategyormulti-agencyworking groups.Third, the intervieweewas askedto discusstheir approachto the questionof ‘toleration’ and/oreviction.

Broadly, our findings from this stage of the research were thatunauthorizedencampmentsoccurred most often becauseof the lack ofauthorizedsites, particularly for New Travellers. Equally, unauthorizedencampmentshadbecomemoreprominentin someof our casestudyareasbecausepreviouslyusedsitesandotherareashadbeenredeveloped,bundedor moundedoff so that vehiclescould no longeraccessthe sites.In areaK,therewaspressurefrom privatelandownersto block off openlandor createno-throughroadsto preventunauthorizedcamping,aswell aslocal authorityconcernsto reducefly-tipping:

Wherewe havehada realproblemwe haveactuallydonethat.We haveput abarrieracrosstheroad. . . Be it a stoppingup orderor if theroad’snotadoptedwe block it off with big concreteblocks or bouldersor somethingof thatnature.Purely and simply to stop fly-tipping activity. It’s only partly to dowith them[Travellers].It’s notonly to dowith thembecauseobviouslythereisthe increasinglandfill tax.

Traditionalstoppingplaces,thus,wereoften no longeravailable.In areaL,for example,anencampmentoccurredonaroundabout,butotherstudyareasreferredto encampmentsin petrol stations,supermarketcarparks,andothercommercialspaces.

296


2. Therole of the `traditional police’

Althoughtherewasconsiderableevidencefrom our studyareasof thepoliceusing their 1994 Act powers,this was by no meansuniform acrossand,indeed,within thoseareas.Furthermore,thepolicewereoftenmorewary ofusing their powersthan local authoritiesandotheragencies.In areaG andothers,thesepowerswere seenas only to be used‘as a last resort’. Thepolice would generallybecomeinvolved if therewerecrime issues:

If it is anencampmentin a partof my division at leastwhereit is not actuallyimpactingonanybody,yesOK thelandownerhasobviouslygotanissueaboutit, but providedit is not causingany problemsassuchthenwhy would I dothat becausefor me the landownerwould always have a responsibility fordealingwith it . . . (areaE)

Partly, this emphasison ‘last resort’ was a result of concernsabouttheubiquitous ‘human rights’ issues, partly also, in the post-Macphersonenvironment,therewereconcernsaboutdiscrimination.In areaL, thepolicehadrecentlydeviseda form to becompletedby theofficer at thesceneof theincident.The front pageof the form containeddetailsof the encampment;the secondpagecontained(a) 21 different considerationsbeforeuseof the1994Act shouldbeconsidered,(b) a summaryof themainprovisionsof theHumanRightsAct, (c) astatementof the1994Act powers,and(d) telephonenumbersof relevantagencies.

However,the mostsignificantconcernexpressedby the police relatedtothecostsof usingtheir powers.Theresponsibilityfor dealingwith the‘civil’issueof trespasswas thereforedisplacedonto the landowner,the policedisclaimingresponsibility(unlessit was a high-profile issue).In areaF, aLondon borough, cost-savingwas a rationale for the police using theirpowers. Their practice was predicated on the assumptionthat a ‘notoleration’ policy would be effective in reducing the numbers ofunauthorizedencampmentsand,thus,savepolice time andcosts:

word will get out that if Travellerscometo [Area F] andchooseto form anunauthorizedencampment,policeandtheAreawill actquickly to movethemoff, particularlyif theyengagein anti socialor criminal behaviour.FromwhatI understandof Travellernetworksthatmessagewill getaroundprettyquickly.

Geographicalvariationsin approachcan be explainedby a numberofdifferent variables. Although, for example, the notion of ‘communitypolicing’ is animportantdiscursivetechniquein seekingto createa reflexiveand active citizenry, nevertheless,there is a diffuse interaction betweencommunityandpolicing techniques.Generally,communitypolicing in thiscontextrequiresindividualswithin thecommunityto beactivein thedefenceof their own territory, without police involvement.Thus,it is the ‘membersof the public being constitutedas competentand skilled agents’.66 Indeed,

297

66 P. O’Malley and D. Palmer, ‘Post-Keynesianpolicing’ (1996) 25 EconomyandSociety135,146.


other interactions,particularly other expert knowledges(such as humanrights), may override the needs of the community. This reflects whatO’Malley andPalmerrefer to asthe ‘dual loyalty’ of thenewpolicing, firstto thecustomersandsecondto the ‘truths of thefield’, therule of law in thecaseof the police.67 Equally, and unsurprisingly,it demonstratesthat thepunitiverhetoricof thestateis implementedat thesharpendgenerallywhenit is in the interestsof the police.

3. Thelocal authority perspective

The remainderof this article concentrateson the roles adoptedby localauthorities in this study. As noted earlier, they have both public orderpolicing powers– throughthe1994Act – aswell aswelfareobligations.Thebalancebetweenthe useof thesepowersadoptedby our study areasis ofprimary concern.However,equally, one should be careful not to draw abinary divide betweenthem– not only did the responsibilityfor both oftenrestwith thesamepersonwithin theorganization(theGTO)butalsopoliciesof ‘toleration’ might also have been drawn up not to balancepolicing-welfarepowers,but aspart of a policy of responsibilizationthroughformalor informal codesof conduct.The focus in this section,then, is upon thismiddleground,summarizedby thepoliciesof tolerationwhich themajorityof our studyareashadin place.Our questionis ‘what determineswhetherasite will be toleratedor not?’ Our answeris multi-level dependinguponthedividing practiceswhich local authoritiesoperated.AreasA andJ talkedof a‘negotiatedtolerance’which setout certaininformal ‘rights’ of Travellerstoremainin an unauthorizedlocationprovidedthat they conformedto certainnorms.Thesamesortsof policieswereevidentin a numberof diversestudyareas.

(a) Summaryof approachesFor the purposesof characterizationof approaches,local authoritieswerecategorizedon two distinct bases.The first layer of analysisrelatestowhether they adopteda proactive or reactive approachto Travellers.Aproactive approach included a specifi c named GTO, comprehensiveinformation about Traveller groups in their area,written strategy,closeinter-agencyliaison on a regularbasis,andcomprehensivewelfareassess-ments.Reactiveapproachesweretheopposite.Thesecondlayerof analysisrelatedto whethertheyadoptedanenforcementor a supportiveapproachtoTravellers.

The characteristicsof the enforcementapproachincludedthe perceptionof Travellers as a social problem, a burden to the local authority (forexample, in terms of costs and pressuresfrom complainants)with anemphasison law enforcementand the preventionof crime or disruptionto

298

67 id., p. 147.


thesettledcommunity.A supportiveapproachincludedthe identificationofGypsiesandTravellersaspartof thelocal community,with needsandrightsto accesspublic servicesand the developmentof initiatives relating tocommunityrelationsandawareness.

Following this framework,local authoritiescouldbeproactiveor reactivewith either an enforcementor supportiveapproach.Inevitably, theremightbe a continuum or dissonanceof responsebetweendifferent sectionsordepartmentswithin the local authority.Although in someareastheremightbeaconsensuson thepolicy approachadoptedbetweenthepartneragencies,this was not always the case.Within a local authority there might beconflicting approachesand tensions:betweendepartmentswith differentfunctions, between officers and councillors. The coherenceof a localauthority approachmight also be impactedupon by the actionsof otheragencies,the settledcommunityin their areaor responsesin neighbouringareas.A proactiveauthoritywould nonethelesshavea policy andproceduresin place, and criteria which would be used in determiningdecisionsinindividual cases.

As an example, area C, whilst adopting a proactive and supportiveapproachgenerally,did not provideservicesto unauthorizedencampmentsand there was a reluctanceto initiate a public review of the policy onunauthorizedcamping,even in the context of the implementationof theHuman Rights Act. This apparentcontradictionarosefrom officer (andcouncillor) concernsthat the responseof the settledcommunity on beingconsultedonapolicy reviewwouldbeto putpressureoncouncillorsto movetowardsa moreenforcement-basedapproach.

Table 1 below mapsthe position of our study areasacrossthesetwoanalyticalboundaries:

299

Table 1: Local Authority Responsesto Unauthorized Encampment

Enforcementapproach $ Supportiveapproach

Proactiveresponse areaA

areaJ areaC

areaF areaH

areaD areaE areaL

areaB

Reactiveresponse areaI areaG

areaK


Davina Cooper draws a distinction between three frameworks ofgovernance– at a distance,direct, and mid-way – all of which are inevidencein our studyareasat differenttimesandin differentspaces.68 Theirpractice is not easy to disentangle.Direct governanceusually involvesmovingunauthorizedencampmentsonwhereasgovernanceat a distanceandmid-way techniquesareusuallyinformedby someform of negotiation.Thedistinctionbetweentheseframeworks,however,is thatmid-waygovernance:

occursin a way thatis morepersonalor visible – thegovernedsubjectseestherules being establishedas ploys or tactics rather than internalisingthem asconduct.Mid-way governingis alsomorereactiveto theactionsandagendaofthegovernedsubjector institution. It tendsto operatein situationsof overtorlatentconflict.69

The concept of ‘toleration’ provides the fulcrum around which theseframeworks operate in this context. Our case studies demonstratethatgeographicaland political diversity influence the local understandingoftoleration.Equally, it is certainlytrueaswe discussbelowthatsomegroupsand spacesare constructedin time as riskier and, thus,more proneto theexerciseof enforcementapproaches.

(b) ‘Toleration’Al though enforcement represents the most extreme demonstration ofsovereignforce – often with multi-agencypresenceand a show of forcefrom thepolice– supportiveapproachesareasmuch,if not more,abouttheexercise of power channelled in particular directions. Toleration andenforcementarealternativesidesof thesamecoin,not two differentcoins.70

Indeed,in termsof controlling unauthorizedencampments,both havetheirmerits.

The version of ‘success’ promoted by those areas which adoptedenforcementapproacheswas the decline in numbers of unauthorizedencampmentsin their area,and thus also costs,which they put down totheir ‘strong’ approach.That is not to saythat theseareascharacterizedtheirapproachas intolerant.So, for example,the GLO in areaD, which had aproactiveenforcementpolicy, summarizedthe policy asfollows:

Theonly tolerationis literally the time it takesusto carryout theassessment,servepaperson them,go to court,getthepossessionorder,getthewarrantandtheevict them.Thatis obviouslynotdonein amatterof days.It will vary fromanything from 7–12 days. Any other extensionwould only be due to mepulling the plug on the issue [ie enforcementproceedings]due to specialneeds,healthreasons.

Theapproachin areaI (a New LabourcontrolledMetropolitanauthority)wasdescribedas ‘just get rid of them’, the local authoritybeing ‘happy as

300

68 D. Cooper,Governingout of Order (1998)12–14.69 id., p. 13.70 SeeO’Malley, op. cit., n. 39.


long asthewheelsareturning’. Suchanapproachwasregardedaseffective‘in . . . that we’ve reducedcostsby probably50 or 60 per centover the lastfive years. . . althoughthecostsarestill too high’. Yet theGLO alsomadeitclear that the policy soughtto dealwith Travellershumanely:

Thepolicy is to removethemasquickly andascheaplyaspossible. . . withoutcausinganyhardship,mainly to theCity Councilbut . . . alsoto theTravellers,to treat them with all humanityand to offer them all facilities and listen towhat they’ve got to say.(GLO)

It should be noted that those areaswhich offered a more supportiveapproachdid not do so in all cases.Herea morecomplexseriesof dividingpracticeswereapparent.In AreaE, thefieldworkerwasshowntwo differenttypesof encampmentby the local authority’s enforcementofficer (GEO).The first was an unauthorizedencampmentof Irish Travellerscontainingabout50 caravanson commonland,which wasservedwith a CountyCourtpossessionorder.As a contrast,the secondsite wasonecaravanwhich hadstoppedon thevergeof a countrylaneoppositesomefields, containingone(nuclear)family with two children.As far as the GEO wasconcerned,theproblem with the first site was that they had started to dump waste –especially tarmac and related waste – on the common.71 The costs ofclearingthesitewereclearlya relevantconsiderationin thedecisionto seekpossession,aswasthehigh-profilenatureof theencampment.As regardstheone-family site, the GEO regardedthem as ‘a normal family that weren’tcreatingany nuisance,weren’t dumpingrubbishor anythinglike that’. TheGEO clearly respectedthe fact that the father was working nights, sevendaysa week.Thus,hewasletting themlive thereaslong ashecoulddespitepressure,particularlyfrom councillors,to movethemalong.Whenhehadtomovethemon,hesaidthathewould probablyshowthemanothersitewherethey could put their caravan.The undercurrentwithin this contrastwas adivide betweenthe unobtrusive‘normal family’, in which the male parentwas exercisingresponsibility for income generationthrough employmentandthe femaleparentwastaking careof the children,setagainstthe massencampmenton commonlandwheretheenvironmentalrepercussionsof thework beingconductedmeantprohibitive coststo the local authority.72

The distinction drawn by this officer between these two differentencampmentsalso provides an insight into anotheraspectof toleration.Thosewho exerciseself-responsibilityarethosemorelikely to be tolerated.In areaE, a formal ‘code’ governedthe tolerationof unauthorizedencamp-ments. The code made it clear that certain groups would be toleratedprovidedthat they compliedwith certainconditionsaboutthe maintenance

301

71 Therewasno skip on the land andit wasdifficult to seewhat elsethey might havedonewith the waste.

72 In areaL, onesetof Travellershadbeen‘tolerated’until theybeganto sell Christmastrees,thuscompetingwith local businesses.


of thesiteandcorrectstandardsof behaviour.73 Suchcodesprovidea primeexampleof the mid-way governanceframework.They codify certain keynorms of behaviouragainstwhich Travellersare to be judged – beyondcriminal actsin orderto ‘balance’the interestsof Travellersthemselvesandthe local settledcommunities.It is these(formal andinformal) codes,then,rather than the formal law which provide the rationale for toleration-enforcement. These technologies of government seek to remoralizeTravellersnot throughsettlementassuch,but throughconformingto theselocally prescribednormsof appropriatebehaviour.If they do not conform(and certaingroupsare constructedas being unlikely to do so), then theybecomethe targetsof coercivepolicing.

In areaC, criteriafor toleration of encampmentsfor shortperiodshadbeendevelopedand a card for distribution to Travellers was being piloted, withinformation on accessto serviceson one side and the criteria or code ofconductexpectedof Travellers on the other. Thus, the circuit of exclusionwas maintained on the basisof ethical self-governance.This approachwasmirrored in the more enforcement-basedapproachof Area J. The localauthority had seconded a police officer to heada ‘Travellers ManagementUnit’. Themaximumlengthof time a group would be ‘tolerated’ for was28days,but this woulddependuponthenatureof thesiteandcompliancewith a‘codeof conduct’.Thepolicy wasdescribedasoneof ‘negotiatedtolerance’.Thecoderegulatedthewasteandmoregeneralbehaviourof Travellers– thesecondedpolice officer commented: ‘in my view, if therewas lessrubbishleft, bettercontrol of animals, lesstraffic offenceswe’d be hard pushedtoevict groupsthat werebehavingandfollowing our codeof conduct.’

Thedevelopmentof theseformalcodeswasnot,however,thefull story.Itwasclearevenin ‘supportive’areasthatsiteswould betoleratedonly on thebasis that the Travellers conformed to certain required behaviouralstandards.Thus, a seniorofficer in the local authority in areaA, a SouthCoastunitaryauthoritywith aparticularlysupportiveapproach,referredto ‘agreaterlevel of understanding[betweenthe local settledcommunityandtheTravellers] . . . and a willingness to recognisethat Travellers are humanbeingswith rights as well as responsibilities. . .’ (emphasisadded).Thecouncil’sapproachwasdescribedas‘negotiatedtolerance’thosewho had‘alegitimatereason’to be in thearea,or werenot havinga harmful impacton

302

73 Theconditionswereasfollows: fewer thanthreecaravans(but slightly largergroupsmay be permitted‘in locationsremotefrom residentialor commercialproperties’);minimum distancebetweengroupsof half a mile; no seriouseffect on the amenitiesof the land or nuisanceto adjacentproperties;no damageto the property; nounacceptablebehaviour;nodumpingor inappropriatedisposalof waste;no firesotherthan for cooking; no obstructionof the highway; occupationmust not impedeitsnecessaryoperationaluse;and: ‘once the agreedperiod of occupationhaselapsedthen the distancemoved must be at least two miles from the site occupied.Re-occupationmustnot takeplacewithin threemonths’.


the environmentor on the settledpopulationwould be tolerated.Similarly,the city council lawyer in areaB madethe observation:

If a trespassoccurswe know who we’re goingto contact,we know how we’regoing to deal with the information . . . and in the meantime. . . we willsupervisethe trespass, ensurethat problemsdon’t occurandif issuesstart toarise,to seehow we candealwith them.(emphasisadded)

Thewritten policy in areaH referredto evictionoccurringusually‘primarilyto reducenuisance’.Site maintenance,particularlycleanlinessof sites,wasregardedasa necessityby all GLOs in our study.In summary,ethicalself-governanceis the sinequa non of all tolerationpolicies.The messagewasthatif youplay thegameby our rules,in certaincircumstanceswewill allowyou to stay.

Suchformal andinformal policiesrely for their effectivenesson constantsurveillance to ensure that the Travellers are playing the game. Thesurveillancewould be throughregularsite visits by the GLO or equivalent,discussionin multi-agency fora of specific unauthorizedencampments(discussedin the next section),and the apparentlyubiquitousreportingbymembersof thelocal settledcommunitytogetherwith localmedia.Thelattercanhavean effect on specific sites,but this would be dependentupon the(im-)perviousness of the officer responsiblefor decision-makingto suchcomplaints.All police andGLO intervieweescomplainedaboutthe level ofandnatureof commentsaboutencampmentsmadeby local settledpersons(‘the least of our problemsis usually managingthe encampmentand theTravellers’:GLO, areaE).

At the sametime, however,someareastendedto be moreresponsivetolocal communities, particularly justifying this on the basis of localaccountabilitymechanisms.The whole approachin areaJ had shifted as aresult of general complaints made to the council, one parish councilsuggestingthat ‘the impact on the local community has increasedquitedramaticallyto the point wherewe effectively have ‘‘no-go’’ areasin thevillage’. In areaF, the local communitiesweresaidto placeNew Travellersat thebottomof aninformal hierarchy.In areaB, anyform of tolerationwasregardedas ‘hopelessin the year before elections’. Supplementingtheirenforcementapproach,areaD hadsetup a ‘hotline’ sothat thepublic couldinform thecouncilaboutthepresenceof Travellers.Onemight seetheuseofcomplaints by local settled communities as a perfect example of thedevelopmentof an informal communitypolicing network.For Stenson,thistype of activity is ‘normativegovernmentasit involvesthe police workingwith thegrainof communitynormativestandards,with a sensitivityto localconditions rather than universal legal and discipl inary normativeprinciples.’74 Active citizenship in this senseconnotesa norm-settingcommunitystandard.

303

74 Stenson,op. cit., n. 18, p. 384; see,also,O’Malley andPalmer,op. cit., n. 66.


Thesetypesof policies relatenot only to whethersiteswill be toleratedbut alsoto the maintenanceof site toleration.Whetheror not a site will betoleratedmayalsoberelatedto notionsof riskiness.Actuarial techniquesareasapparenthereaselsewherewithin thewelfare,or ‘privatized actuarial’,75

regime. An important part of the day-to-dayjob of managingTravellersinvolvesinteractionswith themover sometimeslengthyperiodsof time theofficer hasbeenin post.Thus, the officer constructsa picture of differentgroupsof Travellersin termsof the risks they presentand,concomitantly,whether they can be trusted. Risk and trust play a crucial role in themanagementof toleration. The constructionof eachwas dependent,to acertainextent,on theway in which therelevantofficer viewedtheir role.So,for example, officers who viewed their approachas positive towardsTravellers’ needs and fair would regard themselves (probably withjustification) asbeingbetterableto determinerisk andtrust in this context.

In area H, a New Labour controlled city council with a supportiveapproach,the operationof the policy of toleration relied to a large extentuponinformal negotiation.TheGLO hadbeenin postfor tenyearsandsaidthat sheknew mostof the Travellersin the areawell. Shebelievedthat shewasnot perceivedasa threatto Travellersandhaddevelopeda reputationofstandingup for Travellersaswell asadvisingthem.Thepolicy of tolerationwas regardedas working becauseof this trust. Travellersalso understoodthat thecouncilwould toleratethemfor a few moredaysif theykeptthesiteclean.In areaE, whereofficershadsimilar longevity in post,theresponsetoan unlawful encampmentwas, to a large extent, determinedby theirknowledgeof the potentialrisks posedby different Travellergroups:

[The GEO] will know a lot of Travellersanywayso I’ll be guided,often, bywhat [he] tells me. And he may comeback and say ‘It’s a large group butthey’ve told me they’re only staying ‘til the weekend.And I believe whatthey’re telling me’. . . . So there is good rapport between[him] and theTravellersthathehasbuilt-up.But someof thegroups,wherehedoesn’tknowthem so well or they may be new groups,then he will comeback and say‘Well, they’re outsideThe Code’.

Knowledgeof whatindividual Travellergroupswanted,in termsof lengthofstay and reasonsfor unauthorizedencampments,would also be gainedduring the first visit which, in all our study areas,would be carried outalmost immediately the relevant person gained knowledge of anunauthorizedencampment.At this stage, officers would make a riskassessmentof the natureof the site, the typesof Travellersandwhetherornot to trust the Travellers’ statementaboutlengthof stay.

Another factor bearingon the risk assessmentin someareaswasdepen-dentupon the backgroundor ethnicity of the Travelling group themselves.

304

75 A phraseused by O’Malley to refer to the increasing involvement of privateenterprisein formerly collectivepracticesof welfare:P O’Malley, ‘Risk, powerandcrime prevention’(1992)21 Economyand Society253,256-7.


CertainTravelling groupswere toleratedless.In someareas,for example,New Travellers were tolerated less. In the county in which area L wassituated,the policy of toleration specifically attachedto GypsieswhereasNew Travellerswere subjectedto increasedrequirementsas regardstheirlifestyle:

it’s a balancedattemptto balancethe needsof the settledcommunityin thatthere’sanotherperceptionwithin the settledcommunitythat New Travellerscanevadethe law at any time they like’ (CountyGLO).

In areaL itself, the GLO madethe following observationabouttheir policyof tolerationwhich effectively impacteddisproportionatelyin practiceupononegroup:

The tolerationdefinitely dependson whetherthereis any harmbeingcausedout there.. . The oneswho end up on our land tend not to get toleratedasmuch,tendto beIrish Travellersandtendto bemoreproblematic.Theygo onrecreationalgroundandbuildingssites,car parks.

Thus, the particularcircumstancein which certaingroupsof Travellersfind themselvesmeantthat enforcementpracticeswould disproportionatelyaffect them.Irish Travellers,for example,weremost likely to be caughtintheenforcementnexisoperatedby areaI, simply becausetheywerethemostlikely to needto go there(becauseof family connection,for example).AreaE’s written policy on tolerationwasspecificallyrelatedto gypsies(usingthedefinition in theCaravanSitesAct 1968)although,aswe weretold, a broadview of this termwastaken.Evenso,therewasclearlya dividing line basedupontheparticulargroup’sacceptability,asevidencedby thecontrastshownto the fieldworker.

Allied to this wasthe subjectiveperceptionof the ‘real’ or true Gypsy–the idealized,romanticized,mythologized,other.76 Such versionsof truthhave an intimate bearing on the ways in which the system dealt withTravellers.It might not, for example,havebeena surprisethat in areaK, anareawith an reactiveenforcementapproach,the GLO referredto Travellersin the following terms:

They put this GypsyTravellercrapon . . . I don’t think I would classthemasGypsy Travellers.New Age Travellers,tinkers, they’re not Gypsies.If youcomeacrossa real pukka Gypsy, they’re the salt of the earth.They’re nicepeople,theydon’t causeanybother,theytidy up after themselves,don’t leaveany waste.Whenyou go andtalk to themtheir attitudeis different.

(c) WelfareandexpertiseWhatever the policy prescription– enforcementor supportiveness– therequirementin the post-1994settlementimposedby the circular,not by thelegislation, was a shift towards multi-agency working. Others havecommentedupon the rationale behind the developmentof experts and

305

76 SeeSandland,op. cit., n. 43.


expertise,77 but the point being madehere is that there is a crucial linkbetweenwelfare enquiriesand the toleration-enforcementnexus(in otherwords, the policing role). Equally important,however,is the dispersalofpolicing processesandpracticesinto theenquiriesandassessmentsmadebywelfareprofessionals.

Although this latter role is often neglected,it neverthelessis crucial.Submissionto assessmentsby health,housingandsocialservicesimplies asubmissionto their own individual surveillanceandpolicing techniques.So,for example, a key question asked by health professionalsis whetherTravellersand,moreparticularly,theirchildrenareupto datewith their ‘jabs’– theresponseactsaseitherapositiveor anegativeconfessionof a failure orsuccessof the family unit.78 The dispersalof assessmentsto the variety ofdifferent agenciesmeansthat eachassessmenttakesplaceagainstdifferentgoals,eachof which, in New Public Managementterms,is requiredto bemonitored.So, for example,low-level educationprofessionalsarerequired,by their performanceindicators,to ensurethat Travellerchildrenarefoundschoolswithin asetperiod;homelessnessenquiriesmustbecompletedwithinacertainperiod.Internalmonitoringof decision-makingin the‘audit society’is a prerequisiteof quality in the BestValue environment.79 This implies asubmissionto the different modes of control which exist within each‘profession’. Equally, individual welfare agent’svisits considerTravellercircumstancesagainsta set of criteria designedfor some fundamentallydifferent groups(the local settledcommunity);80 multi-agencypanelssit injudgmenton eachindividual unauthorizedencampments,listeningin turn toeach welfare expert and determining their approachaccordingly. In theformer case,professionalassessmentsmight be conductedby education,health,housing,andsocialservicesprofessionals,eachwith their own setofingrainedprejudices.As Donzelotnotes,relief of poverty,‘must alsoservesomepurpose;it mustalsocontributeto a rehabilitationof the family.’81

On theotherhandin areaC, a rapidcontactinitiative hadbeendeveloped,with the first agencyto contactan unauthorizedcamp faxing all partneragenciesto inform themof the initial welfareneedsandanyactiontakenorplanned.Thepurposeof thissystemwasto supportaccessto servicessuchas

306

77 See,for example,S.Cohen,Visionsof SocialControl(1985)ch.5; Rose,op.cit., n.15;J. Morison, ‘Democracy,GovernanceandGovernmentality:Civic Public SpaceandConstitutionalRenewalin NorthernIreland’ (2001)21 Ox. J. of LegalStudies287.

78 Of course,jabs in themselvesare not entirely uncontroversial,given the potentiallinks betweenMMR andautism.

79 SeeM. Power,The Audit Society(1997); also P. Vincent-Jones,‘From ‘‘HousingManagement’’ to the Managementof Housing:the Challengeof BestValue’ in TwoStepsForward, eds.D. CowanandA. Marsh(2001).

80 Or, to useDonzelot’sexpression,eachagencyconductsa ‘social inquiry’ which is‘the chief technicalinstrumentfor regulatingthe new logistics of [welfare] work’:Donzelot,op. cit., n. 5, p. 121.

81 id., p. 69.


educationand health care, rather than to speedup enforcement.Despiteinitial reservationsandcautionby onepartneragency,theyagreedthata fewmonthsinto implementation,bettersupportnot speedierevictiondid seemtobe the outcome.

In areaH, we were told that no traveller everhadmadea homelessnessapplication; whereas in area L, where a Traveller family had, theirprospectivepropertyhad beentorchedby other residentsas they were onthevergeof movingin. A further,perhapsbetterexamplewasanobservationmadeby aneducationinterviewee.This reflectedthe relativepowerlessnesssheexperiencedin her role, whilst at the sametime revealingher everydayworking prejudicesto the particularcircumstancesof Travellers:

Obviouslyit’s alwaysbetterfor childrento go to thesameschool,it’s alwaysgoing to bebetterfor themto stayat theschoolso I meanyou don’t . . . it’s afairly stockresponsereally to say’Well thechildrenareat schoolandit wouldbe better if they were able to stay there for their achievement’and so on.Wherethe childrendon’t go to schoolthenI don’t havea lot of sympathy,tobe quite honest.And I do say’Well you know there’sno reasonnot to evictthemthey haven’t senttheir children to school’ and I tell the Travellersthattoo becauseyou know you can’t be very sympatheticaboutthat. (Area E)

Socialserviceswereoften saidto be theoneagencywhich rarely visitedTravellers’ sites in our study areas (although a key member of theinteragencygroupin areaE), a surprisingomissiongiventheir centralrole inthe social welfare matrix. However,this wasperhapslesssurprisinggiventhat they are regardedwith absolutesuspicionby many Travellersas theorganizationwhich takeschildrenawayfrom them.Indeed,in onearea,theinvolvementof socialserviceswasa threatemployedby thepoliceto ensurethat Travellersmoved on. Although, of course,Donzelot’s work focuseduponthe policing elementof socialwork, thereis a diffusion of suchsocialwork practicesamongstassessmentagencies,suchaseducation,health,andhousing.82 Multi-agencywork implies the sharingof suspicions.

Sothereasonwhy enquirieswerenecessaryin Travellercaseswasnot forsomehigher welfare purposebut, specifically, to determinewhethertherewas any circumstancewhich might require the authority to reframe itsordinary everydayworking practices,beyondthe mundane.Although eachlocal authority had its own practices,it was the constancyof assessmentwhich must impact on Travellers.WhereverTravellersstop, they will bebombardedwith form-filling exercises;but there is little point in suchexercisesoftenandtheyareroutinizedto theextentthat, in onearea,it wasallegedthat the GLO simply attachedforms to windscreenwiperswith therequestthat they be returnedto the watercarrier employedby the council.Yet, nevertheless,theseassessmentsandthepersonalitieswhich makethemplay crucial rolesin the multi-agencypanelsor joint working arrangementsor groupingswhich arethealmostubiquitouseffect of the impactof central

307

82 id.


government’sgood practiceguidance.It is through the medium of thesearrangementsthat much of the individual decision-makingtakes place.Individual assessmentsthusbecomecollectivized– throwninto the ‘meltingpot’ – and,at this stage,thereis a returnto thea priori ‘traditional policing’question:atwhatpoint shouldthissetof Travellersbeevicted?Thus,thereisa neatcircular relationshipbetweenthe different typesof policing to whichTravellersbecomesubjects.

CONCLUSION

This article beganwith an assertionwhich, to some,might have seemedoutrageous– that the objectof welfarewasexclusionand that, in part, theprocessesof determiningentitlementsto welfarewereits manifestations.Wealsosuggestedthattherewasanimportantrelationshipbetweenpolicing andwelfare. In substantiatingtheseclaims, we drew upon a diverse set ofliteraturesconcernedwith policing,governance,andexclusion.In particular,we argued that there was an important interaction between discursivepracticesof the sovereignstateandtechniquesof governance.

The article then exemplified this thesisthroughan analysisof politicalresponsesto the ‘problem’ of unauthorizedencampmentsaswell asthroughempirical evidence gained in a study of their management.We havedemonstratedhow the sovereignconcernwith territory works with morehorizontal forms of discipline, which reinforcesethical self-responsibilityandthe demandsof expertise.Yet, the totality of this descriptionbeliestherichnessof variation in our studyareas.It hasbeena point of criticism ofsomegovernmentalitystudiesthat they are ‘insensitive to social variationandsocialheterogeneity’83 which our dataemphasizes.Different approachesdepend largely on matters familiar to most socio-legal researchers(individual morality, cost, risk, and so on). Drawing on Cooper’sterminology,muchof the discussionof our datahasrevolvedaroundideasof mid-rangegovernanceand the disciplining of variantsof governmentaltechnologiesaimedat the eliminationof difference.What is neataboutthisexampleis that this areainvolves the conjunctionof two rather differentpolicing roles,juxtaposingpublic orderandwelfare.In separatingthemout,we can then reveal the underlyingroles of eachand, indeed,their naturalrelationshipwith eachother.

308

83 O’Malley, Weir, andShearing,op. cit., n. 19, p. 505.


Policing Unauthorized Camping

Documents

Transcript of Policing Unauthorized Camping