64. The only information on the numbers and distribution of Gypsy and Traveller caravans and families is through the twice yearly counts made by local authorities on the numbers of Gypsy caravans within their area. The count is based upon two voluntary returns, the details of which are explained in chapter two. The returns for January 2004 showed that there were a total of 14 309 caravans, of which 5848 (41%) were on authorised local authority sites, and 4890 (34%) were on authorised private sites. The remaining 3571 (25%) were on unauthorised sites. The July 2004 figures had not been published at the time of writing although an increase in the summer months is normal because of seasonal travel. Numbers of caravans have increased significantly since January 1979 when the total was 8,358[54], although this figure may not be accurate due to under recording.

65. The information collected is supposed to aid the planning system and contribute to assessments of need for site provision. However the usefulness of the count has been subject to some discussion, particularly because the accuracy of the count is of some doubt. WS Planning conducted research in local authorities in Surrey. They found that whilst all local authorities were happy with the reliability of their own counts, they were concerned at the reliability of data returned by other authorities. Evidence from George Summers, Gypsy and Traveller Service Manager for Hampshire County Council and Secretary of the National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officers, support this research:

"Can I say that in Hampshire we do the counts for all our local authorities and we normally do it with a member of the local districts or the unitary authorities. We actually go round and physically do the count ourselves. That way we can verify that the counts are accurate. This is unlike the procedure undertaken in many authorities where it is left to districts or local boroughs and, quite honestly, very often the counts can be very dubious."[55]

66. WS Planning's research suggests that while data for an individual authority may be accurate, it cannot necessarily be compared with information from other authorities because the data may have been collected differently. Collection methods differed according to: whether sites were visited or data provided from best knowledge on the survey data and what land was included. Some suggested county council land was omitted. WS Planning conclude that although the Gypsy Count data is only an indicator of numbers and distribution, it remains the most useful information source available.[56]

67. Other submissions demonstrated a similar view:

The National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Officers: "The Count statistics are generally accepted by practitioners in the field of Gypsy and Traveller movements to be of doubtful origin and their accuracy is often questioned. New Count guidance is to be issued, but there remains a requirement to make statistics compulsory, also for the Count to be undertaken on a county-wide basis and with improved accuracy, and to be verified by Gypsy and Traveller officers."[57]

Dr Kenrick: "We found when local gypsy organisations have done counts they have always found about 50 per cent more than the council have. I found that in East Lincoln. The gypsies were able to find six caravans which the council had never known about. The first thing is to get better counting and count everybody and get the help of gypsy organisations where they exist. Then, in the count itself, I do not know who keys them in but there are mistakes always. I have brought along a couple of examples. Suddenly a council site disappears or a private site disappears and the same figure turns up in the left-hand column as an authorised site. Obviously the keying in is not done by anybody who knows what they are doing and they are not checked properly. I have always assumed that the errors would cancel themselves out, so that an error in one column would be cancelled out by an error in another column. I did bring one example which I picked up last night - in Cambridge, where, private sites have just disappeared, but if you look in the other column that number turns up there. Somebody in the ODPM office needs to look at all the noughts and wonder whether they are correct or not. So we have two problems: undercounting and then the keying-in is not done correctly."[58]

Dr Home: "That is a simple matter of data verification. Also you would have to recognise that within individual local authorities there may be a political pressure to undercount, especially if the numbers are relatively low. Then that district can say, "We don't have any need. We don't need to provide anything at all." In every appeal I do I try to supplement the very local statistics with the county and regional and national statistics, so that the inspector can see the broader picture, and most local authorities, understandably from their point of view, try to argue against that approach."[59]

The Commission for Racial Equality would like the count to collect ethnic data:

"[…] as a means of enabling and encouraging councils to better comply with their race equality duty, provide better services for Gypsies and Travellers, and to remove any excuse for inaction. The race equality duty depends to some extent on the collection of accurate ethnic data - authorities should be continuously monitoring the impact of their policies on different racial groups, seeking to identify any disproportionalities and taking steps to tackle such inequalities if they cannot be justified within wider policy goals. To date CRE is concerned that few councils include Gypsies and Travellers in their ethnic data collection, and therefore do not address the inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers across the range of public services. The collection of such sensitive data would need to be accompanied by targeted confidence-building exercises amongst Gypsy and Traveller communities. It would be important that councils employ Gypsies, Travellers, and other bodies such as Traveller Education Services who are already known and trusted by Gypsy and Traveller communities to carry out the caravan count in order to increase confidence in the system."[60]

68. Gypsy Count returns are frequently quoted in planning appeals and inquiries. Phillip Plato, a Chartered Planning Surveyor is concerned at this use:

"These figures only report numbers of caravans on authorised and unauthorised sites, and often include numbers of those on the "waiting list" for a pitch within an authorised site. I have observed these statistics being as representing "evidence" of the shortage of Gypsy sites. I do not agree with this attempt to draw conclusions about "need" for the following reasons:

First, there is no method of establishing what types of sites (either transit or permanent) are needed from the figures that the ODPM collects from Local Planning Authorities.

Second, there is now way of determining where such sites should be located. Local Planning Authorities often represent very large geographical areas and the raw data takes no account of travelling patterns.

Third, the absence of other date relating to personal circumstances also hinders meaningful decisions about the location of Gypsy sites. Many Traveller groups claim that their children have special educational needs. It is inappropriate for site provision and location to be determined without reference to such data as, for example, one first needs to establish if the local schools in an area for a proposed site have capacity or the facilities to address the special needs of Traveller children without prejudicing the schooling of the other children already at that school."[61]

69. The National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Officers believes the count could be improved by introducing measures to ensure the accuracy of information recorded, re-considering the statistics collected, and most importantly making participation in the count mandatory:

• Local authorities should be required to work with neighbouring authorities to clarify information. This would help ensure that authorities not wishing to provide, or be seen to have a need for accommodation, submit accurate numbers. This would also increase the ability to compare data in order to avoid double counting;
• The Government should introduce a verification process to ensure that statistics have credibility within both the travelling, planning and local government communities; and
• The statistics collected should be reviewed. It is often recorded that families have no accommodation, whereas in fact they have permanent accommodation, but choose to travel for economic or holiday purposes during the summer period. Counts also fail to register the small number of families who travel continuously and have no permanent residential accommodation.

70. WS Planning suggest that the returns would be of more use to local authorities if they differentiated between unauthorised development where Gypsies/Travellers own the land but do not have planning permission, and those that are temporary incursions. They argue:

"The two groups need to be separated, as a realistic assessment of the demand or need for sites/pitches cannot be determined without knowledge of the numbers that may be seeking a more established base, rather than a temporary site."[62]

71. The Centre of Urban Studies at the University of Birmingham was commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to review the count system in 2003. The review presented a series of options for the future development of the count system, including an examination of the information currently collected, and other types of information which might be added. Three key recommendations were made:

"-Before amending the count system, ODPM should be very clear about the purposes to which the information is to be put. Purpose should guide design of a revised system.

- A distinction should be made and clearly applied between information which can be routinely collected through a regular voluntary return made by local authorities, and that which is best collected through regular ad hoc surveys. In mainstream housing such a distinction is drawn between; for example, house building figures or homelessness applications (regular returns) and household characteristics or housing needs (surveys).

- Whether or not changes are made in future, the count needs a re-launch to stress its important, its links to policy and the uses that will be made of the information. In some ways it may be easier to do this if significant changes are proposed. In addition, all the information collected should be published."[63]

The Commission for Racial Equality argue that for a revised count to improve in accuracy and usefulness, it will be vital for Gypsies and Travellers to be more involved in the process:

"I think you are absolutely right to identify the fact that a lack of confidence in the communities would be a barrier to collecting the data. The communities would need to know what the purpose of collecting the data was and feel confident that it was being collected in order to help alleviate their situation. The way to do that would be, first of all, to consult with them and explain the purpose of it and to talk to them about how it might be done and, secondly to involve Gypsies and Travellers and those who work with them in whom Gypsies and Travellers have confidence (like the Traveller Education Service) in the exercise of collecting the data. You are right that if there were a sudden decision to collect data and no preparation made, then people would be wary and it would be difficult to collect it."[64]

In their submission the ODPM highlight steps they are taking to improve the count:

"The Count is currently being revised to increase its accuracy and usefulness, with the new version having being piloted in May 2004."[65]

72. We welcome ODPM's sponsorship of research to identify ways in which the accuracy and usefulness of the bi-annual count of Gypsy caravans and families can be improved. We also welcome ODPM's progress on implementing improvements to the count, which were piloted in May 2004, and implemented in June 2004. The count is one of the only ways that demand can be quantified; completion should therefore be made compulsory. It is important that all local authorities recognise the importance of accurately completing the count. The Government must recognise that there may be political reasons for authorities to complete the count inaccurately; and must ensure improvements to the count to guard against this. A verification process should be included to ensure that all interested parties are satisfied with the credibility of the statistics.

55   Q 221 Back

56   GTS B/P03 [WS Planning], pg 38 Back

57   HC 63-III, Ev 83 [National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Officers] Back

58   Q 25  Back

59   Q 25 Back

60   Ev 71-72 [The Commission for Racial Equality] Back

61   HC 63-III, Ev 86 [Phillip Plato] Back

62   GTS B/P03 [WS Planning], pg 39 Back

63   Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham, Counting Gypsies and Travellers: A review of the Gypsy Caravan count system' 2003 Back

64   Q 147 [Sarah Spencer, Deputy Chair, Commission for Racial Equality] Back

65   Ev 2 [ODPM] Back