Green Belt

HC Deb 09 July 2003 vol 408 cc243-63WH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]

9.30 am

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire)

It is a great pleasure to introduce the debate this morning.

Many of us are concerned about the general threat not only to green belt land, but to open land generally, to areas of special scientific interest, to land that is not available or intended for development and to other areas throughout the country. People are rightly concerned about that problem, as they value open spaces. It is important that the planning system is rational and logical, and that it is not flouted, so that there can be a proper planning process that ties in with local plans and the provision of local services.

A particular threat to green-belt sites and to other areas of open land is posed when groups of people buy agricultural land outside the proper terms of the planning system and use it to establish a settled community. That threat is often associated with the travelling community. This has happened on seven different sites in my constituency, which has caused great concern to local residents, to my local authority and to various statutory agencies.

It is important to say at the outset that this debate is not about discriminating against minorities. I wholeheartedly support cultural diversity, and I recognise that people choose to live different lifestyles. That is their right, and it is as it should be. I welcome a United Kingdom in which that is the case. However, it is equally important that all members of society obey the law and are subject to it, whether they are part of the settled community or the travelling community. Most people abide by the planning laws, which are very tight. They may resent aspects of those laws, as they often deny them their wishes for their homes or their businesses, but it is important that people believe that the law is properly and universally applied. If it is not, huge and understandable resentment builds up, which is a great threat and a great worry to the travelling community.

I welcome the Minister, who is new to her post. We look forward to hearing what she has to say. I hope that she will confirm that the Government recognise that this is a real and serious problem, which is getting worse, and that it is urgent and needs to be dealt with Her predecessor, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), acknowledged that this was a serious problem in his contribution in the main Chamber on 21 March 2003 at column 1264. He rightly commended the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) in introducing his Greenbelt Protection Bill. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is in this Chamber this morning, and he will say more about his Bill.

The previous Under-Secretary acknowledged that my hon. Friend's Bill had considerable cross-party support. That is clear from looking at the list of sponsors of the Bill. It was acknowledged at that time that there had been considerable consultation and that the problem was relevant to a wide part of the country. However, in a brief contribution on 21 March when the hon. Gentleman talked out my hon. Friend's Bill in spite of a request not to do so, he said that he had certain problems with it. He did not specify what they were or say what the Government were intended to do about this problem. We are all happy to debate these issues this morning, but we would be especially pleased to know the Government's thoughts or proposals on what we can do about the problem. We want positive engagement on a real and serious problem that is of huge concern and significance to our constituents.

The first part of the Greenbelt Protection Bill was about providing sufficient authorised sites for the travelling community. That is important because previous planning decisions have granted encampments that have gone against the legitimate planning process and the appropriate use of land the right to continue. Cases have been won on appeal largely on the ground that there are insufficient authorised sites for travellers. I accept that setting up an authorised site will not be popular with those people living in close proximity to it. However, it is surely better that the best possible site is found, with the agreement of the local authority and after as much consultation with local people as possible, rather than have sites springing up in inappropriate places. We need guarantees on how many authorised sites and places are required. Is there a cap on the total number of sites that will have to be provided?

Many of the travellers in unauthorised settlements in my community come originally from other countries—there are a quite a few from Ireland. Is there a limit on the total number of sites that local authorities in England have to provide, or is it limitless? Can any number of people come into this country claiming to be travellers, so that they have a right to settle in authorised sites or, if there are none, can win the right, through the planning process, to establish an illegal encampment? That is a serious issue. Local authorities would be prepared to act reasonably, together with the Government, and to work on planning sufficient authorised sites, but they need some finality. They need to have the total picture, so that the provision of authorised sites does not escalate out of hand.

I would be interested to know whether there are reciprocal rights. Given that travellers from other countries can come to this country, is there a duty on the Government of Ireland to provide sites in Ireland for English travellers? Is it only this country that provides for travellers from elsewhere? Those are legitimate questions that should be answered.

The term "traveller" is often used in two distinct ways. There are travellers who genuinely travel. They move around from county to county. In years gone by, travellers typically came through my county during the summer, spent a few months at different sites and were involved in agriculture—perhaps, picking potatoes. They moved around different sites over a period of time. In areas close to my constituency, some people have homes but take off for the summer in a caravan, travel around and then return to their homes at the beginning of winter. On the seven permanent sites in my own community, at least some members of the families are there all the time. I wonder whether the term "traveller" is a misnomer in relation to the planning process.

I have studied the current definitions of travellers and gypsies in the relevant Acts. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 defines gypsies in section 24(8). My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay defined travellers and gypsies in clause 5 of his Bill as persons of nomadic habit who wander or travel for the purposes of making or seeking their livelihood, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such. The key words are persons of nomadic habit who wander or travel". Given that groups of travellers are winning planning appeals on the basis that they are travellers as so defined, it is a concern if it transpires that they have established permanent residences. Hon. Members may be interested to see the photographs that I have passed to the Minister and to the official Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). The photographs are of one of the encampments in my constituency, and clearly show that some of the buildings are made of brick: they are of a permanent nature, and could not be described as a static caravan, for example.

What further check is made to confirm that people are genuinely travelling and, if they are not, is there any comeback in the planning process? If an appeal against a planning decision is being considered, should there not be a requirement that a family is genuinely travelling? Such a requirement should apply to the whole family—I do not believe that it is reasonable to argue that it is a family of travellers if only one member of the family travels. One of the reasons that such decisions are often overturned on appeal is to ensure that the children stay in local schools so that they can continue their education in one place, which we would all support. However, if that is the case, it seems to me that such families are not travellers. If the term "traveller" is used in a vague and undefined way, that raises serious questions.

The first part of my hon. Friend's Bill sought to ensure that local authorities provide the necessary number of authorised sites for travellers. The Government should give a commitment to say what is an acceptable number of authorised sites, so that local authorities have greater certainty in dealing with illegal or unauthorised sites. The Greenbelt Protection Bill also sought to give greater powers to local authorities with regard to the planning process. Specifically, it would have introduced powers to enable local authorities to apply more easily for injunctions to be served on persons unknown, which, in effect, means that they would be served on the land itself. Under the current system, it is difficult to serve an injunction when the local authority does not have a named individual on whom to serve it. That provision would have assisted local authorities greatly in taking action in such circumstances.

The Bill would have given local authorities the discretionary power to issue a notice to remedy, which would have ensured that the site was put back to the state in which it had been originally before the unauthorised development. It is clear that current planning law is inadequate. Any local authority planning department that has had experience of unauthorised development will say that its hands are tied and it cannot deal with the problem. As I said at the beginning, we are eagerly looking to the Minister to hear what the Government intend to do about the matter.

I am concerned about the numbers of travellers allowed on specific sites. I read the appeal decision on the Greenacres site, just outside the village of Billington in my constituency. It gave 21 named individuals and their dependants the right to be on that site. Only last week, one of my local police officers said that he believes that there are about 90 people on the site. A check should be made to ensure that, if permission is granted for a certain number of people to be on a site, that decision is not abused. If it is abused, there should he some comeback. A site that has the capacity to take 21 named individuals plus their dependants is clearly not suitable to take 90 people, which is what has happened on that particular site.

The planning appeal decision to which I referred names the 21 individuals. The Government must make it a requirement that the register of individuals is kept up to date. If other individuals are permanently on that site, we need to know who they are. We must have their names and be able to identify on which plot of land they are resident. Often, a field is bought and immediately sub-divided into 20, 30 or even more sub-plots of land, as a result of which there are great difficulties in establishing the ownership of particular plots, who is resident on which plot and so on.

I am pleased to introduce this debate. I called for it because great distress and upset are caused when illegal encampments are established. It is clearly an inappropriate use of land. In many of our constituencies there are significant development pressures. Huge numbers of new houses may be planned. My constituency is about to come under massive pressure because of the housing that the Government intend to build. I am alarmed that they are planning to double the number of houses by 2031. For that reason alone, unauthorised encampments must not be allowed to spring up all over the place when there are already huge development plans in the pipeline.

The site at Greenacres outside the village of Billington was built on top of the national United Kingdom gas main—a 24-in pipeline. Planning terms are usually so tight that any farmer over whose land the pipeline runs must have written permission every year from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs just to plough that land. Septic tanks have been sunk some 15 ft into the ground on that site. No structure is allowed to be built within 70 m of the United Kingdom national gas pipeline. However, the Minister will see from the photographs that I have given her that permanent structures have been built on top of it. There cannot be a greater illustration of the inappropriate use of land than that. How does the local farmer feel about still having to obtain written permission each year to plough his land, when such a worrying, massive abuse of the planning process is occurring? What do the Government intend to do to assure my constituents, and the country as a whole, about the safety of the UK gas pipeline?

Inappropriate land use is the major reason why I am worried about such issues. I have spoken to about 90 people on one site. Another site on the border of my constituency, at Jockey farm on the A5 south of Dunstable, has several hundred residents. If unauthorised and illegal encampments keep springing up, how can local services be properly planned and provided? How can we ensure that there is the right number of GPs and school places if there are illegal sites with significant numbers of people? Proper planning processes by which the local education authority and the local medical authority assure the provision of vital services cannot function in such circumstances.

Crime is often associated with the sites. That contentious issue needs to be handled sensitively and responsibly. We would be negligent if we did not face up to it. Many members of the travelling community are wholly law-abiding. They are decent, honest people who work hard to provide for their families. They are upright members of their communities and contribute to the common good. However, we would be ignoring reality if we did not acknowledge the fact that the establishment of such communities outside the law often leads to other instances of lawlessness. My local police have tracked down significant increases in fly tipping that are linked to the establishment of illegal encampments in the community.

Many businesses operate from unauthorised developments without the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if I may put it that way. They do not pay their fair share of taxes, and their vehicles are not taxed. Such practice undermines local legitimate businesses that are doing the right thing and paying their taxes. Such activity is a great worry. My local police told me about a motoring offence that was caused by a resident of an encampment in my community. When the local constable tried to enforce a warrant for that resident's arrest, he found that it had to be issued under three different names. That brings me back to the need for a register of names that is linked to specific plots of land and the requirement for changes or additions of a permanent nature to be notified to the local authority. After all, the settled community must do that. If our constituents move to new premises, they must notify the local authority accordingly. The same rules should apply to the people on these sites.

I shall draw my remarks to a close by reiterating my hope that the Minister will understand the strong feelings of my constituents. I have been sent here on their behalf to express their concerns. We accept that there might be better ways to resolve the problem than were first put forward in the Greenbelt Protection Bill. I am happy for the Minister to tell me about those, but the Government must recognise that there is a serious problem, and they must show their strong intention to do something about it.

9.55 am

Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree)

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate. I have had some experience of these matters. Many years ago I lived in the old county of Westmorland, some 10 miles from the then county town of Appleby. Those who know that area will be aware that there is a horse fair in Appleby once a year in mid-summer and another later in the year in Brough, which is a few miles further down the Eden valley. Appleby is taken over by travelling people when the horse fair comes to town, and then they move on beyond it.

The caravans used to come along the lanes to within two miles of where we lived. For two or three weeks the whole town would be completely different, almost acquiring the character of a wild west frontier settlement. Then the fair would go. I suppose that most people imagine that travelling people go to a place, often for historic or traditional events, and then move on to somewhere else. People living in such localities accept that as a natural part of the rhythm of country life.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the difficulty occurs when people who are not really travelling people—and others, too—turn what appears to be a temporary location into something more permanent. There is such a location in Twin Oaks, in my division, some distance from Braintree. It has been there for many years, during which time there has been long-standing litigation with the local authority that continues to this day.

I distance myself slightly from the hon. Gentleman on the question of crime. I practised in the criminal law courts for many years—indeed, I still do. One of my first instructions was to prosecute a gypsy woman for selling lucky white heather. As a result, I probably did not have so much good fortune in the years to come. I often get the impression that itinerant people commit the crimes to which the hon. Gentleman referred: they may have no road fund licence, or may be dumping in farm gateways. However, it would be wrong to suggest that crime is any higher among travelling or nomadic people than it is among other people. That is not the main problem. We are talking about the alteration of the character of the countryside by the establishment of more permanent communities, which must be avoided.

I spoke in the House in April about the purported speculative sale of land through the internet, which is another example of unauthorised use of countryside land that hon. Members may have encountered. Earlier in the year in my own division, the villagers of Stisted and those in the neighbouring village of Greenstead Green, were greatly assisted by a kinsman of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) who lives in Greenstead Green.

A parcel of land of some 50 acres was sold by a local farmer, who I am told believed that it was to be used for grazing horses. Soon afterwards that land was offered for sale on the internet in small parcels of up to one fifth of an acre. I am advised that the agricultural value of that land would be in the region of £2,500 to £3,500 per acre. However, sites of one fifth of an acre were being offered for sale at between £3,000 to £6,000 per acre unseen. There were specific instructions to the effect, "Do not come to look at the land unless you bring the money with you. You do not need a solicitor and you do not need to consult the local authority."

Those internet advertisements did not specifically say that the land was available for building development: indeed, they stated that it was not. However, there was an implication that, at some time in the future, the land would be available for development. The land is three or four miles from Stisted in an out-of-the-way rural situation. It is a long way from anywhere where one would anticipate that there might be building development this century. The problem is that an opportunity for unauthorised development must have existed. Limited development can take place on agricultural land under a general development order.

It is possible for landowners—including owners of small plots—to erect a shelter for creatures or habitation for a forester. Abuse could occur if someone brought a sheep on to the land to justify the erection of a structure to house it. To give an absurd example, someone could plant a Christmas tree and then erect a chalet for a part-time forester to tend it. That may be stretching the point too far, but it opens up the realm of argument for those who want to be difficult. If plots of land were fenced off one against another, people could place buildings, sheds, caravans or huts on them.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)

It may help the hon. Gentleman to make his point if he refers to the letter that he has received from my cousin about the case that he cites. My cousin praises Braintree district council for its swift action in issuing an article for direction and writes: This is a major step forward and is likely to mean that the area will not end up as a shanty town, which it otherwise almost certainly would have, with "temporary" caravans, camper vans, sheds in connection with pseudo smallholding activities.

Mr. Hurst

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his cousin for the common approach that has been taken on that issue. I referred to the incident that occurred at Stisted, but a number of sites throughout the eastern counties have experienced similar problems. In those cases, the local authorities have issued—and the Secretary of State has approved—an article 4 directive to prohibit the effect of the general development order, so that any development, including a fence or a shed, requires the consent of the local authority.

The difficulty occurs when there is a defiance of such a direction. If plot holders start erecting sheds and caravans, there must be enforcement of any prohibition. No law is worthy of its name unless there is the willingness to enforce it and the financial ability so to do. In the case of Twin Oaks, it has been the experience of my district council that considerable sums of money have been spent over the years on a single site. If a district council in a rural area had to take a large number of enforced proceedings against plot holders throughout its district, the cost to the council would be overwhelming.

The Government should tighten the law as far they can and assist local authorities to impose articles for direction. If need be, they should modify the general development order regulations, so that it is not easy for those events to occur in the first instance. Thereafter, central Government must provide sufficient income to local authorities so that proper enforcement can be effected. I gain the impression that there may be less enforcement of those and similar matters by local authorities throughout Essex, because they are costly enterprises for them to pursue. That is a real problem.

A hundred years ago, country people wished to move to the towns. It was in the towns that one was up to date, so people gravitated towards them. Now, the reverse is true: people want to move out of the towns into the countryside. They want to spend their leisure time or their retirement in a rural idyll. However, they still want to work and earn their money in the larger towns and cities. That has a consequence for country people. It pushes up the price of property and the price of land that has the potential to be developed. One of the farmers in my division told me honestly that the best crop he had ever brought forth was a housing development. For those farmers who have land close to urban areas, it is a real and tempting prospect to convert the land from corn, barley or cabbages to houses.

There must be a limit on where development can take place, and housing developments must be planned in a way that benefits local communities. There is also the massive problem of how local country people can afford to live in the countryside where generations of their family lived, but that is a question for another day. Today, we must consider how the Government can assist local authorities to prevent the explosion of shantytowns across the southern and eastern counties.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

I want to bowl the hon. Gentleman a fast ball; he can bowl it back to me if he does not want to answer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), when discussing the problem, both said that planning law could not be strengthened sufficiently without the use of criminal sanctions in one form or another. Does the hon. Gentleman think that criminal sanctions will be necessary to enforce any change in the planning laws?

Mr. Hurst

That may well be so. Of course, there are heavy financial sanctions, and failure to pay could, in some cases, ultimately lead to a criminal sanction, although that would be very far down the road. If a landowner or landholder breached an injunction, he or she would be in contempt of court, and that carries a criminal penalty of imprisonment, so such sanctions are already in the background. It may well be right to consider whether, in appropriate cases, the use of such sanctions can be developed further.

In closing my remarks, I again urge the Government to give full consideration to tightening the law and to providing additional resources, in the hope that we can have a proper countryside that is fit not only for town people to move into but for country people to live in contentedly.

10.8 am

Mr. John Baron (Billericay)

May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on introducing the debate, and thanking him for his many kind words?

I rise today to try to get the Government to realise the extent of unauthorised development in our green belt and on greenfield sites; it is extensive and grey. Also, they should realise that that is causing much resentment among residents, as the culprits appear to be getting away with it. I ask the Government to stop daydreaming and start doing something about the problem and addressing these real issues.

In my constituency, we are concerned—as all Members of Parliament are for their constituencies—about the various threats to our green belt. The main threat is that the Government are forcing thousands of new houses on councils by way of centralised house-building targets. That is greatly resented in my part of the world, first, because it is undemocratic—local politicians should decide the right level of local development, not bureaucrats sitting in Whitehall—and secondly, because it places further strain on our already overstretched infrastructure. We do not have enough police officers, there is little investment in our roads, and we do not have enough GPs, because Government bureaucracy and targets get in the way.

A lesser known but growing danger is posed by unauthorised development, especially by the travelling community, which buys and quickly develops land without planning permission. There was a good recent example at Sadler's Farm roundabout. I have cited that example previously, but I make no apologies for citing it again, because it illustrates the case well. It involved a large field next to a roundabout in the green belt that was bought by the travelling community. There is nothing wrong with that. It is still within the law, but one Friday a 6 ft earth mound was created around the perimeter. On the Saturday, hardcore was laid, arid on the Sunday, caravans and vehicles, including heavy vehicles, moved in. By the time the council reacted with stop and enforcement notices on the Monday, it was too late. Consequently, we have entered a lengthy planning and appeals process. Meanwhile, the illegal development continues to this day. Similar situations have occurred in Hovefields in Wickford and Oak road in Crays Hill. All three areas are in my constituency.

Such unauthorised development often occurs in highly visible areas of the green belt and causes a good deal of resentment among other residents. When trying to combat the situation, Basildon council, whether Labour or Tory, has found the existing law inadequate. I stress that I have not played politics with this issue. I made it clear to all constituents who wanted to listen that even when the Labour council was in power, it was not its fault that nothing could be done. It was dealing with inadequate laws and could not legitimately move the people on.

That is the key problem: the law has not kept up with developments. It has failed to recognise that we are no longer dealing with established gypsy communities, with their horse and home, which broadly obey the law once it is pointed out to them. Today, there is a new breed of travellers. They are wealthy, cash-rich, unscrupulous, and determined in many cases to exploit the law. They buy land and pay for expert advice. The current laws cannot cope with this new onslaught—they are simply inadequate. The situation is as simple as that. The law has not kept pace with developments.

Let me make it clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire did, that no one wants to discriminate against a minority. However, it is only fair that all those who live in a community should abide by its laws and regulations. Otherwise, it is the majority who are discriminated against. I should add that, partly because of our historic links with the Pilgrim Fathers and the Mayflower, our community recognises more than most that the mark of a civilised society is the extent to which minority interests are respected. We have no problem with law-abiding travellers. Indeed, the latest figures show that there are about 100 authorised sites for the travelling and gypsy communities in our district. That is many more than neighbouring authorities have. Indeed, some authorities have no authorised sites whatever.

I believe that the Conservative Government in 1994 were wrong to abolish the statutory duty on local authorities to provide authorised sites. It is only right that the way of life of law-abiding travellers be recognised, as I have said previously. However, for reasons that I cannot explain, there has recently been an increasingly large number of cases in which travellers new to the area buy and speedily develop land without gaining planning permission, and subsequently do not live in harmony with their neighbours. Needless to say, that causes much concern and anger not only among the settled community but among the more established gypsy communities. I have held public meetings where the more established gypsy communities have sat in the front row and been just as vocal as established residents in their complaints about the new travellers who are developing land.

One can understand why: once these developments take place, the lives of neighbouring residents can be made a misery. Many residents complain about the local area and ditches being swamped with refuse, rubbish and excrement, which has caused flooding. They are intimidated to the point of people being fearful to leave their home because crime is generally on the increase. Nearby narrow lanes are plagued by under-age youngsters driving recklessly, or by noisy lorries, often during the early hours of the morning.

As the Minister can well imagine, I have received many letters about the issue. Feelings run high. If hon. Members will forgive me, I will quote from a few of the letters that I have received. Obviously the names are withheld because of the fear of intimidation. A lady in Wickford writes: Here in Wickford a well organised group of travellers has bought various areas of greenbelt, moved in with JCBs and totally decimated the entire areas covering them with tonnes of building rubble". Another lady in Wickford writes that the situation is already causing problems with flooding to the local area, congestion on what is an unmade road. There are no drainage facilities which raises environmental concerns. A resident of Crays Hill recounts that as we walked through the Spinney in Oak Avenue, we came across two very unpleasant heaps on the path along with paper, flies etc. There was also about 50 empty beer cans and evidence of drug taking. A resident of Bowers Gifford writes:

'I would like to use the Human Rights Act to ensure my right to a secure and settled family life but fear that if I did, as soon as this action became public knowledge I might not have a home, family or even a life. Those are not isolated examples. They give a flavour of the strength of feelings in certain parts of my constituency. The law is failing these people. It has not kept up with events. It cannot deal with determined individuals who buy land and then speedily develop it without authorisation. I stress the term "buy land", because all too often in these debates when I have made the point that travellers buy land, section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is quoted at me—but that deals with trespass, which is totally irrelevant.

Two key problems face local authorities when they try to deal with this situation. First, they have difficulty in acting quickly to prevent unauthorised development. If an injunction is granted it can be hard to serve it on the owner or the occupier, as they can often be difficult to pin down, particularly if land is be mg quickly sold and subdivided and individuals are being unto-operative, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Secondly, although local authorities can issue stop and enforcement notices, rights of appeal and retrospective planning applications prolong the issue unnecessarily. As a result the planning and appeals process can take many months, if not years. Even when all options have been exhausted, local authorities must often resort to the courts to reinstate the land. That in itself can be a long process that does not necessarily result in the clearance of the land.

Andrew Selous

I can illustrate my hon. Friend's point about the length of time with a brief example from my constituency. My local authority told me yesterday that the planning process for two developments outside Tilsworth village has taken four and a half years. Obviously within that time the development has become so established that there is little prospect of doing anything about it.

Mr. Baron

I thank my hon. Friend. That is a good illustration. I can point to a number of cases in my constituency that have taken that long, if not longer to deal with, irrespective of which party was in control of the district council at the time. Even when court decisions go as the council wishes there is often a time delay, but court decisions sometimes go against local councils even though a planning and appeals process decision was in their favour. Some planning departments believe that that is because there is inadequate provision of sites.

I presented the Greenbelt Protection Bill to Parliament in March and June because of the growing problem in my constituency. The Bill would have dealt with the issues head on and was the product of a long consultation process that included numerous discussions, meetings, site visits and public hearings with residents, travellers, councillors, police and Basildon council planning department. Local authorities backed the Bill; the Association of Essex Authorities fully endorsed it; my party's Front-Bench spokesman backed it; and it had good cross-party support, as its list of sponsors shows. I thank those hon. Members for their support.

However, the Government blocked the Bill on both occasions. Although it was the fourth item on the Order Paper in March, the Bill was discussed, but the Government talked it out, despite my objections. In June, they simply objected to it. That is a great shame, because it would have dealt with the issue directly and fairly in three ways.

First, the Bill's objective was for shared responsibility for site provision for the travelling community. It would have dealt with the matter by introducing a requirement that all local authorities provide authorised sites. The target figure would have been identified by the Government in consultation with regional bodies, county councils and local authorities. It would have taken account of local need by considering the generation of new sites, the likely levels of immigration, outstanding commitments and the ability of the local infrastructure to cope with additional growth. The sites themselves would have been provided by public or private means; the targets would not necessarily have cost councils any money. That was the carrot. Two elements of the Bill would have given local authorities much greater powers to deal with those who then transgressed the law.

Secondly, the Bill would have introduced powers to enable local authorities more easily to obtain an injunction by allowing it to be served on a landowner whose identity is unknown to the local planning authority. Although there is a similar, lesser power, it is hardly ever successfully exercised by local authorities because of the heavy burden of proof required. By removing that burden of proof and serving the injunction in effect against the land, local authorities would have been able to obtain an injunction far more speedily, and thus nip any unauthorised development in the bud. The injunction would have been registered with the Land Registry as a charge against the land and local authorities would have had the power to enforce the injunction against any new owner or occupier, so dealing with the issue when land is quickly sold on.

Thirdly, local authorities would have been given a further, discretionary power to serve a notice to remedy, the aim of which would have been to reinstate the land to its original condition, with the guidance that it should be used only when, in the local authority's opinion, sufficient harm was being caused to the green belt or greenfield land under its control. The aim of the guidance would have been to ensure that when there had been a minor breach of planning laws—for example, Mr. and Mrs. Smith getting their extension plans wrong by 2 ft or 3 ft—the power would not have been available to local authorities, but when a greenfield site was developed there would be little doubt that it represented significant harm and the power would then have been available to local authorities to deal with that set of circumstances. If the land had not been made good within a specified time, the local authority could have arranged to put it right, the costs being reclaimed from the perpetrators where possible.

To be fair to the travelling community, those additional powers would have been available only if the site targets had been met. That is important. There is no point in moving travellers on if there are no legitimate sites for them to go to. That would also have dealt with the issue of courts saying, "Despite the planning decision going in favour of the council, we rule against you, because sufficient sites are not available," which happens time and again, despite planning and appeals judgments going in favour of councils. The Bill would have dealt with that head on.

The additional powers would have been available only if local councillors wished to use them. They would not have been mandatory; there would have been no automatic instigation. Democratically elected local councillors would have been making those decisions, so there would have been an element of discretion at the coalface. That is very important.

By ensuring that a sufficient number of authorised sites were provided while also giving local authorities additional powers to combat large-scale unauthorised developments, whether or not they were by travellers—I wish to make that point clear—the proposals would have created fairness for all.

I ask the Minister to take a fresh look at the Bill. Although the Government have objected to it twice, it will come before Parliament again this Friday, 11 July. Although it is now 22nd on the list—and we all know what that means—there is a final chance for the Government not to object to it. That would send out a strong message to all the many concerned residents that this Government are finally taking this issue seriously. That would have the full support of the Conservative party.

The Minister is new to her position, and I urge her to recognise that there is widespread disillusion throughout the country with the law as it stands, and that it is in desperate need of updating. This is a golden opportunity to take a fresh look at the situation.

My Bill is far from perfect. I have no doubt that it has many flaws. However, by not objecting to it, the Government would at least give a Committee the opportunity of scrutinising it carefully in order to try to improve the present inadequate set of rules and regulations, that is creating much unfairness and discrimination against the law-abiding majority. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether the Government will take a fresh look at the Bill in order to create fairness for all.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

My hon. Friend has put a great deal of thought into this matter, and done a lot of research. Why did he come to the conclusion that criminal sanctions were necessary to back up this Bill?

Mr. Baron

I believe that they are a distinct possibility. The clauses that have been put in the Bill are guarded and measured, and they try to be as fair as possible, but at the end of the day a line must be drawn in the sand to make it clear to perpetrators—whether or not they are travellers—that we are not prepared to tolerate any more injustices, because if we do we will be creating discrimination against the majority.

The Bill would have given travellers and the travelling community plenty of opportunity to establish themselves in authorised sites that would have been well run, clean and properly maintained, thereby recognising the traveller way of life, while at the same time giving the authorities greater powers that would have included criminal sanctions if a minority of travellers were still breaking the law.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire for allowing me to contribute to his debate. I want to use the opportunity to make the point that I have made several times, especially at public hearings, that we are dealing with a minority in the travelling community. I am not branding the whole travelling community as a law-breaking section of our society. That minority are, however, quite powerful. They know the rules and how far they can push them. They knows how they can exploit the law and break it, which is why criminal sanctions should be considered as a final deterrent.

In conclusion, I repeat that I urge the Minister to take a fresh look at the Bill. I firmly believe that it would create fairness for all. It has been carefully considered, and party politics has played no part in it. Labour councillors on my district council have recognised that, and have said so publicly. It has tremendous support from outside organisations, and indeed has cross-party support. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.

10.30 am

Matthew Green (Ludlow)

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate on a difficult and thorny problem affecting parts of the country. The problem that he outlined is not the only one: there are others in other areas, as we heard from the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst).

The scale of the problem is the most worrying aspect of it. Government figures show that there has been a 70 per cent. increase in the number of travellers or gypsy caravans in the past 20 years. During the same period, there has been a reduction in the numbers on unauthorised sites, while in recent years, the number of authorised sites being created has fallen, largely as a result of the changes made in 1994 when the statutory duty on local authorities was removed. I hope that the Government will do something to reverse that trend. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was honest enough to say that that move in 1994 was wrong.

Another problem arose as a result of similar legislation—Department of the Environment circular 1/94—that was also introduced in 1994. In effect, it put the onus on local authorities to err on the side of travellers who had made themselves more permanent dwellings. When inspectors and the courts have to deal with travellers, they come up against the problem of a lack of provision elsewhere, which is why travellers are allowed to get away with abusing the planning system.

The Government clearly have grounds to act. It would be a step forward if they reversed the decisions taken in 1994. The jury is still out on whether they need to go as far as the hon. Member for Billericay would like them to go, but steps clearly need to be taken and the problem analysed.

I have not had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on her appointment since she has been in post. I do so now. Will she give us the Government's figures and projections for the scale of the problem? If numbers were to grow at a rate similar to that at which they have grown in the past 20 years—I do not know whether that is a reasonable assumption, but it is the only figure that we have—some 7,500 additional authorised pitches would be required.

The rate at which local authorities currently establish authorised pitches is far too slow to deal with development on such a scale. How does the Minister aim to assist local authorities to provide the very necessary pitches? The Government might consider specific funding for local authorities for that purpose. The problem does not affect all parts of the country equally. Some local authorities have a bigger problem than others, and some take a more responsible attitude.

How will the Government help local authorities to address the need for more authorised sites? There is a gypsy sites refurbishment grant for this year, but it is limited and only for the provision of transit and emergency stopping places, not for the semi-permanent or permanent authorised sites. There is no Government support for local authorities to deal with the problem.

Andrew Selous

The hon. Gentleman has illuminated the debate by referring to the 70 per cent. increase, of which I was not aware, but which does not surprise me. Does he agree with me that we must define the scale of the problem? We need to know how many people are allowed to come into this country calling themselves travellers. Does he think that we need to consider the definition of "traveller", given that he acknowledged that the issue is largely about people who set up in permanent encampments? Is not there a problem in how "traveler" is defined and should not the Government look into it?

Matthew Green

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am perturbed that he feels the problem is just about people coming into the country. They come from a variety of backgrounds, and many are from this country in the first place. It would be difficult to define what constitutes someone who travels. In effect, it is self-defined by people who seek that lifestyle and it is difficult to determine their background and where they come from. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he made a stab at a definition in his contribution.

The Government say that at present there are about 3,600 unauthorised pitches at any one time and the number varies seasonally—there are about 800 fewer in the winter. However, their figures show that 2,000 to 2,500 more sites are needed to deal with the problem of unauthorised pitches, which is fewer than the scale of the problem would suggest is required. Why is there a discrepancy in those figures?

The previous Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), promised in March that PPG 2 on green belt policy would be revised. When will that be done?

The hon. Member for Braintree mentioned the problem of the subdivision of sites sold and the resulting abuse, which will cause increasing problems for local authorities throughout the country. Although the Government have acted to support local authorities as and when necessary, there would be a problem if people who subdivided the land and bought parcels of it were to push the issue, especially if small district councils were involved, because the cost of enforcement would be great. South Shropshire local authority in my constituency covers a huge rural area but has one of the smallest populations of any district council. It got a planning enforcement officer only about two years ago, and had to raise council tax that year by about 2 per cent. in order to afford that post.

The abuse of car boot sales is another problem of unauthorised development in the green belt, a small part of which stretches from the west midlands into my constituency, which is mostly green fields. A gentleman in the area has bought or leased six or seven adjacent fields. He has permission to hold 12 or 13 car boot sales a year, but that is for each field, so he is able to hold more than one a week on the same lane, and the residents are understandably distressed by the continual invasion that they suffer as a result, especially at weekends. That is another abuse of the planning system and the rights that are granted. About 18 months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister agreed to look into the problem, but I am afraid that we have not heard anything yet. I would welcome news from the Minister that it will be dealt with.

I shall draw my remarks to a close to ensure that the Minister has time to get back to me on these serious points.

10.40 am

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)

I shall begin by declaring an interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on taking a serious interest in this subject. In his constituency, he faces a larger growth in developments on greenfield sites and the green belt than almost any other Member of Parliament. Any development, but especially unauthorised development, must be of particular concern to him. I also pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). He and I have had long discussions, and he has done a great deal of work to produce his Bill. I hope that, even if his Bill does not reach the statute book, some of his ideas, which are innovative and arise from many hours of discussions with various experts, will eventually be successful. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on the measured way in which he commented on the subject. There have been good, levelheaded, constructive contributions to the debate.

Much of today's debate has centred on gypsies. I want to make it clear, as my hon. Friends have done, that we do not want to discriminate against gypsies. Indeed, we want to ensure that they have a reasonable standard of life. As has been made clear, they have rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Library brief SN/SC/1127 of 2 July 2003 quotes my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) from a debate on 10 July 2002. He made the shocking claims that only 2 per cent. of travellers live to see the age of 65, and that the traveller infant mortality rate is almost three times the national average.

Clearly, something is wrong in the provision of gypsy sites. We need carefully to consider that provision because, if we are to deal with unauthorised encampment, the only way we can humanely move people on is to move them on to authorised sites. The Government commissioned a report from the university of Birmingham, which is due to published shortly. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm when that will be published. I must add that I welcome the Minister to her post. She has inherited the problem of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. She is the fifth planning Minister with whom I have debated, and I hope that she is successful in that difficult endeavour.

Current guidance is now eight years out of date. The Government have pledged to issue new guidance, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us when that will be issued.

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) quoted many figures. I want to quote from the document in which he found most of those figures—"Managing Unauthorised Camping Operational Guidance". At paragraph 2.9, it says: In order to accommodate the desire for nomadism, between 2,000 and 2,500 additional authorised transit/mobility pitches are estimated to be needed before 2007. It would be useful to have the Minister's view on how many more authorised sites should be provided to accommodate existing need. We do not want to encourage a growth in the number of travellers, as they impose additional costs and burdens—school places and health provision are difficult to plan unless there are authorised sites. How do the Government intend to deal with that problem? They have provided grants through statutory instrument—I took part in a Committee on one that related to the refurbishment of sites. However, I am not aware of grants for the creation of new sites either in the public or private sector.

The gypsy problem is sometimes related to the planning problems of unauthorised development in the green belt. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, have cited outstanding examples of people buying and subdividing land. The hon. Member for Braintree cited the example given by my cousin, in which Gladwish Land Sales Ltd. bought a 40-acre plot and subdivided it into plots of one fifth of an acre. The fear was that those who bought plots would start unauthorised development by putting up fences and putting in roads, hard-standing for caravans and so on, and that the whole area would become an eyesore.

In an excellent Adjournment debate on 5 June, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) cited the terrible example of Deer's Leap just outside Edenbridge. He said that load after load of hard-core to create hard-standing was brought to the site and that in a short time the lush open meadow of Deer's Leap in the green belt had become an environmental eyesore of a caravan encampment with all the trappings of permanence."—[Official Report, 5 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 377] The council applied for an article 4 direction. As the Minister will know, such a direction takes away permitted development rights under part 2 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. As I understand it, the problem with an article 4 direction is that the council can issue a direction, but it has to be confirmed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In the dreadful case of Deer's Leap, it took the Department four months to confirm the order. It is a useful planning tool, but the law should be altered so that a local planning authority can issue an article 4 direction that takes effect immediately and has to be confirmed by the Department within a reasonable time, such as two months. That would be a useful method of dealing with the problem.

I outlined another solution when I cited my cousin's case to the previous Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), when he was in post. Planning permission is required for a change of use from agriculture to gardens and amenity land. There could be a minor change in the law, so that if plots were of an inadequate size to be viable for agricultural purposes—that would certainly be true in the Braintree case—planning permission would be required to subdivide the land. That is a germ of a solution.

In reply, the Minister said that if the problem is occurring on farm land, those affected could ask the local planning authority to consider whether anything has occurred to create a situation where agriculture realistically could no longer be carried cut, and therefore whether an unlawful material change of use … has occurred … If no application for change of use has been submitted, the local authority may decide, subject to its own legal advice, that enforcement action would be feasible and appropriate. From my planning experience, I think that that would be quite difficult to obtain at the moment, but there is a germ of an idea as to how such action could work.

A stronger sanction needs to be introduced into the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay was on the right lines with his Bill when he said that we should introduce into planning law the concept of a notice to remedy when significant harm had been caused. He defined significant harm. He said that a notice could be served on a person whose identity was unknown to the local planning authority. That concept is not new; it exists in injunction law, whereby an injunction can be served on a person or persons unknown.

My hon. Friend went on to describe the would-be criminal sanctions. We need to think carefully about bringing criminal sanctions into the planning law, which has not hitherto had such sanctions. That would be a departure. I am not saying that it should not happen, but we would need to think about it carefully. My hon. Friend cunningly suggested that if the person on whom the notice was served refused to reinstate the land, the local authority should be entitled to do that work itself and to charge the person who created the problem. The fine and any costs could be registered under the Local Land Charges Act 1975.

We must seriously consider all those matters when the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill returns to this House and is recommitted to a Standing Committee in September or October. I undertook in my letter to the previous Under-Secretary that the Opposition would co-operate with the Government in drafting and agreeing relevant amendments.

The subject of unauthorised development in the green belt and on greenfield sites will not go away. Such developments cause significant, serious and sudden problems where they occur. The Government must address the issue, and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill offers an ideal opportunity for them to do so. I hope that we shall hear some encouraging news from the Minister.

10.49 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)

I thank the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for raising the important issue of gypsies and concerns about unauthorised encampments, and congratulate him on securing the debate. There have already been Adjournment debates on some of the issues, including one initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on 4 April.

Hon. Members will understand that I cannot comment on specific planning cases, but a wide range of issues have been raised in the debate, and I will try to comment on as many of them as possible. I shall not pretend to be able to answer some of the detailed questions raised by hon. Members, partly because they involve complex issues that require detailed consideration, and research is under way in some of those areas, and also because, as hon. Members have said, I am relatively new to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am keen to examine the issue further, and am therefore happy to have further discussions with individual hon. Members on particular points that they raised, and to respond to them later on those issues.

As many hon. Members have made clear, it is important to ensure that, in an inclusive society, people have the right to a nomadic lifestyle. However, that lifestyle incurs responsibilities, including the responsibility not to behave in a way that causes nuisance and distress to the settled community.

A series of issues have been raised in relation to planning. The planning system must be fair both to the settled community and to members of the gypsy and travelling communities. Planning policies concerning the provision of suitable locations for gypsy sites, whether they are provided by the local authority or privately, are set out in the Department of Environment circular 1/94 "Gypsy Sites and Planning", which is nine years old. That circular recognises special accommodation needs, and also the desire of many gypsies to buy their own sites arid to develop and manage them. However, such sites constitute development and therefore require planning permission, just like any other development. Gypsies have a right to buy sites and to develop them, but that must be within planning law.

The circular encourages local authorities, when formulating their development plans, to discuss accommodation needs and offer advice and practical help with planning procedures to members of the gypsy community who wish to acquire their own land. Failing that, local authorities should identify clear and realistic criteria for suitable locations as a basis for their site provision policies.

The planning inspectors and the courts will take seriously the question whether there is somewhere else for people to go. That is the crux of many of the issues and the cases that we are discussing. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was right to draw attention in his Bill to the need to provide more authorised sites across the country, or to find areas that may be suitable for gypsy communities to buy and develop under the existing planning regime.

The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to the report commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the initial findings of which were published in October 2002. The report concluded that the number of residential pitches and transit sites should be increased. We are considering its recommendations and will shortly receive the full report, which will be examined in detail. I am happy to let hon. Members know when that report is likely to arrive.

We need to consider the report's recommendations in some detail. We appreciate the reasons behind the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Billericay, but we cannot support specific aspects of it at this stage. There are important arguments for the reintroduction of a duty to provide sites—to take one of the interesting issues that the Bill raises—and I am keen to consider that further. There was a duty to provide sites under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, but that was broadly thought not to have worked, because the provision of sites did not keep up with need at the time.

We must consider the issue further, because arguments that applied in 1994 may not apply today. We must also remember that local authorities have the ability to provide sites. They also have an incentive to do so, given that planning and courts decisions will depend on whether alternative sites are available. However, there is still under-provision. We need to consider the broader context, but I am happy to discuss these issues further once we have received the full research report.

We recognise the need for investment in some of the sites. That is why we have made £17 million available in the past three years, via the gypsy site refurbishment grant, to bring unused and underused sites back into full use. There will be a further £16 million in the next two years. That money is not only for existing sites; it can also be used for the creation of transit and emergency sites. We need to consider that further, and to study the research when it comes through.

We all recognise that the level of provision underpins many of the planning and enforcement issues, because planning and enforcement decisions are much easier if alternative sites are available.

Mr. Baron

Does the Minister accept that, despite more money being provided to deal with the problem, and despite the Government's general recognition that it is an issue, far too many local authorities still have no authorised sites? That is causing a real problem. If the responsibility is to be shared, and if we are to stop courts making adverse decisions against councils that have won planning decisions because there are no authorised sites, we are not going to make much progress. I urge the Minister to address that point. If I may be so bold, I also urge her to deal with the other two points that I mentioned in relation to my Bill: speeding up injunctions, and a notice to remedy.

Yvette Cooper

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why I said that I am keen to look into the matter further. However, we also need to recognise that it is the same local authorities—those that have decisions made against them and have planning decisions overturned because there are no alternative sites—that are making the decision not to provide alternative sites. They are either not providing authorised local authority sites or not ensuring that there are other sites available that local gypsy communities can purchase and develop under the existing planning regime.

It is within the power of local authorities to take action in that regard, which is why we need to go into the issue a little further. The question is not simply whether we can impose a duty on local authorities and whether that will solve the problem. Local authorities face difficulties in dealing with unauthorised encampments, and could act differently.

Andrew Selous

rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown

rose—

Yvette Cooper

I am conscious of the time, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate.

Andrew Selous

I am grateful to the Minister. She has told us that she is keen to consider the issue further. In the remaining two minutes, could she admit that there is a real problem, and give a personal commitment that, once she has considered the research report, she will come forward with proposals of her own to deal with it? Those proposals should include finding out the scope of the problem, the number of people involved, and whether a nomadic lifestyle exists or not. It should also involve finding out whether adequate sites are provided in an area so that a local authority knows its legal position.

Yvette Cooper

As hon. Members are aware, I have very little time in which to respond. Specific questions were asked. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) asked about planning policy guidance 2, and I will write to him about that and about the figures.

On the general issues, I undertake to share with hon. Members the full research report once we have it. When we have had a chance to consider it, I shall be happy to discuss the issues that it raises.

Hon. Members have put other questions about planning and enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) has already discussed sub-plots with my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree. We are carrying out two reviews: first, the review of permitted development rights, which has implications in this area; and, secondly, the review of planning enforcement issues, during which a major consultation has taken place that has also raised many issues. A considerable amount of work is under way in this area, which we shall examine.