Gypsies and Travellers
Baroness Whitaker Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Whitaker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consult on a fresh definition of Gypsies and Travellers which would entitle all persons with a cultural tradition of nomadism or of living in a caravan to Gypsy status for the purposes of planning policy and legislation.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Government published their new draft planning policy for Traveller sites for full public consultation last year. The consultation included a question about whether the current definition of Gypsies and Travellers for the purposes of planning policy should be retained. The Government are currently considering all responses to the consultation on their new draft planning policy.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer as far as it goes. However, does he agree with me that the current definition forces ethnic Gypsies and Travellers who want to live in caravans according to their traditional way of life and seek planning permission for that purpose to demonstrate that they pursue a nomadic way of life, when current legislation and the lack of authorised sites makes it almost impossible for them to do so and consigns them to low-paid and erratic employment? For instance, a Gypsy who practised a profession that required living in one place—such as a doctor or an architect of my acquaintance—could not get planning permission for a caravan site on land that he had bought. Does the noble Earl agree? Secondly—
Localism Bill
Baroness Whitaker Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
I have the other amendment in this group, Amendment 204F, which has a very similar purpose. I very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and what he said in his speech. In our view this is one of the important remaining issues in the planning parts of the Bill. The two amendments are about the pragmatic position of the local planning authorities. Some are faced with old plans under the pre-2004 legislation; some with emerging new plans—local development frameworks—under the 2004 Act; and some with adopted core strategies—new plans—under that Act. All of those are now up in the air as a result of the Government’s wish to do away with a great deal of the previous planning guidance and instructions which local authorities had in regional strategies and in the planning policy statements. Instead those will be replaced by a much shorter document, the national planning policy framework, but that is going to take some time to approve.
The Government originally said that local authorities would have six months in which to adapt their local plans, whatever state they were in, to the new guidance. Frankly, they have not thought through the practical problems that this would have caused. They are now doing so, and that is extremely welcome. I am taking a lot of advice from planning authorities, from the planning world and, indeed, from Members of this House. We understand that it is now their intention to include clear guidance on how to adapt their local plans, and pursue their new local plans, in line with the NPPF. My first question is to ask the Minister if she will confirm that that is the route they are taking. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would put a great deal of the detail of how this is to happen on the face of the Bill, and this would be our first choice. Transitional provisions have appeared in quite some detail in previous planning legislation. In our view this would be the best place for it, but for various practical and other reasons, the Government do not want to do that.
My amendment would put a duty on the Secretary of State to issue regulations which would set out the transitional arrangements. It states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations specify transitional arrangements concerning the timetable and procedures involved in the introduction of changes to local development schemes and the preparation and adoption of local development documents”.
Regulations are stronger than guidance so we would prefer to have it in regulations rather than simply in guidance. Wherever it is, it needs to be clear and well understood. It needs to give local planning authorities the necessary flexibility and time to get it right.
There have been fears that local planning authorities will be left with no defences against any kind of inappropriate development as a result of some of the wording in the draft national planning policy framework, particularly the suggestion that in the absence of a plan the default position on planning applications would be to approve. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that that might be opportunistic and unplanned development. My description of it might be a bit cruder than that but I am happy to align myself with his more elegant wording there.
The timetable from transition is crucial. Six months is clearly ludicrous. We have heard rumours of 18 months but in practice it needs to be a lot more than that. The noble Lord suggested three years. We would perhaps go along with that. We clearly do not want it to be seven years or more, which is the position now following the 2004 Act, where half or more of the authorities have still not got their new local plans in place. My second question is about the timescale.
Thirdly, do the Government believe that the inspectorate will be able to deal in a practical way with the huge congestion that there will be in all this work of getting the local plans in line with the new planning guidance? How much work will be needed locally and at the inspectorate simply to get a certificate of conformity for approved core strategies? In determining planning applications during the transitional period, what reliance will local planning authorities be able to put in the mean time on approved core strategies under the 2004 Act which have not yet been certificated as compliant with the new NPPF? What reliance can they put on old, pre-2004 local plans which are still being used by many authorities as the basis for planning? As material considerations in planning application decisions, what reliance can be put on emerging core strategies which are perhaps near inspection but not there yet? What will be the relationship between these existing local plans and the emerging NPPF? Finally, what will be the relationship between the adopted NPPF and all these various kinds of uncertificated local plans?
This is absolutely crucial if there is not to be a free-for-all but a smooth transition from the existing, old system to the new one. This is not in any way trying to undermine the new system but rather to make sense of converting from one system to another, which will take a number of years.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I would like to add my support to Amendment 204EA—supported also by the RTPI, which I think is very significant—and particularly subsection (14) of the new clause, which specifies the three-year minimum for transition. I completely understand why the Government have eliminated the regional tier but there remain instances where regional decisions are particularly valuable—I would say irreplaceable—such as matters to do with housing shortages, the issue of Gypsy and Traveller sites, which we discussed at the last Committee meeting, and the lack of planning expertise at a local level which could result in really unattractive developments. If we are not to go backward in all of these areas we need a transitional period as the amendment specifies for local authorities to work out how to co-operate where it is really essential.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I would like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in what she said, and to point out that in the case of Gypsies and Travellers we have an additional difficulty in that the NPPF and the equivalent document on planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites are mutually incompatible. The Government say that these difficulties will be ironed out in a new version of the amalgamated documents which will be published at some time in the future. Meanwhile there is a policy vacuum which is being only partially filled by the Secretary of State’s dictum that all previous work on planning for Traveller sites has been torn up and local authorities are free to decide how many pitches for Gypsy and Traveller sites will be provided in their area, if any.
The result of this new-found freedom, according to research by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain, is that roughly 50 per cent of the needs which emerged from the regional spatial strategies, the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments, the public inquiries following those GTANAs and the redistribution between local authorities in the region—to accommodate the fact that some councils had done nothing whatever to meet the needs—have not been met. Perhaps I may just interpolate an aside here. In the new process the local authorities will only have to consider their local needs and will not have to co-operate with neighbouring authorities; and if authorities have steadfastly avoided making provision for Gypsies and Travellers in the past they will be able to demonstrate zero need because there are no Gypsies and Travellers in their particular area.
I see no way in which under the proposed system—and subject to what we do not know yet about the guidance that will be issued by the CLG—there will be any mechanism for adjusting that. I would like to know from my noble friend where we have got to in this process. Are we still in the position where every local authority will make up its mind irrespective of what any of the neighbours are doing? Will there be no contribution to the provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers where a local authority can demonstrate that it has not had a need in the past because it has been successful in excluding Gypsies and Travellers from its area?
We in the Liberal Democratic Party made a reservation to the abolition of regionalism in our manifesto. We said that the numbers emerging from the regional spatial strategies with regard to Gypsies and Travellers should be preserved and should be the basis on which planning for Gypsies and Travellers would be effected under the new system. If we had done that we would have avoided the process that is currently being undergone all over the country as local authorities start again from scratch to consider their local needs and come up with figures which, as I say, are only 50 per cent of what had been provided where the regional process had been completed, as for example in the east of England. This will result in a severe shortage of sites in the whole country and there will be a proliferation of unauthorised sites, which is the chief source of friction between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled population. I do not know whether that is intentional but it will be the result of following the Government’s present policies.
Localism Bill
Baroness Whitaker Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, I am sympathetic to this amendment, an amendment directed to the essential issue of having a really reliable assessment based on the best possible numbers about the needs for housing in the various districts—this of course relates to Clause 99, on local development schemes. That is important because it underlies the whole question about the proper provision of affordable housing in these areas, which is a major priority for all of us. The Minister may feel that there is something in this point—that it is pretty self-evident, when you read the text, that you ought to have an assessment in numerical terms concerning the projected levels of accommodation, need, and demand. That seems pretty self-evident.
We know that in addition to the various public dissatisfaction—I do not say that it is justified—about the prejudgment in favour of development, there is also, from time to time, a feeling that some of the information available in local authorities is not actually up to date. For example, last weekend I attended a meeting, when I was informed that the figures for the net immigration into the district, on which were based the forward provisions for housing, were wrong by 400 per cent in relation to the more recent figures because the figures on which they were operating were ancient.
There is some concern about these issues; even though it may seem self-evident that we ought to have the best figures, people are not always satisfied that that is the case. So I am sympathetic to this proposal, and I hope that we can establish bases in the local development schemes which can be relied on—relied on—by people who examine them as having the best basis for the amount of housing needed and the demand for housing, and that they should not be seriously underestimated on the one hand, and on the other hand not seriously overestimated.
Baroness Whitaker
In supporting Amendment 204A for all the reasons powerfully set out by the three previous speakers, I should like simply to add that this provision will go some way to taking care of some otherwise very awkward problems: a housing shortage which a small area cannot or will not address on its own; adequate provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites so that brutal confrontations, evictions, further illegal roadside stopping, are avoided, and gradually some inroads are made into the accumulated shortage of legal sites. The words “accommodation needs” reflect exactly the wording in Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004, and will readily be understood to refer to all homeless people, whether itinerant or settled, with the right degree of equality and fairness.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I have not spoken previously on the Localism Bill, nor would I claim any particular expertise in the planning system, but I would like to respond to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in the context of this debate, with particular reference to Gypsies and Travellers.
The noble Baroness and I, and indeed my noble friend Lord Avebury, have participated over a number of years in the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Gypsy Roma Travellers, and we have always been conscious of the difficulties that that community faces in adequate site provision, and also the degree of lack of salience—or should I say lack of appetite, perhaps—by local authorities in meeting their existing obligation. I can well understand her fears that these might be projected into the future.
Perhaps I may just comment from my experience over nearly a quarter of a century in another place as a constituency MP. The two planning issues on which I tended to wrestle most assiduously were either at the macro level, major infrastructure projects, or at the micro level, difficulties about Gypsies’ and Travellers’ sites—whether they were organised or not—but more typically, when there was no adequate provision, and they were moved on; although the provision in Northamptonshire tended to improve over the years.
This particular amendment is of course about making an adequate assessment, and that is a proper start. The difficulty, in my experience, is that very few authorities see themselves as having an interest in carrying out this assessment—one or two enlightened ones do, maybe for economic reasons, in order to secure a temporary labour force. Most will do as little as they might. And yet, one could fairly say that the amount of land required to meet all these needs across the nation is quite small, and in local authority areas is even smaller. It would certainly be in the interests of local authorities, who wanted to put some order into this process, to make adequate provision so that people could move to those sites and away from others. We do not want to open the recent wounds about that matter, but I think that a number of authorities are very diffident about doing so.
The reasons for that are perhaps, first, that they may fear that they are shouldering a disproportionate burden; in certain cases they may feel, secondly, that the very fact of assessing provision or having a discussion about it may, as it were, attract or create an additional population whose need has then to be met; and thirdly, they are, to be frank, often facing the hostility of the local settled population, and a very strong political pressure not really to meet their duties.
This has to be balanced; what I have always said locally is that the one thing I do not take is a one-dimensional view of this. There is a need for give and take, sensitivity and a proper discussion on both sides, but it has to start with a proper assessment. There may be a feeling that this is not going to happen.
In addition to this, I should just make the point—and it does look back to the issue of cross-border co-operation—that of course the nature of the travelling population, by definition, is that people move around; not all the time, or in every case, or outside or across local authority boundaries, but it does mean that they have to be looked at with at least a degree of flexibility and sensitivity, given, as the noble Baroness has said, some of the social pressure which is upon many of them, and which is evinced by many frightening social statistics in terms of a perinatal mortality or health outcomes, education, and the rest of it, which we need not go on to tonight.
I am not an ideological opponent of the Localism Bill—I think it is a good approach for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Deben very eloquently brought forward a few minutes ago. But we have to look at meeting the needs, indeed meeting wider statutory responsibilities for equality, which are enshrined in the duties of local authorities, and seeing whether they are adequately discharged.
I hope that encouragement will be sufficient for the local authorities so that they meet their obligations. All I can say is that I very much hope that the Minister can reassure us that she will be able to keep a watch on the situation, and I hope, if it is necessary—though one trusts that it will not be—that she will keep an open mind to any other measures or contingencies that may be required to see that this small but significant and vulnerable section of the population and their housing needs are assessed and met.
Railways: Brighton to London Line
Baroness Whitaker Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is important to ensure that disused railway lines could be reinstated if it was necessary. The difficulty with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State issuing safeguarding directions is that he can do so only if it is intended to reopen the railway line, not to make it possible. In addition, if he does give safeguarding directions, it can result in compensation to developers.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, does the Minister accept that his words “at some point in the future” are not very consoling to south-east commuters, of whom I am one, who regularly have to stand on overcrowded trains at certain times of the day?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an extremely important point. We all know that at peak periods, the commuter railway lines south of London are all running at peak capacity. One difficulty is that we cannot easily increase the capacity to the main line terminals. In the case of Uckfield to Lewes, one of the bottlenecks is East Croydon, so even if we increased capacity in that area on the south of the line, you would still encounter the bottleneck at East Croydon, and there is very little we can do about that.
Localism Bill
Baroness Whitaker Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Best
My Lords, this amendment concerns design review panels and is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. It goes some way to answering concerns expressed by noble Lords yesterday about giving prominence to design, which can seem a subjective concept—the argument that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The amendment gives local authorities permissive powers to submit applications for planning permission to a local design review panel and then to have regard to the views of this independent, cross-professional panel. It accords with my self-imposed ordinance to avoid amendments that extend central government’s powers over local authorities. It introduces not a duty but a permissive power.
An amendment proposed in the other place would have put an onus on developers to take their plans to such a panel. It was rejected by the Minister, Greg Clark, because it would have added to the regulatory burden on builders. My lighter-touch amendment avoids this hazard by putting the onus on local authorities, but without any compulsion on them—“may”, not “must”. Independent design review panels are working well in several areas and have proved their worth. Support is now available through a network of panels managed and facilitated by Design Council CABE, which advocates adoption of key principles, spreads good practice and works with the RIBA and the RTPI.
The amendment suggests that, with local authorities short-staffed and often struggling with their planning capacity, the time has come to extend the use of design review panels that so helpfully pull in expertise from outside the council to see that design is taken on board in local authority decisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 170CD, perhaps I may express my extreme disappointment with the usual channels at their arrangements, which effectively prevented me from carrying out the job of scrutinising legislation here and speaking to Amendments 170B, 170C and 182, to which I added my name, because I was moving an amendment tabled in my name alone in the Education Bill Committee in the Moses Room. I hope that there will be no repetition of such a ridiculous arrangement in September so that noble Lords can carry out the work for which they were appointed.
I turn to Amendment 170CD. The noble Lord, Lord Best, explained clearly what it is about. I will add that the Housing Minister Greg Clark's awareness of the importance of good design is well known and appreciated. This new proposal is almost a tautologous requirement. One might say that there would not be much point in sending off an application to an independent panel and then paying no attention to its recommendations. This is the lightest of light touches. It is a gentle nudge in the direction of trying to make sure that, in the words of Greg Clark,
“the built environment is better than it otherwise would be, and that it is beautiful and functional for people to live in”.—[Official Report, Commons, Localism Bill Committee, 1/3/11; col.718.]
I hope the Minister will understand that. I am sure she will and that she will agree to accept the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
We had a canter round this yesterday—at least it seems like it was yesterday. We are very supportive of these amendments.
Localism Bill
Baroness Whitaker Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
My Lords, in moving the amendment I will say how nice it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, in his place. The noble Lord could have his referendum on parking charges and the council would meet the cost of the referendum by increasing the charges even more. Who knows what unintended consequences may occur? I will now speak to the amendment before the Whips start glowering at me.
Amendment 128H is about the publicity that a principal local authority has to give to a determination that it is not appropriate to hold a referendum. Clause 48(4) states:
“If the determination is that it is not appropriate to hold the referendum … the notification must give the reasons for the determination, and … subject to subsection (5), the authority must publish those reasons when it publishes the determination”.
That all seems fine. But then subsection (5) says a quite extraordinary thing:
“A principal local authority is not obliged to publish those reasons if it thinks that in all the circumstances it would be inappropriate to do so”.
I cannot think of any circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to publish the reasons why the local authority has decided not to hold the referendum when it gets a petition which otherwise matches all the necessary conditions.
The grounds for determination are set out in Clause 47 which we have been discussing at some length and they are fairly clear—they would be even clearer if some of my amendments were passed. Even so, the Bill is going to include a clear statement of the reasons why a council can decide not to have a referendum even though it gets a petition.
Amendment 128Q is exactly the same wording in relation to a request for a referendum from a member. Whether it has to tell the member the reasons why it is not going to have the referendum the member is asking for, I am not quite sure, but it seems quite extraordinary that this is the case. It takes me back to my very early days in local government, which are far too long ago, when the council I was on—and no doubt many others—used to publish a minute for a decision that said something like, “That the action now mentioned be carried out by the officer now named”.
That sort of thing does not happen any more. My understanding is that local authorities are now under a general obligation to state the reasons for all the decisions they make and publish. That is certainly what the local authorities I know all do and I think that is now required. If a decision can be made not to hold a referendum without having to say why, then if the people asking for the referendum are rich enough it is a recipe for lining the pockets of a lot of lawyers. If they are not rich enough they will just get very angry and the whole process will be undermined.
I am challenging similar provisions in Amendments 129D and 129CAA which cover what a local authority does after a referendum and the action it decides to take. Again, it is suggested that if no action is taken then the authority has to publish the decision. In this case what the Bill says is right: the authority has to publish the decision and the reasons why if it decides not to do anything about a referendum that has been carried by a majority of people voting and calls for action. However, it does not have to say anything at all if it decides to carry out what the referendum wants or it decides partly to carry out what the referendum wants or to do something slightly different which might achieve some of the same objectives.
It seems to me that whatever the decision is on the basis of the referendum that has taken place, the local authority ought to make a clear statement of what it is going to do in response to the referendum, the decision of the referendum and give the reasons why. In this case, I suspect it is that the people drafting this have not thought through it 100 per cent. I would have thought the Government could have redrafted this part without any real problems. The first two, where it clearly says that you do not have to say why you are rejecting it, are clearly wrong and must be challenged.
Amendment 128J is the other amendment in this group and takes us back to some discussions we had on the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act when it was going through this House on the question of identification of the organiser of a petition. It was all very unsatisfactory when that Bill came to this House. We got it right. This is less unsatisfactory but it is still not quite right. Clause 48(6) states:
“In this Chapter ‘petition organiser’, in relation to a petition, means—
(a) the person designated in the petition as the person with whom the authority may deal in relation to the petition”.
It is possible that a petition will come in and the person is not actually designated in the petition but the person identifies themselves as the organiser, they turn up and hand it in, they have a covering letter that they have signed or something like that. Amendment 128J suggests a slightly better wording. Instead of,
“designated in the petition”
it suggests,
“notified when the petition is delivered to the authority”.
All the authority needs to do is to ask who the person in charge of the petition is. It might be the first name on the list; it might be the person who has simply signed the covering letter; it might simply be the person who turns up at the council offices or hands it to the mayor, or whatever they do, and identifies themselves as the organiser. The subsection just needs to be clarified a little. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, some noble Lords may think that my one question for the Minister might have sat more easily with amendments in previous groups, but I hope they will indulge me because then I had to be in the Education Bill Committee, to which I shall shortly have to return. My question can loosely be attached to this group of amendments.
The problem that has been brought to my attention is that when local authorities are bound to publicise and take the outcomes of referendums into account in decision-making, it could result in them being pressured by local communities into disregarding welfare issues and the rights of Gypsies, Travellers and others. We know that there is form on this. Local communities have had that kind of attitude. My question for the Minister is: is there any safeguard to deter that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. She may not be aware that one of the government amendments makes it clear that planning applications—it is often under planning applications that these matters arise—are excluded from the provisions for referendums. The noble Baroness will remember that we had a brief exchange about this earlier. The whole business of provision for Traveller populations is subject to direction and regulations as far as local authorities are concerned, so it is an area in which local authorities are obliged to act properly. It is also an offence for people to campaign on these issues in a way that breaks the law. I hope that the noble Baroness is content on that matter.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, require the council at all times to publish its reasons for such a determination. We believe that the vast majority of local authorities—in fact, almost without exception—will publish their reasons for such a determination. They want local people to know why their petition or the request from their councillor was not considered appropriate. However, removing the discretion not to publish those reasons could mean that the council is required to publish details that may be confidential or otherwise inappropriate. For example, the petition could relate to an individual for whom it would cause further embarrassment to publish details of the petition or breach their human rights. In such a case, the authority would be able to report that the petition had been rejected but without any further detail.
Localism Bill
Baroness Whitaker Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, in rising to speak to this group of probing amendments, I want to ask the Minister one question. Anxiety has been expressed to me by the Gypsy and Traveller community that there is a risk that councillors could run campaigns and make decisions to remove unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller sites in an area, which of course is not in itself wrong, but they could do so without focusing on a long-term, sustainable solution to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs. Dale Farm springs to mind. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister: if there is this risk, can he say what safeguards there will be against it?
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I rise to do something which my noble friend on the Front Bench will regard as unusual, if not unique. In the absence of an opportunity to speak on whether the clause should stand part, I state that, although I am interested in the answers to the ingenious questions that my noble friend Lord Greaves has asked, I am principally concerned to declare my undying support for this clause, as I understand it.
I have already indicated that my wife has been chairman of Braintree District Council, is currently the cabinet minister for planning and strategy—I think that that is the right description—is on the planning committee and, indeed, represents me on Braintree District Council. Indeed, I even voted for her. When my wife became a district councillor for the second time about eight years and a few months ago, I could not believe it when I discovered what these predetermination rules were. Any MP would have had a fit if he had been told that he could not indicate to his constituents that he shared their view on a matter that was likely to come before Parliament and would vote accordingly. I think that I have the purport of this right. Noble Lords are indicating that I have. Why should councillors not be able to say to their constituents that they agree with them on a matter and that they will vote accordingly when it comes before the council? I cannot see the slightest merit in that position. I do not think that it is democratic or defensible and, if, as I understand it, this clause gets rid of it, I am in favour of the clause.