HC Deb 06 July 2000 vol 353 cc514-22

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

7.1 pm

Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire)

South Derbyshire is a largely rural district to the south and west of Derby. It is increasingly well connected to the road network, with the A50 Stoke-Derby link running across the constituency and with the MI to the east. It features in many routes through the midlands. It is thus an increasingly attractive stopping point for travellers.

My concern today is the impact that illegal occupation of sites by travellers and those who claim to be travellers has on the perception and reality of local law enforcement. My constituency has faced regular occupations during the past three years. There have been several occupations of Highways Agency property in the Foston area. In Findern, the village where I live, there was a lengthy occupation of a site whose owner was unknown, which made proceedings difficult. Last summer, the common at Church Gresley, a heavily populated area on the edge of Swadlincote, was occupied by 22 caravans, legitimate users were threatened and sports pitches were made unusable. When the occupiers left, the council spent £2,500 of taxpayers' money clearing the common.

Recently, land on the edge of Willington was occupied. When it was abandoned, the scene resembled a war zone full of abandoned, burnt-out cars. The Highways Agency cleared the site at public expense and introduced expensive security measures to prevent a repetition.

There have been many short-term incursions, some of which have caused little concern. Since 1994, the district council alone has had to obtain in all 44 court orders for possession. The onus in each case of which I am aware was on the site owners to obtain possession orders and eventually to enforce them, except that of the land at Findern, where the district council sought an order as no owner was forthcoming. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that other landowners in the area—especially the Highways Agency, which has suffered greatly—have had to take out many court orders.

Police action has been limited to observation, vehicle checks and assistance with serving the orders, apart from taking action concerning one stolen vehicle, to which I shall refer later. On no occasion was section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 used, under which the police are allowed to direct occupiers to leave a site if more than six caravans are involved, threatening behaviour has been used or damage is evident. On only one occasion has any attempt been made to recover the cost of damage and waste disposal.

From my questions to the Government, it seems that powers available under section 59(8) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 reserved for this purpose are seldom used. It is, perhaps, a comment on those powers that they are not even referred to in the guidance issued in 1998 on the management of illegal occupations.

Derbyshire county council and South Derbyshire district council have attempted to meet the needs of those who choose a itinerant way of life. There is an 18-pitch site for long-term occupation at Foston and another eight pitches for short-term use at Lullington. The sites cause no local concerns and are well managed. Those using them are well supported by education and social services, and a number of children attend local schools. Local taxpayers contribute £70,000 a year towards the running costs, and more than £100,000 has been spent on updating the sites over recent years.

What, then, is the impact of the apparent abuse of an area's hospitality? First, there is the reality of the crime that stems from those occupations. Most cases involve forced entry and criminal damage. In one instance, a stolen lorry was located on site and seized by the police after resistance, including the throwing of bags of urine at officers. There have been reports of threatening behaviour to other legal users of the land. There was sufficient concern about potential public order offences to move a fair, which has historically used adjacent land at Church Gresley. I set aside the unproven claims that are often made of offences against neighbouring property.

As important is the perception of crime. People regard the occupation of someone else's land by force as a crime. They would expect no support or sympathy from the law enforcement agencies if they chose to enter their neighbour's home or garden by force, threatened the owners and passers-by and left behind waste as they departed. They regard the authorities' apparent powerlessness as indicative of both double standards and weakness. They become angrier still when they find that they must fund the clearance and repair of a site. In a typical year, South Derbyshire district council pays out more than £5,000 for waste disposal from illegal sites.

What should be done? First, we need consistency of police enforcement. That was described fully in the research report that accompanied the 1998 guidance on the subject. It is clear that some police authorities are prepared to use section 61 of the 1994 Act, while others are not. Although one must respect local determination of operational priorities, wide variations in practice cause problems. If one force chooses to use section 61 with vigour while another uses restraint, the word soon gets around, and travellers with ill intent are drawn to the more welcoming legal environment. There is already anecdotal evidence that that happens in Derbyshire, where the powers are seldom, if ever, used.

Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon)

Does my hon. Friend accept that, even when authorities use section 61, there is the problem that travellers who have caused a nuisance can just move down the road, creating a problem a little further on? Has consideration been given in his area to using order 113 through the High Court, which Swindon borough council uses? It allows the council to move travellers who have caused a nuisance out of all borough council-owned land.

Mr. Todd

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That particular order is not used in my area, but I shall deal later with the point about transfer to other sites.

Secondly, the provision of legal sites needs to be recognised and encouraged. If a site is available, there should be an expectation and a legal obligation that it will be used. It should be possible for an authority to demand the removal of illegal occupiers to such a site while any necessary social investigations are conducted. Currently, investigations are required before a move is made. If an alternative legal site is available, I see no reason why the campers should not be moved to that site while investigations are completed. If such a move is resisted, the persons involved should be deemed in contempt of court, with appropriate penalties.

Thirdly, it should be possible to prevent illegal occupiers from simply moving to a neighbouring site following a court order. That has happened frequently in south Derbyshire, with one group moving several times in Foston to alternative sites, once possession had been granted on the one that they were occupying.

Fourthly, it should be possible to prevent any illegal occupation of a site once possession has been granted, rather than merely preventing occupation by those against whom the order has been physically served. A major problem is the later arrival on site of others who have not had an order served on them but who are then required to face an order, delaying their eventual removal. Latecomers drawn to the site should be covered by the same order.

Finally, ways should be explored that would allow recovery of the costs of repair and waste disposal from those responsible. It has been suggested—the guidance notes suggest this—that skips and toilets be provided at public expense for illegal occupiers. Does that not give legitimacy to what they do? I hesitate to suggest on-the-spot fines, and anyway cash machines are scarce in my area, but I cannot believe that it is beyond our art to devise mechanisms that offer a genuine and realistic threat of cost recovery from those involved.

The taxpayers whom I represent are happy to offer hospitality to travellers, substantially at local taxpayers' expense, but a right to choose that way of life carries an obligation to behave in a way that meets other people's reasonable norms. We also expect consistency from the police and appropriate action when the law appears to be being broken. If those expectations are not met, that willingness to offer facilities at local cost is threatened. It is hard to see how one can sustain that commitment if there appears to be no local advantage in the provision of such sites. More importantly, respect for law enforcement agencies is also jeopardised.

I hope that the Minister, in his response, will set out how the Government can meet the concerns that I have expressed on behalf of many residents of South Derbyshire who are frustrated by the current position.

7.12 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)

I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this important debate on a matter which, as I think he knows, affects not only South Derbyshire, but many other parts of the country, and on the powerful way in which he put his case.

The Government are fully aware of the misery that can be caused by some travellers, particularly on unauthorised sites. Home Office Ministers receive a steady stream of complaints about unauthorised traveller sites from hon. Members and members of the public.

Key problems include criminal damage to bollards, fences, gates and so on, to gain access to land; a rise in crime and disorder in the vicinity of some camps; and mess and litter left on sites which must be cleaned up by landowners or local authorities. My hon. Friend identified a number of other specific aspects which, as I say, I regret are not particular to South Derbyshire, but occur in too many places throughout the country.

It is wholly wrong that any criminal activity should be tolerated in respect of travellers. The law should be enforced as with all other sections of the community. It is for the police to ensure that any offences are properly investigated and that the law is enforced.

I come to my hon. Friend's first point in relation to his concern that the police in Derbyshire are not using their powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to remove trespassers from unauthorised sites, and that there is an inconsistency in police enforcement of those powers in different force areas. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) reinforced that point in her intervention.

Section 61 gives the police the power to remove people who are trespassing with intent to take up residence and who have been asked to leave by the landowner. That is a serious power which can be used when certain conditions are met. They are that trespassers have more than six vehicles on the land, or have caused damage or used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards the landowner or person acting for him or her. Both police and local authority powers to direct trespassers to leave land under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act are, as my hon. Friend said, discretionary.

Ministers cannot tell the police how to go about enforcing the law in any particular case, for reasons that the House will understand. It is a matter for the operational judgment of individual chief constables. Even though these powers are discretionary, the Association of Chief Police Officers takes the view that as police officers are responsible for public order and the prevention and detection of crime, it is mainly in these circumstances that the use of the powers should be considered.

On that basis, ACPO issued revised operational guidelines on the police use of these powers in April 1999. It is hoped that this will eventually make for a more consistent approach between and within police force areas. It is clear that police powers may be used at an early stage where necessary when problems of crime, disorder or serious disruption to the community are associated with unlawful encampments.

However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recognises that we do not have completely satisfactory arrangements in place for dealing with the problems caused by unauthorised encampments, particularly where they cause disorder or other problems for local residents or landowners. My right hon. Friend is giving this matter his personal attention and expects shortly to be able to announce changes, which we hope will be widely welcomed throughout the country, including by my hon. Friend's constituents, who have borne the brunt of the problems caused by unauthorised encampments. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is personally actively involved in discussions with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to reach a position where we can make announcements that I hope my hon. Friend will find satisfactory.

My hon. Friend queries why section 59(8) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is reserved for fly tipping, is seldom used against travellers on unauthorised encampments. There are a range of stringent controls in place to ensure that waste is managed safely, and is recovered or disposed of without harming the environment or human health. The main controls are set out in part II of the 1990 Act, and fulfil our obligations under the amended European Community framework directive on waste. The Environment Agency is responsible for the enforcement of most of these controls.

Under section 33 of the 1990 Act, it is unlawful to deposit, recover or dispose of waste without a waste management licence, contrary to the conditions of a licence exemption or in a way that causes pollution of the environment or harm to human health. The consequences for anyone contravening these controls are potentially very serious.

Unfortunately, waste is sometimes fly-tipped. Where this happens, it is clearly essential that steps are taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of environmental pollution or harm to human health, and to ensure that fly-tipped waste is disposed of safely and properly. Section 59 of the 1990 Act provides the Environment Agency and local authorities, in their role as waste collection authorities, with the means to do so. The section provides that where waste has been deposited illegally, the Environment Agency or a local authority may serve a notice requiring the occupier of the land to remove, eliminate or reduce the consequences of the deposit. However, a person on whom a notice is served has a right of appeal to a magistrates court. Where an appeal is made, the court must quash the requirement imposed by the notice if it is satisfied that the appellant neither deposited nor knowingly caused or permitted the deposit of the waste.

Under section 59, the Environment Agency or local authority may themselves take steps to remove fly-tipped waste where the occupier fails to comply with the notice or there is no occupier of the land, or the occupier neither made nor knowingly caused or permitted the deposit, or there is imminent danger of pollution of the environment or harm to human health.

Mr. Todd

Does my hon. Friend accept that mere occupation of the site and allowing waste to be tipped there, regardless of who on the site commits that act, would be an offence on the basis that that is permitting the depositing of waste?

Mr. Clarke

I accept the substance of my hon. Friend's point. I am not prepared to venture into a legal statement on whether he is right or wrong in the technicality that he has set out. I was about to conclude this part of my remarks by saying that the Environment Agency or a local authority is entitled to recover the costs incurred in exercising these powers from any person who made or knowingly caused or permitted the deposit of any of the waste. That precise point is being addressed in current discussions between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. My hon. Friend was right to make the point, but I have learned to take great care before offering opinions about what the law says or does not say on specific points.

My hon. Friend also suggested that there should be powers to prevent travellers who have been evicted from one site from staying at another site further down the road, and to prevent them from occupying land that has been repossessed from another group of travellers. We believe that the standards of behaviour expected of travellers should be the same as those expected of the settled community. Problems that arise from any way of life and affect the rights and freedom of others should be treated in the same way. Local authorities and the police have adequate powers to deal with matters through the methods that I have outlined.

To place land out of bounds to all unauthorised campers would effectively make unauthorised camping an immediate offence. It would be dangerous and possibly iniquitous to do that, especially as local authorities no longer have a duty to provide accommodation for gypsy caravans. We believe that it is essential, in the interests of natural justice, to retain the requirement for a court order before eviction can take place. We have no plans to remove the requirement for local authorities to obtain a court order.

Gypsies may have a genuine reason, for example a medical emergency, for camping on unauthorised sites. If that is the case, it is right that they should have the opportunity to present a defence to the court against an eviction order. To remove the necessity for a court order and the opportunity for a camper to present a defence could create a culture of immediate forced eviction by local authorities without due consideration of all the issues.

Ms Drown

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if travellers were causing a nuisance which had been proved in court, and provided that there was a designated site to which the travellers could move on, it would be reasonable to say that they should either move off borough council-owned land or move on to the designated site? Otherwise, we may have the problem that I experience in my constituency: residents simply do not understand why the council cannot stop travellers who cause a nuisance from moving down the road.

Mr. Clarke

My hon. Friend's judgment is correct. She makes a similar point to that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire. I was trying to explain that implementing the course of action that he suggested is difficult and has some serious human rights implications, with which we are wrestling.

Immediate eviction would also make it impossible for local authorities to follow the advice in Department of the Environment circular 18/94, which states that local authorities should take account of the duties they may owe to campers. The Human Rights Act 1998, which comes into force in October, will also make it easier for people to challenge violations of their rights under the European convention on human rights.

My hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon and for South Derbyshire make a powerful point, and I shall carefully consider ways in which to expedite the procedures to deal with the problem. As with so many aspects of the law, one of the difficulties is squaring rights, which are important, with the time taken to resolve a problem. In principle, there is no reason why a rapid resolution would not go some way to tackling my hon. Friends' anxieties.

Mr. Todd

Will my hon. Friend consider whether the rights of travellers in the position that he outlines might be as adequately protected on a designated, legitimate site provided by the local authority, and that pointing out the availability of pitches on legitimate sites would be a reasonable basis for demanding their immediate removal from the site that they were occupying while their social circumstances were reviewed?

Mr. Clarke

There is a powerful case for that. In his original speech, my hon. Friend made points that were worth considering about the procedures and the times at which some matters are assessed. I am happy to consider them very carefully.

There is a great difficulty, about which I think I should be frank. I refer to a conflict between the rights of individuals to which our whole society subscribes, when criminality or similar issues are not involved, and the rights of surrounding communities. Those are precisely the issues that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is currently discussing with colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, with the aim of finding a solution.

Our fundamental point of principle is that travellers have a right to live their lives as they do, freely and in an entirely acceptable way. By the same token, however, criminal or anti-social behaviour on the part of any section of the community should be treated equally, across all communities. I think that most Members on both sides of the House accept both those principles; certainly, Labour Members do. The question is how to make them work in practice. The complaints that we receive so frequently—complaints cited articulately by my hon. Friend—concern circumstances in which those two rights have not been married satisfactorily. Our current discussions seek to deal with that.

My hon. Friend said that the provision of legal sites generally needed to be encouraged. I support that approach, for reasons connected with one of the rights to which I have referred. I am pleased to note that there is local authority site provision in South Derbyshire, and I am glad that the local authority takes its responsibilities seriously. That is, of course, what local authorities are advised to do by the Government. Site provision is an important element of the managing of unauthorised camping, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend.

Circular 1/94, "Gypsy Sites and Planning", places gypsies on the same footing as others in relation to the planning system, while seeking to recognise their special needs. It applies to local authority and private gypsy sites, and advises local planning authorities to assess the need for gypsy accommodation in their areas and, wherever possible, to identify in their plans locations suitable for sites. When that is not possible, they should set out clear, realistic criteria for suitable locations as a basis for site provision policies.

The emphasis in circular 1/94 is on identifying suitable locations for sites. The Department encourages local authorities to discuss the preparation or revision of the plans with all concerned, including travellers themselves, their representative bodies and local support groups. We also think that representatives of travellers should consult local authorities on planning matters before buying land on which they camp for which planning permission would be required. The Department is commissioning separate research on the management and condition of existing local authority sites, which will inform future policy development.

We strongly agree with my hon. Friend's approach. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are actively reviewing the joint Home Office-DETR good practice guidance. The document was first published in October 1998, and advises that local authorities should have an overall strategy. The strategy should include needs assessment and site provision, as well as eviction policies, which should be developed with the local police force.

The aim of the joint guidance is to encourage a balanced approach to managing unauthorised camping. It is necessary to balance the nuisance that can be caused to members of the local community with the rights of campers. As I have said, research commissioned by the DETR and the Home Office is under way, with the aim of reviewing the good practice guidance on unauthorised camping. The aim is to establish the extent to which the guidance is being followed, how well it is working and whether there are any gaps that we need to address. The final report on the management of local authority sites is due in September, and will give us a basis on which to make future policy decisions.

Let me summarise our central approach. We believe that the police operational guidelines were strengthened and clarified by the Association of Chief Police Officers last year, following meetings with Ministers. They make it clear that police powers should be used primarily when there are problems of crime, disorder or disruption to the local community associated with unauthorised encampments.

Ministers have made it clear that police powers can be used at an early stage when necessary. I emphasise above everything that joint Home Office-DETR guidance encourages a multi-agency approach to dealing with problems caused by unauthorised camping. As with many areas of policy, it seems critical that we have a genuine partnership approach that determines how we operate. A partnership approach on the basis of clear guidance and guidelines, both from the Home Office and the DETR and from the Association of Chief Police Officers, will give us a basis on which to develop policy.

As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering joint guidance and whether any changes are needed. It must be made clear—I have sought to do so in the debate—that toleration of encampments does not stretch to toleration of crime, disorder or disruption to the local community. As I have said, he hopes to make an announcement shortly on those matters.

We have no evidence to suggest that police powers are currently used in a discriminatory way. We are aware of the problem of welfare inquiries that must be made by local authorities, fulfilling their statutory obligations, before taking eviction action. We are willing to consider whether any changes are necessary. Although the provision of sites is primarily a matter for the DETR, we acknowledge my hon. Friend's approach towards the important responsibilities that must be fulfilled and his efforts to move the matter forward.

It is a vexed and difficult problem. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured time to debate it. I hope that I have been able to offer at least some reassurance to my hon. Friends who have spoken that we take the matter seriously. We address it as a matter of urgency and concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.