Letter to the Editor: Council must provide a permanent travellers' site for police to use powers

First, I would like to reassure your readers that I understand their concerns regarding this matter.

I’d also like to reassure them that Dorset Police do use Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) when the situation demands it and indeed the Force used that very power in Redhill last week.

However, in 2003 MPs introduced Section 62A to the Anti-Social Behaviour Act – this places a requirement of a suitable pitch within a local authority area before travellers can be moved on by police.

Essentially, the local council must provide a permanent travellers' site in order for police to use the powers.

There is an authorised site covering the Dorset county area, but not the conurbation areas of Bournemouth and Poole, making it virtually impossible to use the Section 62A powers.

Currently it is estimated it costs the UK taxpayer over £20m a year to evict travelling people from unauthorised encampments; funding which could be more effectively used to build permanent sites for them to frequent. However, 90% of Gypsy and Traveller planning applications are turned down on first request.

There are only two possible solutions to this debate.

Either that a temporary site is provided in the conurbation, or that legislation is changed.

This second option requires MPs to lobby alongside me, but I note that Mr Ellwood has yet to attend any meetings to discuss this matter with me nor has he replied to numerous letters seeking support.

Parliament makes the laws, police and other agencies enforce them, and judges interpret them.

Dorset Police acts within the full extent of the law and it is not helpful for MPs to directly criticise police or try to influence operational decisions.

I’d ask Mr Ellwood to work locally and nationally to help resolve this age-old problem rather than censure local police who are acting with a blunt and unworkable law.

Martyn Underhill

Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner