My hon. Friend and others provide a hugely effective bridge between national, local and sectoral organisations; we have heard about BEN a number of times today. But can the Minister set out what will be done with local authorities? Given that Carcraft was a national organisation—colleagues from not only the north-west but London have spoken today—has the Minister sought to establish some form of taskforce to provide effective
10 Jun 2015 : Column 123WH
liaison and deal with the issues arising from its closure, many of which will affect its former employees, whether they live in Rochdale or Enfield?
My hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton and for Rochdale made an important point about their local economies, which are very similar to that of my own constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale will recall the debate we participated in yesterday about city regions and metro mayors. City regions are incredibly important drivers of economic success, and there is probably no greater example in relation to the so-called northern powerhouse than Manchester. However, many of the small towns close to it do not have the same economic viability and are characterised by low-wage, insecure employment—the northern powerhouse seems a long way from the people affected by Carcraft. How can we ensure, therefore, that economic success is not just confined to the cities, but spreads to smaller, neighbouring towns such as Rochdale so that work is created and people can seek alternative employment?
There are broader issues at stake here. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) said, the Carcraft group incurred significant losses in recent years: £6.9 million in the financial year ending 30 September 2012; £10.2 million in the 18 months ending 31 March 2014; and, based on current draft management information, about £9.8 million in the 13 months ending 30 April 2015. Grant Thornton, which has been appointed as administrator, has stated that the company was hit by a poor market reputation, a lack of investment and a high cost base. In addition, it suffered from expensive loan note financing and an insolvent balance sheet. Those assessments of the company’s financial position and performance in the run-up to administration are pretty damning.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said, that raises the question of what on earth the auditors were doing; I speak as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and as a former auditor myself. How on earth could the auditors allow the company accounts to be signed off, given the damning assessment we have heard? Crucially, how could the accounts have been prepared on a going-concern basis, reflecting the notion that the entity would be able to remain in business for the foreseeable future? The company had an insolvent balance sheet and significant losses over a number of years, and it was crippled by expensive debt, so how did the auditors provide it with a clean bill of health? Does the Minister think that changes are needed to the audit regime, particularly with regard to inspection? Will she take a look at that?
In many regards, the closure of Carcraft reflects many of the issues seen at City Link last year. Lessons should now have been learned from that company’s demise, and they can and should be applied to Carcraft to ensure that employees, creditors and consumers are given as much clarity as possible. Will the Minister outline what the Government have done to review the requirements for consultation on redundancies during administration to clarify what employees can expect and what company directors’ specific responsibilities are? On the various categories of creditor, does she
10 Jun 2015 : Column 124WH
think that a review of insolvency practice is required to change the order in which creditors—whether employees, customers with warranties or others—are paid?
All In One Finance Ltd was the finance arm of the Carcraft group. The company provided loan finance for Carcraft customers to purchase vehicles and the Carcraft “Drive Happy” package—a warranty that provided servicing, MOTs and roadside assistance. In the days leading up to administration, Carcraft customers were sold warranties, but they are no longer covered. That seems incredibly unfair: it goes against the consumer on three separate levels. First, Carcraft customers bought the warranties in good faith, even though it looks as if Carcraft knew it was on the verge of insolvency. Secondly, customers may have had insurance at a discount, as a result of mitigating factors such as having good roadside assistance, MOTs and servicing in place. However, those customers now face an uplift in insurance premiums. Thirdly, customers will face a further penalty if they break down or fail to get the servicing they paid for—they will be out of pocket yet again.
All In One Finance is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Will the Minister outline what protections the FCA has in place to ensure that customers are not adversely affected? Does she think the arrangements in place are adequate, or do they need refining in the consumer’s interests, in the light of what is happening with Carcraft? Given the boom in finance and warranty provision, what is in place to ensure that the customer is protected?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton for bringing this important matter to the House. It is right and proper that such matters are discussed, and, in the interests of Carcraft’s former employees and customers, I hope the Minister is able satisfactorily to outline the provisions the Government will put in place to ensure they are protected.
3.15 pm
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry): It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on securing the debate. It is absolutely right and important that we debate these matters. This is an awful situation, and our heart has to go out not just to the employees who have lost their jobs, but to their families. Many of these workers will have families, who will also suffer as a result of the redundancies. Few things are more unsettling and unpleasant than losing one’s job, especially when it is through no fault of one’s own.
There are a number of points of concern in this case and I will deal with all of them, but first, on a lighter note, I should say that I am looking forward to doing battle—and working too—with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). I wish everybody in his family a happy birthday, although I should tell him that the traditional way for people to do that is to send a card or make a phone call—he knows what I mean. I am sure his family will be celebrating at various levels this evening.
Now to serious matters. Carcraft employed 474 people before the redundancies, including 152 in Rochdale, where the head office was located. Some 407 employees’ redundancy claims are continuing. Carcraft had 10 sites across England and Wales at the time of administration,
10 Jun 2015 : Column 125WH
and a further site in Merseyside which closed in March. I can assure everyone that the Government are focusing on supporting those affected so that they can find new jobs, and we are paying eligible employees redundancy pay.
It is alleged that Carcraft sold cars for cash or on credit that have not been delivered and that extended warranties were also mis-sold. Those are serious allegations. There are also concerns about the ongoing validity of a number of warranties. I certainly take those matters seriously. Given everything that has been said today, as well as the activities of local Members of Parliament, who are clearly taking a keen interest, I am confident that if there is any allegation of wrongdoing, the relevant authorities will be properly informed and the police will become involved if necessary. I should make it absolutely clear that if it appears there has been wrongdoing, there will be full inquiries, and if there has been wrongdoing, people will be brought to justice in some way or another.
A number of hon. Members have former Carcraft employees in their constituency. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who made an interesting and valid intervention, has 15—that is the lowest number, according to the figures I have been given. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton has 152 constituents who have lost their jobs. The right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) has 37 constituents who have been affected. I mention that because those Members contributed to the debate.
Let me deal now with the customers. Any administration affects the customers of the failing business. Many consumers had continuing loans or direct debits with Carcraft, and they will of course be worried about where that leaves them. Some consumers will have cars or services that they have partly paid for, and they will be wondering what rights they now have, given all that has occurred. The advice is clear: they should contact the administrator—we have heard that Grant Thornton has been appointed. They may also wish to review their position with Citizens Advice or other advisers. I understand that some loans taken out by customers with Carcraft’s finance arm, All in One Finance, are now owned by another finance company. The Government—that is, my officials—have spoken to the administrators, who have informed us that the majority of straightforward hire purchase agreements on Carcraft cars were provided by third party finance companies. Those customers are being advised to contact their provider directly about repayment.
Mr Wright: Should those customers continue with direct debit payments? What would the Minister’s advice be about that?
Anna Soubry: It would be absolutely wrong of me to give any advice, because I do not know the answer to that question. I can make full inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not know the answer. Some loans were retained by the Carcraft group, and what happens to them will depend on the type of loan that the customer had. I understand that borrowers are being notified about that.
Additionally, as we have heard, Carcraft provided an MOT, servicing, warranty and roadside assistance package known as a “Drive Happy” plan. The administrators are not able to provide for continuation of that service
10 Jun 2015 : Column 126WH
and have informed my officials that they intend to contact all affected customers with such a plan, to make arrangements to reduce monthly payments so that they will no longer be paying for that service. If any consumers are worried about their payments or how services might be affected, they should speak to Citizens Advice or other advisors who can explain their options and give them the quality advice they obviously need.
Hon. Members have raised concerns about directors’ conduct, and there are obvious concerns about the effect of Carcraft’s closure on jobs and the local economy. I will talk briefly about the actions that Government can take if director malpractice is suspected. Whenever a company enters administration, the conduct of its directors is looked into by the administrators. If evidence of unfit conduct is found, a director can be disqualified from acting as a director for between two and 15 years. My officials have been proactive in contacting the administrators to discuss the directors’ conduct in this case; we have already raised the matter with them.
As I set out in my response to the written question of 27 May from the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, the Insolvency Service made early contact with the administrators to discuss the circumstances surrounding the closure of Carcraft’s business, including the conduct of the directors. The Insolvency Service takes those matters seriously, as do all Governments. The Government are also talking to the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates the financial services part of the Carcraft group. If there is cause for concern, it will be identified and investigated and any appropriate action taken, as I have explained. It is too early in the administration of Carcraft to form a view on the directors’ conduct, but I would mention that last year the Insolvency Service disqualified more than 1,200 directors in circumstances where their conduct fell short of the high standards that we expect of them. That of course means that they cannot do such work, which is a genuine punishment and says that their conduct does not entitle them to occupy what is an important role in any business.
As for redundancy payments, one of the hardest-hitting consequences of any insolvency is the risk of job losses and the impact on people’s lives. Although it is little consolation for the nearly 500 staff involved, they can claim certain outstanding payments, including up to eight weeks’ arrears of pay from the Government’s redundancy payments service, which has a maximum £475 a week. To make that happen as quickly as possible, the Government have already set up a dedicated team for former Carcraft employees, and to date 407 people have made use of the service—I am assuming that that is from around England and Wales. Their claims are being processed and moneys owed will be paid out as soon as possible. I want to make it clear that if any hon. Members have a single constituent who is not receiving the money they are owed, as a matter of some urgency they should not hesitate to write to me or to grab hold of me around the parliamentary estate. I take such matters extremely seriously. It is bad enough for someone to lose their job, but then not to have money that is owed to them is completely unacceptable.
Joan Ryan: I thank the Minister for her offer to be available, because I was a little worried about having difficulty in getting hold of the administrators. It is helpful to know that we can raise the matter on behalf of constituents who are in such a difficult situation.
10 Jun 2015 : Column 127WH
Anna Soubry: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, but that is the way I work. Some hon. Members will know that they can just come up and badger me; I do not have a problem with that, and if necessary I will go and badger whoever needs badgering. I imagine that it is very busy at Grant Thornton at the moment, which may be a reason it has not replied to the right hon. Lady’s request. If there are any problems, I do not have a problem with people coming to me.
We have set up our dedicated team, and that is the right approach. Claims are being processed, and 321 people have received or are about to receive their payment. The Government are in close contact with the administrator to make sure that there are no unnecessary delays in that payment. The redundancy payments service can be contacted either by phone on 0330 33100200 or by email to redundancyclaims@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk.
Where an employer proposes to dismiss as redundant 20 or more people at the same establishment within 90 days or less, the employer has to consult employee representatives about the dismissals and must also notify the Secretary of State of the proposed redundancies. A call for evidence is currently out for comment on what happens where employers are facing an insolvency situation and on how stakeholders think outcomes—forgive me, Mr Williams; I should have changed these words, as I do not like the word “stakeholders”. The question for comment is how anyone with an interest thinks that outcomes—results, in good plain English—might be improved in such circumstances. We want to hear from people. I would urge anyone with suggestions, including hon. Members, to contribute. Responses to that will be considered and next steps will be identified.
I want to talk about the important matter of the support that workers who have been made redundant are being offered by the Government in finding new jobs. We are helping them by ensuring that there is support to help them back into work. My colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions have made contact with the administrators to advise them of the services available to Carcraft’s former employees. DWP will also support employees through its rapid response service. Depending on each individual’s circumstances, that can include help with CV writing and interview skills, help with identifying transferable skills and skills gaps linked to the local labour market, and training to update skills, learn new ones and gain industry-recognised certification that will improve employability. It all sounds marvellous, but if it is not out there happening in the real world, I would again urge hon. Members to badger me. We would then find out more and contact the responsible officials in the DWP. It sounds great, but it means nothing unless it is actually happening for the people who have lost their jobs.
Although the loss of jobs at Carcraft comes as a severe blow to employees and their families, overall the employment rate in Rochdale has been on the rise since 2011. Rochdale and the Greater Manchester area have also benefited from heavy investment in recent years. I do not really want to get into a party political squabble about all this, but I wanted to give some facts and figures. Two regional growth fund awards have been made to Heywood and Middleton, and that is just some of the £111 million of regional growth fund money that has been allocated to projects in the Greater Manchester area. The Growing Places fund supports key infrastructure
10 Jun 2015 : Column 128WH
projects designed to unlock wider economic growth and create jobs. Greater Manchester benefited from this fund, receiving £37 million.
Greater Manchester’s growth deal, announced on 7 July last year, sets out a £533 million investment programme that will support further economic growth in the area. That investment will go to the life sciences investment fund, creating apprenticeships and maximising skills investment, as well as providing major investment in local infrastructure. The growth deal also brings forward £140 million of additional investment from local partners and the private sector and will create at least 5,000 jobs by 2021. If it does not, I imagine that many hon. Members here will be holding the Government to account, and rightly so.
As well as this investment in the Greater Manchester area, the Government are committed to creating jobs and reducing unemployment across the region. The Government’s long-term economic plan—
Anna Soubry: I know, I just read it out. Do forgive me.
Our brilliant economic plan—in all seriousness—seeks to rebalance growth across the regions. We have the determination to build what is called the northern powerhouse, although I am not sure it should not be called the north of England powerhouse. Creating this powerhouse enables the northern region to reach its potential as a driving force in the UK economy and rightly gives the north a powerful voice. Even I, a representative from a constituency in the east midlands, can say that, and I promise hon. Members that I am not saying it through gritted teeth. This is an exciting new development in the way that we do growth, and I believe that it is welcomed by everybody. We are putting the emphasis on that in the north and, indeed, in all cities.
I saw a presentation on productivity, which we know we have problems with. The evidence is clear that one way to get real growth and improve productivity is to make real investment in our cities and turn them into magnets that attract investment. I was shocked to hear that some rents in great cities such as Glasgow are higher than in parts of Manhattan. We have to sort this all out. Cities are wonderful places and they can be the magnets that attract all the investment, including public money, to bring the growth and the jobs that we all want.
Mr Wright: I was trying to make this point in my speech. City regions are important. Cities are important as drivers for economic prosperity. Rochdale is a good example, relative to Greater Manchester. How do we ensure that the city region approach, with Greater Manchester and particularly the city of Manchester driving forward economic growth, spreads to areas like Rochdale?
Anna Soubry:
I will be corrected by Rochdale Members if I am wrong, but in my view they are part of the Greater Manchester conurbation. Rochdale Borough Council is part of the coming together of all the councils. These things only work when everybody comes together. If a few councils do not want it, it is not going to happen. When all local representatives—the chambers of commerce, and borough and district councils as well as city councils—are working together, buying into it, it will work. I cannot imagine that Rochdale Borough
10 Jun 2015 : Column 129WH
Council would not let its people benefit from the northern powerhouse. It has to be done like that because it cannot be imposed by Government. It has to be agreed and driven by local government. That is what has happened in the north and around Manchester.
There are some PPI claims against Carcraft and those are likely to be an unsecured claim in administration and can be pursued through the administrator, which is Grant Thornton. I wanted to address that point in particular, although a number of points were raised. I will, of course, write to any hon. Member on any point that I have not answered.
Although the closure of Carcraft will have caused anxiety and worry for all involved, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton that assistance has been, and will continue to be, provided both for former employees and for consumers and that the Government’s wider economic policy will help ensure job creation and opportunities in the region.
3.34 pm
Liz McInnes: I am grateful to the Minister for her full response to the queries I raised, and grateful to all my hon. Friends who have taken the time and trouble to attend and contribute.
We have had a good debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their appreciation, which they have expressed to me, for my securing this debate. This debate arose as a result of a question I asked during business questions. I was more or less challenged and told, “If you want to discuss this further, call for a debate.” That is exactly what I did, and I am grateful for your excellent chairmanship of this debate, Mr Williams.
I feel more reassured. I feel that I can go back to my constituents and give them some new information about assistance that they can access. However, I am conscious that an investigation is ongoing, and I will be watching the results with interest. There are an awful lot of unanswered questions. Finally, I thank everybody concerned.
That this House has considered the closure of Carcraft.
3.56 pm
10 Jun 2015 : Column 130WH
Organophosphate Sheep Dip
4 pm
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): I beg to move,
That this House has considered organophosphate sheep dip poisoning.
Although this is a short debate, it is certainly important for a constituent of mine and many others out there who attribute their chronic ill health to the use of sheep dip. I want to emphasise that I will be discussing events that happened in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s. Since then, other sheep dip treatments have been developed, and the advice given to farmers has been improved to help minimise the risk of exposure to the chemicals. I do not want to anticipate the Minister’s reply this early in the debate, but I gently point out that as long as we continue carefully to regulate and review such products, what I am talking about relates to what happened in the past, or advice that was not given in the past.
I pay tribute to the Members in this place and the other House, journalists and, most importantly, campaigners—not least the Sheep Dip Sufferers Support Group—who have doggedly pursued the issue of organophosphate poisoning over the years. I called for this debate on this long-standing issue to give a voice to my constituent Stephen Forward from Undy, and to raise questions early in this new Parliament, so that we can take a fresh look at the matter and give impetus to the ongoing campaign, which continues to try to provide answers and resolution for the 500-plus affected people. Those 500 are just those identified by the campaign groups; they are sure that more people have been affected.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I thank her for this opportunity to give voice to the concerns of one of my constituents, Mr Edward Harding, who would strongly assert that his exposure to sheep dip has left him unable to work for the past 15 years. He is now dependent on industrial injuries disablement benefit, which is at least Department for Work and Pensions acknowledgement that his poisoning has caused irreversible damage to his body.
Jessica Morden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an important point, and commend him on giving a voice to his constituent. The Department for Work and Pensions has acknowledged OP poisoning, but we are still waiting for other bodies to do the same. The matter was raised with me at the end of the previous Parliament by Stephen Forward. Over the years, many arguments have been made about whether people’s illnesses can be conclusively attributed to using sheep dip. I am clear that there is no doubt in Stephen’s case. Blood tests carried out at the poisons unit at Guy’s hospital prove it, and he is one of the few potential victims to have medical evidence to back up his claim.
Stephen started dipping sheep in 1979 at the age of 17, at a time when the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had made yearly dips compulsory. Biannual dips became compulsory in 1984. The first time that Stephen helped his father with the dipping, some of the sheep collapsed. They were assured by the Government inspector, who had to be present under the system, that that had happened before and that the
10 Jun 2015 : Column 131WH
sheep would come round in a few minutes, but it was an indicator to Stephen of the strength of what they were using. As Stephen and others affected will tell you, it is difficult to dip sheep without getting covered in the solution, as well as inhaling and swallowing it. It is the nature of the process. Stephen would spend seven hours a day, twice a year dipping 350-plus sheep.
Almost immediately, Stephen started to get flu like symptoms which got progressively worse, eventually leading to chronic fatigue syndrome and physical problems that meant he could no longer work on the farm. He is also open about the mental health problems that he has developed, including depression and anxiety. His symptoms would always be worse the day after sheep dipping and he was often bedridden for weeks. He went to his GP several times—there is the separate issue of GPs’ awareness of the condition at the time—before reading in Farmers Weekly in 1991 that he could be suffering from OP poisoning, because the symptoms listed were identical to those that he had experienced for 13 years. The article suggested that people with such symptoms contact the poisons unit at Guy’s hospital for a blood test. A series of tests confirmed that Stephen was suffering from OP poisoning. By that stage, however, the window of opportunity for providing treatment had long since passed and he was suffering significant long-term effects.
The symptoms of OP poisoning have been devastating for Stephen. At 53 years old, he is unable to walk 30 yards and has not been able to work since 1996, and the effects have severely limited all aspects of his life. The poisoning has also given him sensitivity to medicines that might have been able to help. Stephen’s medical records relating to Guy’s hospital were lost by his GP—that appears to have happened to others in a similar situation—but through his dogged persistence he now has some copies directly from hospital. Others are not so lucky. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) mentioned, that information is crucial for those making claims for benefits such as employment and support allowance or the personal independence payment. As a result of hearing Stephen’s story, I attended a meeting in Parliament with the Sheep Dip Sufferers Support Group. The group is led by Tom Rigby, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who initiated a moving meeting for sufferers and is involved in the campaign—although he is, of course, busy with another campaign today. At the meeting, dozens of farm workers told similar heartbreaking stories of ruined lives and health.
It is worth reiterating that compulsory dipping of sheep was reintroduced in 1976 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to tackle sheep scab, a notifiable disease. The products used in the 1970s and onwards were stronger than previous products. They were single-dip products containing organophosphates and organochlorides, which were banned in 1984. Compulsory dipping did happen in the ’30s and ’40s, but farmers were never really told that the new chemicals might be dangerous and required better protective clothing to be worn, so farmers just carried on dipping in the same way that they always had. Concerns about the effects of organophosphate sheep dips on farmers have been raised since their inception, but they came to a head in the early ’90s as compulsory dipping was being phased out. It ceased to be compulsory in 1992.
10 Jun 2015 : Column 132WH
OPs are toxic chemicals with known effects after repeat exposure. OP compounds were developed as chemical warfare agents, and a link exists between Gulf war illness in US troops and OP insecticides. As an aside, it was revealed just this week that British airlines are facing 17 individual legal claims of poisoning by toxic air, including organophosphates, circulating in aircraft cabins. As a result, Unite the union is calling for an inquiry on contaminated cabin air and whether it has been damaging to pilots and cabin crew.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter forward for consideration. I have worked alongside the Northern Ireland Organophosphorus Sufferers Association. One of my constituents, Ernie Patterson, was referred from Northern Ireland to Guy’s hospital here in London for treatment and tests. Unfortunately, his medical notes went missing and he now has no recourse to any help or assistance. Does the hon. Lady agree that the loss of such important medical records is a disgrace and requires investigation?
Jessica Morden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): The shadow Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), has indeed called for an investigation into exactly what was known in the ’80s and ’90s before the use of such substances was finally discontinued, and into whether there was any form of cover-up, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggests.
Jessica Morden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will return to this at the end of my speech, but my constituent Stephen Forward found it incredibly difficult to get his medical records. Many others seem to be in the same situation as the constituent of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so the matter needs to be considered.
At the time of compulsory dipping, mild warnings were given on sheep dip packaging, but the Government and inspectors did not warn farmers about exposure to the solution or advise that any precautions or protective clothing be worn during the dipping of sheep. The sufferers of OP contamination believe that the Government should have provided explicit advice and rules on the safe use of OPs, including rules on proper protective clothing.
The crux of the debate, as has been said, is that while sheep dipping came to an end in 1992, the survivors’ groups and other campaigners suspect that the Government must have been aware of the risk earlier. In 1990-91 an inquiry was carried out by the Health and Safety Executive into sheep dipping on behalf of the Ministry. The full report was released to Ministers in 1991, but it was not made public until Tom Rigby put in a freedom of information request. As The Guardian reported in April, the FOI disclosure shows that Government officials did know of the dangerous health risks to farmers using this chemical, but they still did not end its compulsory use.
The report set out concerns about the cumulative health impact of long-term and repeated exposure to organophosphates and criticised manufacturers for
10 Jun 2015 : Column 133WH
providing inadequate protective clothing and unclear instructions to farmers. It is also said that at some time in the 1980s Ministry inspectors were told not to go within 14 feet of sheep dip when supervising, which also needs investigating. It is important to remember that at the time, the then farming Minister demanded that local authorities clamp down on farmers who refused to use the chemical. It was another year, though, until sheep dipping was no longer required by law. As Stephen said:
“We were given no training or advice about how to use the chemicals, just told to get on with it and, if not, we would be prosecuted.”
Today, my constituent, Stephen, and the Sheep Dip Survivors Group would like from the Minister full disclosure of all the documentation on this issue from that time, so that the campaigners can examine it. Campaigners also want a full inquiry, independent of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, that looks at this matter afresh, so they can see who in Government knew what, when, and why they might not have acted on that information.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con): The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful point. Given the length of time this has been going on for, we almost need a royal commission. This goes back 30 or 40 years, so many of the people involved will no longer be here. Does she agree that we need to set up something, perhaps through the Minister, that this place can scrutinise, as well as something outside?
Jessica Morden: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is crucial that any inquiry is independent of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There have been studies over the years, but independent studies by University College London have come to different conclusions. To settle this matter we need something like his suggestion; that would be a good idea. We want a full inquiry, independent of DEFRA, to allow us to question why farmers might have been compelled to use this chemical with no guidance if governmental research pointed to health impacts. Was compulsory dipping stopped because MAFF knew it was affecting farm workers’ and farmers’ health? If so, why did it not say so? We need an answer to that question in particular.
We also need to examine what happened to the blood test results from the national poisons unit and disclosure of those that still exist. My constituent had a long battle to get his results, but he did finally get them, so there might still be some there. Even if the paperwork does not exist, medical staff should be invited to give their recollections.
Stephen was affected by this at a young age. He and others deserve an apology from the Government, as he has had to live with the effects for decades. Will the Minister also look at what can be done to help those who are suffering and want access to treatment and an acknowledgement of their health issues? Finally, as a result of this debate, will the Minister take this opportunity, early in this Parliament, to move this issue forward by agreeing to a meeting with the Sheep Dip Sufferers
10 Jun 2015 : Column 134WH
Support Group, so that we can go into this in far greater depth than a half-hour debate allows? That would be greatly appreciated by campaigners, so I urge him to do that as well as fulfilling my other requests.
4.14 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing the debate. She has championed this cause for some time and she made it clear towards the end of the last Parliament that she would seek an early opportunity for a debate. She has succeeded. Everyone here will have been touched by the story of her constituent and his ill health.
I am sympathetic to farmers suffering from ill health and I acknowledge that some of them associate their illness with the use of organophosphate sheep dips. There is a long history of research into the hypothesis that low-level and non-toxic exposure to organophosphates, sheep dips in particular, might have caused long-term neurological health conditions.
The independent Committee on Toxicity released a statement on organophosphates in March last year, following its earlier report in 1999. The COT reviewed the science published since the original 1999 report and in summary concluded that the reviewed evidence suggests that exposures to cholinesterase-inhibiting organo- phosphates that are insufficient to cause overt acute poisoning do not cause important long-term neurological toxicity in adults and that, if toxic effects on the nervous system do occur, they are minor and subtle.
Mr Liddell-Grainger: I am sorry, but I really must take issue with that; that is not the case. My constituency covers Exmoor and one of my constituents, George Wescott, has suffered with this for more than 30 years. As the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and I have already said, the Minister should set up a commission so that we can get to the bottom of the issue rather than accepting what I suspect is slightly flawed science, although I hesitate to say that.
George Eustice: It is worth looking further at the science, because the committee’s statement was also endorsed by the medical and scientific panel, which is a sub-group of the independent Veterinary Products Committee. A cross-Government official group on organophosphates also endorsed it. It is worth highlighting some extracts from that detailed report. I have read the report, which is very scientific; I recommend it to anyone with an interest.
The report highlighted that, since 1999, 13 new papers have been published on the relation of low-level exposure to organophosphates and peripheral neuropathy, which added to the 13 studies already available at the time of the previous COT report. Having reviewed all 26 of those studies, the report concluded:
“The current balance of evidence suggests that there is no long-term risk of clearly demonstrable peripheral neuropathy from exposure to organophosphates”.
Jessica Morden:
I know my constituent well and, having gone through his case in great detail, I am absolutely convinced that his health condition was caused
10 Jun 2015 : Column 135WH
by his exposure to sheep dip—the link is all too clear. Has the Minister also had a chance to review the independent academic research by Sarah Mackenzie Ross, an academic at University College London, who has reviewed all the existing studies and concluded that there is a considerable association between low-level exposure to organophosphates and impaired neurological function?
George Eustice: I am aware that that report was reviewed by the Committee on Toxicity and that, in fact, part of the COT’s report does concede that there may be some effects in some cases. I will return to that. However, just to stick to the COT report, it highlighted that 22 investigations published since 1999 had looked for neuropsychological consequences of low-level exposure. When the committee looked at those, in addition to the nine published previously, it concluded:
“Overall, there is no consistent evidence that low-level exposure to organophosphates has adverse effects on any specific aspect of cognitive function. If organophosphates do cause long-term neuropsychological impairment in the absence of overt poisoning, then the effects, at least in the large majority of cases, must be minor and subtle.”
In relation to Parkinson’s disease, the report concludes:
“The overall balance of evidence from 11 studies suggests no increased risk of Parkinson’s disease from exposure to organophosphates that is insufficient to cause overt acute poisoning”.
However, it did acknowledge that
“a small elevation of risk cannot be ruled out.”
The report does acknowledge—this links to the point that the hon. Lady was making—that
“Despite limitations of individual studies, current evidence suggests that there is an excess of multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms in people who have been exposed to organophosphates at levels insufficient to cause overt acute poisoning. However, it does not support the existence of a specific syndrome of ‘chronic organophosphate-induced neuropsychiatric disorder’, as has previously been hypothesised.”
In its conclusion, the report states:
“Collectively, the evidence reviewed is reassuring. It suggests that exposures to cholinesterase-inhibiting organophosphates that are insufficient to cause overt acute poisoning do not cause important long-term neurological toxicity in adults”.
The reason why I have outlined those points—with long medical words that I am not used to pronouncing—in some detail is that it is important to acknowledge that there have been dozens and dozens of studies about this issue for more than 20 years. After the first COT report in 1999, the Government commissioned additional research into the subject, which was considered along with all the other evidence gathered since 1999 as part of the COT report last March. The committee has reached its conclusion based on the science.
George Eustice: I will try to make some headway, and then perhaps give way later on.
The hon. Lady will be aware that in November 2001 a group of farmers took a case to the High Court seeking damages for OP poisoning. In the event, the case was struck out, because the claimants could not prove that
10 Jun 2015 : Column 136WH
their symptoms were caused directly by exposure to OP dips. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in November 2002.
I turn now to the issue of the HSE report that the hon. Lady mentioned. The report was commissioned in 1990 and published in 1991; there has been some discussion of whether it has been covered up, so it is important to note that it was published at the time. Since December 2014 there has been increased media attention on possible health effects experienced by people who used sheep dips, focusing on what was known about the substances by Government at the time, as sheep dipping was compulsory until 1992.
An FOI request was received from Tom Rigby of the Sheep Dip Sufferers Support Group at the beginning of February this year, seeking a copy of the HSE report. The HSE was initially unable to locate one; it informed Mr Rigby, who then stated that he held a copy from another source and further requested sight of any correspondence between the HSE and the MAFF in relation to the contents of the report. As no such correspondence was found, the HSE sent a nil response. However, a misfiled copy of the 1990 survey report was subsequently located elsewhere and passed on to Mr Rigby.
I know Mr Rigby still has outstanding FOI requests relating to some documents. The documents in question are HSE-commissioned reports into cholinesterase and the chronic effects of dipping sheep in OP products dating from the mid-1990s. Some are publically available and Mr Rigby has been pointed towards those; the HSE is currently looking into the status of others. To clear up any concerns, I am happy to say that we will place a copy of the 1991 report in the Library for hon. Members to look at.
It is clear that there are significant documented records from around 1993 that indicate considerable cross-Government work taking place on the subject of OP dips at the start of the decade. The 1990 survey appears to have been prompted by reports from farmers that they believed dips were making them ill. The research was focused on the extent to which operatives were exposed to organophosphates, the efficacy of their personal protective equipment and the dipping systems used. Although the report refers to known toxic effects of organophosphates, it does not focus on whether dips were causing ill health, nor does it look at whether dips can cause the long-term ill health that is the focus of the existing sufferer groups.
Jessica Morden: Will the Minister tell us why compulsory dipping was stopped in 1992?
George Eustice: The Government recognise that organophosphates are potentially dangerous substances whose use needs to be controlled to minimise the risks to humans. Government policy is, and always has been, based on the best scientific advice. Safety warnings on the products reflected the known risks at the time. It is Government practice regularly to review the controls in line with the latest scientific advice and to carry out research to provide more information where required.
Jim Shannon:
Throughout the debate, Members have detailed the examples of their constituents. What consideration has the Minister given to the common denominator of those examples—namely, the
10 Jun 2015 : Column 137WH
organophosphates used by all those people, who are now suffering as a result? There has to be a common denominator and an investigation into that.
George Eustice: All I can say is that the Committee on Toxicity has looked at the matter exhaustively. It has produced a detailed report reviewing dozens of studies, and has been unable to establish a link. Its conclusions are very clear. Over the past decade, the Government have commissioned £4 million of research into the issue. Many, many people—experts in their field—have looked into the issue and reviewed all the available evidence to reach their conclusions.
Nia Griffith: Will the Minister explain what account has been taken of what records are and are not available? If many of the records are not available, the sample may well have been skewed.
George Eustice: The 1991 report—it is important to recognise that that report was published at the time—was a survey of farmers who self-reported symptoms. We should bear two things in mind. First, it was not a scientific report; all the reports that the Committee on Toxicity has looked at are scientifically robust research projects. The other thing to note is that the focus of the 1991 report was whether farmers had the correct protective equipment to prevent acute poisoning. We must make a distinction between actual poisoning—organophosphates are poisonous substances that cause tetanus-like symptoms if acute poisoning takes place—and the separate issue of whether exposure to low levels of organophosphates that does not cause overt poisoning nevertheless contributes to long-term conditions. The conclusion of the report is that it does not. We must make that distinction. The report of 1990-91, which as I say was published at the time, was about the concerns about overt poisoning, not possible long-term conditions.
The sale and supply of OP sheep dips have been restricted to appropriately trained and certified users
10 Jun 2015 : Column 138WH
since 1995, reflecting concerns at the time about their toxicity. In addition, the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2006 introduced a requirement for dipping to be supervised by a holder of a certificate of competence; that requirement remains in force.
Sheep scab is a severe disease with profound and sometimes fatal welfare implications for affected animals. There are currently still two sheep dips containing organophosphates that are authorised for use in the UK. There are other authorised veterinary medicines available to protect sheep against scab, but dips remain the most clinically effective treatments for the mite that causes it.
Jessica Morden: The Minister is being very generous in giving way, and I thank him for that. Will he agree to meet a group from the Sheep Dip Sufferers Support Group to go through some of the outstanding issues they have raised?
George Eustice: Yes—I was going to conclude by saying just that. The hon. Lady put that challenge to me and I am more than happy to meet members of the group to discuss their concerns. I am also aware that she raised the specific issue of her constituent’s medical records, which she suggested were evidence that sheep dip might have contributed in his case. If her constituent agrees, I am happy to make that information available to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which regulates these products on our behalf, and the Health and Safety Executive, which has been the lead on the issue.
This has been a long-running saga. The interventions in the debate have shown that many hon. Members have constituents who associate their condition with OP sheep dips. I reassure Members that we are not hiding anything. The 1991 report was published at the time, but for the sake of completeness I am happy to ensure that we put a copy in the Library.
10 Jun 2015 : Column 139WH
Gypsies and Travellers (Local Communities)
4.29 pm
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I beg to move,
That this House has considered Gypsies and Travellers and local communities.
It is a privilege for all of us to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. You take a close interest in matters to do with Gypsies and Travellers, and I hope I can inform you and the House about the difficulties being caused to my constituents by Gypsies and Travellers, whether they are travelling or have decided to set up permanent pitches in the countryside.
4.30 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.44 pm
Mr Hollobone: I want to explain the impact that Gypsies and Travellers are having on my constituency, Kettering, not only when Travellers travel, but when they decide not to be Travellers any more and to settle. In both cases, great problems are being caused to my constituents.
I welcome the Minister to his place and I know that he is keen to engage on this issue at an early stage in his ministerial career, which I know will be one of great promise. I know that we will not be able to change the law as a result of today’s debate, but he can signal to us the great heights that he will reach in short order by scrapping section 225 of the Housing Act 2004, which requires local authorities to conduct separate housing needs assessments for Gypsies and Travellers.
The Government are looking at scrapping the Human Rights Act 1998, which would also help to address the issue and I would be happy to support that proposal. I believe that the part of the Equality Act 2010 that applies to Gypsies and Travellers should also be scrapped, but if the Minister made a start with the Housing Act 2004, it would be a signal of real intent. I simply do not see why—and nor do my constituents—there should be any special provision at all within the planning system for Gypsies and Travellers. After all, something like 1 million eastern Europeans have just come to our shores, rightly or wrongly. Do we have special planning provision for the accommodation needs of eastern Europeans? No, we do not. Why should we single out Gypsies and Travellers as a supposed ethnic group for special treatment in planning laws?
I am not advocating that we should pick on this community. I am advocating, on behalf of my constituents, that the law of the land should apply equally to all of us regardless of our racial or ethnic background when it comes to housing needs and planning permissions.
The reason for today’s debate is that, recently, Daventry District Council—the neighbouring authority to Kettering Borough Council, on which I have the privilege to serve as a councillor—recently granted permission for two additional pitches for a piece of land near the village of Arthingworth in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), which is
10 Jun 2015 : Column 140WH
near the village of Braybrooke in the Kettering constituency. For many local people on both sides of the local authority boundary, that really is a step too far, because there is now an over-concentration of Gypsy and Traveller sites in that part of the Northamptonshire countryside.
Let me describe the scene. The village of Braybrooke has 334 voters on the electoral roll and consists of 145 dwellings—it is situated halfway between the towns of Desborough and Market Harborough—and yet, within a small distance around it there are 67 Gypsy and Traveller pitches, which have completely overwhelmed the local countryside. Local people are fed up that there is such a large number of sites in the vicinity of their homes, not least because of the behaviour of the Gypsies and Travellers who live on those pitches. I will read some examples of constituents’ comments:
“We are wary of putting our name to a list of our problems with these people as they know where we live and farm and can be very intimidating both verbally and physically…We have known some of the ‘travelling’ families in this locality for over 35 years.”
They cause problems with fly-grazing, for example. Furthermore:
“Hare coursing has been a problem throughout all of those years…Fly tipping is an on-going problem along road verges and in gateways…Setting fire to straw stacks, we now do not put more than 200 bales in a stack. Also burning of electric cable and garden waste on their sites permitting smoke to cross the road…Theft is also an on-going problem. They call at the farm buildings asking for scrap metal or batteries—then within weeks items are stolen. We have diesel stolen on a regular basis, it is no good putting a padlock on the tank as they then puncture the tank and you lose the lot. Other items stolen are gates, buckets of minerals, electric fencing with posts and energizers, hand tools, electric saws, quad bikes, farm machinery and motor vehicles…We do not advise the police of every incident because experience has taught us that little is done and no one is ever caught or prosecuted.”
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con): Does my hon. Friend share my bafflement that Travellers are treated as a vulnerable community when, in fact, most of them have far greater wealth than we in this room will ever have? The point is not about ethnicity or where Travellers may originate from, but about their behaviour. Our constituents are concerned not about the fact that they have chosen a nomadic lifestyle, but about their behaviour and disruption to the local community when they arrive. I have not yet met a serving police officer who does not say that when Travellers are in town, there is a spike in local crime.
Mr Hollobone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he has demonstrated with those comments how he so ably represents his constituents in Devon, because he has put his finger right on it. Indeed, we have evidence from the 2011 census, which tells us that three quarters of Gypsies and Travellers live in permanent houses, bungalows or flats; only one quarter live in caravans or mobile homes.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): As always, my hon. Friend is making a very powerful argument. My local authority of York proposed two new Traveller sites in my constituency and is he not surprised that when it was calculating the need for those sites, it counted Travellers in bricks and mortar—Travellers who are adequately housed—as in desperate need? That contributed to the requirement, as the authority calls it, for two new Traveller sites.
10 Jun 2015 : Column 141WH
Mr Hollobone: The name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) is well known in my constituency, because he is a hero to the horse-owning community as a result of his pioneering legislation to combat fly-grazing. That legislation has been widely welcomed in Kettering and throughout the land. Am I surprised by what he tells us from his own constituency? I am not surprised. Am I disappointed? Yes, I am, because the law is working against the settled community and in favour of Gypsies and Travellers.
Many of my hon. Friend’s constituents and many of mine who do not come from a Gypsy or Traveller background actually do far more travelling than the supposed Travellers themselves. Many of my constituents travel down to London and back every day for work. They do far more travelling than the supposed Travellers in the illegal encampments, but the law is biased in this respect, and this is something that the Minister could deal with as his second initiative in the Department. The guidance that his Department gives local authorities means that they need to make provision for a 3% annual increase in Gypsy and Traveller household numbers. That growth rate is far too big, yet by law local authorities are required to draw up assessments to provide pitches for that rate of growth. So not only is the number of Gypsies and Travellers as a baseline too high; the annual growth rate that the Department requires local authorities to respond to is also too great.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab): I was going to let this go, but I just cannot; I refer to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point about whether Travellers travel as much as people from his constituency. He surely realises that Gypsies and Travellers are a known ethnic group and whether or not they travel does not take away from the fact that they are an ethnic group. Whether or not they are actually travelling does not matter in order for them to be recognised as a Gypsy or a Traveller.
Mr Hollobone: The romantic notion of Gypsies wandering through the countryside, entertaining people as they go, is a myth from long ago, because many of these supposed Travellers are self-declared Travellers; they are not from any kind of Gypsy heritage at all. However, they are using, on a self-declared basis, their nomenclature as Travellers to get special privileges in the planning system. When they then use those privileges not to travel but to get planning permissions for permanent sites so that they can settle down, it is an absolute abuse. Now that we have got the first Conservative Government elected for 23 years, it is time that Her Majesty’s Government acted to stamp out that abuse in the countryside. The current system is also forcing local authorities such as mine to identify sites where pitches can be provided for that supposed growth rate in Travellers.
For example, Kettering Borough Council has to find 25 pitches by 2022. It has identified 17 so far and has another eight to find. Local constituents have been brought to tears because sites near their own homes have been identified as potential pitches. Only when there are determined local councillors, acting on behalf of their local constituents in their wards, who stand up and say, “No, we don’t want Traveller sites in our communities,” can these things be stopped. In Kettering, there was a proposal for a Traveller site near the Scott
10 Jun 2015 : Column 142WH
Road garages in the town itself, and it caused uproar among the local community, who knew that if permission were granted for Traveller pitches on that site, local crime levels would go through the roof. The idea that these provisions in the planning system are helping community cohesion is completely wrong; they are stirring up resentment and hatred between one community and another, and it is time that the new Government did something about it.
Let me give the House further evidence. This is a typical response I have had from a settled dweller in the countryside:
“Since moving to our current address in Braybrooke we have endured fly tipping, theft, many instances of intimidation, and fly grazing.
Since having”—
“horses removed from our land we have encountered almost daily instances of defecating in our gateway, known to be carried out by this family”.
I am talking about human defecation. That is as disgusting as it gets. The response continues:
“I caught one of them in the act one day. We dare not do anything about it for fear of reprisals.
We cannot leave anything lying around outside as approximately once a week a van with travellers in drives into our yard and out again without stopping, presumably to intimidate or for opportunist theft…My wife and her family can relate…many, many more instances over the last 30 years including hare coursing, theft of equipment, intimidation, fly grazing, dumping of caravans etc. They have given up reporting instances long ago as nothing has ever been done about it and it just seems futile.”
I hope you can see, Mr Davies, the despair and frustration of my constituents, who are really beginning to resent the Gypsy and Traveller community in Northamptonshire, because they are bending the rules of the planning system, which are skewed in their favour, to allow them to get permissions to set up encampments in the countryside. When the local authority refuses those applications, they go to appeal, and all too often the pathetic planning inspectorate allows permission—sometimes temporary permission. When the temporary permission expires after two years, five years or whatever, the local authority is unable to enforce the removal of those encampments, because they cite the Human Rights Act and the provisions therein to protect so-called family life. Also, the Department for Communities and Local Government has issued guidelines to local authorities that they cannot pursue such enforcement if the cost is excessive or disproportionate. It ends up with my village of Braybrooke, in a beautiful part of Northamptonshire and with 145 dwellings, surrounded by 67 inappropriate pitches and a further 27 legal pitches within a further three miles. The whole thing has got completely out of control. In Braybrooke, the primary school has closed, but when it existed, it was made up 100% of children from the Traveller community, because the Traveller children moved into the area and moved into the school, and parents from the settled community moved their children out of the school to go to other schools. Now, the school has closed down, yet in the Department’s own guidelines it says that the scale of such Gypsy and Traveller sites should not dominate the nearest settled community. That might be the wording in the guidance, but it is not having the appropriate impact to save villages such as Braybrooke.
10 Jun 2015 : Column 143WH
It is only thanks to the good work of residents such as Karen Stanley and the North Northamptonshire Residents Against Inappropriate Development group, who are fearlessly championing the cause of the settled community against threats of intimidation from Gypsies and Travellers, that local residents feel they have any say in this matter at all. Yet it lies in the gift of the Minister to listen to those concerns from the heart of middle England, because he has the power to do something about them. I suggest that section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 should be at the top of his priority list. If he can abolish it, there is every chance that relative peace could return to the countryside, and we could start to rebuild relationships between the settled community and Gypsies and Travellers.
Philip Davies (in the Chair): I inform colleagues that I intend to call the Front Benchers no later than 5.25 pm. By my observation, three people were seeking to catch my eye, and they can do the arithmetic for themselves.
5 pm
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): It is customary to compliment the Member who secured the debate on his speech, but I do so as a formality on this occasion. I honestly thought that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) was better than the speech he made. I did not intervene because I wanted to hear his argument, but there is a central contradiction at the heart of it. He identified Gypsies and Travellers as “other”, and as being outside communities—the title of the debate makes that clear—but said that they should not be afforded any distinction because, for example, 75% of them live in bricks and mortar accommodation, as the census demonstrates. He is an intelligent and courteous Member of the House and I have a lot of respect for him, but he has done himself no service with that speech.
Let me explain what I mean by that. I objected to the original title of the debate—my objection was not to the hon. Gentleman, but to the way in which it appeared on the Order Paper—which was “Effect of Gypsies and Travellers on local communities”. Rather than trying to intellectualise that, I said that we should imagine replacing the words “Gypsies and Travellers” with the name of some other ethnic or racial group; I think that there would have been outcry in the House about that. I compliment the House authorities on the fact that when I raised that point, they took it very seriously. They spoke to the hon. Gentleman, and the title was modified to make it sound less offensive. I am not sure that it actually is less offensive, but it certainly sounds better than it did.
I do not excuse any individual example of bad behaviour—antisocial behaviour, littering or any of the examples that have been given—by a member of the Gypsy and Traveller community or by anybody else. I find it offensive, however, that an entire community or ethnic group should be tarred with the same brush. Let us try to get to the nub of the matter, because I believe that the hon. Gentleman is looking at symptoms and not causes. The problem is not new; Gypsies and Travellers as a community suffer the greatest social problems and social needs in the country. He seemed quite proud about the fact that we have a new Conservative Government,
10 Jun 2015 : Column 144WH
so let us look at how that Government are dealing with the problems. On almost any social indicator, such as long-term health problems or educational attainment, Gypsies and Travellers come lowest of all ethnic minority groups in the country. That is often because of how they are treated by society.
If we consider how Gypsies and Travellers fit into British society, according to the most recent census 66% identify themselves as English and 64% as Christian. Roughly three quarters of Gypsies and Travellers live in bricks and mortar accommodation. Often, they do so not through choice. Although many may be happy living in bricks and mortar accommodation, many others—whether the hon. Gentleman accepts it or not—would prefer to live a traditional lifestyle. The question is: is it reasonable for them to do so?
Levels of owner-occupation among the Gypsy and Traveller community are about the same as they are among the settled population. On economic indicators such as self-employment and employment, the position is not very different. However, some Members—I believe that they fall into error here—cannot move beyond such statistical analysis to consider ethnography and how Gypsies and Travellers live their lives, so they are unable to think of Gypsies and Travellers as a separate ethnic and racial group. I found some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said offensive in that regard.
The previous coalition Government took a number of steps that have simply exacerbated the problem. The previous Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), went through a phase of calling in and dealing with applications. That was deemed to be unlawful by the High Court in the case of Moore and Coates v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, because the Secretary of State was clearly calling in applications simply to turn them down. The Government have proposed redefining the terms Gypsy and Traveller, so that only if someone actually travels can they be called a Gypsy or Traveller. That would undermine ethnicity.
The coalition Government also removed regional spatial strategies and allowed local authorities to make decisions on this matter. As far back as the Caravan Sites Act 1968, history shows us that because of inflammatory rhetoric and local pressure, if we leave such decisions to local authorities, those decisions tend not to be made. It is reckoned that dealing with the shortage of sites will take at least 27 years at local authorities’ current rate of progress. I often refer to this statistic: it would take about an acre of land across the UK to provide the required number of fixed pitches. At the heart of the matter is the fact that there are simply not enough authorised sites. Most Gypsies and Travellers who do not live in bricks and mortar accommodation—whether they want to or not—live on authorised sites. A minority, who are effectively characterised as homeless, live on unauthorised sites. We no longer have authorised stopping places, as we had even before the 1968 Act, and we certainly have an inadequacy of authorised sites.
The problem is not difficult to solve. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the local authorities and central Government to come up with sufficient authorised sites to put an end to the terrible conflicts between settled communities and Gypsies and Travellers who stop.
10 Jun 2015 : Column 145WH
The Traveller community may behave in an unreasonable way, and the settled community may do likewise, but conflicts arise as a consequence of the lack of authorised sites and the lack of stopping places.
From the comments of the hon. Member for Kettering, I imagine that he will think that this is all hokum, and that nobody has a right to travel. He probably thinks that if they do, they are on their own and can sort things out, buy land and get planning permission in the ordinary way—they can do what they want. It would be a huge loss to the culture of this country if we lost the travelling tradition of many centuries of Roma, Irish Travellers and Gypsies. This country is big enough, rich enough and generous enough to accommodate those communities, as many other countries do.
It is a parsimonious and reductive view of the world that says we must always look for the worst in people and make things difficult for them. There is a response to the constant refrain I hear, particularly but not only from Conservative Members, that we must make life more difficult for Gypsies and Travellers, which is that that would be a downward spiral. We were beginning to get somewhere when the noble Lord Avebury’s Caravan Sites Act 1968 became law. That Act greatly relieved the pressure and conflict in the 1970s, and the last Labour Government were beginning to undo the problems created by Michael Howard. If we had continued with that, we would be in a much more harmonious situation. Again, we are now in a situation of conflict in which nobody is winning: local communities are not winning and Gypsies and Travellers are not winning. Some MPs might be winning because they can put out press releases and stories in their local newspapers, but I genuinely believe that the hon. Member for Kettering and other Members present are bigger than that and can look for better solutions than the one he proposes today.
Philip Davies (in the Chair): I repeat that I intend to call the Front Benchers at 5.25 pm, so I will do the maths if other people cannot. There are seven minutes each for the remaining two speakers if my maths is right.
5.11 pm
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place, and I congratulate him on his appointment. I bet he is delighted to be here today to talk about this subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who caught some beautiful Northamptonshire sun at the weekend, on securing this debate.
This is a tough one. We are here because, on 21 May, Daventry District Council followed the recommendation of its officers and granted planning permission for a small number of Traveller pitches on the Golden Stables greenfield site on the border between the district I represent, Daventry, and my hon. Friend’s Kettering constituency. For the past few years, that border area has been under much pressure from multiple planning applications for Traveller pitches. As he said, many of those pitches are now in place on his side of the constituency border, and some are in place in the Daventry district.
Local residents are up in arms. Strangely enough, they demand equality, which is what my hon. Friend asked for. They would have found the contribution of
10 Jun 2015 : Column 146WH
the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) surprising. They would see him as a Labour Member for a city seat who seeks to design the countryside in a certain way in order to find solutions to problems that simply do not exist in his constituency. He talked about offensive language, but he used the phrase “grim reaper” when referring to his local hospital in the run-up to the last election—it all depends on how we determine what is offensive. Traveller sites are a significant issue in rural communities across the country, and there is a solution. Yes, we can have a rational argument, but we have to base it on equality and fairness for constituents, both rural and urban.
Daventry district planners have been on a hiding to nothing in recent years. For them, as for all planners in local government, the cost of going to appeal to defend a decision has risen massively. At a time when public funds are not easy to come by, the natural reaction of all planners across the country is to become risk-averse and to recommend approval for sites that they might not feel are completely correct. In the past five years, Daventry district has found itself unwittingly on the naughty step of the Department for Communities and Local Government. The council has been criticised for turning down too many planning applications. I have an untrained eye—I am not a planning lawyer and never want to become one—but the council seems to have been put in that place for doing the right thing and being localist. The council has listened to local people’s views and rejected unwanted speculative developments, including a huge number of wind farms and Traveller pitches, and it is being punished by central Government for doing exactly that. The council now has a joint core strategy, with agreed housing numbers for the next 15 years and a five-year land supply, yet we now have the Planning Inspectorate allowing appeals for housing outside those numbers. I will return to that issue in this place at another time.
The National Farmers Union has recognised Traveller pitches as an issue, and it is widely acknowledged that there is a shortage of authorised Traveller sites, which means that Travellers sometimes camp illegally. More sites in the right places, where local agreement can be found, could go some way towards solving the problem. The National Farmers Union would like a more robust system for how councils assess the future need for such sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering talked about the 3% growth that the Minister’s Department seems to require. Sensible, localist thought would lessen the problem, certainly in Northamptonshire. Landowners should not be adversely affected by the acts of the police or local authorities. Sometimes, for example, problematic and un-roadworthy Travellers are directed off the highway and on to private land. Official bodies seem to turn a blind eye to encampments, rather than moving them on.
There are many other issues, but the most important one is that the National Farmers Union, my local residents, my hon. Friend, a host of other Members and I want Travellers, settled residents and businesses to be equal before the law. The planning system must ensure that everyone is dealt with fairly and even-handedly.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con):
On equality, during my time as prospective parliamentary candidate, and now MP, for Faversham and Mid Kent,
10 Jun 2015 : Column 147WH
the growth of the Gypsy and Traveller community has been one of the most frequently raised issues, especially around the villages of Headcorn and Ulcombe. Travellers have long traditions in that area, and they are a valued part of the community, but there has recently been such growth and constant development that residents have contacted me to say how frustrated they feel that there is one rule for them and another for the Travellers.
Chris Heaton-Harris: This is an hour-long debate, and I am running out of time. If I had more time I would re-emphasise that what we are after is equality. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering came up with ideas for how the Minister could put equality back into the system, but essentially my residents, especially in the village of Arthingworth on the border with the Kettering constituency, feel very hard done by. They do not feel that they are being treated fairly by the planning system, and they feel that others who choose to reside nearby get better and fairer treatment.
5.18 pm
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab): When I first heard the original motion—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on this—I was absolutely astonished. The motion made me wonder what other ethnic groups and races could be grouped together and framed in a debate about their effect on local communities. I would like to think that such language was a thing of the distant past, so I was surprised, to say the least, that the House had allowed the original motion. I am pleased that the wording of the motion has been changed, albeit to wording that is only slightly better.
I hope we can use this debate to put to bed some of the myths or stereotypes about these communities and promote greater cohesion between the many ethnic communities in our country. I understand and appreciate some of the concerns that have been raised in this debate, but I counsel caution to Members present about grouping together different ethnic groups as a homogeneous whole.
In this country, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are both legally recognised ethnic minority groups with rich cultures and traditions that go back centuries. They are groups with people as varied as in any other country, and it is entirely wrong, not to mention counterproductive to the desired outcomes of many Members here—especially the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who secured the debate—to stigmatise such groups and to seek to create further barriers between them and other parts of society.
Many of the problems that have arisen and that have been highlighted in this debate are structural issues that need our attention. There is a serious shortage of legal Traveller sites in England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, and on current trends it will take decades for that deficiency to be rectified. This situation has forced thousands of Gypsies and Travellers on to illegal pitches, which not only annoys some local communities and further stigmatises Gypsies and Travellers in the eyes of many people, but harms the Travellers and Gypsies themselves, particularly their children.
10 Jun 2015 : Column 148WH
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs Hodgson: I will just finish this point. The children of Travellers and Gypsies suffer detrimental effects to their health, education and life choices.
Tim Loughton: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I am sure that she is about to come on to the important issue of the welfare of children, on which we both agree. However, does she agree that, although she is absolutely right that members of the Traveller and Gypsy community have an expectation of, and a right to, equal treatment, there is also an expectation on them that they will bear equal responsibilities? When illegal Traveller encampments are created, as frequently happens in many of our constituencies, when properties are trashed for people to gain access to them, and when sites are left in an absolute eyesore of a state, with human waste being left and fly-tipping taking place, as happened in Southwick Green in my constituency just last week, and nobody is prosecuted, that is not equality of responsibility. It leads to the sorts of problems between communities that she is describing.
Mrs Hodgson: Again, the hon. Gentleman is making some valid points. This issue is about rights and responsibilities, and as a community and a country we have a responsibility to Gypsies and Travellers to ensure that there are legal places where they can live. They have rights and the responsibility, as all residents and UK citizens do, to treat those places—their homes—with the respect they deserve. However, we have come to a downward spiral, which is not helping anyone; it is not helping the local residents and it is certainly not helping the Gypsies and Travellers.
As I was saying, children in the Traveller communities already suffer high levels of racial abuse, with nine out of 10 of them experiencing such abuse, according to 2014 figures. We need to do all we can to help these people, and putting additional pressure on them will only make matters worse, deepening the divisions when we need to be building bridges. All people in this country should obey the rule of law, but equally all people in this country should be respected, and respect is what the Gypsy and Traveller communities require more than most. Only by giving them such respect can we bring about the positive changes that we all want.
The Government and civil society need to work towards boosting community cohesion, and towards promoting a greater dialogue and further understanding between Gypsies and Travellers and the rest of society. The Government must also recognise that dealing with these communities is a two-way street, and that it is only when we all work together in a joint atmosphere of respect and tolerance that we can hope to come together and put an end to many of the problems that appear to divide so many of us.
All local communities should be able to live in peace, and that goes for Travellers and Gypsies as well, so I hope that all Members here today will bear that in mind and will work with these communities rather than against them, putting aside divisive rhetoric and entering into discussions with open minds—
10 Jun 2015 : Column 149WH
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs Hodgson: I was just about to finish, but I will.
Graham Evans: I am most grateful. In Cheshire West, Cheshire East and Warrington, there are 16 unauthorised Gypsy camp sites. Those sites are owned by the Gypsy community. They are not illegal sites; the Gypsies are the landowners. What those sites do not have is planning permission, and there are 53 such slivers of green-belt land with temporary planning permission.
The point that my constituents and others in the area make is that this issue is not about inequality; it is about fairness. If anybody wants to put in a planning application for those sites, it will be refused. The fact is that the Gypsies move on and set up caravan sites with no planning permission whatsoever, leading to communities being divided on fairness when it comes to planning law, and not on any of the other matters that the hon. Lady mentioned. The issue is planning law—the fairness between the Gypsy and Traveller community, and our own constituents.
Mrs Hodgson: I literally have only 20 seconds left, but I knew the hon. Gentleman had not spoken before, so I was happy to allow him to make his point. However, I probably do not have time to give him a long answer, other than to say that what he said brings us back to the point I made earlier about structural issues, which we need to deal with. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said that all we need is an acre of land across the country to solve a lot of these problems. Following your advice, Mr Davies, I will end there.
5.25 pm
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Davies, for calling me to speak; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)on raising this issue, in which he has a well known and well publicised interest.
I start from a position similar to that of my two hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson): that members of the Traveller community deserve to have their needs met just as much as members of any other community. Theirs is a way of life and a culture that deserve recognition and respect, but the same is true of the settled community. They also deserve to live their lives in peace, without unacceptable levels of nuisance and annoyance. The key is to find a balance between the needs of the two communities.
As my two hon. Friends have already said, Traveller and Gypsy communities suffer significant levels of social exclusion, and many of the manifestations and problems that we have heard about this afternoon are the result of that exclusion. I will give some statistics: only 47% of Travellers are in work, compared with 63% of the settled population in England and Wales; and 60% of Travellers have no qualifications, which is linked to the fact that many of them find it hard to access education, and indeed health services. There are reports from some areas of GPs refusing to register Travellers or look after them. We also hear about instances of open discrimination
10 Jun 2015 : Column 150WH
—we have heard about some today—and I am sure that everyone involved in this debate would agree that those are wholly unacceptable.
Criminal behaviour should be dealt with by the police and the criminal justice system. If complaints to the police are not being followed up, that is a matter to be raised with the local police—and perhaps here in Parliament with the Government, who have imposed cuts in front-line policing and the criminal justice system that are making the jobs of police and judges harder than they might otherwise have been. However, that situation should not lead us to attempt to demonise an entire community; that would be absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Local and national authorities share a duty to identify sites for Travellers that are big enough to meet their needs and that also allow both the settled and Traveller communities to co-exist peacefully, without there being a domination of the settled communities because there is an over-concentration of Traveller sites in particular areas.
However, there is a big gap between the pressure on local authorities to provide appropriate sites and the lack of support they receive from national Government. The Government continue to make increasing demands of local authorities, while withdrawing from them the resources they need to properly meet those increased demands. It is that kind of failure that leads to some of the problems that we have heard about today from Government Members.
During the general election campaign, I had the opportunity to visit Harlow, where similar issues are being raised by members of the public who have experienced a significant number of illegal Traveller sites around that town, in what appears to be a co-ordinated action by a number of Traveller families. Does the Minister believe that there is any need to review the powers available to local authorities to deal with that kind of co-ordinated action? However, I would certainly not infer from that situation that there is any need to target or smear an entire community with the kind of accusations of mass criminality that we sometimes hear when this issue is being debated.
In February 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a document called “Creating the Conditions for Integration”, which made some reference to the Gypsy and Traveller communities. Clearly, more support is needed for the Gypsy and Traveller communities to enable them to co-exist with settled communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) submitted a written question on 2 June, asking the Secretary of State
“what plans he has to fulfil his Department’s responsibilities for the promotion of community cohesion”
in relation to the settled and Traveller communities. Since my hon. Friend has not yet received a response—I understand that time may not have allowed it—I invite the Minister to share his views today on the point she raised with his boss.
Will the Minister tell us what his response will be to the consultation issued by his Department in September last year on proposals to change planning policy, to address the needs of Travellers in relation to settled communities’ needs where planning may be granted? How many of the 620 new pitches funded by the Homes and Communities Agency in 2013 have been provided?
10 Jun 2015 : Column 151WH
What assessment has he made of the resources councils need to build the new sites that are required and avoid unnecessary tension that leads to the kinds of issues that have been raised on behalf of communities in this debate?
5.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate. He has a strong track record of speaking loudly and clearly on this issue, raising concerns on behalf of his constituents. I am sure that it is not the last time that we will have the opportunity to discuss the matter in this forum and in many others. A range of contributions to this interesting debate has highlighted the different opinions on this area of policy.
It is important that we seek to make our planning system fair, to ensure that it applies to everyone equally, and that we address concerns of communities, wherever they come from. At the same time, we must recognise the need to ensure that everybody in our society feels they have a place within it and that our systems—our laws and planning rules—account for those needs. I state that loudly and clearly, because it is important.
We recognise that Gypsies and Travellers are members of our communities and should be considered as part of the planning system. The Government want fair play in the planning system, with everyone being treated even-handedly. That goes to the heart of some comments made on both sides of the debate this afternoon.
I want first to talk about unauthorised sites. Although I want to address a number of issues that arose in the debate, the issue of unauthorised sites is important and a fair amount of work has been done on it in recent times. The Government’s desire is to see fair treatment. I share hon. Members’ concerns about unauthorised sites and the disruption and expense they cause for local communities. Too often, councils and landowners think they are powerless to stop unauthorised encampments, when in fact extensive powers are available, although their deployment and use can vary.
My hon. Friend may be aware that, in March, my ministerial colleagues the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice sent a joint ministerial letter, to council leaders and police and crime commissioners, expressing concern that local authorities and the police were not always seen to be doing enough to stop unauthorised encampments, which can have an impact in the areas where they are found. To accompany the letter, the Government re-issued a summary of the robust powers that councils and landowners have to remove unauthorised Traveller sites. The police can use their powers to direct trespassers from land when requested by a public or private landowner. Strong enforcement powers are available for local authorities to tackle breaches of planning controls.
The previous Conservative-led Government revoked the legislation that limited the use of temporary stop notices against caravans used as a person’s main residence. Through the Localism Act 2011, we limited opportunities
10 Jun 2015 : Column 152WH
for retrospective planning applications—an element that sometimes led to that feeling of unfairness mentioned by a number of hon. Members.
I also want to address the issue of authorised sites. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that although unauthorised sites cause particular concern, the way that authorised sites are handled also causes concern in communities. Indeed, examples of that have been raised in this debate.
The previous Government rightly did away with the Labour Government’s top-down approach to planning, where targets for Traveller pitches were forced on local authorities by unelected regional bodies. The 3% target has been mentioned by hon. Members who are concerned by it. Well, it is not a target; it is a guideline—not a requirement—issued in 2007 by the Labour Government. I take this opportunity to remind local authorities that the guideline is there to give them guidance, not to require them to act in that way. It is something that they can take it into consideration, but do not have necessarily to deliver when looking at the circumstances and factors in their own local area.
The planning policy for Traveller sites has returned to local authorities the responsibility to plan for their Traveller communities, just as they are required to plan for the rest of their community—for all communities in their areas. Our policy aims to focus Traveller sites in appropriate locations, in line with objectively assessed need: no more, no less. Our policy strengthens protections for the countryside and green belt that already exist by making it clear that Traveller sites are inappropriate development in the green belt, and that local authorities should strictly limit the development of new Traveller sites in the open countryside.
Graham Evans: I mentioned previously that in Cheshire West and Chester the landlord and landowner is the Gypsy and Traveller community. Local authorities’ legal departments seem incapable of handling retrospective planning permission. They do not use the laws and regulations that provide them with the relevant powers. That is weak. The legal services departments of local authorities do not seem to be up to the job of enforcing the powers that they currently have. What can the Minister do to encourage local authorities to exercise the powers that they have to refuse retrospective planning permissions and rectify the green belt land that has been completely spoilt with tarmac?
James Wharton: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He also has a track record of speaking clearly and strongly on these matters on behalf of his constituents. He raises an important point that goes to the heart of the question, “What is going to happen now? What can we do next?”
The shadow Minister asked how the Government would respond to the consultation on planning and Travellers, which took place before the general election, although there was no time to bring it into operation. There were more than 700 responses to the consultation, which advanced a number of possible actions that the Government could now take. This is a challenging area and, although I share a number of hon. Members’ concerns, the Government have to navigate it carefully and appropriately, taking into account the needs of all the communities that the Government are here to serve.
10 Jun 2015 : Column 153WH
Planning permissions sometimes fail to find the right balance between adequate supply and protection of our landscape, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) just said. Increasing authorised site provision should not be at the cost of the countryside. The green belt and other sensitive areas of interest and natural beauty must be protected and recognised, and local authorities need the power to ensure that that is the case.
The previous Conservative-led coalition Government consulted on the proposals to introduce more fairness into the planning system, strengthen protection for the green belt and countryside, and address the negative effects of unauthorised occupation in particular.
Andy Slaughter: I welcome the Minister to his post and wish him success. I understand that he is responding to some Government Members, but the tone of his response is very negative. I would like to hear what positive message the Government have for Gypsy and Traveller communities. Previously in the House, Members such as Andrew George, the former Member for St Ives, and Julie Morgan, the former Member for Cardiff North, spoke up clearly for Gypsy and Traveller communities. I hope that the Minister will take on that responsibility in his new job. We have heard the negatives—the things that he does not want communities to do—but what is his positive message ?
James Wharton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that my tone is negative; it is not intended to be. I am trying to be factual, to set out the direction that the Government are going to take and to comment on things that have happened in the past. I started by recognising the obligation that we have to all communities in this country, including the Gypsy and Traveller community, in respect of the planning system and more generally. Nevertheless, hon. Members have raised legitimate concerns and it is right that those are addressed. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but I also want to respond to specific points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering.
I was talking about the consultation document and the steps that the Government might now take. The document included proposals to give local authorities more control so that they can strictly limit new Traveller sites in the open countryside. The previous Government also consulted on whether the definition of a Traveller for planning purposes should be restricted just to those who travel. The issue of whether there can be a Traveller who does not travel has been raised. How do we meet the needs of those who are no longer living that way of life, but may consider themselves to be part of that community? The Government share the view that if someone has given up travelling permanently, their needs should be planned for as part of the settled community.
When we are planning for people’s needs, it is appropriate not to think of them by race or ethnic group or to see them as different, but to plan for the needs they should have. If someone is part of a settled community, it is right that they should be considered in that way and that plans should take account of the lifestyle they now lead. I assure Members that introducing greater fairness
10 Jun 2015 : Column 154WH
to the planning system and increasing protection for sensitive areas—including the green belt—is similarly a priority for this Government. We recognise that there is great sensitivity not only in the scope of this debate, but more widely about the protection that our countryside needs and the recognition it should be given in our planning system. That is why we intend to update planning policy on Travellers at the first opportunity.
We want to look at the lessons that can be learned from the consultation, taking into account other factors, including ongoing cases in law and the need to interact appropriately with the rest of the planning system and existing legislation. We want to make appropriate changes that ensure more fairness and equal treatment for the Gypsy and Traveller community and for permanently settled communities, whose concerns Members have expressed today.
I do not want to appear negative. I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), and all communities have an important role to play in this issue. We are a great and diverse nation. The traditions that together make us the great whole that we are often are stronger and more valued than any of the parts alone could possibly be. If we start to move against one community or to categorise people in groups in that way, we go down a dangerous path. At the same time, we must ensure fairness in our planning system and equality before the law for all communities. We should recognise the concerns expressed by our constituents in all sorts of different circumstances and brought before Parliament, the House and the Government in these debates.
Members have expressed legitimate concerns and raised issues on both sides of the debate. We have a consultation document that proposes a course of action, and I hope significant improvements will be made when the Government bring forward changes to the regime and the system. I hope that the next time we debate this topic, it will be recognised that progress has been made. We can, of course, look to address all the other issues, including those affecting Gypsy and Traveller communities. We need to ensure that they have proper and adequate access to healthcare and education and that their needs are met.
We want a fair system that treats people equally and we want to deliver it in a timely fashion and a sensible way. I hope that all sides in this debate agree with that. I thank Members for their comments, because they help to inform me in the Department with my new portfolio as we take forward an important area of business.
5.42 pm
Mr Hollobone: We have heard contributions from around the country in the past hour—from Hammersmith, Washington, Mid Kent, York, Daventry, Sussex, Cheshire and Devon—and the message from all those parts of the country, with two exceptions, is that there is a problem. The system is not working as well as it might, but we can all agree that the law needs to be applied equally to whoever applies for planning permission. Too many of my constituents are frightened to speak out on this issue for fear of being accused of being racist, and we had a flavour of that this afternoon. If MPs cannot articulate their constituents’ concerns on genuine issues such as this, there is not a role for Parliament.
10 Jun 2015 : Column 155WH
I encourage the Minister to reissue the guidance on the importance of local authorities working collaboratively when Gypsy and Traveller site applications are on either side of a local authority boundary. I look forward to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)
10 Jun 2015 : Column 156WH
campaigning for the acre of land that will solve this national problem to be located in the heart of his constituency.
5.44 pm
Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).