HC Deb 26 July 1993 vol 229 cc967-73 7.30 am
Sir David Mitchell (Hampshire, North-West)

I raised the problems caused by gipsies, tinkers, nomads and new age travellers in December 1991 and in May 1992. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for the hour. but not for raising that matter again, for the scenario is changing.

The problem is in two parts. The first relates to the large number of vehicles and people that descend on my part of Hampshire and other parts of the country pre-solstice—later drawing large crowds mainly of youngsters to a noisy festival. The second relates to smaller groups of nomads who travel in caravans and converted buses. They take up residence on sites that are often unsuitable and remain there weeks and months with no proper sanitary arrangements, accumulating unsightly rubbish, and leaving filth behind when they eventually depart.

In our experience in Hampshire, the Public Order Act 1986 is a most effective way of expelling the first group from private land. The Minister may recall that a large settlement arrived at Stockbridge Down two years ago. They were moved on using the 1986 Act, but then they settled on some green lanes where there was a public right of way as well as private property. Section 39 of the 1986 Act does not apply to green lanes.

I suggested that that legislation should be extended to apply to such situations. The then Minister kindly arranged for the Minister of State, Department of the Environment to arrange a meeting between Home Office, Department of Transport and Department of the Environment officials, to which I made a presentation together with a representative of Hampshire county council and the deputy chief constable.

I was delighted to receive a letter earlier this year from my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, which stated: Your general interest and concern in this issue and your suggestion about extending section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 to include green lanes and byways open to all traffic were most helpful in our discussions as to how best we might proceed … We propose that section 39 should now be extended to cover minor highways, lanes and byways open to all traffic … As well as changes to section 39 we also propose to take measures to deal with illegal raves. We propose to give the police the power, where 10 or more people have gathered on a site and where it is believed that a rave will take place, to direct those people to leave. It would be a criminal offence to ignore the direction. That is most welcome, and will go a long way to ensuring that, pre-solstice, mass concentrations of travellers will no longer frighten my constituents. I use the word "frighten" intentionally, because that is the effect.

However, I did not keep my hon. Friend the Minister up all night for a debate that started at half-past 7 in the morning simply to thank him. The second problem is the small groups of half a dozen or so who often camp for longer periods. They are part of some 3,900 to 4,000 unauthorised site dwellers throughout the country. I understand that there are some 4,800 county-provided sites and 2,100 private sites. My statistics, though, go back to 1989. If the Minister has more recent figures, I shall find them interesting and helpful.

I had a long letter from the Minister dated 31 March, for which I thank him warmly. He analysed the problem and spelt out the way forward, as he saw it. According to my hon. Friend, the existing system has, first, failed gipsies and failed the local communities. I agree. Secondly, it has not reduced the incidence of illegal camping … local authorities should have stronger powers to deal quickly and effectively with illegal camping. My hon. Friend also said that the Department proposed to give local authorities a new power to direct trespassers to remove their caravans from land. Failure to comply … will be a criminal offence. We also propose that it will be a criminal offence to return to the same land as a trespasser within three months. I agree. My hon. Friend will hear the loud "Hear, hears" coming up from Hampshire—

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir David Mitchell

I have a lot of ground to cover, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pike

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if the Minister were to respond to the present consultations by removing the right of local authorities to provide sites, a duty that exists now, we should not solve the problems to which he referred but would create more of them and that the solution is to provide both private and public sites that are small and acceptable?

Sir David Mitchell

The hon. Gentleman has referred to a point to which I was about to turn. I am sorry that I gave way to him.

As I was saying, the Minister will hear loud "Hear, hears" from Hampshire regarding that proposal.

The third point in my hon. Friend's letter is that the existing system does not provide sufficient accommodation for gipsies. I agree. It follows, logically, that steps should be taken to provide more accommodation.

How will the Minister take these steps to put right the under-provision that he recognises? He sets that out in his draft circular of 26 May. The under-provision is a matter of sites for nomad encampments. At present, there is a duty on the county council to provide sites. There are insufficient sites, so the Minister tells us, so does he intend to strengthen that duty? No, he intends to abolish it.

If there is no duty, how will the special needs of gipsies be met? Will it be met by relaxing the strict nature of planning controls so that either gipsies have their own camp sites or farmers use set-aside land for private sector provision? No. The Minister's main intention is, first, to reflect the plan-led nature of the planning system". That means, in practice, that, if a local plan says it is open countryside and that there is to be no development there, it will be enforced—no matter that there is a deserted chalk quarry, or a gravel pit, hidden from sight by surrounding trees, out of the way where it does no harm to anybody. That site will not be allowed to be used, because it will be outwith the local plan.

No matter that there is a hamlet of some 20 or 30 houses, with contiguous, half-hidden sites. That hamlet does not exist in the planners' eyes, because the planners have declared the area to be open countryside and it is forbidden that there should be any development in that sort of country. If my hon. Friend wants to know more about that, I urge him to look at the case of the Day family in my constituency, a family of settled gipsies who sought to stay on their own land and who are under threat of being moved. An appeal that went to my hon. Friend's Department was heard by an inspector appointed by my hon. Friend, and was turned down, purely because it was outwith the plan that my hon. Friend intends fully to enforce.

Does my hon. Friend intend to ensure that local authorities give special consideration to the needs of gipsies? No, he is going to withdraw the previous guidance stating that special consideration could be justified for gipsy sites in respect of protected areas including green belts. That is a double no, and a double blow.

Planning applications in respect of the gipsy community should be treated on the same footing as those from anyone else. However, in our over-populated south-east of England and with tight planning controls, the prospect of obtaining planning consent for gipsy sites under the new conditions outlined by the Minister is virtually nil.

I want now to consider the evidence given to the Department in response to the consultation document. Why has my hon. Friend the Minister not published an analysis, or placed in the Library of the House an analysis, of the responses that he has received? Is it because the advice has been generally unhelpful? Is it because it has shown virtually no support for the Minister's proposals on site provision? Is it not true that most respondents wanted to keep and to strengthen the present system?

My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the conclusions of the Cripps report of 1976 and the Wibberley report of 1987, which stress the importance of private site provision. In response to the Minister's circular Hampshire county council stated: Traditional Gypsies generally have the greatest difficulty obtaining planning permission … There is no evidence to suggest that traditional Gypsies will be more successful in the future in obtaining planning permission. The measured terms of the Hampshire county council response to the circular states: If the slight advantage they have, by virtue of the advice given in the Department of the Environment circulars 28/77 and 57/78 is removed, then the prospects are likely to worsen. The County Council sees no prospect of a significant reduction of the numbers of Traditional Gypsies on legal and illegal sites if a main part of Government policy is to expect them to make their own provision from the same starting point as the settled community, and without the present small advantages stemming from Department of the Environment advice. No doubt the Minister has been to the DOE library and has read the responses. Is he aware that my research shows that the Council for the Protection of Rural England is concerned that the replacement of the statutory duty to provide sites is likely to increase the problem of identifying suitable sites? It believes that the overriding objective of gipsy site policy should be to secure sufficient sites in the most environmentally acceptable locations.

The Country Landowners Association feels that the provision of gipsy sites should continue, while gipsies should receive encouragement to provide sites themselves. More local authority sites should be provided on local authority land. To some extent, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was successful.

The National Farmers Union states that the present provision of gipsy sites is unsatisfactory. There are not enough of them, and some are poorly managed. The NFU is against absolving local authorities from their present duty. The National Trust states that a repeal of the duty to provide sites will result in lack of incentives to local authorities to provide sites.

The Town and Country Planning Association disagrees most strongly with the repeal of the 1968 Act duties and believes that there is no good reason why travellers should not receive assistance at a level similar to that received by other sectors in the provision of places to live and work.

The Association of County Councils believes that the proposals do not provide a solution that is intellectually coherent, acceptable in humanitarian terms or workable in practice. I agree with that. Response after response informs my hon. Friend the Minister that he has got it wrong. He rightly consulted, but he appears to have ignored the responses that he received.

I want now to consider the draft provisional circular on gipsy sites and planning of 20 May. What does that document tell us? I will not read the whole document—I do not have time and I would not seek to do so—but I shall quote the essence of it: The proposed removal of the local authorities' duty to provide gypsy sites is expected to lead to more applications for private gypsy sites. That is quite right. It goes on: Local planning authorities will need to be aware of the accommodation and occupational needs of the travelling community". Hear, hear, but what is being done about that? It goes on: It will be important for local planning authorities to be ready to discuss gypsies' needs at an early stage". Very nice. It goes on: Authorities' plans may"— not "will have a duty"— identify locations suitable for gypsy sites … Other areas which may"— I stress "may"— be suitable for gypsy sites might"— not "must", not "should"— include vacant land or surplus local authority land. So it goes on. There are pages and pages saying not very much. It states: Authorities should"— not "must"— take a positive approach in considering planning applications for private gypsy sites … There is, however, no special status attaching to gypsies in determining planning applications. In practice, that means that not a single proposed gipsy site in Hampshire, and certainly none in the Test valley, will ever be given consent. Gipsy sites are unpopular. They are an unpopular decision to be taken. Unpopular decisions can be relatively easily taken by large authorities, because only a small section of representatives will kick up a fuss. However, when the matter moves from county size to district or borough size, the furore when a gipsy site is proposed will ensure that it will be turned down by the planners.

My hon. Friend's document consists of pages and pages, but it does not do anything to help provide for the sites that are required. I ask the Minister to draw back now before it is too late. I understand that he intends to introduce a Bill following the Queen's Speech in November. I staged this debate to say, first, that the proposals on mass disturbance and the Public Order Act 1986 are excellent; and, secondly, that the proposals to curb illegal camping are okay, provided that alternative provision is made. But the proposals to remove the county duty to provide sites and let gipsies take their chance like everyone else with the planning system are deeply flawed.

Local authorities will use their powers to move gipsies and nomads off unauthorised sites, and, like the Arcadians, they will go—but where? To another, probably more unsuitable site, causing more nuisance for local residents than the original site that they were on. The Minister should take back the proposal and think again, and, with respect, listen to the consultation responses that he has received. It is better that he does that now than incorporates a ministerial banana skin in a November Bill.

I now wish to refer to unauthorised sites occupied by nomads. Parish councils and constituents alike have three principal complaints about such sites: they are insanitary—there is the comment about going into the bushes with a spade in the hand, or even none—rubbish and litter around the sites, and their unwashed appearance.

I put a constructive point to the Minister. One of the main components of a successful policy will be the provision of transit sites, which are better chosen by the local authority than by the nomads who are driven from site to site. Such transit sites need four things: first, a bit of waste ground, well away from housing; secondly, two lavatories; thirdly, one stand pipe for water; and, fourthly, a skip for rubbish—nothing else.

That costs a lot less than providing public housing for nomads who do not want it. Most of them live on £44 a week income support. They do not draw housing benefit. It is far more economic and makes far more sense to give them a loo, a water supply and a skip for rubbish than to criminalise them by taking away their existing unauthorised site and failing to make alternative provision.

7.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)

I will try to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) in the comparatively short time available to me. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) intervened to make it clear that there should be a continuing duty in terms of public provision. I will also address that issue.

My hon. Friend has had a continuing interest in this matter. In an earlier debate, he referred to three main concerns—illegal camping by small numbers of people in caravans sited on green lanes; large convoys of new age travellers who descend on my hon. Friend's constituency during the summer solstice on their way to Stonehenge; and ravers who are associated with the new age travellers in setting up unlicensed music festivals. We have taken steps to tackle those concerns—steps which have been welcomed by my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend is concerned that our reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 will not ensure that a sufficient number of sites will continue to be made available. I urge my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns with hon. Members from constituencies in Avon and Somerset. Despite the statutory duty on local authorities under the Act, which has been in force for more than 25 years, the provision of sites in Avon is woefully inadequate. Continuing disputes arise between districts and the county about the location of those sites. Every application is subject to considerable contention in the local communities and each application is politicised.

Despite the operation of the 1968 Act for more than 25 years, few districts in Somerset are designated as offering adequate provision for caravans. That Act, which commanded all-party support, was introduced with the best of motives, but it simply has not worked. Less than 40 per cent. of local authorities have made adequate provision under the terms of that Act so that they can become designated. In reality, even those that have been designated would need to make further provision because the Act was deeply flawed in its estimate of the number of gipsies for which it needed to make provision.

We think that the time has come for that to change. As my hon. Friend has made clear, the 1968 Act has failed local authorities, local communities and the gipsies. For that reason, we believe that in future travellers should seek to make provision through the planning system.

Many travellers already have made provision through that system and many private sites exist. I have two in my constituency, which offer 50 pitches each. In the 10 years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never had any difficulty with either of them. I have never received any complaint about them; nor has any question been raised with me about them. The sites are well managed.

The planning system is perfectly capable of making the necessary provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West is concerned that no gipsy site will ever receive planning permission in the Test valley should we opt for that system. With due respect, my hon. Friend is wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the Test valley district council and every other district council will have to make provision within its local plan for reasonable provision of gipsy sites, just as it must make provision in the local plan for every other planning contingency. That is what the planning guidance circular is all about—ensuring that local authorities make adequate proposals and provision for travellers in their development plans.

Then, if a local authority unreasonably refuses applications, an appeal is possible. I am determined that the planning system should operate fairly. At present, it does not explicitly recognise gipsies' special accommodation needs. Local planning authorities are required only to have general policies in their structure plans, which are seldom translated into detailed policies and local plans.

Planning applications from gipsies are nearly always treated as departures from local planning policies. That is why we have issued, in draft form for public consultation, planning guidance which will require local planning authorities to include specific gipsy site policies in their local plans. That will give gipsies confidence in the system and encourage them to follow the rules.

In the past, in incidents such as the one that my hon. Friend described, when gipsies have sought to make their own provision and have had their applications refused, and inspectors have then turned them down on appeal, this has almost always happened when gipsies have bought land, moved on, and sought to set up pitches without planning permission. Then, when the local authority has tried to take enforcement action, the gipsy family concerned have applied retrospectively for planning permission, and if it has been turned down, they have appealed. Not surprisingly, inspectors have said that it was wrong to flout the planning system in that way.

I have every confidence, however, that, if gipsies make proper applications to local planning authorities, they will be provided with planning permission. Moreover, they will be able to see that local authorities make proper provision within their development plans. If they do not, I have no doubt that the National Gypsy Council and others will draw our attention to the local authorities that they do not believe are making such provision. The Department can intervene in the development plans concerned and tell the local authorities that they are failing to make adequate provision.

This will be a far more effective way of proceeding than the present cumbersome system, in which the Secretary of State's only recourse in such cases is to serve a statutory direction under the 1968 Act. A direction was served on Avon some years ago, but despite the application of the stick, adequate provision has yet to be made.

The National Gypsy Council and others have welcomed the increased provision for private sites. The council, in response to the consultation paper that we issued in August 1992, said: private sites are beneficial to all concerned: to gypsies because they offer them the security of a legal home and a base from which they can send their children to school; to local authorities and central government who are spared the expense of developing and managing sites; and to the local settled community by the reduction in numbers of unauthorised encampments … private gypsy sites are in locations where the gypsies who live on them will want to be; they suffer none of the problems due to incompatibility which are sometimes found on local authority sites; and once private sites become established, families on it quickly prove themselves to be good neighbours. So the gipsies themselves have welcomed our proposals.

My hon. Friend asked why we do not publish a detailed analysis of the consultation. That would be very difficult, given the sort of responses that we obtained. They were often based on complete misunderstandings. For instance, press reports had led quite a few of those responding to believe that we intended deliberately to force gipsy families away from their traditional lives into domestic residential housing. There was never any suggestion of that. It was a red herring, but it affected many of the responses.

Also, as my hon. Friend said, some of those responding merely wanted taxpayers to continue to provide a 100 per cent. grant. That has failed in the past. We have invested £56 million in the public provision of gipsy sites since 1968, but fewer than 40 per cent. of local authority areas are properly designated as having made adequate provision for gipsies.

I very much hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the measures that we have—

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.