30 October 2007 Oliver Heald MP thought you would be interested to see the attached letter, which he has sent in identical terms to Buntingford Town Council, Little Hadham Parish Council, Ashwell Parish Council, Reed Parish Council and Barkway Parish Council, giving his views on the identified sites for traveller accommodation in his Constituency. Jill Jones, Clerk, Buntingford Town Council Manor House, High Street, Buntingford, Hertfordshire SG9 9AB  30 October 2007 As you will know, the consultants’ report on the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers in North and East Hertfordshire identified three sites in Buntingford. I am against these proposals which seem to me to be the wrong way to tackle the accommodation needs of travellers. We debated travellers’ sites for Hertfordshire in the House of Commons on 20 June this year, Hansard Column 483WH. The debate certainly showed up the weaknesses in the Government’s case and that of the Lib Dems, who were very supportive of the Government. The East of England Regional Assembly is doing the Government’s bidding and forcing our local councils to consider new travellers’ sites.  The Lib Dem Spokesman, Lorely Burt MP, set out the case for the extra travellers’ sites in her speech in the House of Commons:- “My worry is about the continuing demonisation of Gypsies and Travellers; it makes conflict by not producing appropriate authorised sites. One third of adults admit to being personally prejudiced against the group. Lack of provision causes conflict, reinforces prejudices and takes its toll on a group that has 18 times more child deaths, far worse examination results, and life expectancies 10 to 12 years shorter than those of the settled population. As Trevor Phillips said, prejudice against Gypsies and Travellers is the last acceptable form of racism. We want an open and transparent system, in which each local authority does its fair share…. We do not want a honey pot situation that attracts people from local authorities that are not taking their share and providing appropriate approved sites." I disagree with this analysis. I have always argued that the former requirement to have a travellers’ site in each local authority area coincided with a very large increase in the number of caravans and that it was the wrong approach. Over this period, many new travellers took up the lifestyle and I believe this is because the new travellers’ sites were not in the places where traditional travellers wanted to be. There are traditional traveller routes and if extra accommodation is needed, it does not make sense to put it where they do not want to go. Areas like ours do not have a traveller tradition and it seems wrong to encourage others to take up this particular lifestyle, which is often associated with social exclusion.  During the course of the debate, Peter Lilley and I criticised the methodology used for establishing the need for extra travellers’ sites and the assessment process which had already taken place. The Government has recently produced a new document which attempts to meet some of the points we made. Please be assured that I will continue to oppose new traveller sites in our area. I believe that these proposals are ill-thought out and wrong-headed. I would certainly encourage you to make your views known to the East of England Regional Assembly and to East Herts Council, via their websites at www.eera.gov.uk and http://www.eastherts.gov.uk Alternatively, you can write to:- East of England Regional Assembly Flempton House, Flempton, Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP28 6EG and East Herts Council, Wallfields, Pegs Lane, Hertford, Hertfordshire SG13 8EQ. Best wishes,