HC Deb 19 October 1994 vol 248 cc355-79

Lords amendment: No. 79, in page 60, line 24, at end insert—

("() This section is subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 152.")

8.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 157, 160, 169, 315, 316 and 335 and the Government motions to disagree.

Mr. Jones

Clause 75 would repeal the gipsy site provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, including the duty placed on local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies in their areas. It would also repeal the Secretary of State's powers to designate local authority areas and to direct authorities to provide sites or additional sites. It would further repeal the Secretary of State's powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to pay grant to local authorities in England and Wales in respect of the capital cost of gipsy site provision.

It was our original intention to bring these repeals into force immediately on Royal Assent. Amendment No. 79 and the amendments grouped with it would delay those repeals until after 1 July 1999. The sole exception would be the repeal of the designation provisions in the 1968 Act, which would come into force on Royal Assent. Even after 1 July 1999, the repeals could come into force only by means of commencement orders in relation to local authority areas. Each order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That process would obviously mean further delay in bringing the repeals into force in England and Wales, in some cases long beyond the initial five-year extension.

The Government disagree with the amendments and I invite the House to reject them. One of the noble Lords who tabled the amendments in another place argued that the proposed delay would give local authorities an opportunity to reduce substantially the shortfall in the provision of accommodation for gipsies. We do not believe that a five-year reprieve would have such an effect.

In the past 13 years, the number of gipsy caravans stationed on unauthorised sites has remained broadly the same year after year— an average of 4,000 caravans each year since 1981— even though 100 per cent. grant for the capital costs of site provision has been available since 1978 and £87 million has been expended on site provision. The shortfall in provision has been largely due to natural growth in the gipsy population. Plainly, site provision is barely keeping pace with the growth in demand and is not reducing the shortfall.

There is simply no basis on which to believe that a five-year extension would lead to sites being provided for all gipsy families who have no lawful place to camp. What would a five-year delay achieve? It would not make it any easier for local authorities to find suitable sites; nor would it check the natural growth in the gipsy population. The evidence of the past 24 years suggests that in five years' time we shall be no further on in reducing unauthorised camping.

Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton)

My hon. Friend mentioned the natural growth in the gipsy population. First, will he reassure me that there is no possibility or danger of what we understand here as new age travellers— whom most people would not regard as gipsies— benefiting from the planning arrangements that the Government's proposals envisage? Secondly, will he address the concerns, of which I think he is aware, that have been expressed by the National Farmers Union, which fears that the removal of the Lords amendments might result in a worsening rather than an easing of the present problem for farmers and others arising from unauthorised encampments?

Mr. Jones

On my hon. Friend's first point, I do not believe that there is a major danger, as there has been a court finding on the definition of gipsies as opposed to new age travellers. We are pretty confident on that count. On his second point, we shall have to see how local authorities behave, but the proposed powers are stronger and cover a far wider part of the country, which should be enough to reassure the NFU.

We have serious principled objections to the amendments. My Department has carried out a detailed review of gipsy site policy. The consultation paper that my Department issued in August 1992 elicited almost 1,000 responses from a wide range of interests, including local authorities and organisations representing gipsies and landowners. We considered carefully all the responses before making our legislative proposals. That process has taken more than two years to reach this stage. It is now proposed that there should be a further delay of at least five years in bringing these long-awaited reforms into force and we believe that that procrastination cannot be justified.

We recognise that council site provision has contributed to alleviating the difficulties experienced by the gipsy community. Indeed, the predicament of gipsies in England and Wales is now far different from in 1968. At that time, probably fewer than 10 per cent. of gipsy caravans in England and Wales were stationed on authorised sites, whereas the figure is now about 46 per cent. A further 24 per cent. are on authorised private sites, and many more are stationed on tolerated sites where they are allowed to stay with reasonable security from eviction. Some of our critics have claimed that our reforms would place gipsies in the same predicament that they faced in 1968, but that is manifestly not the case.

We believe that public provision of sites has now reached an acceptable level. Public accommodation has been provided for 46 per cent. of the total number of gipsy caravans in England and Wales. We do not believe that it is in the public interest to continue to maintain what has become an open-ended commitment to provide sites for all gipsies seeking accommodation at the public's expense. It is our view that the right approach now is to encourage more gipsies to establish their own sites through the planning system. We know that many gipsy families would prefer to establish their own sites rather than reside on council sites. The National Gypsy Council has for a long time supported the case for private provision. Private site provision has increased by more than 135 per cent. since 1981. Our intention is to encourage that trend.

I am familiar with the argument that the planning rules are stacked against gipsies and that consequently many of them are wont to purchase and occupy land without first getting planning permission. That practice invariably adds to their problems. In January, my Department issued a circular entitled "Gypsy Sites and Planning" which provides a framework that we believe will give gipsies the confidence to use the usual planning procedures to establish their own sites.

The new guidance advises planning authorities to set out clear policies in their development plans to meet gipsies' accommodation needs, to consult gipsies and their representatives when preparing their plans, and to advise and offer practical help to gipsies with the planning procedures. We are determined to ensure that the planning system operates fairly and that planning applications for the development of gipsy sites are treated on the same basis as other applications.

The Government are committed to reducing the level of unauthorised camping. Unauthorised camping by gipsies and other travellers causes serious nuisance and offence to landowners and local communities. All hon. Members know that the dimensions of that problem, and public awareness of it, have increased in recent years. Public expectations are high. In some areas of England and Wales, hardly a week passes without a new incident of unauthorised camping making the headlines in the local press. The reaction of local people is always the same: "Surely something should be done about it" and "Surely the police or the local authority must deal with this nuisance". There is always bewilderment and frustration that the powers currently available to local authorities are circumscribed and rarely allow authorities to take effective action. Our proposals will enable them to control unauthorised camping in their areas.

We have presented a comprehensive package of proposals which we believe will reduce unauthorised camping and give gipsies reasonable opportunities to find suitable accommodation. Our proposals would replace a system of site provision that has been in operation for 24 years and has manifestly failed to achieve those objectives. The lengthy period of procrastination proposed in the amendments would serve no useful purpose and would be greeted with dismay in many quarters. I strongly urge the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He and I served for a number of years on the Select Committee on the Environment, and it was a pleasure to hear him answering questions earlier today and now to hear him open this debate. However, the fact that we are discussing gipsies during a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill highlights one of our main objections to the proposals. We believe that the proper way to deal with the issue would be in a Department of the Environment Bill rather than its being included in this Bill, which covers so many different subjects. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that we do not agree with him and I can say at the outset that we intend to divide the House.

We believe that the Lords amendment is a modest proposal and should remain in the Bill. We said on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and, indeed, when the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) introduced a private Member's Bill on a similar subject, that the Government's proposals to repeal part of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 do not solve any problems but create more. Delaying the implementation of the relevant part of the Bill would give the Government, local authorities and everyone else involved at least five more years in which to consider the sensible way to proceed. 8.45 pm

What would be achieved by passing the Bill in its original form without the Lords amendment? To do so would criminalise some gipsies and increase homelessness; it would cause family breakdown and place added pressures on social and education services. It would certainly not solve any problems. Indeed, it is our view that it would create more problems and improve nothing.

As the Minister knows, about 38 per cent. of English local authorities are designated. The Bill would give similar powers to all local authorities, whether or not they were designated. At the moment, designation provides local authorities with powers to act rapidly through the magistrates courts to remove unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants from highways or unoccupied land or from occupied land with the landowner's consent.

I wish to make it clear again that we are not condoning the trouble caused by people on a minority of unauthorised sites. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties have had to deal with such problems. However, the majority of the gipsy population do not create such problems, but we are once again being asked to legislate against all gipsies and people who live a similar life style in order to deal with the problems created by a minority. That is wrong.

The Minister mentioned the provision of private sites. We have no objection to that or to the provision of smaller sites, whether publicly or privately funded. We must approach the matter positively. If the House were to accept the Lords amendment, we should be able to examine the question at greater length.

The Minister knows that the view that I am expressing is not held exclusively by the Labour party but has the support of all three local authority associations—the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It also has the support of the National Farmers Union, an organisation which does not usually side with the Labour party, and that of Save the Children Fund, which believes that the Government's proposals are wrong.

We accept that local opinion is often very much opposed to applications for gipsy sites and that it can be extremely difficult to secure the establishment of such sites. However, we must recognise that that is so whether sites are publicly or privately funded. A new way forward must be found.

The Minister's predecessor always said that he accepted in good faith that it was not the intention to force gipsies on to sites in totally unsuitable and undesirable areas, next to rubbish tips, and so on. Some people think that we should look for that type of solution. Even though we disagree on his principal proposals, I hope that that is not what the Minister would advocate.

In the consultations, the Government suggested that they would like to encourage more of the people involved to move into permanent housing. Given the Government's record in providing affordable housing for rent over the past few years, it seems crazy to add to the problem by adding another category of people who do not want housing, and telling them that going into such accommodation is the only way forward for them. That is nonsense.

Save the Children, which has taken a close interest in the subject throughout the consultations with the Government and at every stage of the Bill's progress through the House, has sent a letter to all Members of Parliament, which says: As providers of services to children in Gipsy and Traveller families, our concern is for their welfare. Availability of sufficient and suitable caravan site accommodation is the best way to safeguard the health of children, their access to schooling, and their emotional development. Those are important facts which we must recognise, and I believe that the Government's proposals would move us in the wrong direction.

The letter continues: The shortage of legal stopping places means that some families have no option but to stop on unauthorised sites. We consider the duty on local authorities to provide sites should be retained and that this will help minimise the incidence of unauthorised stopping.

The problem today—if we accept that there is a problem—is caused not by over-provision of sites, but by the fact that to date 62 per cent. of councils have failed to provide sites within their areas. I am sure that the Minister will point out that many of those councils are Labour-controlled, and I accept that; I am not making a political point. I simply say that the local authorities concerned must consider the problem and see what they can do.

We believe that the five-year delay that would result from leaving the Bill as it came from the House of Lords and agreeing to the Lords amendment would enable the Government to examine the developments that took place during that time. We should like the gipsies themselves to be involved in discussions at national and local level, and everybody could try to find a positive way forward.

In the discussions that I have had, it has been clear that many people believe that the sites provided by many local authorities, designed for 30 or 40 caravan pitches, are too big. Authorities should consider smaller sites that would accommodate the extended family life style that many gipsies lead. Smaller sites would be more desirable for them, and would often cause less friction locally. I accept that such smaller sites could be privately or publicly funded.

Clearly, we shall not achieve anything by supporting the Government in deleting Lords amendment No. 79 and the related Lords amendments. We must try to examine the situation positively, and recognise gipsies' needs for access to education for their children—I referred to that a few moments ago—and access to health service provision, whether through a general practitioner or through community health services. Ante-natal care and safe childbirth are also important. All those issues must be considered, and so must the environmental health implications.

We have had many debates on such issues, and many stronger alternatives have been debated at earlier stages in the Bill. I realise that we cannot reopen all those debates tonight. However, the Opposition strongly believe that if the Government win the vote at the end of the debate they will create a problem and solve none. They should heed the voices of reason, and allow us a five-year breathing space, to allow all those involved to try to achieve a positive and more acceptable solution that will not create the problems that the Government's rejection of the Lords amendment will cause.

Sir Trevor Skeet (Bedfordshire, North)

I have listened to the argument, which is highly sensitive. One wants to do the maximum that one can to assist the gipsies, but—the Minister has explained the point remarkably well—the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is out of date and has been proved to be so. We have had 26 years of experience of the Act, and during that time, if two of its main provisions—one of which was providing sufficient accommodation for gipsies and providing it in the most suitable places—were going to prove useful, they would have done so by now.

I shall cite one case from Bedford, involving the Cutthroat lane site. It was put in the wrong place, too near residents and next door to Sainsbury, and is causing the utmost commotion. One blames not the gipsies but the local authority for the decision. We are trying to change all the provisions. The Act has also failed to reduce the incidence of illegal camping; I shall say more about that in a moment.

Surely their lordships have not made the right decision. If they considered the matter carefully against the background of the past 25 or 26 years, and decided that they wanted another five years, what did they want the additional time for? The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said that he wants another five years, at the end of which we should be able to review the position—but we should be no better off at the end of that period than we are now. The Minister's suggestion of new planning guidance, and the idea that the gipsies themselves should provide some of their own accommodation on their own sites under the planning system, appeal to me, and no doubt to many others in the House.

I shall state why I think that people are supporting some of the planning applications. It is not merely the granting of the planning permission that is important; it is the securing of a 100 per cent. grant for the local authorities. The local authorities know that for as many sites as they build, 100 per cent. grant will be granted. The result is that the authorities want money for those sites. But, having got the sites, they prove to be a liability, not merely to the local communities, but to the local gipsies themselves. There are two such sites in Bedford already, one of which has caused the utmost turmoil to the local residents. That was broken up over the years. The other site is a little outside Bedford where the gipsies destroyed their own accommodation, which has to be rehabilitated with the aid of Government money at great expense. I wonder whether the Opposition have considered that.

The other matter that I should like to stress is that in 1966 there were 3,500 illegally camped caravans in England. Today, after the provision of an extra 17,000 caravan pitches in the past 26 years, there are 7,000 illegal caravan encampments. If the local authorities have failed to provide enough caravan sites, are they likely to secure any great easement of the situation over the next five years, for which I understand their lordships are asking for modifications? No, I think that the Minister presented a good case. He put forward some of the arguments that I had in mind and I thank him for doing that. I hope that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept the view that there is no reason why the Lords amendments should be accepted.

9 pm

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury)

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are very sad about the Government's moves tonight. They appear to be trying to take the heart out of the excellent legislation which was first proposed, I understand, in the House by my noble Friend Lord Avebury. There has been some grudging acceptance on the Government Benches that that legislation has done much good.

There is a clear case to be made for the huge increase in authorised sites over the past few years having come about largely as a result of that legislation. The problem that the Government seem to be hitting is that that legislation has not increased the number of sites any faster than the increase in the gipsy population. That is not necessarily a reason for removing legislation altogether, which may make the situation even worse, because it looks likely that the increase in the number of sites in future will not even keep up with the gipsy population if the Government are determined to take that route.

The Government may be saying—some Opposition Members suspect that they are—that they simply do not want to see as many sites produced in future as would be produced if the legislation were left in place. If so, I regard that as very sad. But there are many reasons for supposing that we need a real increase in sites, and I hope that the Government will, as they claim to be doing, try to ensure that that increase occurs. It is, of course, also possible that the Government, while wishing to see an increase in sites, simply wish to decrease the average amount of money spent to set up each of those sites.

However, if we assume for a moment that the Government want to see an increase in sites, I think they are right, for the following reasons. First, there is all the human cost incurred in leaving a large number of the gipsy population on unauthorised sites. There is a human cost incurred by moving on the gipsies from site to site every few days—sometimes, perhaps, every few weeks, but often every few days.

There is a human cost in the stress on family life and the likelihood that families will break up as a result. There is a human cost among the children of those families—not only because the families themselves are stressed, but because of the difficulties children have in getting a reasonable education. At a time when, surely, we are all saying that the people of our country, our most valuable resource, need all the education and training that they can get to take up the jobs of the future, we should be saying that gipsy families should have the right, and the opportunity as well, to obtain a good education for themselves.

There is also the human cost in terms of the inaccessibility of health care to those who are constantly being moved from place to place. That is perhaps especially true of those mothers who are having children. We must recognise that human cost.

Even if the Government are not prepared to recognise the human cost, surely they should recognise the financial cost involved. I am referring to the farming community, which has already been mentioned. It is clear, as we were told earlier by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), that the National Farmers Union is no friend of the Labour party. I must tell the Government that although, when I first fought the Newbury seat, I was fairly certain that 90 per cent. of the farmers were voting against me—possibly more than that—by the time that I last fought the seat, I was pretty sure that 90 per cent. of the farmers were in favour of me. The reason is not least because the Government have shown themselves to be extremely farmer-unfriendly, and they are still showing themselves as such in their moves tonight.

We must also consider the cost to society as a whole. Can we really believe that it is right that the upbringing of children should be disrupted? Can it really be right that children should grow up without a proper education? Is that really the way to bring our social costs down? Even the Government should recognise the financial costs involved.

A possible reason for the Government introducing the measure is that they want the costs of each site reduced. If that is the case, will it actually happen? If there is a reduction in the increase in the number of authorised sites, the social and other costs to which I have just referred must greatly outweigh a reduction in the cost of the small number of extra sites set up by the gipsies.

If we are prepared to provide decent homes, as far as we can, for those who are homeless and in priority need, and such a provision still exists under the Government's new homelessness legislation, is it right that we should refuse to pay anything towards the homing costs of gipsy families when they have young children to look after? That seems to be gross discrimination against the gipsy population, and we should not put up with that.

If the Government assume that the number of sites will increase if there are to be only private sites in future, at least we should have an opportunity to put the policy into practice alongside the old legislation, so that we can see whether it really works.

The Caravan Sites Act 1968 has been in place for some time. It has not worked, because some local authorities have been allowed to get away with it. They have been allowed to get away with not fulfilling their obligations under the legislation. The Government should be enforcing that legislation properly. They should tell local authorities that they must fulfil their obligations to the community at large.

If the Government do not do that, the message sent to local authorities is that if they do not like legislation and do not want to fulfil their obligations, they can forget them for a while and let other authorities that are prepared to fulfil their obligations do that. The Government will not treat those local authorities fairly, because, in the end, they will tell them that, as they have not fulfilled their obligations for several years, they will drop those obligations entirely.

That is not a fair way to treat local authorities that have fulfilled their obligations, or the authorities that believe that they have an obligation to their local gipsy families. That is not a fair way to proceed, and the Government should not remove the amendment tonight.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)—[Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) leaves the Chamber, he might like to know that I intend to ask him a question in a moment.

I was one of the Conservative Members who, some years ago, pressed the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), very strongly when he was introducing proposals on squatting, to take similar measures against what I described as the menace of rural squatting—the subject of this debate. I was therefore extremely pleased by the Government's proposals in the Bill, which were foreshadowed, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, in the consultation paper.

However, I was alarmed when the Lords passed this amendment. I was particularly alarmed because, at that precise time, the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cornwall county council was trying to force through a scheme to impose—there is no other word to describe it—sites for new age travellers on the six district councils in Cornwall. Naturally, that created uproar from one end of the county to another.

The scheme was ill thought out. The council broke practically every rule in the planning book. There was no consultation. Someone in my constituency who happened to own a site did not even know of the proposal until he left a local post office and someone said to him, "I hear that they are going to put a site on your land."

What a dreadful way to act! There was mayhem from one end of the county to another. Protest meetings were held. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), I played a leading role in opposing the plans, and I make no apology for that. I believed that they trampled on the rights of local people.

Of course, taken in isolation, the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury has some force. Of course we all want a humane society; but just as gipsies and new age travellers have rights, so, too, do local people, and their rights were being trampled on by the plans drawn up by the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cornwall county council—

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

rose—

Mr. Harris

Before the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, I want to ask him a question. He has never made this clear; nor did the Euro-MP who, in the election campaign, spoke about all sorts of domestic issues but not about European issues. Did the hon. Member for North Cornwall support the plan drawn up by Cornwall county council for the county in general and for his constituency in particular?

Mr. Tyler

I am in favour of authorised sites, not unauthorised ones. It is extremely irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman, who fought an effective nimby campaign on this issue, to ignore the fact that there was wide consultation with all six district councils two years ago to establish the principle that in each district a site should be set up. I do not get involved in planning decisions. I was not involved in identifying which sites should be set up where—but it is a fact that each district agreed to establish a site.

Secondly, in my village there is an authorised site on which for many years gipsies have played a responsible part in the local community. That was in line with what the county council sought to establish. The critical issue before the House this evening—I hope that, instead of merely attacking Liberal Democrats in Cornwall, the hon. Gentleman will deal with this—is establishing how local communities may arrive at authorised sites to meet their obligations under current statute.

Mr. Harris

The hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question: did he or did he not support Cornwall county council's plan for the county and for his constituency?

Mr. Tyler

I neither supported nor opposed it, because I do not support or oppose any planning application. We have many responsibilities here as Members of Parliament, but we should not arrogate to ourselves the responsibilities of members of planning committees—that would be quite absurd.

Mr. Harris

Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not get involved in the merits or demerits of planning applications; but in this case I thought that the county council's actions defied all planning common sense and paid no regard to the wishes or well-being of local people. I therefore had no hesitation about deploring the council's way of trying to deal with an admittedly very difficult problem.

Mr. David Nicholson

Did I hear my hon. Friend say that the proposals in Cornwall were intended to include not just traditional gipsies but new age travellers? If so, that concerns us greatly. Secondly, will he bear in mind that this same issue has been rather more surreptitiously pursued by Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset county council?

Mr. Harris

One of the problems that has bedevilled this whole subject is that of arriving at a reasonable definition of "gipsy". I do not accept that the huge increase in the scale of the problem has been caused by the sort of people whom I regard as genuine indigenous Romany people. Of course their population has not increased over the past 25 years by the numbers that have been given during the debate. We are talking about people who, for one reason or another—perhaps good reasons, perhaps bad reasons—have chosen to follow that way of life.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), perhaps one of the cardinal mistakes by Cornwall county council when, out of the blue, it announced their scheme for the designation of sites, was to describe them as sites for travellers. A High Court case went some way to clarifying the difference between gipsies and travellers. That case, which related to South Hams, made it quite clear that travellers were not covered by the provisions of the 1968 Act.

9.15 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I do not wish to intrude too much on a Cornish debate, but clearly there are implications for everyone else. Has the hon. Gentleman ever supported the provision of caravan sites anywhere in the county of Cornwall for any travellers, or is he opposed to them all? Those of us not living in Cornwall should understand any prejudice that he may have employed in his argument.

Mr. Harris

I have always made it clear that I want the council to provides sites for indigenous local gipsies. Just as hon. Member for Cornwall, North said that there is one in or near his constituency, there is one near my constituency, and I have no objection to it; it is perfectly reasonable.

I parted company with the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council when it tried to use powers in the 1968 Act to provide sites for new age travellers. I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will agree that we do not have a responsibility to provide sites for people who choose on a whim to go anywhere in the country and then expect to be housed at the expense of the taxpayers or council tax payers. I do not buy that argument at all, and I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will agree.

I should say something else about the county council. Nothing much was done for 26 years, but when the Bill came before the House and went to the other place, suddenly the Liberal Democrats on the county council acted. Their publicly stated reason for moving so quickly was to secure a 100 per cent. grant. That was the main motivation.

Mr. Tyler

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fair Member of the House. He has not responded yet, but I hope that he will now acknowledge that the consultation began on the appropriate sites per district two years ago—before the Bill came to the House and before the reduction of grant was mooted. While I am here, because I do not want to interrupt him again—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman may not wish to interrupt again, but he is making an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. Harris

There were proposals by the county council some time before the Bill appeared. I am not sure whether they preceded the consultation document; my recollection is that they did not, but it was about that time. Certainly they moved very quickly to the designation of the six sites, breaking virtually every rule in the planning book to secure the 100 per cent. grant.

I was approached indirectly by Liberal Democrats who said, "For goodness' sake get the Government to call in the sites, because we do not want them." That was what happened.

The Liberal Democrats on the county council faced uproar; they were clearly in an embarrassing position. They were given some succour by the passing of the Lords amendments, and they tried to make out that the Bill would be delayed and therefore their money would be secure. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made it perfectly clear that was not the case, and that, in all probability, they would not get the money they wanted.

I am sorry that I have gone on so long, but to sum up, I believe that it is absolutely essential that the Lords amendments are rejected by the House tonight. I hope they will be, I know they will be and I hope that even the Liberal Democrats will vote with the Government, despite the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury.

Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that access to the House has already been mentioned twice tonight, as a result of what is happening outside the House. I know that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is quite comfortably in his place in the House when perhaps he should be outside, speaking to his friends. Tonight, the House is under siege. There are 2,000 police who could be protecting all their communities in London, but who instead are hemmed in by a bunch of thugs who are intent on causing disruption to the proceedings of the House. All I wish to do is draw attention to that fact, and to say that the time has come when that must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Those people should be removed from outside Parliament as soon as possible.

Mr. John Greenway

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman means, "Further to that point of order."

Mr. Greenway

I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the House to delay proceedings on the Bill any longer, except to say that, having twice, in the 1960s, been a police officer on the receiving end of some of the violence being meted out to Metropolitan police officers tonight, I think that the House should record its gratitude to those 2,000 officers outside, who are ensuring that that mob is not allowed into the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Stephen

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Unless these are new points of order, I intend to rule on the two that have—[Interruption.] Order. I shall rule on the two that have been raised. Hon. Members will know that, since I have been in the Chair, a matter was raised on a point of order in the Division. I said that I left it to the ingenuity of hon. Members to get here, and the numbers of hon. Members getting here were almost identical to those in the previous Division, which reinforces one's views that hon. Members show considerable ingenuity to get here.

At this point of time, the House has proceeded normally, and it is my intention that the House shall proceed normally. If hon. Members wish to table early-day motions, that is entirely their privilege.

Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

I should like to get away from the undoubted party politics in Cornwall to the issue before us this evening.

The fundamental question is whether the Government proposals will lead to an improvement in what is, by common consent, a matter that causes serious worry—the provision of reasonable accommodation for the needs of the gipsy population in this country. Will the Government proposals do that?

I believe, having listened to the Minister and to the debates this evening and at other times, that the Government have manifestly failed to make convincing arguments that would lead us to conclude that their proposals overall will improve the position. I intend to make three or four arguments to illustrate that.

The first argument is that, once more, the Government are trotting out their dogma—a dogma that insists that the public sector has failed and that therefore the private sector must be the way of the future.

It is interesting that, not only did the Minister contradict himself, but the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) emphasised that contradiction. As I understood the Minister, he was saying that local authority provision has worked because 46 per cent. of the gipsy population is covered by local authority sites and therefore there is no need for the continuation of the duty laid on local authorities under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. However, in the next breath, to try to justify what was a very thin argument, the Minister said that local authority provision had failed.

I say to the Minister that one cannot have it both ways. Local authority provision has either worked or it has failed. The House deserves an answer to that contradiction this evening.

My own view is that local authority provision has worked. It has not worked as well as it should, but it has worked. Having been a member of Labour-controlled Stoke-on-Trent city council, which was one of the first authorities in the country to provide a caravan site, I speak from some experience. The Government talk about 100 per cent. grants, but, as I understand it, they are capital grants. They make no reference to revenue, but during the Past 15 years under the Government local authorities have experienced savage cuts.

Therefore, it is not good enough for the Government to stand up and say that, despite the 100 per cent. grants, the provision has failed when it manifestly has not—according to the Government—without referring to the revenue consequences that fall on local authorities that have suffered severe cuts.

Secondly, the Government propose that gipsies should go on housing waiting lists. I do not know what the housing waiting list is like in other areas, but, as a direct result of Government policy, the waiting list in Stoke-on-Trent contains thousands and thousands more people than it did before the Government came to power. We have people sleeping on the streets as a result of the Government's policy.

Therefore, to suggest that gipsies need no longer worry about the removal of the duty on local authorities to provide authorised sites because they can go on the housing waiting list and be okay is pure balderdash. It is not only pure balderdash; it is an affront to gipsies. Their very tradition means that they do not want to go into houses. They want to live their traditional life. That proposal is not only impractical and does not stand up to examination, but it is an affront to the gipsy population.

My last point concerns the five-year provision in the Lords amendment. I do not know why the Government are so worried about that. I suppose that they think that it is an attempt by the other place, including many Conservative peers, to wreck the proposal. The Government, in their desire to push the measure through, must see it in that way. But that is a negative way of looking at it. There is a chance here to see whether the Government's proposals will work.

All of us understand how difficult it is to establish an authorised gipsy site in a particular area. The public react, sometimes quite strongly, to proposals for an authorised gipsy site. That is understandable. It is not always coherent or correct, but it is understandable. There are different arguments in different parts of the country. But where is the Government's evidence that things will be easier if the gipsies themselves establish the site rather than its being done through a local authority? The Government have not put forward any arguments to justify that proposal.

I hope that we can look at the matter positively. Let us see whether the Government's proposals work. Let us see whether private applications come through. Let us see whether there is a positive effect in terms of gipsies wanting to go on housing waiting lists. The five-year proposal is an opportunity to do that. Therefore, I hope that the Lords amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester)

I shall not weary the House with a long recitation of the principles that underlie the Government's proposals, except to say that I profoundly disagree with the views expressed by Opposition Members, as do the vast majority of my constituents. Nevertheless, I want to explain why I believe that delaying the repeal of certain powers in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 may, ironically, be an attractive proposition in my constituency.

Following intensive lobbying by me and my predecessor, now Lord Walker of Worcester, I am glad to say that both councils operating in my constituency, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council, have achieved designation under the Caravan Sites Act by providing an adequate number of sites. Therefore, lf was disturbed to receive a letter from Wychavon district council stating: Since the designation Order came into force, the Council has successfully used the new powers in a number of situations to move on unauthorised encampments. We are now very concerned that the proposed policy guidance relative to the new Act appears to make no allowance for the situation where an authority has already obtained designation … We find it very difficult to reconcile the tone of the proposed guidance with the tone of the legislation itself. On the one hand, authorities are being given new powers. On the other hand, they are being urged not to exercise them. If the new guidance is adopted as now proposed this Council will undoubtedly be in a weaker position in tackling unauthorised gypsy encampments after the new Act than before. We feel certain that this was not the Government's intention when the new legislation was announced. I share the council's conviction that that was not the Government's intention.

My hon. Friend the Minister will understand why I am reluctant to see my constituents placed in a weaker position by the Bill than under the successful and hard-won designation that they already enjoy. I hope that he can reassure me that my council's interpretation of the guidance is mistaken and that it will be in at least an equally strong position. Otherwise, the prospect of five years of current effective protection looks quite attractive.

9.30 pm
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

Will the proposals that the Minister has presented make it possible for someone to take responsibility for finding somewhere for travellers and gipsies in my constituency? We have a solution from the Home Office when the matter should be dealt with by the Department of the Environment. The Government's solution is no solution and will only make matters worse.

Stoke-on-Trent has already seen 33 illegal encampments this year. Local people did not want to live side by side with as many as 33 illegal sites. The council moved illegal camps from pillar to post. Travellers and gipsies moved from a children's playground to a piece of open space, with no provision for public health or waste disposal. That resulted in enormous problems for the local community.

Stoke-on-Trent is already designated, but does not have sufficient sites for the number of people who consistently, over six years, wanted to stay in the area. It is in everybody's interest that someone should grasp the nettle, take responsibility and ensure that where a known number of travellers or gipsies are in an area, a proper camp where they can pay their way is provided. That could be done under the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

If the Government's solution would make matters better, I would welcome it, but I see nothing in their proposals that would achieve that. Stoke-on-Trent has already seen 33 illegal encampments this year. The Government's proposals would double that number next year.

Mr. Corbyn

The Minister's arguments were utterly illogical. Anyone outside the House listening would consider them complete nonsense. He spoke of a natural increase in the gipsy population and in the same breath said that he would deal with the problem—as he referred Da it—by removing the requirement on local authorities to provide sites, saying that it should all be done by their private enterprise. Conservative Members also demonstrated with great clarity that they do not want caravan sites anywhere near their communities. What the Minister is doing in his silver-tongued way is presenting the worst face of intolerance of the Tory party; saying that we do not want these sites anywhere, that we do not want a travelling community, that we do not want or believe in a society that encompasses different ways of life from the ones that they understand.

The Minister should recognise that those people, the families, children and so on, who are pushed from illegal site to illegal site and are due to become criminals as a result under this disgusting piece of legislation, suffer a great deal. Their children suffer illnesses. Their infant mortality rate is higher—a large number of their babies die. They suffer educationally. They suffer a great deal of shunning and prejudice in our society. If we believe in a reasoned society, in respecting other ways of life, we should do something about it other than removing the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The man who introduced that Act, Norman Dodds, a former Member of the House, fought all his life for the rights of travelling communities. He was a very brave person. He stood up against a great deal of prejudice himself and got that piece of legislation through.

Conservative Members decry the Act as a complete failure. I am not so sure that it is. It meant that many people had somewhere safe to live and ended the horrible practice of people being driven off land and from one place to another. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) shared an experience with me. Both of us are former councillors. Both of us have been involved in the provision of sites. I was chair of the planning committee in the borough of Haringey and was asked to sign—(Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen.

I was asked, as chair of the planning committee, to sign a number of eviction orders for unauthorised campers on council land. I discovered that not only did the council not provide any authorised caravan sites, but that it had no plans to do so. I also detected that there was very little wish to do so among certain officers of the authority, although that was not universal. It became clear to me that we had a moral obligation to fulfil sections of the Act. We were also facing, in the longer term, a legal obligation to do so under the 1984 High Court judgment, which came up some time later. Haringey provided sites—not while I was a member of the council, but shortly afterwards. Just to show its faith, it provided one of them in the car park alongside the civic centre, so nobody could say that councillors were running away from that issue.

The provision meant that there was a reduction in, if not an end to, unauthorised camping in the borough. It also meant that there was a sense of sanity. There were some possibilities of education and a higher standard of public health care for the people who were living on those sites. If we believe in living in a reasoned and decent society, we should accept the need for the provision of such sites. The Minister is sending out a very loud signal—no-go for travellers; no-go for Romanies; no-go for gipsies in our society: criminalise those who try to live that kind of life style.

The Minister should also be aware that the European Court has looked rather askance at the treatment of Lapps in other parts of Europe. Indeed, the blind prejudice that exists against travelling communities is a shame and should be treated as such. I believe that the provision of sites has been an important step forward. We should retain the Act. We should retain the 100 per cent. capital provision. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who said that there are revenue implications that have not been met by the Department of the Environment, and that they should be. It is difficult for hon. Members to get up and say, "I support travellers", because people always come up with all sorts of reasons why they should not. I merely ask hon. Members to consider the implications of doing otherwise. Do we really want to move into the kind of society that sets the mob against those who choose to live a different life style? Do we really want to unleash the horrors of prejudice against those people? I believe that the signal from the Bill is an attempt to criminalise the people who lead that life style. There is enormous opposition to many sections of the Bill throughout society, because people recognise that the Bill is based on prejudice. This clause is the ultimate clause based on prejudice.

Mr. Stephen

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corbyn

No, because there is very little time.

I very much hope that, limited though the Lords amendments are in this respect, we could at least understand the motive behind them and perhaps agree with them as a way of preserving the continued provision by local authorities of sites for travellers, which would at least send a signal through our society that there is real tolerance of those who wish to lead different life styles, rather than the kind of intolerance that has been demonstrated, mainly by Conservative Members, in the debate.

Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood)

I agree with the Government that something had to be done about the kind of problem that has affected my constituents in the past two years, which is caused not by people whom I would term gipsies or travellers—new age or old age—but by people whom I would frankly call scavengers. They live in large caravans; they have large cars and large and expensive dogs. What they have done to the community of south Staffordshire has to be seen to be believed. I have seen it, and I believe it.

My constituents ask what they can do to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen. People have even occupied the bowling green surrounding the social welfare club belonging to a pit that the Government have just closed: having ruined the green, they burnt down the social club. Such serious problems need a serious solution, but I worry about the extent of the powers taken in this part of the Bill. I worry about their blanket nature, and about the absence of tests of nuisance.

I accept that there is a problem, which the Government had to tackle. As their lordships have said, however, the Government should think further. They have tackled half the problem —they have made it easier for local authorities to take the necessary action—but they have done nothing to provide sites for the people who are causing the problem.

Let me issue a warning. We have had a system of permissive designation: that is the root of the problem—not designation itself, but the limited, partial, fragmented take-up. It has been possible to say that the problem lies with local authorities that have not made provision for the people whom we are discussing, but from now on it will not be possible for the Government or anyone else to say that. The Government have now removed the obligation to provide sites of any kind, and have simply said that they will trust to the market and the planning system. We know that that has not worked in the past, and will not work in this instance.

The House of Lords has said, sensibly in my view, "We know that there is a problem, and we have taken action, quite properly, to make removal of unauthorised campers easier." That is good, but the House of Lords has done nothing to deal with the problem of unauthorised camping itself. The Government should take five years to think about the problem. They should approach it sensibly, or removal will be followed by endless shunting around my constituency and others like it. No longer will it be the fault of local authorities, if it is now; it will be the Government's fault.

Mr. Robert B. Jones

This has been an interesting debate, in which a variety of views have been expressed on a rather contentious subject. Some of those views have been contradictory, but important contributions have been made. It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) speak on behalf of the Opposition: as he said, we served together on the Select Committee for some years. I remind him that we spent a fair amount of time considering precisely this subject; indeed, I spent so much time on the subject of gipsies that, when we presented our report to the House, my then hon. Friend Sir Hugh Rossi asked me to lead for the Committee. I am therefore not unfamiliar with the subject, and with the problems that have arisen over many years.

The 1968 Act has failed. It has not been a complete failure, but it has failed to solve the problem of unauthorised caravans owned by Romanies. The Select Committee expressed that view strongly. Therefore, for me to come to the House and argue this point is entirely consistent with those anxieties. 9.45 pm

Having identified the problems that have arisen with the 1968 Act, it is absurd for the hon. Member for Burnley to argue for further delay. Further delay would simply add to the problem and we would be five years further down the line. Whether "five more years" is a slogan from the hon. Member for Burnley or from one of his hon. Friends, it does nothing to address the circularity of the argument. Local authorities have failed. We cannot simply turn round and say that they are likely to succeed if they have another five years. There is a structural fault in the legislation and in the approach of local authorities in general.

I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley on some of his specific points. I agree that smaller sites would be sensible because that would cause fewer problems internally among the Romanies as well as with the local community. I agree that we do not want to see sites in locations that would be bad for either the Romanies or the local community. I think that we sometimes forget that about 50 or 60 per cent of Romanies already live in houses. I repeat for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and others that the Government have no intention of forcing into houses those who have opted for this life style. That is not realistic or desirable.

What underlies the Government's attitude is fundamentally our traditional approach of diversity and choice. We have diversity because we have some sites in the public sector and some in the private sector. Some 46 per cent. are on public sector sites and 24 per cent. on private sector sites and we wish to encourage the numbers on private sector sites through the planning system. That approach is endorsed by the National Gypsy Council, which has an interest in this.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that the Government do not want to see more sites. That is contrary to our view. We want to see more sites because we want to tackle the problem and not simply see the continuing backlog mount up. When Liberal Democrats are in opposition in local authorities they may well subscribe to the general principle that there should be more sites. However, as soon as it comes down to individual sites, they are on the other side campaigning against them. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) illustrated that extremely well.

The hon. Member for Newbury referred also to the problem of a lack of proper education for the children of such families. The point of trying to set up more permanent sites in the right locations is to increase the numbers receiving regular schooling. There is no difference of opinion between us on that. The sites are plainly not being delivered on a large enough scale under the present arrangements, and satisfactory provision is more likely in the future.

One or two Opposition Members said that because local authorities have not managed to come up with the right numbers, the Government should do something about it. The Government have used their best endeavours, but we have been advised that where local authorities are acting in good faith, even if they do not come up with the goods, we would not succeed in a mandamus order.

I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) that the debate is about how best to provide the sites. I was not saying that the legislation under which we are currently operating has failed completely. It has achieved something, but it is not a long-term solution and that is perfectly obvious from the continuing number of unauthorised caravans. The hon. Gentleman may recall that when Cripps proposed 100 per cent. grants, he thought that that was needed to kick-start the provision of sites by local authorities. It does not seem to have achieved what he envisaged and we are now many years on.

The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to his local authority and to what it had done to provide a site, a point that thought was undermined by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who went on to say that 33—I think that that was the number that she gave—caravans were occupying illegal pitches. As I understand it, Stoke-on-Trent city council has provided only one site in 24 years. In January 1994, 59 caravans occupied unauthorised sites in Stoke. If the Act has worked as well as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why has Stoke-on-Trent city council, which he praises, not been able to find a solution to the problems of that region?

Mr. Rendel

The Minister has not yet told us why, if the Act is not working fully, he does not understand the need to strengthen it rather than to remove it.

Mr. Jones

I thought that I had dealt with that point when I spoke about mandamus. The Select Committee made the point on a number of occasions that the Government should be more robust with local authorities that had not come up with the goods. The difficulty is that one can try to induce and to persuade in all sorts of ways, but if local authorities use their best endeavours, honestly go about their work, but still fail, the Government cannot do a lot about it. That is why we are approaching the matter in a different way.

I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) this weekend, so I can understand the view of Wychavon council, an extremely well-run local authority. He raised the point about the inconsistency, as he saw it, between giving local authorities wider powers and, at the same time, urging Wychavon council not to use them. That is a misunderstanding. We are guiding local authorities to use those powers reasonably and not unreasonably. A local authority such as Wychavon, which has done a great deal to ensure that there are authorised sites, stands a much greater chance of enforcing the new legislation than local authorities that have neglected to provide such sites. However, as my hon. Friend is an eloquent advocate of his constituency's interests, I will consider the guidance to see whether anything further needs to be done to deal with the good authorities that have designation.

Mr. Pike

The Minister is dealing with an extremely important point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Those authorities that have designation believe that they will lose out as a result of what is being agreed today. They have provided authorised sites and they have designation. All that that entails will go if the Bill is passed in its current form.

Mr. Jones

No one can predict exactly what will happen in the courts, but those authorities will have a much surer defence in the courts than any authority that has done nothing about providing sites. The existence of wider powers seems to be good, not only for those authorities that are not designated, but for those that are.

Ms Walley

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones

If the hon. Lady does not mind, I shall not give way because I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who expressed some pride that he had dealt with this issue when a councillor in the London borough of Haringey, whereas others had ducked it.

We all admire people who stand up for their beliefs in what can be a difficult situation. The hon. Member for Burnley will remember that one of the subjects that came up again and again in the Select Committee—hardly surprising given its chairmanship—was the failure of Haringey to get authorised sites off the ground. The hon. Member for Islington, North says that Haringey achieved that shortly after he left the council. I believe that he left the council in 1983 when he joined the House in the same year as me, but the grant was approved for Haringey sites six months ago. That seems to be rather a long time.

He made a valid general point about not wanting to play to prejudice. That is not what the Government are about, although I have noticed that that is what many local activists are about, particularly those in the Liberal party. We want not to incite prejudice but to achieve something that has eluded successive Governments for a long time—to get more caravans on to authorised public or private sector sites.

That is what the Bill will achieve and I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 262.

Division No. 309] [9.54 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Booth, Hartley
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan Boswell, Tim
Alexander, Richard Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Bowden, Sir Andrew
Amess, David Bowis, John
Ancram, Michael Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Arbuthnot, James Brandreth, Gyles
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Brazier, Julian
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) Bright, Sir Graham
Ashby, David Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Aspinwall, Jack Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Atkins, Robert Browning, Mrs. Angela
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E) Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Burns, Simon
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) Burt, Alistair
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Butcher, John
Baldry, Tony Butler, Peter
Banks, Matthew (Southport) Butterfill, John
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Batiste, Spencer Carrington, Matthew
Beggs, Roy Carttiss, Michael
Bellingham, Henry Cash, William
Bendell, Vivian Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Beresford, Sir Paul Chapman, Sydney
Biffen, Rt Hon John Churchill, Mr
Body, Sir Richard Clappison, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif) Horam, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coe, Sebastian Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Congdon, David Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Conway, Derek Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Hunter, Andrew
Couchman, James Jack, Michael
Cran, James Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) Jenkin, Bernard
Davies, Quentin (Starnford) Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Davis, David (Boothferry) Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Day, Stephen Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Deva, Nirj Joseph Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Devlin, Tim Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dicks, Terry Key, Robert
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Kilfedder, Sir James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James King, Rt Hon Tom
Dover, Den Kirkhope, Timothy
Duncan, Alan Knapman, Roger
Duncan-Smith, Iain Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Dunn, Bob Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Durant, Sir Anthony Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Dykes, Hugh Knox, Sir David
Eggar, Tim Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Elletson, Harold Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) Legg, Barry
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) Leigh, Edward
Evans, Roger (Monmouth) Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Evennett, David Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Faber, David Lidington, David
Fishburn, Dudley Lightbown, David
Forman, Nigel Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) Lord, Michael
Forth, Eric Luff, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) MacKay, Andrew
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger Maclean, David
French, Douglas Madel, Sir David
Fry, Sir Peter Maginnis, Ken
Gale, Roger Malone, Gerald
Gardiner, Sir George Mans, Keith
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan Marland, Paul
Garnier, Edward Marlow, Tony
Gill, Christopher Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gillan, Cheryl Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair Mates, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa McCrea, Rev William
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW) McLoughlin, Patrick
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Mellor, Rt Hon David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) Merchant, Piers
Grylls, Sir Michael Mills, Iain
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Hague, William Moate, Sir Roger
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Hampson, Dr Keith Monro, Sir Hector
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hannam, Sir John Moss, Malcolm
Harris, David Nelson, Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan Neubert, Sir Michael
Hawkins, Nick Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hawksley, Warren Nicholls, Patrick
Hayes, Jerry Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Heald, Oliver Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Norris, Steve
Hendry, Charles Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hicks, Robert Oppenheim, Phillip
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence Ottaway, Richard
Hill, James (Southampton Test) Page, Richard
Paice, James Sumberg, David
Paisley, Rev Ian Sweeney, Walter
Patnick, Sir Irvine Sykes, John
Patten, Rt Hon John Tapsell, Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Pawsey, James Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Pickles, Eric Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael Temple-Morris, Peter
Powell, William (Corby) Thomason, Roy
Redwood, Rt Hon John Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Richards, Rod Thurnham, Peter
Riddick, Graham Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm Tracey, Richard
Robathan, Andrew Tredinnick, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn Trend, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) Trotter, Neville
Robinson, Mark (Somerton) Twinn, Dr Ian
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela Viggers, Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Sackville, Tom Walden, George
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Shaw, David (Dover) Waller, Gary
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) Ward, John
Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Waterson, Nigel
Shersby, Michael Watts, John
Sims, Roger Wells, Bowen
Skeet, Sir Trevor Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) Whitney, Ray
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) Whittingdale, John
Soames, Nicholas Widdecombe, Ann
Speed, Sir Keith Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Spencer, Sir Derek Wilkinson, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Willetts, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) Wilshire, David
Spring, Richard Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Sproat, Iain Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) Wolfson, Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John Wood, Timothy
Steen, Anthony Yeo, Tim
Stephen, Michael Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Stern, Michael Tellers for the Ayes:
Stewart, Allan Mr. Andrew Mitchell and
Streeter, Gary Mr. Michael Bates
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Betts, Clive
Adams, Mrs Irene Blair, Tony
Ainger, Nick Blunkett, David
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Boateng, Paul
Allen, Graham Bowden, Sir Andrew
Alton, David Boyes, Roland
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Bradley, Keith
Anderson, Ms Janet Bray, Dr Jeremy
(Ros'dale) Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Armstrong, Hilary Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ashton, Joe Burden, Richard
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Byers, Stephen
Barnes, Harry Caborn, Richard
Barron, Kevin Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Battle, John Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Bayley, Hugh Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret Campbell-Savours, D.N.
Beith, Rt Hon A.J. Canavan, Dennis
Bell, Stuart Cann, Jamie
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Chidgey, David
Bennett, Andrew F. Chisholm, Malcolm
Benton, Joe Church, Judith
Bermingham, Gerald Clapham, Michael
Berry, Roger Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Clelland, David Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Coffey, Ann Hutton, John
Cohen, Harry Illsley, Eric
Connarty, Michael Ingram, Adam
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Corbett, Robin Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Corbyn, Jeremy Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Corston, Jean Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cousins, Jim Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence Jowell, Tessa
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) Keen, Alan
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Dalyell, Tam Khabra, Piara S.
Darling, Alistair Kilfoyle, Peter
Davidson, Ian Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) Kirkwood, Archy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Lewis, Terry
Denham, John Liddell, Mrs Helen
Dewar, Donald Litherland, Robert
Dixon, Don Livingstone, Ken
Dobson, Frank Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Donohoe, Brian H. Loyden, Eddie
Dowd, Jim Lynne, Ms Liz
Dunnachie, Jimmy Macdonald, Calum
Eagle, Ms Angela Mackinlay, Andrew
Eastham, Ken Maclennan, Robert
Enright, Derek MacShane, Denis
Etherington, Bill Madden, Max
Evans, John (St Helens N) Maddock, Diana
Ewing, Mrs Margaret Mahon, Alice
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Marek, Dr John
Fisher, Mark Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Flynn, Paul Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Foster, Don (Bath) Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Martlew, Eric
Foulkes, George McAllion, John
Fraser, John McAvoy, Thomas
Fyfe, Maria McCartney, Ian
Galbraith, Sam McFall, John
Galloway, George McKelvey, William
Gapes, Mike McLeish, Henry
George, Bruce McMaster, Gordon
Gerrard, Neil McNamara, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John McWilliam, John
Godman, Dr Norman A. Meacher, Michael
Godsiff, Roger Meale, Alan
Graham, Thomas Michael, Alun
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Milburn, Alan
Grocott, Bruce Miller, Andrew
Gunnell, John Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hain, Peter Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hall, Mike Morgan, Rhodri
Hanson, David Morley, Elliot
Hardy, Peter Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Harman, Ms Harriet Mowlam, Marjorie
Harvey, Nick Mudie, George
Henderson, Doug Mullin, Chris
Heppell, John Murphy, Paul
Hill, Keith (Streatham) O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Hinchliffe, David O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Hodge, Margaret O'Neill, Martin
Hoey, Kate Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld) Olner, William
Home Robertson, John Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Hood, Jimmy Parry, Robert
Hoon, Geoffrey Patchett, Terry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Pendry, Tom
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) Pickthall, Colin
Hoyle, Doug Pike, Peter L.
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Pope, Greg
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E) Spearing, Nigel
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Steel, Rt Hon Sri David
Prescott, John Stevenson, George
Primarolo, Dawn Stott, Roger
Purchase, Ken Strang, Dr. Gavin
Quin, Ms Joyce Straw, Jack
Radice, Giles Sutcliffe, Gerry
Randall, Stuart Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Raynsford, Nick Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Redmond, Martin Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Reid, Dr John Timms, Stephen
Rendel, David Tipping, Paddy
Robertson, George (Hamilton) Turner, Dennis
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW) Tyler, Paul
Roche, Mrs. Barbara Vaz, Keith
Rogers, Allan Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Rooker, Jeff Wallace, James
Rooney, Terry Walley, Joan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Ruddock, Joan Wareing, Robert N
Salmond, Alex Watson, Mike
Sedgemore, Brian Welsh, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry Wicks, Malcolm
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Short, Clare Winnick, David
Simpson, Alan Wise, Audrey
Skinner, Dennis Worthington, Tony
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) Wray, Jimmy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) Wright, Dr Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) Tellers for the Noes:
Snape, Peter Mr. John Spellar and
Soley, Clive Mr. John Cummings

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Forward to