Clause
270
Armed
forces: homelessness and allocation of
housing
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
11.45
am
Grant
Shapps:
I support the clause. I think that every hon.
Member has had somebody come into their surgery who has returned from
one of the world’s conflict areas having fought bravely for this
country and that person is surprised to find themselves at the bottom
of the housing ladder. In many cases, they are worse off than somebody
who has been permanently within the area. Two different problems
occur.
First, when
somebody is in the armed forces they are probably not much thinking
about the need to gather and gain points within a local authority to
rise up the housing need scale. Secondly, often the nature of going
away and fighting in the armed forces means that you come back and your
life is not as it was when you left. In particular, the area that you
call home is ill defined to the extent that there is not a home
authority for that member of the armed forces. There is a case that I
can think of in my constituency and, speaking to hon. Members, I know
that cases are found elsewhere. It becomes unclear which authority they
should be applying to and I have come across instances where no
authority is initially prepared even to add that individual to its list
of people in housing need. That is unsatisfactory for a group of people
who have risked their lives on behalf of this country, as is the
secondary point that even when they are recognised by an authority
because there is a link to the area, they find themselves at the bottom
of the list and starting from scratch. The amendment addresses that
issue. In areas with significant housing need—in the south and
elsewhere—points need to accumulate, sometimes to over 100
points, in a local authority area, before there is any chance of being
housed at all. It is not a coincidence that the people that I have met
working in homelessness and rough sleeping have so often had experience
in the armed forces before becoming homeless. I think that one in five
people who sleep in the streets, for example, have been in the
armed forces.
Lyn
Brown (West Ham) (Lab): Has the hon. Gentleman read the
social exclusion unit report regarding rough sleeping produced by the
Government some years ago? It is clear that the issues around armed
forces personnel finding themselves on the street are myriad, and
include mental health, losing the camaraderie and the
institutionalisation of being in the armed forces. Does he accept that
those, and not the issues that thankfully are being rectified by the
clause—which I wholeheartedly support—are the predominant
issues?
Grant
Shapps:
I am grateful for hon. Lady’s intervention.
She is right that the issues that contribute towards homelessness,
including among former members of the armed forces, are incredibly
complex. Any attempt to pretend that there is one silver
bullet—an individual thing that one can do—or one single
cause is hugely misguided. Of course, one factor is the amount of
social housing provision. It remains a fact that in every year of the
past 10 years less social housing has been built than in every year of
the previous 18. That means that the amount of housing available for
people coming back from conflicts has diminished. It affects people
across the picture, particularly those returning from
conflict.
Mr.
Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab):
The hon. Gentleman has a habit of throwing in statistics as soundbites.
Does he accept that on social housing, the rot set in with the decline
in council house building? There is a very useful table in the Unison
briefing, showing that, in 1979, some 75,000 council houses were being
built. Now, belatedly perhaps, the Government are addressing the issue,
so will he give them some credit, rather than just point
scoring?
Grant
Shapps:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising
that issue, because I know that the Government Front-Benchers, and now
it turns out the Back-Benchers, do not like to hear the facts, which
are that far fewer social houses have been
built.
Lyn
Brown:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Grant
Shapps:
May I answer the first point before giving way
again? It is a fact. It is hard to escape it and it may be
inconvenient, but if the hon. Gentleman says that more social housing
should have been built, he may be right. This Government have had not
10 but almost 11 years during which they could have built that
housing.
The
Chairman:
Order. Before we go any further down that road,
this is not a Second Reading debate, fun though it might be; it is a
debate about armed forces housing. That is what the clause is about, so
it would be a good idea if we stuck to it.
Grant
Shapps:
Thank you, Mr. Gale. I apologise for
allowing myself to be goaded off the subject.
The overall supply of social
housing has a big impact on our returning armed forces, and perhaps at
another time we can continue the debate about how best to supply it.
All parts of the House, however, will agree that when people have
served this nation, they should have a right to reconnect with society.
The local authority must not only accept them on to its list, but go a
little further than the clause by acknowledging that their need is
greater than merely to be accepted by an area, and that they need
points to have a realistic chance of getting into a property without
having to join the back of the queue.
Mr.
Raynsford:
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the
clause is about ensuring that access to council
accommodation or social housing should be available on the basis of need
rather than local connection? We are remedying a change made by a
Conservative Government in 1996, which imposed a residence test that is
unhelpful to members of the armed forces. It was not in the original
Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which sought to meet
people’s needs without that consideration. We are now remedying
a mistake that the previous Conservative Government
made.
Grant
Shapps:
I am grateful for the intervention, but I shall
leave it to others who were around at the time to discuss previous
Acts. I am very pleased, however, to see the provision in the Bill. The
big difference is that, in the past decade, our armed forces have been
sent to war far more than in any recent period. Those wars have
continued for a long time, and service has been distant from this
country, so the issue has been brought into much sharper focus. I
certainly support the clause, but I urge the Minister to go further and
not only create a connection with the local authority, but prioritise
the housing needs of those returning from armed
conflict.
Andrew
Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): I, too, welcome the
provisions in the clause and the way in which it alters the provisions
of the 1996 Act. Like the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, I understand
that, under current housing legislation, it is often difficult for
members of the armed forces who are nearing the end of service or
returning to the UK to show that they have a local connection with the
district council area where they have been serving, living or are
returning to. Since becoming a Member, I have had a small number of
such cases in my constituency casework. The problem means that they
become a low priority for council housing because they have relatively
low point allocations. If they go on through the homeless register
instead of the council allocation and if they are accepted as being
homeless, they are often removed to another local authority area where
they have a previous connection rather than being considered for
homeless accommodation in the district in which they have applied for
housing.
Will the
Minister confirm my reading of the clause—that it will ensure
that armed services personnel will be considered to have a local
connection with an area in which they are stationed or living, in order
to equalise their status with the local civilian population? If so, it
will enable them realistically to be considered for council housing in
their local areas as they move from military life back to civilian
life. I would welcome that.
Sir
George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): I, too, welcome
the clause, but does it extend to the families of military personnel?
The explanatory notes say that the effect of the clause is
that
“a person in the
armed forces will now be able to establish a local connection with a
district...in the same way as a
civilian.”
However, a
common scenario is when a family is in married quarters and the
couple’s relationship breaks down or the one who is on active
service, usually the husband, leaves the armed services, leaving the
family in those quarters. At that point, the MOD says, quite
reasonably, that it needs the married quarters and
serves a notice on the family to quit. Does the help in clause 270
extend to the family of the personnel member and enable them to
establish a local connection in the same
way?
Mr.
Wright:
I am pleased that both sides of the Committee
agree that the clause is important. I welcome the words of the hon.
Member for Welwyn Hatfield on the clause and am more than happy to help
him draft a press release to the effect, “Shapps praises
Government on Housing and Regeneration Bill”. Perhaps we can do
that some time this evening. Somehow, though, I suspect that will not
be the case.
Regardless of which areas we
represent, we all know from our constituency work that former services
personnel have had a battle to obtain social housing, because they are
not treated as having a local connection with the areas in which they
have been serving. Let me put on record that it is absolutely
unacceptable that they should be put at a complete disadvantage because
of their service to the country. On the contrary, we must provide our
servicemen and women with the best possible support as they move back
to civilian life. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member
for Denton and Reddish regarding his concerns. His reading of the Bill
is exactly my understanding of it. I hope that provides some
reassurance.
That is
why the clause will amend the Housing Act 1996 to enable service
personnel to establish a local connection with the district in which
they are serving or have served for the purposes of allocating social
housing under part 6 of the Act and providing homelessness assistance
under part 7. Broadly speaking, a person has a local connection with a
district if he is or was normally resident there by choice.
Additionally, someone may have a local connection with a district
because he or she is employed there, has family associations there or
because of special circumstances.
Whether someone has a local
connection with a district can be relevant when they seek social
housing, because the 1996 Act allows local authorities to take local
connections into account when deciding who gets priority for social
housing. Local connections are also relevant in respect of
homelessness, because people who are accepted as being unintentionally
homeless and in priority need who do not have a local connection with
the district in which they have applied for help may be referred to
another authority in which they do have a local connection.
As my right hon. Friend the
Member for Greenwich and Woolwich eloquently pointed out, and I would
like to put it on record as well, under the current legislation,
service personnel and their families are specifically excluded and are
treated as not having established a local connection with a district
because of employment or residence while serving in the forces. I think
that the whole Committee will agree that that is simply unacceptable.
Clause 270 will remove the provisions that prevent service personnel
from establishing a local connection in those circumstances. That will
mean that residence and employment of serving members of the armed
forces will be taken into account in the same way that it is for
civilians who live and work in a district.
The right hon. Member for
North-West Hampshire mentioned a specific point about families and
particularly wives trying to establish a local connection when a
marriage breaks up and a wife and family are left living in married
quarters. I reassure him that his reading of that situation is correct.
However, the question of whether a wife will establish a local
connection because of residence in these or any other circumstances
will depend on the usual factors that apply to everyone: namely,
whether she was normally resident there and whether it was a residence
of her own
choice.
12
noon
Sir
George Young:
I am slightly worried about the term
“residence of her own choice”. By definition, this is not
a residence of her own choice, but a condition of her husband’s
employment. Will the Minister assure me that that will not debar her
from access to local authority
housing?
Mr.
Wright:
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not
making myself clear. Wives will be able to establish a local connection
under the clause. I hope that that provides the reassurance that he
needs.
Mr.
Love:
I thank my hon. Friend for taking up the point that
is agreed across the Chamber of the importance of providing ex-service
personnel with accommodation. He has given reassurance in relation to
the district where they have been based, but that district is often not
where they would wish to remain because bases are outside urban areas
or because they want to return to the town in which they were born.
They can often find themselves in those difficulties and will not be
able to establish a local connection, even though they might have lived
there for a considerable period. Will the Minister reassure the House
that the concerns for personnel who do not want to remain in their
district will be taken into
account?
Mr.
Wright:
I hope that I can provide that reassurance. In the
circumstances that the hon. Gentleman outlined, a local connection
would remain. If a wife wanted to move back to where she was brought
up, she would have a local connection there already. I am pleased that
the whole House supports the clause. I think that clauses 269 to 272
are, in their different ways, extremely important parts of the Bill and
of housing policy. It is important that we ensure that servicemen and
women are put on an equal footing when applying for
housing.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause
270
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
271
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
272
Protected
mobile home sites to include sites for gypsies and
travellers
The
Chairman:
The clause was originally linked with new clause
15 in the expectation that a member of the Committee might sign the new
clause, but none has.
The guidance notes for Committees indicate that where an amendment or
new clause is not signed by a member of the Committee, it should not
normally be called. Therefore, I do not propose to invite a debate on
new clause 15 at this stage. If, however, any hon. Member wishes to
retable it on Report, that is a matter for them. It is not for me to
predetermine what Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and
Means might chose to call on Report. However, I imagine that the fact
that it was tabled but not called here might be looked upon tolerably
or
favourably.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Grant
Shapps:
As I understand it, the clause will rectify a
problem caused by a case that the Government lost in the European
Court.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I would be interested to know what the hon.
Gentleman means by a “problem” in this
context.
Grant
Shapps:
The Government lost the case and the law therefore
needs to be amended. Because I think the hon. Gentleman’s
intervention indicates one of the difficulties of discussing this
issue, I want first of all to put on record that in my constituency
there are three Gypsy and Traveller sites. One is called
Barbaraville—set up by the late Barbara Cartland—and has
been there for 45 years. In the last couple of years, I have spent
considerable time defending the rights of those citizens against a
plant that was going to be built next door by Thames Water for
£5 million that would have seriously degraded the quality of
life of those Gypsies who live on the Barbaraville estate.
I consider constituents of
mine—regardless of where they live in my constituency and in
what housing—to be absolutely equal under the law and had no
hesitation in coming forward to defend their rights. However, I am
concerned that what this clause will do is effectively set up a
specific rule for a particular group of people.
Romany Gypsies and Irish
Travellers are defined as a minority ethnic group under the Race
Relations Act 1976. What this clause does is to provide specific
legislation with reference to that particular ethnic group. I know that
the Minister has probably included the clause with some hesitation as a
result of the court
case.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving
way—and I will speak in a moment myself—but may I urge on
him some caution in what he says? I am finding the words he is using
somewhat offensive, and that an hon. Member has to go out of his way to
say that all his constituents are treated equally does not to my mind
imply that that is the case, but rather implies a presumption of the
opposite. I think he is getting a little into dog-whistle politics and
that he ought to think quite carefully before this—I hope quite
uncontroversial—clause stands part.
Grant
Shapps:
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s
intervention but rather confused by it. I understood from his original
intervention that he was immediately expressing some concerns because I
was querying this particular clause, so I wanted to put on record in a
way that was beyond any doubt or concern whatsoever, that I think that
the rights of every citizen in this country must be protected. Now I
ask him to take my assurance at face value, because that is exactly how
it is meant.
I do,
however, believe that when we start to legislate to provide particular
benefits to one particular defined ethnic group, we are in danger of
creating other imbalances. This is a perfectly reasonable point to make
in what I hope is a very controlled, rational and calm way: I think
that for legislation to pick out individual groups based on ethnicity
is a dangerous approach to take to this House creating legislation. The
accusation that this is somehow dog-whistle politics, I actually find
very surprising—not least because I cannot imagine who the hon.
Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush thinks I am trying to talk
to in this.
I am
merely trying to ensure that the legislation we pass is appropriate and
of a high standard—and in this particular case I am concerned
that there is a clause that seeks to provide a particular approach to
one particular group based on ethnicity. I think that is the wrong
approach for Parliament to take and I ask the hon. Member to consider
again his comments.
Mr.
Wright:
The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving
way. Can he clarify to the Committee what additional benefits we are
providing in clause
272?
Grant
Shapps:
I spent a Friday evening with residents in one
part of my constituency, Bell Bar, who were concerned that a report was
recently published which identifies a piece of land near them as a
possible location for a Gypsy and Travellers site. The reason that the
allocation is required—as the Minister will know—is that
the Government have told the regional structure of government to find
additional sites and tell local authorities where to provide them. The
residents’ concerns are many, but my specific concern is that we
have three Traveller-Gypsy sites in my constituency, all of which
operate extremely well. There is no obvious requirement for more, given
that the number of temporary Traveller encampments has fallen in recent
years, yet provision is required for an additional 17 pitches. I hope
that that helps to define the
concern.
Mr.
Wright:
I apologise for taking up the Committee’s
time, but this is an important point and I do not believe that the hon.
Gentleman has addressed it. What additional benefits are we providing
to a particular group of people in the clause, at the expense of other
parts of the population? I suggest that we are
not.
Grant
Shapps:
The Minister will note that I did not table an
amendment to the clause, but I thought it right to highlight concerns
in the debate. The concern is that providing a protected site
effectively provides a benefit to one section of the community that
does not exist for others, in this case the ability to obtain land for
a
specific purpose that does not exist if one does not happen to be part
of that group. I am querying that principle, and I am surprised to hear
the Minister argue against my point, as I understand—perhaps he
will clear this up—that the Government included the clause as
the result of the loss of a European case, which they argued
against.
Andrew
George:
I was intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s
comment that the clause will provide benefits for one particular ethnic
group. I agree with the Minister’s intervention. I do not
believe that the provision or protection of sites to those within the
travelling community group who may not otherwise have anywhere to
reside is any additional benefit above and beyond that provided to the
housed population. It merely provides something to ensure that they
have some measure of protection in our society, which is not
unreasonable. I shall not stray into mentioning dog whistles and so on,
but it is important that we take a balanced
approach.
Not having
anticipated the contribution of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, my
purpose in rising was to seek the Minister’s advice on the
purpose of the clause. Notwithstanding your advice on new clause 15,
Mr. Gale, which was not signed by other members of the
Committee and therefore will not be debated, I ask the Minister whether
there is provision, or an intention to amend the clause, to address
concerns in parts of the country where there are substantial mobile
home sites. I am sure that the Minister understands that those sites
are seen by some as a lifestyle choice, based on the ambience and
lifestyle of the mobile home park. Because of the shortage of housing
provided by social housing providers, registered social landlords and
others, mobile home parks have become an alternative; for some, it is
the only route to meet their housing needs.
12.15
pm
I appreciate
that, over the past 10 or 11 years, the Government have addressed the
issue, in so far as they have consulted that sector and the residents
living in mobile home parks and have brought forward regulations to
provide them with a modicum of protection from some mobile home park
owners. However, in my experience of mobile home parks in my
constituency, the attitudes of the park owners are in some cases rather
draconian, and they are certainly not transparent in the way in which
they divvy up the energy bills and charges for those who come in and
out of the park sites. For those and other reasons, concern has been
expressed about the management of those
parks.
For those who fall off the
radar screen for the provision of social housing and who live in mobile
home parks because they have no alternative—they do not do so
out of choice—I seek the Minister’s advice. Do the
Government ultimately intend to bring in regulations on mobile home
parks to put them under the regulator Oftenant? As drafted, the Bill
does not allow for
that.
The Bill allows
the Secretary of State to make provisions to extend its scope in
regulation. I therefore ask the Minister whether, if the purpose of the
Bill is to provide protection in society with regard to the quality
of the accommodation where people reside, he believes that they should
be given some assistance and should not be left outside the provisions
of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s
comments.
Mr.
Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab):
The provision has been a long time coming, and the Opposition are right
to say that it was prompted by a decision of the European Court of
Human Rights. The Minister will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but
the Government have willingly introduced the proposal. I am pleased
that they have done so, and I hope that the Minister is, too.
It is a significant measure,
because it applies security of tenure to people living on local
authority Gypsy and Traveller sites, who do not currently have that
protection. That creates an intolerable situation, as people can be
evicted from the site with 28 days’ notice, as if they were
unprotected tenants. That is notwithstanding all the other problems
often associated with the level of accommodation provided on such
sites. For example, there are usually long-term residents on a site
near my constituency. They may be in caravans or mobile homes, many of
which are permanent dwellings in which whole families have grown up.
That is the comparison with other forms of social housing, and I shall
turn in a moment to the point raised by the hon. Member for St.
Ives.
I had hoped that
the proposal would be uncontroversial. I stand to be corrected, but I
thought that it had all-party support. I am member of the all-party
Gypsy and Traveller law reform group. That group, ably advised by the
Traveller Law Reform Project, has campaigned strongly on the provision
and welcomes its inclusion—I think that my hon. Friend the
Minister is meeting the group tomorrow morning. If the clause is
accepted, as I hope that it will be this afternoon, I am sure that he
will be congratulated. It is therefore with some concern that I have
seen the official Opposition raising unsustainable objections to
it.
Grant
Shapps:
I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is
concerned that I am raising concerns, which is the entire point of the
Committee. The idea is to analyse each line of the Bill. We did not
table amendments, but none the less we want some clarification. Will
the hon. Gentleman accept that even though the Government have included
the clause, it was done as a result of a European case, which the
Government fought in
court?
Mr.
Slaughter:
I have gone over that ground and said that that
may well have been the prompt. However, I have also said that I think
the provision long overdue. The Minister can speak for himself, but I
see it as something that the Government are bringing forward positively
rather than, as the hon. Gentleman has put it, a problem. I do not
think it a problem for the Government, although it may be a problem for
the Opposition. There is still a considerable amount of discrimination
against Gypsies and Travellers in this country, of a type which would
be unheard of in relation to other ethnic
groups.
The Minister
has explained that the clause simply puts people who are for the main
part in established
homes in the same position as many other people in the public and
private sector in this country. The hon. Gentleman has said that I
should not be concerned, but I am concerned that Conservative Members
can hold such an antediluvian view in the 21st century.
However, that is a matter for them, and they must stand by it—it
may go down well in Welwyn Hatfield, but it does not go down very well
in Shepherd’s
Bush. It may be more
appropriate to raise another matter of continuing concern on clause 67.
If we have not reached that clause by this afternoon, which does not
look likely now, we can perhaps raise with the Minister on Thursday the
question whether local authority and RSL Gypsy and Traveller sites
should be considered as social housing and come within the ambit of
other parts of the Bill. There is a strong case for that, but this is
probably not the time to discuss
it.
Mr.
Wright:
When the hon. Member for St. Ives discussed new
clause 15, which was not moved, you were incredibly generous,
Mr. Gale, so I hope that you will allow me a moment or two
to clarify the position. I am intrigued by the new clause, which has a
lot of merit, and I am keen to help. I am also keen that the reforms
that we made to the park home sector a year or two ago need to bed
down, as I mentioned to the all-party group. In terms of licensing and
a “fit and proper person” there is merit in what the new
clause suggests.
I am
not minded, given the current wording, to accept anything along those
lines on Report, but I am keen to look into the matter to ensure that
park home owners feel reassured and that licensing in some form is
something that we can consider. I am not willing to accept the precise
definition in new clause 15, but I am keen to look at the matter and to
work with the industry and other stakeholders to move forward. I hope
that reassures the hon. Members for St. Ives and for North Devon (Nick
Harvey).
Clause 272
has been mentioned several times. It is important to reaffirm that it
gives greater security of tenure for Gypsies and Travellers living on
local authority sites. It narrows the disparity between Gypsies and
Travellers and the mainstream population, which has been a source of
genuine grievance and community tension for quite some time. I am
pleased to be able to try to reduce that community tension as much as
possible.
The current
situation has also been mentioned, and I want to put it on record. At
present, a local authority seeking to gain possession of a pitch on its
site is not required to do more than provide 28 days’ notice of
termination of the resident’s licence, when it can seek a
possession order from the court. The site resident cannot put up any
defence against a claim for such an order. If the court is satisfied
that the notice was properly served, it has no discretion and must
grant the possession order, although, since the Housing Act 2004, it
can suspend such an order for up to 12 months. On private Gypsy and
Traveller sites and park home sites, the court can assess both sides of
the case, and it may deny a possession order, if such an order is
deemed unfair.
There is a disparity and my hon.
Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush is a
member of the all-party group on Gypsy and Traveller law reform, which
does an awful lot of good work in this area. I understand that the
chair of the group is my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North
(Julie
Morgan).
Mr.
Slaughter:
Yes. I mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member
for Cardiff, North chairs the group, and indeed she brought forward the
private Member’s Bill that received a favourable response from
the Government and led to this
clause.
Mr.
Wright:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. My hon.
Friend the Member for Cardiff, North has played an important role in
moving this debate forward. She has described the current
situation—I think that I am quoting her correctly—as
“grossly unfair”. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing,
Acton and Shepherd’s Bush and for Cardiff, North have worked
hard to remove that disparity, which is what clause 272 aims to
do.
It has been
mentioned before, but the new right is part of the Government’s
response to the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the
case of Connors v. UK in 2004. I do not see that as a problem,
as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield has suggested, but it is worth
setting out the scenario. The court found that the disparity between
local authority Gypsy and Traveller tenants and tenants of private
sites contravened article 8 of the European convention on human rights,
which is the right to private, home and family life. The
Government’s immediate response was to give the court the power
to suspend a possession order in section 211 of the Housing Act 2004,
but following consultation and the work of my hon. Friends the Members
for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush and for Cardiff, North, we
considered that it would be right to go further than that. By removing
the exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers living on local authority sites
in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, clause 272 will ensure that the due
process afforded to other members of society in similar housing is
given to Gypsies and Travellers. They, too, will have the opportunity
to set out their case.
I am intrigued by the manner in
which the debate on clause stand part developed with regard to this
area, because I stress the point that clause 272 is basically providing
due process that is provided to other members of society. It is not
providing anything special—it is just raising the game and
removing that disparity. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for
Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush that that is not particularly
controversial. It is just trying to remove some sort of disparity. The
court will need to take a view on the following matters: first, whether
a site resident has breached the terms of their agreement by, for
example, engaging in antisocial behaviour; secondly, whether they have
been given a reasonable opportunity to remedy that breach and have
failed to do so; and finally, whether granting a possession order is
reasonable.
I have
already mentioned the manner in which this debate has developed, and I
really want to stress that the clause will not give residents of local
authority Gypsy and Traveller sites any special rights—it will
simply give them the same rights as other people living in caravans and
mobile homes. It will not prevent site residents who break the
conditions of their agreements from being evicted. In fact, it should
become easier for local authorities to identify individuals or families
who have behaved unreasonably on sites in the past and to make informed
decisions on whether to give them a pitch. It will not give security of
tenure to anyone on an unauthorised encampment or
development. An
important piece of work has been carried out by the independent task
group on site provision and enforcement, which was chaired by Sir Brian
Briscoe, the former chief executive of the Local Government
Association. The group noted the importance of changing the law in this
way. The final report from this group was published last month, and it
stated:
“The
current situation is unacceptable. We would expect local authorities
too to welcome the clarification of the expectations upon them as
landlords that legislative change would
bring.”
The Bill will
decrease the number of legal actions in the courts by creating a clear
and structured framework for local authorities to adhere to in the
eviction process, which will prevent them from opening themselves up to
allegations of unfair eviction and therefore reduce the expense of
fighting such
cases.
12.30
pm
The clause will
not change the law governing private Gypsy and Traveller sites, or
other sites already covered by the Mobile Homes Act 1983, such as park
home sites. It is not particularly controversial, although some of the
letters that I receive, mostly from Opposition Members who pass on
letters from the public, tend to support the view of my hon. Friend the
Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush that that is the
last bastion of established racism, which should not be accepted in a
modern, tolerant society. There should be a political consensus that
every group has rights and responsibilities, and it is offensive to
single out groups and particular
characteristics.
Grant
Shapps:
I hope the Minister will accept that it is
absolutely right to debate a clause such as this. He has gone a long
way in satisfying some of our concerns, for which I am grateful. The
Government must have had concerns about the measure, because the case
of Connors v. the UK came to court in 2004. I hope, too, that
the Minister respects our right to raise the issue and to have a
sensible discussion about it. I am grateful for the clarification that
he has given, and I ask him to acknowledge that it is perfectly right
to discuss these
things.
Mr.
Wright:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that
there is a need for political consensus on the issue. Racism and
bigotry should not be tolerated in any form. My sense is that in
general the public are wise to it and think it offensive to refer to
people in racist terms. However, there is a narrow element who seem to
consider that Gypsies and Travellers are exempt from such
considerations. We need a consensus in the House to ensure that that
sort of thing is not tolerated and to stamp down on
it.
With the greatest
respect to the hon. Gentleman, as I have not received a letter on the
subject from him,
Conservative Members need to be firmer in smacking down people who send
racist letters about Gypsies and Travellers. We need to avoid the
negative feeling that persists out there. Despite that, the clause is
relatively
uncontroversial.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 272
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Love:
On a point of order, Mr. Gale. You look
rather surprised, but I crave your indulgence. I may have a point of
information, not a point of order, but it is important to the
Committee. As I was returning to the Room, I noticed with some concern
that people in the Public Gallery cannot not hear the debate
properly—it is partly because of the lay-out of the Room and
partly because there is no amplification. Failing an alternative, will
you ask hon. Members to speak a little louder when they contribute to
the
debate?
The
Chairman:
Order. A Member’s projection is for the
individual Member; it is a sad fact of life that not every Member of
the House has had professional theatrical
training.
Mr.
Love:
It should be
compulsory.
The
Chairman:
Order. I accept that the acoustics in this Room
are frightful, but they always have been and probably always will be.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that we have taken note of
those concerns. The Doorkeeper has indicated that anybody in the Public
Gallery who is particularly hard of hearing might be able to sit in the
Press Gallery, which is slightly closer to mumbling Members. I hope
that that resolves matters; let us now get back to the business of the
Committee.
| 
