|
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister, not only for giving way but for the approach that he has taken. However, although I understand what he says about information being collected, I made a second point. If the Government have decided that they want the information, they should be responsible for providing a specific ring-fenced amount of money to every authority on which they are imposing the bureaucratic burden of collecting it. The Government, having made that decision, should clearly pay for it.
Mr. Ainsworth: As I said, we will get the Environment Agency to develop a website database, so that local authorities can standardise along those lines.
I accept, as the hon. Gentleman says, that in some areas we do this where we should not. However, the measure meets a recommendation made by the National Audit Office in its report ''Protecting the public from waste'', which was published in December 2002. It said that a national system was needed to monitor fly tipping, which was both economic and reliable.
The Local Government Association and the Environment Agency strongly support the measures in the Bill. They believe that it will give local authorities a more strategic role in dealing with the increasing problem of fly tipping. With the assurance that I shall consider whether we might have drawn the provision too widely, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Column Number: 415
Mr. Hawkins: Once again, the Minister has been most reasonable, although he did not deal with the point that I made in my intervention. However, he would be in terrible trouble if he started to make financial commitments; the Chancellor would come down on him like a ton of bricks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) shares my view, and the hon. Member for Ludlow clearly has some of the same concerns. Indeed, his contribution to the debate was extremely helpful, based as it was on his experience of shadowing other areas of Government policy. I found what he had to say interesting and helpful.
I said at the outset that these were probing amendments. I shall not pursue them, particularly in the light of the Minister's helpful explanation. Towards the end of his response, he strengthened his position by referring to the National Audit Office. However, for reasons that I shall return to in the next debate, he will not persuade me by praying in aid the Environment Agency. The agency's reputation in my constituency was never high, but is now at an all time low. I would be out of order if I were to anticipate the next debate, Mr. Cran, but I want to let the Minister know that he does not help his case by mentioning the Environment Agency.
I stress once again that if the Government are going to impose those new burdens on local authorities, whether or not they were recommended by the NAO, the Government will have to provide funding. That is what the hon. Member for Ludlow, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and I are particularly concerned about. I am sure that the Minister will take that point away with him. He helpfully said that he will review those matters with his ministerial colleagues between now and Report and the Bill's going to another place. I hope that he will decide that modifications could be made to the provision. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Extension of Litter Authority Powers to take Remedial Action
Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 182, in
clause 55, page 40, leave out lines 24 and 25.
This is a probing amendment. I have read the clause and schedule 3 a few times, and I am worried at what might be a double negative. I want the Minister's reassurance that the provision does not mean that local authorities can enter military installations to clean up litter, because we would not support that. In fact, I think that the Bill exempts military installations, which brings me to the more interesting question of whether the 1990 Act allowed local authorities to enter them. If it did, how often have they done so and why is the clause necessary?
As I said, this is a probing amendment. I am slightly confused and I am sure that the Minister will enjoy teasing me. None the less, I am intrigued by the provision.
Column Number: 416
Mr. Ainsworth: Local authorities can currently issue a litter abatement notice requiring the owner of the land to clean it up. If the notice is ignored, they can enter the land themselves, clear it of litter, and recover the costs through the courts. However, an exemption prevents them from entering and clearing Crown land or the land of statutory undertakers, such as railways and port authorities. The clause removes that exemption.
It is important, however, on grounds of safety and national security, that Crown land occupied for armed forces purposes should remain exempt. The hon. Gentleman will see that authorities have not been entering military installations. The clause gives local authorities the ability to enter Crown land for the first time, but it exempts military land. The extension applied by the clause is, therefore, restricted.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is giving a helpful clarification. I did not speak to the amendment, because I wanted to hear what he had to say. However, I should tell him that I very much recognise that the Government are right to introduce the measure that is before us. My constituency has one of the largest proportions of military land of any in the country, because it contains huge military ranges. I certainly would not want local authority employees putting themselves at risk by going on to those ranges, where they might be in physical danger.
Mr. Ainsworth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
Where a litter abatement notice is issued against Crown land occupied for armed forces purposes, the appropriate Crown authority is still under a duty to comply. Where the notice is ignored, we would expect the local authority to seek to persuade the military authorities to comply. Should they continue to fail to do so, there remains the possibility of a prosecution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
I think that that explanation covers the concern raised by the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Green: I thank the Minister for that. I tabled the amendment to find out whether what I called a double negative had the effect that I suggested. We welcome the fact that the Bill extends the powers to Crown land while exempting military installations. That is absolute common sense, and I am glad that the Minister explained why the provision was included. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New clause 5
Removal of unauthorised
encampments and waste
'.—The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows:
In Section 61 (Power to remove trespassers on land)
(a) For subsection (1) there is substituted—
''(1) If the senior police office present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of
Column Number: 417
residing there for any period and that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave he may direct those persons or any of them to leave the land and to remove any vehicles, other property or waste they have with them on the land or which appears to the officer to be connected to their presence on the land.''.
(b) Subsection (2) is omitted.
(c) In Subsection (4) there is inserted after paragraph (b)—
''(c) Fails to remove any vehicles, other property or waste which he has with him on the land or which appears to be connected to his presence on the land.''.
(d) In Subsection (6) paragraph (b) is omitted.'.—[Mr. Paice.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Paice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New Clause 11—Deliberate despoiling and/or mis-use of land—
'(1) The Chief Executive Officer of the relevant local authority may make an eviction order in relation to premises to which this section applies if he reasonably believes that—
(a) a public nuisance is being caused by deliberate despoiling or misuse of land by the owners or occupiers of that land;
(b) the eviction of any persons whether owners or occupiers or trespassers or visitors is necessary to prevent that nuisance and/or to correct the despoiling or misuse of the land.
(2) A person commits an offence if he permits or authorises the continuing misuse or despoiling of land or creation of a public nuisance on it or aids or abets others to do so.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
(b) a fine not exceeding £20,000,
(c) both.'.
Mr. Paice: We now come to two new clauses. I shall be quite frank about the fact that I drafted the first and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath drafted the second. I am sure that he will explain the reason for the difference, should he catch your eye, Mr. Cran. We both address an issue that I hope strikes a chord not only with us but with Members in many parts of the House.
I have heard Labour Back Benchers speak in the House about the mess and other problems that can arise from unauthorised traveller encampments. That is a very serious problem in my constituency. Cambridgeshire has a long-standing history of hosting traveller populations that goes back to the days of casual agricultural labour. Those days are long gone, but Cambridgeshire still features strongly in the travellers' itinerary. Some counties are fortunate to be almost exempt from that itinerary, but those such as ours are not. I have heard Labour Members who represent much more urban areas also complaining about the problems.
10.45 am
There have been a number of attempts in legislation to address the problem of unauthorised traveller encampments on both public and private land. By far the most significant attempt to deal with the problem was the Criminal Justice and Public Order
Column Number: 418
Act 1994, in particular sections 61 and 62. One theme that has emerged from the Committee's proceedings is that although there are many powers in place, for one reason or another they are not used. I am attempting with new clause 5 to redraft section 61 of the 1994 Act slightly to remove some of the excuses for failing to take any action that police and public authorities have put to me. I do not pretend that I have necessarily got rid of all those excuses and I do not know what the Minister will say, but I am anxious that we try to ensure that there is no excuse for not using the powers to deal with unauthorised encampments that Parliament has given to police and local authorities.
Such encampments are a tremendous problem. Only this week there was a headline in the Cambridge Evening News about how two of my constituents had been burgled for the 192nd time. Their fence abuts on to a legal traveller encampment—there is great resentment that it is there, but there it is by the grace of the district and county councils. There is no doubt that those constituents and others whose houses abut the camp have been the constant victims of crime ever since it has been there. The crime has been not only burglary, but the throwing of rubbish over the fence, the breaking down of fences and so on.
That is a serious case, but over Easter my constituency also saw a huge influx of travellers. Most were in vehicles bearing Irish number plates, so there was nothing traditional or local about them—they were genuine itinerants. They came into the area and settled, in some cases on public land and in others on private land. The problem is not just that travellers come and park somewhere, causing an horrendous visual blight, but that there is a criminal element among them who use that facility to carry out burglary and robbery in the vicinity. Police officers are convinced of that, although it would of course be wrong to brand every traveller as criminal. I strongly doubt that it is any coincidence that a number of workshops have been burgled in the vicinity of my village in the two or three weeks since there has been an illegal traveller encampment three miles down the road. I think that the two are linked.
At present, the only recourse that private landowners have when a number of caravans arrive on their property is to go to court to obtain an eviction order. Only when the landowner has that eviction order will the police take any action to remove those caravans. The process is time-consuming and costs something in the ballpark of £1,000, but that is not all. Once that has been achieved, assuming that the travellers are removed, they leave behind them the most awful mess. They leave burned-out vehicles, scrap, broken glass and, perhaps worst of all, a vast amount of human waste—not just food waste, but faeces. It is unimaginable, unless one has been in the unfortunate position of seeing it for oneself. In new clause 5, I am seeking to require not only that those individuals be removed, but that they take with them all the waste that they have created.
I take the site that I have referred to—three miles from my village—as an example. It is 100 yd outside my constituency, but it is very close to where I live. The travellers there were removed after the landowner
Column Number: 419
went to court last week. He has been put to immense expense in order to clear the area. He is in the process of spending even more money to construct an earth bank of about 150 m to prevent the travellers from re-entering that site.
I am grateful for the supportive words that I hear from the Labour Back Benchers. The Minister may not be grateful, but I am. Those problems are not an exclusive feature of Conservative constituencies; it is a serious antisocial problem.
I see that the Government Whip has returned; the nodding will have to stop.
New clause 5 seeks to do several things. First, it seeks to remove from section 61 of the 1994 Act two of the criteria that a senior police officer must meet before he can take action. The first criterion that must be met is
''that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his''.
That is not too difficult to achieve. If one goes anywhere near them, one is told where to go.
The second criterion that must be met is
''that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land.''
I do not believe that threshold needs to exist. I am seeking to remove those two elements.
I am also seeking to remove section 61(2) of the Act. That is another loophole. It states:
''Where the persons in question are reasonably believed by the senior police officer to be persons who were not originally trespassers but have become trespassers on the land, the officer must reasonably believe that the other conditions specified in subsection (1) are satisfied after those persons became trespassers before he can exercise the power conferred by that subsection.''
That gives more excuses and opportunity for action to be contested in the courts—more opportunity for inaction. That subsection should be removed. I have also added that all waste must be removed because there is a question mark over whether property includes waste. I am anxious that when people are removed from land, they should be forced to clear that land.
It has been clear from the Committee's reaction while I have been speaking that it is a huge problem. It is totally and utterly antisocial, and is of huge cost to the landowner. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath will explain some of his experiences in his constituency, and why he has addressed the matter slightly differently. However, we are both trying to achieve the same end. I do not know whether I have got new clause 5 absolutely right; I do not have the help of parliamentary draftsmen. However, I ask the Minister to take very seriously the need to remove from current legislation every excuse for inaction. It is far too full of excuses, and of references to courts and to local authority departments. I am not belittling the need to look after families, but if one asks a social services department for advice on the welfare of a particular family, that request will go to the bottom of
Column Number: 420
its list, because it has many other things to do. Meanwhile, that family is parked on someone's land, despoiling the countryside or the community and causing various problems.
We need short, simple legislation to let the police know that if people are illegally parked for the purposes of residing on the land, they should be removed, assuming that that is what the owner of the land wants, and should take with them everything that they brought on to the site. That process should take place expeditiously. That is the only satisfactory way to remove what has become a blight on large parts of my constituency, and on urban and rural constituencies throughout the country. The problem is the same whether it concerns waste land or a green field, and must be resolved. I therefore hope that the Minister will heed not only my words, but the acknowledgment of the hon. Members who sit behind him, and accept that although my wording may not be perfect, the issue is serious.
Earlier in the Committee's discussions, the Minister said several times that the Government were undertaking reviews of various issues. I do not want to belittle his reviews, but taking action two or three years down the road is inadequate. The issue must be addressed quickly, and the Bill is a good vehicle to deal with it. It clearly, if I may say so, fits the Bill. I hope that the Minister, even if he cannot accept my proposal, will use the Bill as a vehicle to tighten up the legislation and to ensure that the powers that have been given are used swiftly and effectively.
| 
