HL Deb 03 November 2004 vol 666 cc372-6

(1) The Secretary of State may, if at any time it appears to him to be necessary to do so, give directions to a local housing authority, requiring it to exercise its powers under section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c. 62) (power of local authorities to provide sites for caravans) to provide such sites for gipsies for the accommodation of such numbers of caravans, as may be specified in the directions.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not give any directions under subsection (1) unless either—

  1. (a) there were gipsy caravans on unauthorised sites in the area of the local authority at the previous January count, or
  2. (b) gipsy families had been evicted from unauthorised sites in the area of the local authority during the previous calendar year.

(3) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret that the otherwise immaculate Public Bill Office left my name off this amendment in the Marshalled List. It has always been there in spirit. I should also say that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who would have moved the amendment, is unfortunately delayed on his flight back from Brussels, so I hope that noble Lords can put up with a much less expert and knowledgeable submission.

I would like to say, however, that such expertise and knowledge as I can muster has been immeasurably enhanced by the hard work of the Commission for Racial Equality—in particular, Sasha Barton, without whom the following words would not be the same, the deputy chair, Sarah Spencer, and of course Trevor Phillips as chairman.

It is to complement the very constructive amendments already made to this Bill by the Government that I move this one. It is a failsafe. It is intended to cover a remaining gap in the Government's structure of more equal treatment of Gypsies and Travellers in housing. This is the gap which will cause harm on the—we hope—few occasions when local housing authorities have not provided sites.

It simply confers the power on the Secretary of State, if two years have elapsed and there are unauthorised encampments and/or evictions—that is, when a clear need for provision has been demonstrated—to direct the housing authority to provide it.

What otherwise can be done if the RSLs do not come forward with proper provision even after two years? I suggest that the Secretary of State has a residual responsibility to oblige provision in these circumstances. If he cannot do it, then no one else can.

We have read carefully the Government's response to my previous amendment on homelessness at Report stage. We accept their answer in part since we have not pushed the point with a further amendment. But it would be helpful if my noble friend would, in responding to Amendment No. 48, also confirm that the Secretary of State's powers under Section 210(2) of the Housing Act 1996 would be applied, if need be, to making an order which specifies that conventional housing is not "suitable accommodation" for those Gypsies who have a cultural aversion to bricks and mortar, and that land or a site is so suitable. This is perfectly consistent with the legislation as it stands and, if it needed to be made, such an order would also protect human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention in the same way as the case of Price v Carmarthenshire County Council did. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and moved by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are well known for their support for the rights of Gypsy and Traveller communities, and I have supported their efforts in the past. I do so again tonight.

I acknowledge that some progress has been made. The Bill will require local housing authorities to take a strategic approach to assessing and meeting the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. They must take their needs into account when exercising their other functions, including planning, education and social care, as well as housing. All those things are very important.

But, as we have said on many occasions, the great need is for more sites. We think that the programme envisaged may not be effective unless steps are taken to provide more sites. A statutory duty to provide sites would complement and strengthen the Government's proposals. Such a duty would convey a strong message to councils that they need to deliver sites. It would also help councils to overcome local opposition.

The impression is often given that Travellers have some great advantage over local people in the planning system. That is mistaken. An estimated 90 per cent of planning applications from Travellers fell at the first attempt, as opposed to a 20 per cent failure rate from the settled community.

The Court of Appeal supported Travellers in Chichester, as did the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, because for years the council in Chichester had ignored planning guidance and had not identified land for site development. It would make sense if a duty were created to oblige councils to provide or facilitate sites, thus avoiding from the start the main problem—the shortage of suitable sites.

The lack of temporary and permanent sites has had a devastating impact on the primary healthcare, mental health, education and general welfare of Gypsies and Traveller families in Britain. We believe that this amendment will assist the situation. I support the amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, this is a very late stage of the Bill in which to move this amendment. We had some concerns at the previous stages about the clause, mostly related to the situation in London, which has not been helped much by a letter that I have received from the Mayor. On Monday, I asked about the unauthorised use of land by Gypsies. My concern is that if this amendment goes forward, unauthorised use would become even more prevalent because it would generate the response that if there is unauthorised use and action is taken against Gypsies, then a site will be identified. I would not be able to support the amendment.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I take on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has said. We made changes to the Bill, through government amendments, at Report stage, and generally they were welcomed. The combination of the new planning system and the provisions that we have put in this Bill will ensure that there is a thorough understanding of local needs. It will enable local authorities to prioritise effectively and to act strategically to meet needs in their areas. We genuinely believe that that combination of systems would be undermined if the Secretary of State had the ability to issue directions which ignored the housing needs assessments that have been done, and which ignored strategies that may have been put in place.

It is true that issues were raised on Monday regarding planning permission for areas. As I said then, development requires planning permission. Just because someone owns land, does not mean to say that he can do what he wants on it.

I want to refer to local authorities. The current advice to local planning authorities on Gypsies is in Circular 1/94. If all authorities took account of advice in that circular—we have said that it is not quite working so it will be reviewed—and took a strategic view, they would have fewer problems than those that do not.

This amendment comes late and on top of what I have already said about government amendments at Report stage, giving power to direct local authorities. The amendment would completely cut across and undermine the systems that are being put in place, both in this Bill and in the planning guidance. With the best will in the world—I understand where this comes from—I say to my noble friend that it would cause a real problem.

On the specific issue, regarding the Secretary of State making an order under Section 210 of the Homelessness Act 2002, such that conventional housing is not suitable for Gypsies with a cultural aversion to bricks and mortar, the Government do not consider that such an order is necessary. Case law already requires local housing authorities to give special consideration to the needs and different lifestyles of Gypsies and Travellers in recognition of their vulnerable position as a minority group. That includes having to consider very carefully whether a homeless applicant, to whom a duty to secure accommodation is owed, has an aversion to conventional housing. It is a fair point, but there is no need for any changes in legislation or in the ability to make an order, as it is already covered as the law applies today.

Baroness Whitaker

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may check something. In the last paragraph of what I said, I was not asking for the Secretary of State to make such an order; just to confirm that the legislation would allow such an order. I am not quite sure whether my noble friend's answer made that clear.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I said that the Government do not consider that an order is necessary, so we have no plans to make one. It is not necessary, because existing case law already makes provision to meet the needs of the people who, as the noble Baroness said, have an aversion to bricks and mortar. That is taken into account in existing case law, so there is no need for an order. Let us not legislate where we do not need to, as we would be legislating twice for the same thing. A long time ago, I was advised by parliamentary counsel never to put the same thing twice in a Bill as the lawyers will take two different views of it, if it is ever challenged.

Baroness Whitaker

My Lords, I thank those who have taken part in the debate—my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I quite understand the reservations of the Minister. I am still not absolutely sure that he understands why I asked whether Section 210 applied. In view of the time, and the fact that we are three-quarters of the way through this, I shall pursue that with him later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 208 [Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 162, line 32, leave out "section 207(3) or (6) has not" and insert "the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 207(4)) have not, or section 207(6)(a) has not,"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are minor and technical amendments, which refine the clauses on tenancy deposit schemes. We introduced at Report stage measures to streamline the proceedings for tenancy deposits. Tenants can seek a court order where a landlord has not complied with the initial requirements of a scheme safeguarding a deposit or provided the tenant with the prescribed information within 14 days of receiving the deposit.

The court will order a landlord to pay the deposit amount into an authorised custodial scheme or repay it to the tenant. The court will also order the landlord to pay the tenant an amount equivalent to three times the deposit amount. However, it was never our intention to be harsh or unfair on landlords who had made an initial mistake but then complied with these provisions within a reasonable time. As drafted, the provisions do not allow a landlord who has missed the 14-day deadline an opportunity to rectify the situation before a court order is made.

These amendments ensure that the landlord will he obliged to repay the deposit or to pay the tenant compensation of three times the value of the deposit only if he has failed to comply with these provisions by the date of the court hearing. Our aim is to ensure that inexperienced landlords are not unduly punished or disadvantaged for missing the 14-day deadline by a few days. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 162, line 39, leave out "section 207(3) or (6) has not" and insert "those requirements have not, or section 207(6)(a) has not,"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 51:

After Clause 209, insert the following new clause—