---

Mr. Olner: That happens but, immediately after the local authority seeks to go down that legal route when travellers illegally encamp on land that is in its ownership, they start to query whether the authority has a right to do that because it is infringing their human
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1547
 
rights. The travellers seem to have a load of legal casework that supersedes the points that the Minister has just made.

Paul Clark: There is a perception that human rights apply only to the few and not to the many. They apply to all of us. The Human Rights Act 1998 was about a number of issues, one of which was to make it possible for anyone in this Chamber or in the country to pursue their human rights through British courts, rather than face the expensive cost of going to Strasbourg. Human rights are relevant in planning matters. There is a need to enforce planning controls. Those rights must be balanced with the qualified rights of people not to have their family life or privacy disrupted.

Public bodies have to take proportionate decisions. There is a perception that Gypsies, Travellers and other groups have special rights—that they have rights greater than people living in settled communities—but that is not the case. As I said, human rights legislation exists to protect everyone's human rights. Of course, the interests of neighbours must rightly be taken into account, but the planning enforcement decision being considered is against Gypsies and Travellers, so a decision has to be taken that is proportionate. So no such difference exists, but we recognise that the perception exists that a different balance is involved.

Mr. Luff: For the record, most people think that this is a bit more than a question of perception. The bungalows built on the sites that I know of on which Gypsies were allowed to remain would otherwise have been pulled down and the sites would have returned to fields. In practice, therefore, there is a difference.

Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware that the enforcement powers available to local authorities in respect of unauthorised development are the same and are there to be used, regardless of who is involved. As I said, we are reviewing those powers.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the idea of creating a criminal offence, which was in fact considered by Parliament in debates that culminated in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The majority view then was that criminalisation would be too severe a punishment for breaches of planning control, given that some people might be genuinely unaware of the need to obtain planning permission for relatively minor
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1548
 
developments. Of course, others have suggested that it should be criminalised only for the development of Gypsy sites, but Members will recognise that it is neither right nor legal to criminalise only one section of the community.

Mr. Ruffley: My suggestion was not that all breaches be criminalised, but wilful breaches where such wilfulness can be demonstrated. So an inadvertent breach would not be caught by my proposal.

Paul Clark: I suspect that trying to ascertain whether someone acted knowingly or unwittingly would prove a legal minefield and lead to the further delays that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, among others, is concerned about.

For the first time, housing needs assessments will incorporate Gypsies and Travellers, and local authorities will include such groups in their assessments. Next year, we will issue revised guidance on how that is to be done. A regional consideration of all these needs will then be fed into regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks. The number of sites that should be provided in each local authority area will then be indicated.

If we can know the level of demand—inevitably there are fluctuations, which will doubtless be dealt with in the consultation—we can see where the shortages are and avoid the conflicts that all of us have probably experienced in our constituencies from time to time. This is a complex issue, but I hope that Members appreciate that we take seriously not only accommodating Gypsies, but the needs of clearly settled communities. The right way forward is to encourage Gypsies to consult local authorities on planning matters before buying land on which they intend to live, or for which planning permission will be required for any subsequent development; and for local authorities to make a quantitative assessment of the amount of accommodation required. Spatial planning policies should recognise the need for accommodation consistent with Gypsies' and Travellers' lifestyles.

I thank the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds for raising this important issue, and I trust that we see a way forward together.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.

---

---