Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Mr. Davey: Is it possible to use the guidance to urge local authorities to work with the police? The hon. Lady may need to speak to her colleagues in the Home Office about that; the most effective approach is under local protocols set up by the police and local authorities to deal with the issues that she has been discussing. It is vital that that best practice on protocols and partnership between police and local authorities should be spread around the country. Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is certainly true in the case of unauthorised encampments. Effective protocols have often been established, and the guidance supports their development. In fact, the guidance on unauthorised encampments was welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers as a way of supporting such partnerships. In addition, we think that more support is needed for the use of powers against breaches of planning control. We think that local authorities could do more in that regard. That is one reason why we have said that we shall establish a Gypsy and Traveller unit in the Department; we want to develop such guidance and support local authorities in establishing, for example, round-the-clock services to deal with breaches of planning control. Some already have such services, but others do not, and they may be needed in some areas where they are not provided. Mr. Hammond: The perception in the Minister’s Department is perhaps different from that of many local authorities. Is it her perception that the Government’s guidance makes it more or less likely that the police and local authorities will be proactive in dealing with such unauthorised settlements? The impression throughout the country is that the guidance will make the police and local authorities less willing to be proactive. Yvette Cooper: No, I do not think that that is the case. The important thing is that the guidance supports local authorities and the police in taking whatever action is necessary, which will vary from place to place and from incident to incident. The purpose of the
The temporary stop notices will need to be reviewed, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that they will be. In part, we shall be reviewing what other changes might be required through secondary legislation. We shall also review the issue as a longer-term measure. As I said, over the longer term there should be scope to link stronger enforcement with greater site provision, which should go hand in hand both nationally and locally, in the same way as with tackling unauthorised encampments. There should be more scope for linking the provision of sites with swifter and stronger enforcement against unauthorised development. We continue to work with local authorities on that, as part of the review of temporary stop notices. In addressing the wider background points that have been raised, we cannot reiterate enough the need for the additional sites. The approach that the Conservatives have set out will not address the need for additional sites—indeed, they do not even talk about that need. We need those additional sites, otherwise the situation will be unfair for local communities. Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because if she is about to embark on her political conclusions, I should first like to address a serious point about the term “main residence”, which is the exception in the regulations. The notice cannot be served if a caravan is occupied by someone as their main residence. Exactly how is the term to be defined? What guidance is there for councils? I apologise for not having read the guidance yet. Whose obligation is it to decide whether a caravan is a main residence? Do councils have to take the caravan occupants’ word for it? On whom does the onus fall to determine whether a caravan is a main residence? Is the onus on the council to prove that it is not, or on the occupier to prove that it is? Notwithstanding the Minister’s earlier comments, in my constituency, some of the occupants in question have main residences elsewhere—they are quite often substantial houses—but proving that that is the case takes a time-consuming effort. That could negate the whole thing. Can she say something about how the system will operate and who is responsible for deciding whether a caravan is a main residence? Yvette Cooper: The approach is to attempt to provide a parallel arrangement to that which exists for dwelling houses. In the existing primary legislation, there is protection for dwelling houses that are used as people’s main residence against both temporary stop notices and stop notices. That is partly because there is no right of appeal against such notices and because their breach can be prosecuted straight away in the courts. People cannot be evicted from their home under a temporary stop notice if their home is a house. That is the case because it has always been Parliament’s view that it would be disproportionate in general cases to allow local planning authorities
Temporary stop notices do not include the same protection for caravans in primary legislation. It is included only in secondary legislation, as a result of the undertakings that my noble Friend Lord Rooker gave in relation to parallel arrangements for caravans, on the grounds that the legislation needs to be fair, as there is still no right of appeal and a serious shortage of sites. We have not replicated precisely the arrangements for buildings, because there are important differences between caravans and buildings. The fact that caravans can be moved rapidly means that they should in certain respects be treated differently from buildings used as dwellings places. That is why we can use the arrangements for caravans moving on to sites, but also why, in certain circumstances, they can be used against caravans that are established on sites. As we said, we need to be able to review those arrangements, particularly as there is greater site provision. We have the flexibility to do that because it is in secondary legislation. Ultimately, the decision about what counts as a main residence will be for the courts to determine, but the arrangements and approach for caravans should be similar to those for dwelling houses. That is the intention behind the measure. Hon. Members should bear in mind that the arrangements apply to temporary stop notices only, not stop notices. Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister, as she has been very helpful with the background, but I am still puzzled as to how she envisages the notices working. What will happen if the council enforcement officer knocks on the caravan door and says, “I’m serving you with a temporary stop notice,” and the occupant says, “You can’t, this is my main home”? As there is no mechanism for appeal, I do not see how the next stage would take place. How will it be decided whether the caravan is the main residence? The Minister rightly said that it will be the court that makes the final decision, but how will the judge decide and what will the mechanism be? Yvette Cooper: Ultimately, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, it will be a matter for the court to decide such things. If the caravan is somebody’s main home, the temporary stop notice can still be used to prevent further development or any more caravans arriving on the site, and if other factors are involved—for example, if the site is one of special scientific interest—the notice can still be used on the caravan even if it is somebody’s main home. Of course, matters of fact will always need to be determined in individual cases, but obviously, matters of fact cannot be specified in Parliament or in Committee debates. I am happy to write to him about that. Local authorities will be able to use temporary stop notices in a wide range of circumstances; they will be an additional tool that can be used against a caravan even if it is somebody’s main dwelling, so that the authority can then consider whether a stop notice is appropriate. Column Number: 23 Mr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend saying that we want local authorities, the courts and police to interpret the measure to mean that the caravan is the home, not the plot of land? Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that there are important differences between caravans and buildings. We have put the arrangements for caravans into secondary rather than primary legislation in order to have flexibility, but none of us should underestimate the importance of providing alternative locations to which people can go. If the caravan is moved on and there is no alternative site, that will create another problem such as an unauthorised encampment or development; the two things have to be done side by side. These stronger and swifter enforcement powers are needed and will make a difference for local authorities, but they need to be used in conjunction with the provision of alternative sites. Finally, I shall address the broader point on the Human Rights Act 1998, which is being used in completely the wrong way in this debate. Opposition Members say that they want to get rid of the Act, as they think that that would somehow solve all their problems. They may say that they want to modify it; they think that they can get rid of it and that they could then do things that would comply with the European convention on human rights, but which do not comply with the Act. One wonders which lawyers have given them that advice. Oh, I forgot: the Leader of the Opposition is a lawyer. Opposition Members think that the Human Rights Act is at the heart of the problem, but the courts have found in favour of Gypsies and Travellers in some cases in which the Act was cited, and against them in others. As I said, if one considers planning decisions as a whole, one sees that the majority of ordinary planning applications are agreed to and that the majority of Gypsy and Traveller applications are refused, even with the Human Rights Act in place. The Act is not the issue; the underlying issue is that there are not enough sites to which Gypsies and Travellers can go. Mr. Hammond: The Minister has quoted those figures twice and her colleagues are quoting them all the time. She must put them into context. When she quotes the percentage of applications of any type that are approved or rejected, she must tell us what percentage were plan-compliant and what percentage were non-compliant. A large number of ordinary applications are accepted because people simply do not make other applications. Mr. Barratt does not make an application to build 1,000 houses in the middle of the green belt, because he knows that that is wasting his time. Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman raises the fact that there is a question about whether plans identify land for Gypsies and Travellers, which they do not. That is why we need local plans to identify appropriate land for Gypsies and Travellers. He cannot get round that problem with the idea that it is all right because
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire entertained us all by suggesting that there may be a case for taking party politics out of the debate. I agree. That is why, nine months ago, I had conversations with Opposition Front Benchers—both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—about taking party politics out of the debate. That is why I have had a series of meetings with Back-Bench Members about the concerns that they have raised. It is why we have set out the approaches in the temporary stop notice and why work is going on to try to address the concerns that they have raised. I take those concerns seriously, and there is a problem with unauthorised camps and developments that we need to address. However, the right way in which to approach the issue is responsibly and with cross-party consensus—which, interestingly, we had in debates on private Members’ Bills and nine months ago. The consensus was that our approach should combine enforcement and the development of alternative sites, that we should try to do both at once, and that we should not exploit that in a way that escalates community tensions. That is why hon. Members’ approach to the debate is irresponsible. Mr. Luff: I want to put on the record that I had a constructive meeting with the Minister last summer, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), at which we discussed the particular issues in our area. It was a useful meeting. I would love to have the consensus of which she speaks but sadly her Department seems to have set its face against recognising the concerns of our constituents when they see planning law abused. The Minister’s response to consultation on the order seems to have been to tighten up provision against the interests of local authorities and local communities and in favour of the travelling community. I have sympathy with what she says about site provision. Worcestershire pays a heavy price because counties around us are closing sites and we need to make provision for displaced Travellers. However, her response to the legitimate concerns has been to move further in favour of illegal encampments and against the interests of local planning authorities. That is why the debate has become more partisan. Yvette Cooper: That is simply not true. We are introducing new enforcement powers, which local authorities have not had before, and they have already had an impact. They will work only if they are part of more effective use of local authorities’ existing powers, which they could use more extensively. Those powers will only work alongside action to address the underlying problem of the shortage of sites, because otherwise all we will do is move the problem on. We should have consensus across all parties about addressing enforcement and greater site provision at the same time. It is shameful for Conservative Front Benchers to whip up the issue and to try to exploit community tensions rather than come forward with
Phil Sawford (Kettering) (Lab): I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on seeking consensus, but does it apply when the bandwagon in question is the Leader of the Opposition’s main residence? Yvette Cooper: There has certainly been much jumping on the bandwagon in the past few weeks. Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady again asserts that it was agreed in the early summer of last year that a cross-party consensus should be established. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) had a meeting with the Minister, at which he set out our concerns and the issues that needed to be addressed. As far as we are concerned, however, she never responded to those concerns, and there was no consensus. The Minister thought that there was a consensus, but when did she approach me to discuss the supplementary guidance that she has been issuing, when did she call me into her office to talk about diversity in planning, and when did she contact me to tell me about the Government’s moves on 7 March? This consensus that Ministers apparently believed existed is something that they have invented since last Monday, because they were not operating under any sense that a consensus was in place. Yvette Cooper: I have been on my feet for some time; perhaps it is time for the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman to give his view of the cross-party approach. It is not reasonable to expect the Government to take responsibility for the fact that Opposition Front Benchers do not talk to each other. That is obviously a matter for them. We made it clear that we would have a series of meetings with hon. Members who raised concerns, and at every stage we expressed our concern that we should take a cross-party approach to finding a solution. In the end, it is about finding a solution to the problem rather than trying to play party politics with it. Mr. Prisk: On a point of order, Mrs. Adams. About 20 minutes ago, I asked a straightforward and important question. I asked, “What is a caravan?” The Minister rightly wanted to find the correct definition, but we have yet to hear it. I would like your guidance as to whether we can proceed without such a definition. The Minister might want to respond. The Chairman: The Chair is not responsible for the Minister’s responses. That is up to the Minister. Yvette Cooper: I understand that the definition is set out in the Caravan Sites Act 1968, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. Matthew Green (Ludlow) (LD) rose— Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mrs. Adams. This is a genuine attempt to achieve clarity. I am concerned that in 10 minutes’ time we will be invited to approve
The Chairman: It is not up to the Chair to give a definition of a caravan. The Minister has agreed to write. 11.13 amMatthew Green: I shall attempt to start for the third time. We are here because of the significant problem of Gypsies and Travellers purchasing land or sometimes illegally occupying land and setting up illegal encampments on it without planning permission. The problem exists because in 1994 the Conservatives—the then Home Secretary and now Leader of the Opposition—chose to remove legislation that provided for sites. The problem has increased since then. Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Matthew Green: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken a lot, and we have less than 10 minutes. I confirm that meetings were held in June and July last year. They were bilateral meetings between me and the Minister and between the Minister and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I discussed the matter between us. I confirm that my understanding was that there was a broad cross-party consensus on a range of measures to deal with the problem—a balanced package that would act as a carrot and a stick. The problem is two-fold. First, the enforcement powers were not sufficient. We are therefore more than happy with the extra enforcement powers that we are discussing today. Secondly, there was a shortage of provision. That shortage of provision led to some of the problems in the courts—challenges made under human rights legislation were successful only because there were no alternative sites. The problem is that the land that Gypsies and Travellers might purchase and turn into a site is not identified in current plans. One of the proposed measures is to require local authorities to identify land that could be used for sites, either privately, or publicly through registered social landlords. The provision of extra sites is key to answering the problem, because once that is done, or land has been identified that Travellers and Gypsies could purchase, they cannot use the defence that there is nowhere else for them to go. That is what would remove the defence; there is no need to alter human rights legislation. While we are on the subject, if the Human Rights Act 1998 were repealed, Gypsies and Travellers could appeal directly to the European Court of Human Rights. Column Number: 27 Mr. Luff: Is the hon. Gentleman’s understanding the same as mine: land designated in local plans for housing purposes could be used for residential Traveller accommodation? Matthew Green: My understanding is that that is possible, but it is not a normal interpretation. What is proposed is that development plans prepared by local planning authorities identify land—not specific sites, but areas of land that could be used—that would be suitable for Gypsy and Traveller sites. That will get round the Human Rights Act problem. Despite the protestations of the Leader of the Opposition, the removal of the Act would merely allow people to appeal to the European Court instead; so it would not be an effective move. It is sad that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is not here. In the past few weeks he has become a victim of wedge politics; Linton Crosby has driven a wedge between him and the Leader of the Opposition. He has been badly let down by his own leadership. There are other parts to the package. It is fairly balanced: assessment under housing need, and the potential use of money through registered social landlords to provide public sites where private sites are not given. We have concerns that, as the powers are drafted, they might open up some loopholes. However, as the Minister has made clear, because this is secondary legislation we can return to it quickly and can strengthen it as and when extra provision is made available. Using a stick without a carrot will just shift the problem around the country. There is not one thing in the Conservative’s seven proposals—I have them in front of me—that will provide for extra sites. I am happy to take interventions. Which of the seven proposals would do it? Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that his desire is for the identification of sites to come within the local plan-led process. That is precisely what the document that was issued on Monday says. Matthew Green: I think that the hon. Gentleman is struggling a bit. I have the document in front of me and there is no mention in it of a plan-led approach. I should love to know where in the seven points the plan-led approach is mentioned. We have to remove the petty party politics and bandwagon jumping and get back to the situation that we were in nine months ago. We read so much about the issue in the press only because the Conservatives believe that they can whip up a bit of hysteria over it. That is irresponsible politics. We should be given the opportunity to see whether the powers work. They may not prove to be sufficient in the long run, and we may have to reconsider them. I am confident that the Minister will want us to do so if they fail to work well enough. I do hope that the Conservatives can forget their actions of the past few weeks and return to the more responsible attitude that they took in previous months. Column Number: 28 Mr. Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman reads point No. 7 in the document before him, he will see that it says that the Opposition
and that local people should have a greater say on where sites go in a “plan-led process”. Matthew Green: There is nothing about there being more sites. My copy of the seven proposals—there may be more than one copy—does not mention a plan-led approach. It says:
Perhaps the Opposition have two different versions of the seven-point plan: one that they wanted to give to the press, and one that the Liberal Democrats have. Ms Buck: Judging by what the hon. Gentleman has just read out, it seems that the Conservative approach is to make it impossible for any local authority to adopt a plan-led approach in order to create additional sites, precisely because the proposal’s wording allows such an opportunity to be blocked every time. Matthew Green: In theory, local authorities can identify sites at the moment. They do not identify sites, often because this is a very difficult local issue. Nothing in the Conservatives’ proposals says that they would require local authorities to identify potential sites. A key element of the plan is to ask local authorities to identify the best sites for these camps. The reality of the Conservatives’ proposals is that local authorities would not identify sites because that would be too difficult. All that would happen is that people would be pushed around the country, or perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe proposes that they all go to the fantasy island that the Conservatives reserve for their immigration policy. The proposals are part of a package that we are happy to be implemented as a possible solution to a growing problem. It may not work completely. If it does not work, I am sure that all parties will want us to reconsider the matter and to discuss what else needs to be done. The proposals, and other parts of the plan, have been introduced in recent weeks, and we should allow time to see whether they work and whether they help to solve the problem. Shouting about further changes and talking about the use of trespass laws when people own their own land is an irresponsible way of dealing with the problem. I hope that the Conservatives retreat from doing so and return to the more responsible attitude displayed by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings nine months ago. 11.23 amMr. Miller: It has been interesting to attend the debate and to hear the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) citing his seven points while acknowledging that this is a very difficult
I should tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, as my constituency is on a regular route, a persistent problem developed immediately after the previous provisions were scrapped in 1994. The scrapping of those provisions caused the problem, and therein lies the solution. In order that the courts may interpret the legislation, we must be very clear that when we talk about the possibility of a caravan being a principal home, we are talking about the caravan, not its
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings, The Chairman put the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(5). Resolved,
Committee rose at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 29 March 2005 |