§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
§ 2.4 am
§ Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire)After all those votes without debates, we come to a debate without a vote. What an interesting place we work in.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this intractable subject. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for keeping him here even later than he would otherwise have been. I know that he does more than his fair share of these debates. I place what I have to say in the context of his new guidance on unauthorised camping, of late 1998, and of the Department's circular, "Managing Unauthorised Camping".
Reading those eminently sane and humane documents with great care places me in some difficulties, because in insisting that they are inadequate I am forced to appear less than humane. In my view, both sets of guidance play a part in making the situation that communities face worse.
Skelmersdale has had two decades of economic misery—it was the first into the 1981 recession, and probably the last out of the one in the 1990s—but, in recent years, it has struggled out of that situation. Its industrial estates are full and thriving. Large amounts of single regeneration budget money have been spent on improving the environment of those estates, attracting more customers. Existing firms have invested heavily in expansion. Unemployment has dropped considerably.
Then, this June, the travellers arrived, not for the first time, but with redoubled venom. Large groups occupied the car parks and forecourts of four factories. Of course, traveller groups have visited Skelmersdale for many years, as they do most constituencies, but the figures from West Lancashire district council show a steady increase, and the reports from business people show a steady increase in foul and aggressive behaviour.
I should interrupt myself to say what difficulties I have with the terminology. The term "gypsies" conjures up romantic images in the public mind, and perhaps even in the minds of those who composed some of the clauses in the guidance document. There is nothing romantic about the travellers of whom I am complaining. No doubt most travellers go about their nomadic business in a perfectly reasonable way, but there are those who are violent and deliberately destructive and we have no effective defences against them without taking the law into our own hands.
It is, in my view, not right that the ineffectiveness of the law and the regulations is forcing perfectly respectable business people in my constituency to contemplate direct action. On 13 June, a group of travellers destroyed a permanent wall surrounding the car park of Bayex Ltd., and 15 caravans, with their occupants and animals, camped in the car park. Within days, other groups arrived, reoccupying the car park of Pactrol Controls and the grassed frontage of the Procter and Gamble factory. The people could not be removed until 30 June, so for 17 days, three important firms in my constituency were driven mad by the travellers, to the point of temporary closure.
941 John Richardson, a well-respected business man and servant to the community in West Lancashire—a man of enormous good nature and patience—wrote:
As I look out of the window of our factory on Pimbo, I can count 42 caravans, 6 horses and dogs too numerous to count. Caravans and vehicles are parked within feet of the factory, the reception area is being used as a human toilet and we cannot open any windows because of the awful smell.Customers and suppliers are refusing to visit the factory. This is creating severe difficulties, not to mention loss of business and the subsequent loss of jobs—we are grinding to a halt.This is the third time this has happened in the last 12 months and our patience and the patience of our parent group is running out.When these people eventually move on we are again faced with considerable cost to clear the area.On 25 June, Mr. Richardson wrote:Since my last fax, would you believe, we now have a dead pony in the bushes in front of the factory. I have had to stop customers and suppliers visiting the premises.On Monday of this week a number of the many children on the site started throwing stones at employees' cars.We telephoned the police in Skelmersdale at 12.30 pm for assistance, two officers appeared at 4.30 pm.These travellers are a large, threatening group and I am left in the situation of balancing the safety of my employees' property and the health and safety implications. I cannot expect people to walk through horse, dog and human excreta. This is England in 1999 and I cannot provide safe conditions for my employees. I have closed the factory today.Finally, on 30 June, Mr. Richardson wrote:The travellers left early this morning, I hope out of West Lancashire.We have used 50 hours of labour to clear our site and Bayex … have used a similar amount. We filled 53 bin bags with rubbish from the front of the factory. The District Council will have to spend at least three times our combined time to clear footpath, roads etc.Talking to the managing director of Bayex this morning, he had to stop his night shift because of physical threats made to his employees and the threat of burning down his factory if they did not supply the travellers with water. This was a particularly large and nasty bunch. I believe they would have carried out their threats.I have also received a long letter from Mr. Peter Appleton, the managing director of Bayex, about the costs involved:To date we have incurred costs, for legal fees etc., in excess of £2,000, and a large amount of concentrated time has been taken from what should be our main focus of running this business. We are now left with a clean up operation.Mr. Appleton added that Bayex was to have had a formal presentation of its ISO 9002 quality certificate. That was cancelled because of what the person who was to have presented the award would have seen at the factory.Mr. Appleton also gave an account, which I do not have time to read out, of trying to erect a barrier to keep the travellers away from the front of the factory. As employees went to put posts into the ground, Mr. Appleton writes, the
gypsies became aggressive and assaulted one of our employees, Mr. Ray Ryan, by pushing him to the floor. Police were called but their response was to send a young "special" constable who appeared not able to act. After speaking to the Skelmersdale station, he said that the assault was a civil offence because our employee had not been taken to hospital for treatment.942 Mr. Appleton's lawyer thencalled the police station and spoke to Sgt. Speke, who confirmed the young officer's information. Sgt. Speke also stated that "Police HQ" had advised all local stations not to act against any gypsy situation because there was a low likelihood of prosecution.Proctor and Gamble manufactures and stores medicines. The local factory has been surrounded for 17 days by a sea of human excrement and other rubbish. A few months ago, the McCain pizza base factory was besieged by a similar group of travellers. It is easy to imagine the reaction of a visitor from the company's head office in the United States—or of any visitor—when confronted by such scenes outside a food factory. That factory has since closed, with the loss of 100 jobs, although there is no simple link with the events that I have described.Apart from the travellers involved, no one wants such problems to arise, so why is nothing done to nip them in the bud? The first reason is that the travellers, by definition, have no permanent address, so are not susceptible to the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which states that the most senior police officer present can direct trespassers to leave if any of them cause damage to the land or property, or use threatening, abusive or insulting words of behaviour, or if they have, between them, six or more vehicles on the land.
That sounds straightforward. The incidents that I have described meet all those criteria, but every Member of Parliament knows that travellers are not directed to leave in the simple way set out in the 1994 Act. The police do not use the powers, despite enormous pressure from Members of Parliament and local citizens. Councils use their powers, which are cumbersome, bureaucratic and slow.
I believe that the police are deterred from action by the wording of the guidance notes and the Act, and by a belief that they would not succeed in any court case and might attract public opprobrium for action against harmless gypsies. Paragraph 4.13 of the 1994 good practice guide displays the problem:
The police do not have to make any welfare inquiries as such. They have to exercise their discretionary power under section 61 of the 1994 Act in a way which is reasonable. This will depend upon all the circumstances of each case. Home Office circular 45/1994 says:'The decision whether or not to issue a direction to leave is an operational one for the police alone to take in the light of all the circumstances of the particular case. But in making his decision the senior officer at the scene may wish to take into account the personal circumstances of the trespassers; for example, the presence of elderly persons, invalids, pregnant women, children and other persons whose well-being may be jeopardised by a precipitate move.'A whole page of points that must be taken into account follows.The police know that the Wealden judgment of 1995 makes it unlikely that their powers will succeed. Local authorities, which have extra responsibilities towards travellers, have even more difficulties. The Minister's advice notes of 1998 are evenhanded, but they compound the difficulties. In a widely circulated speech accompanying the notes, he said:
Gypsies and travellers have exactly the same rights to basic services like health and education as do the settled population, and those rights must be taken into account when local authorities manage unauthorised camping.He is quite right about that, but that sentence paralyses rapid local authority or police action.943 In rightly insisting that council departments and the police must be involved in sorting out problems, the Minister added:
Most importantly, the gypsies and travellers themselves should be involved.That is clearly impossible with the groups of which I have spoken. My hon. Friend says:Travellers have a perfect right to carry on their nomadic life-styles in peace.Of course they do, but the people I am talking about do so in untaxed vehicles which no one dare clamp or confiscate for fear of keeping the offenders on the property that they are already destroying. These people do not carry on their nomadic life styles in peace.I do not have time tonight to pursue the subject of temporary stopping places or permanent sites in full. However, peaceable and law-abiding travellers would not wish to share sites with the groups that I am speaking of. Few local authorities would survive if they insisted that a site should be provided in their area and it attracted such people.
My hon. Friend is right to say in the guidance notes that local authorities and police should have a clear and integrated policy to tackle the problems. But they need to know that the law will allow their action to succeed, and to do so quickly. I urge the Minister to consider how councils and the police can be urged to use section 61 of the 1994 Act, which appears to offer adequate powers. Early action would involve a presumption different from those of several of the statements of tolerance in my hon. Friend's document.
In all honesty, I do not feel tolerant towards travellers who behave as I have described. I am amazed that—with the single exception of a case in which campers' tyres were mysteriously shredded in the night—employers and employees whose livelihoods and health are put at risk do not take matters into their own hands, instead seeking legal solutions, at enormous cost. Ambivalent laws and regulations put us in serious danger of pushing decent citizens too far and of spreading a hostile and violent reaction against all gypsies and travellers, whether or not they deserve it.
As a parliamentary private secretary in the Home Office, I cannot go into great detail on police matters, although I can do so privately. Policing matters fall outside my hon. Friend's remit, but the legal and administrative framework lies with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I urge him to reconsider the good practice guide, although I appreciate that it is a recent document to which he will not wish to return so soon. I ask him to see whether its balance can be redressed a little towards quick and effective action against those groups of travellers who do not conform to the normal rules of human behaviour.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on securing this debate on unauthorised camping. At the same time, I commiserate with him about the fact that we are having this debate at such a late hour. The issue that he has raised is of major concern in his constituency, particularly to the business premises in Skelmersdale to which he referred.
944 We do not underestimate what an appalling nuisance such encampments can be and the real costs that can be incurred both by local authorities and businesses in trying to cope with the kind of behaviour that my hon. Friend described graphically to the House. I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be reassured that the Government take this issue very seriously and that we are determined to ensure that local authorities and the police have effective, joint policies in place to deal with the problems created by unauthorised camping by people who behave in a disgraceful and anti-social manner.
It is precisely because of concern expressed by local authorities about how they deal with encampments that my Department, working with the Home Office, produced joint good practice guidance for local authorities and the police to manage unauthorised camping. The good practice—to which my hon. Friend kindly referred—is based largely on research carried out for my Department by the university of Birmingham. It draws on the real and often hard-won experience of local authorities and police forces in managing such issues.
We published the good practice in October last year, after consulting a wide range of interested groups. The good practice has been welcomed as a positive and innovative step in managing what can be a highly emotive issue locally. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that, in several parts of the country, there is clear evidence that implementation of the good practice guidance is resulting in more successful policies and practices on the ground to deal with the problems as they arise.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is hosting a series of regional seminars for local authorities and the police aimed at promoting better joint working between those agencies in managing unauthorised camping, particularly when criminal or anti-social behaviour is associated with the encampment. Three such seminars have already been held and, as a speaker at the most recent one in Great Yarmouth, I can vouch for the fact that they have been both well attended and well received. I understand that my hon. Friend hopes to hold a seminar in the north-west in the autumn and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to attend, if it is convenient.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire considers that local authorities need stronger powers to deal with unauthorised camping. I understand that, at present, West Lancashire district council does not use the powers available to local authorities in sections 77 to 79 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with unauthorised camping. The council uses instead civil powers under order 113 of the High Court when dealing with encampments on its land that it believes cannot be tolerated. Civil powers cannot, of course, be used by the council to evict campers from land not in its ownership.
The police also have powers—to which my hon. Friend referred—under section 61 of the 1994 Act to remove people who are trespassing with the intent to take up residence and have been asked to leave by the landowner. The Home Office has policy responsibility for those powers, and Home Office Ministers have made it clear, both when speaking at the recent regional seminars and in writing, that section 61 should be used at an early stage if necessary when the statutory conditions are met.
I stress that point because my hon. Friend expressed concern that the powers were not necessarily used at an early stage. That is not a reflection of any policy guidance 945 from Ministers. My colleagues in the Home Office have made it quite clear that those powers should be used at an early stage where appropriate. They take the view that those powers should be used particularly when there are problems of crime, disorder or disruption to the life of the community. It is also vital that the police work in partnership with other local agencies to ensure that the problems caused by unauthorised encampments are dealt with effectively. Operational guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have recently been reviewed and strengthened to take account of those views. The revised guidance should lead to greater consistency in the approach adopted by police forces in different parts of the country.
We have considered carefully whether we should amend the existing local authority powers in the 1994 Act, but have concluded that that is not the right way forward. There are no obvious, easy solutions to unauthorised camping, and no short cuts. If there were, they would have been found long before now. Recent case law has confirmed that local authorities must balance the nuisance being caused by an encampment against the needs of the campers. Neither the circular, nor the guidance that we have issued, states that local authorities must have regard to those considerations. The decisions were made by the courts and would stand even if we revised the guidance. Local authorities that do not adopt such an approach are likely to find their actions challenged successfully in the courts. That would create even more difficulty for them.
Strengthening the powers could be counter-productive, in that it might make it more difficult for local authorities to prove to the courts that they were acting reasonably when seeking eviction. To make unauthorised camping a criminal offence in itself would also be contrary to our view that people should, in an inclusive society, be free to adopt a travelling life style if they so want. The right to adopt such a life style does, of course, bring with it responsibilities towards the settled community; we are very aware that on some occasions, for example when travellers choose patently unsuitable sites such as public car parks, local authorities will feel justified in seeking eviction.
My hon. Friend referred to toleration. The concept of toleration has caused some controversy; it has wrongly been interpreted as meaning that the Government want local authorities to tolerate the anti-social or criminal behaviour that can accompany some unauthorised encampments. I want to make it clear to the House and to my hon. Friend that that is emphatically not what we mean by toleration; nor is toleration something that we invented for our good practice guidance.
For many years, Government advice to local authorities has advocated that gypsies who are camped on council land, and who are not causing a nuisance, should be tolerated wherever possible; the provision of basic facilities such as skips, drinking water and toilets can obviously minimise nuisance. On the other hand, forced eviction can result in campers moving to a more unsuitable site. That is especially true in those areas where there is no authorised site provision, and thus nowhere that gypsies can camp with permission. I understand that that is true at present in the West Lancashire district.
946 Our good practice guidance simply reflects what has been found to make good sense, through a detailed examination of the way in which local authorities deal with unauthorised camping. Toleration can be a pragmatic option for dealing with a short-term encampment, especially where the level of nuisance is low, or non-existent. I accept that the circumstances described by my hon. Friend are clearly not ones in which toleration would be appropriate. If there is anti-social or criminal behaviour, it is inconceivable that that should be tolerated.
Gypsies and travellers who indulge in anti-social or criminal behaviour—for example those who remove barriers to gain access to a site—are not above the law. They are subject to exactly the same penalties as anyone in the settled community. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and the police to develop local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and to work together to reduce particular problems of crime and disorder in their area. If anti-social or criminal behaviour associated with unauthorised encampments has been identified, we would expect local crime and disorder reduction strategies to encompass measures to deal with it.
The Government are most concerned about anti-social behaviour generally and have included a number of new measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 aimed at tackling it wherever it occurs. Anti-social behaviour orders are now available to be used against any individual who persists in anti-social behaviour that causes harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not in the same household. It is for the police and local authorities, working in partnership to reduce crime and disorder as required by the 1998 Act, to decide whether the use of anti-social behaviour orders would be appropriate in any particular circumstance, including on unauthorised encampments.
Regular liaison between the police and local authorities on managing unauthorised camping, and the development of joint protocols clearly setting out respective roles and responsibilities, are important messages in our joint good practice guidance. The police are key stakeholders in any local strategy for managing unauthorised camping, because of their role in the prevention and detection of crime and in maintaining public order. Therefore, it is vital that local authorities and the police each have a clear idea of the other's roles and responsibilities and that they work together to find a solution that suits the circumstances of each encampment. That avoids the potential for confusion, frustration and delay, which cause immense irritation to local residents, who can feel that nothing is being done.
In many areas, local authorities and police forces are already working well together on this difficult issue, enabling them to respond swiftly to incidents of unauthorised camping where there is nuisance or anti-social and criminal behaviour. A recent example is an encampment in south Norfolk, which was causing a nuisance to the local community and which was evicted quickly by the police and the local authority working in partnership, throughout the process. I urge those authorities that have not yet embraced the principle of joint working and the development of protocols to do so quickly.
I understand that, in West Lancashire, a meeting has recently taken place between the local authority, the police and local business representatives in Skelmersdale to try to thrash out a workable solution to handling the 947 encampments; and that, as a result of that meeting, the local authority and the police have resolved to work more closely together on the issue. That can only be good news, and I am sure that the business community will appreciate the opportunity to participate in constructive discussions about the way forward on an issue of great concern.
Eviction of a large number of travellers inevitably raises the question of where they will go when they are evicted. I have considerable sympathy with local authorities that are faced with such large encampments, which can cause awful problems for local businesses and residents. It would clearly be unrealistic to expect local authorities to be able to offer suitable authorised accommodation to so many people on a long-term basis, although we encourage local authorities in our joint good practice to be receptive to the idea of providing sites in appropriate circumstances. Those may be temporary or permanent, depending upon the accommodation needs of those travellers who visit the area regularly. One of the key messages of the good practice guidance is that local authorities should get to know the travelling patterns in their area and develop policies accordingly. Such sites will usually be on council land where that is feasible and 948 in accordance with local needs. As I said earlier, site provision should be part and parcel of a local authority's overall strategy for managing unauthorised camping.
I appreciate that the provision of sites for travellers is a difficult issue for local authorities to deal with, and that it requires a tremendous level of local political will to get proposals agreed. However, it can often be a more cost-effective option for local authorities than a constant round of evictions and clear-up costs.
I hope that my hon. Friend feels able to reassure his constituents that the Government take the problem seriously. We are committed to ensuring that unauthorised camping can be dealt with effectively and sensitively within the overall framework of the law, which must be our guiding principle. We are determined that anti-social or criminal behaviour by travellers, or anyone else, will not be tolerated. There are protocols and procedures in place that will enable quick, effective and decisive action to be taken to deal with the problem.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Three o'clock.