Immigration: Tuberculosis Testing

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is a problem in the big conurbations, due to deprivation and very dense accommodation. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are on the case. We regard it as a serious problem. Further to the article in the Financial Times, we recognise that we must not let it get out of control. That is partially why we are insisting on testing people outside the UK so that we do not incur the costs for the NHS. It costs about £6,000 to treat someone who is very susceptible to treatment with antibiotics but if they are multiresistant it can cost £100,000 to treat them. We need to make sure that we do not import health problems and we concentrate on solving our own health problems—not just by activities in the NHS but also by improving housing, which I am sure all Governments have striven to do over the years.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, as blood tests for latent TB are already available to migrants through their GPs, is not the answer to encourage greater voluntary take-up in areas such as the noble Lord opposite mentioned—Birmingham, Hounslow and Newham—and enlist the help of diaspora organisations from the 67 countries where TB is most prevalent to increase the rates of take-up? Since the countries that undertake pre-emptive screening all depend on X-rays, as we are now doing with overseas checking of would-be migrants from those countries where active TB exists, and none is contemplating pre-emptive blood testing, should we not have discussions with those countries to concert a common approach on what should be done about pre-entry blood testing in overseas countries?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I look forward to reading my noble friend’s comments in Hansard in the morning but it is important that testing is targeted. The health professionals will offer tests where they are most effective and most likely to find a problem.

Crime: Drink-driving

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Monday 8th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think I shall be having a chat with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, about that matter tomorrow. It is important to understand that other European countries have a lower limit but also much milder penalties. We have a policy of a slightly higher limit, which is based on the Grand Rapids study, but with severe penalties for the slightest infringement. Our results are better than the European results. I can assure the noble Lord that it is not an anti-European policy.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, what advice have the Government received about the number of lives that could be saved by lowering the limit to 50 milligrams?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the only thing that my department is concerned about is saving lives by having an effective policy. That means correctly allocating resources and addressing the most serious problem, which is persistent unregulated drinkers who consistently flout the law and drive with very high blood-alcohol levels.

Gypsies and Travellers

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the communication from the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe on the adequacy of the provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers in the United Kingdom.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government replied to the letter from the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe on 27 February. A copy was placed on the Council of Europe’s website on 1 March. The Secretary of State’s letter gave details of the measures the Government are taking to improve the situation of Travellers, particularly in relation to the provision of sites.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, my noble friend may be aware that local authorities are intending to provide planning permission for less than half of the accommodation that was shown to be necessary in the comprehensive assessment of need conducted during the previous Parliament. First, what immediate action are the Government going to take to increase the number of sites in order to match their legal obligation as identified by the high commissioner to provide adequate housing for Gypsies and Travellers? Secondly, have any of the local authorities and social housing agencies to which the Government recently granted a total of £47 million to build new sites identified the land they intend to use for this purpose, let alone applied for planning permission on it?

Gypsies and Travellers

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords—

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, shall we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, first?

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, can we now assume that there will be a further consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that incorporates a version of the Traveller document, as recommended by the CLG Select Committee? If so, will the new composite document include a revised and more inclusive definition of Gypsies and Travellers for the purposes of both housing and planning which is based on the Housing Act 2004?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to my noble friend but we will have to wait to see what the Government’s response is. However, we will not have to wait too long.

Localism Bill

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Greaves. It is not just helpful but necessary to have a transition period in recognition of the fact that not only do very significant numbers—nearly half of local planning authorities—not have local development frameworks, but, because of the abolition of the regional spatial strategies and possibly other factors, even those local planning authorities that do have local plans will find that the local plans that they have had hitherto are now out of date.

We need a transition period probably of three years, certainly not less than two, to provide time for proper consultation to take place. That is extremely important to win back the confidence of the public because it has been shaken on the basis of considerable amounts of misinformation having been provided. If the public had the opportunity to read the draft national planning policy framework, they would gain a lot of reassurance. The fact of the matter is that many people are disturbed and worried about what the new planning regime portends, so consultation will be particularly important. I would not want to see a truncated process of consultation in the interests of hurrying the process along unduly.

Time will also be needed to assist the process of co-operation between local planning authorities that will no longer be brought together under the umbrella of a regional development agency to facilitate that co-operation. We know that there are tensions—indeed, conflicts of interest—and interests that are very difficult to reconcile between different local planning authorities, so time must be allowed for that process to run its course. The inspectorate will need time, which is why I think three years rather than two years would probably be appropriate, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested in the debate last Thursday.

Will the Minister take this opportunity not only to say what the Government’s view is about a transition period but what supplementary guidance they may be minded to offer? While the Government are entirely entitled to revisit the planning policy statements, those statements are of pretty recent origin and represent a huge amount of work that has been put in by all the relevant expert interests. It would be a shame to discard them altogether. I wonder whether the Government are minded to look at a way in which planning policy statements, appropriately modified and updated to reflect the Government’s current policies, could none the less be made part of the system again so that we do not waste all that good will, expertise and very useful practical guidance that went into the development of those statements.

If the Government allow a three-year transition period, they will not abort the development that is so badly needed if we are again to have growth in this country because, unfortunately, the lack of confidence and available finance mean that there is not a lot of development in the pipeline. Even where the necessary confidence and funding exist, there are large numbers of extant planning permissions, so I do not think that a transition period would in any way obstruct the sustainable development that we all want to see in the interests of creating more jobs and homes and ensuring that our economy is modernised and made more powerful and effective. If the noble Baroness is able to indicate the Government’s thinking in this regard, more particularly whether their thinking is positive, it would be hugely welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

They are already going to be able to take into account the emerging NPPF as a policy statement. I should like to go back to the question of whether the PPS and PPG are going form part of it. I suspect that this is all part of the consultation about how much background is going to be needed and how those planning policy statements are going to be included. I will come back to that by Third Reading because I do not have the direct answer at present.

The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Best, asked about the timescale. I have already said that I do not think we will be putting in a firm timescale. We expect the changes to take place as soon as possible, and we hope that local councils will get a move on with them. I think I said that the transition is going to be helped by drawing on evidence that informed the preparation of the regional strategy, and part of that will be the PPS and PPG. The NPPF will supersede the PPS and PPG, but they stay in place unless and until the Government revoke them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about Gypsies. As both of them will know, the draft PPS on that has just been issued for consultation, but local authorities are already required to provide Gypsy sites and, under the duty to co-operate, they are required to work across boundaries to ensure that they have sufficient provision for them.

[Lord Avebury]

Is the noble Baroness aware that, according to the research conducted by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain, the revised plans of local authorities following their liberation from the previous regional planning process are to provide 50 per cent of the number of pitches that had been calculated as necessary under the regional planning system? Does she intend to make any comment on that? Will she answer my question about how the Government are dealing with the mismatch which I pointed out between the NPPF and the separate document on planning for Traveller sites? Will that be accommodated by the publication of one single document that will incorporate the NPPF and the Traveller sites, or will there be a revision of the document on Traveller sites that will be compatible with the revised NPPF?

Asylum Seekers

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, Miss Besong is a failed asylum seeker, having had her appeal and further submissions dismissed by the courts, not by UKBA. She became appeal rights exhausted this year and therefore subject to enforced removal action if she refuses to leave the UK voluntarily. On the noble Baroness’s second point, about leaving it to appeal, it is open to legal and other advisers to introduce new evidence to the UKBA at any point between the original decision and the appeal hearing. Asylum could then be granted before the appeal is heard. It is not clear to me why this does not happen more often.

[Lord Avebury]

Does the noble Lord accept that at the asylum stakeholders’ meeting on 4 August the UKBA said that it had not released any victim of gender-based violence from the detained fast-track and did not consider it a reason for releasing a person? Is this not a breach of the undertaking that was given to the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe that:

“Particularly vulnerable applicants including … victims of trafficking or sexual violence … are not dealt with within the DFT process as a matter of policy”?

Does my noble friend accept that as the success rate of appeals by women against refusal of asylum is running at 50 per cent, it is clear that the improvements in procedures for dealing with gender-based violence in the criminal justice system have not read across to the UKBA?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think I have already explained why there can be very good reasons for the overturn rate at appeal. As regards the noble Lord’s question about detained fast-track, I am confident that legal protections for the detainee must be in place, but I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

The sector was very vocal in its concerns about the financial impact of the changes and wider arguments than those referred to in the impact assessment were shared with your Lordships. I recall my noble friend Lady Benjamin, who is Chancellor of Exeter University, talking about the value that students bring to the local area, and bluntly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The sector is such a good earner, such a good revenue generator well beyond its immediate operation, that restricting access as a proposition frankly defeats me.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I join my noble friend in welcoming the Motion that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord, Hunt, and I find myself in substantial and almost entire agreement with every single word that he spoke in support of it. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hamwee on the sterling work that she does on the Merits Committee which has resulted in bringing this matter before the House, and not for the first time. I remind your Lordships that this is the second occasion in a row when the Merits Committee has commented on a statement of changes in the Immigration Rules. That indicates to me that all is not well in the direction of the UKBA. I often thought that the separate management of the UKBA was a mistake. At a time when the Government are looking for economies, they could perhaps do worse than to consider bringing it back under the umbrella of the Home Office.

The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, uses the wording of the Merits Committee report and is none the worse for that. It regrets that it is not clear from the IA or the Explanatory Memorandum how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy or the estimate of the costs and benefits of the changes. As far as I can see, that is not an opinion, but a fact.

In the most glaring case of a discrepancy between the responses to the consultation questionnaire and the statement, 85 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the proposal further to restrict students’ paid work when there is no evidence that it has impaired their academic performance and when fee increases have made it much harder for students to pay their way. There are many other instances where significant minority responses have been overridden. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about the considerable uncertainties affecting student numbers and the costs and benefits laid out in the impact assessment, which I shall come to discuss in a few minutes.

As one would expect, more than three-quarters of English language school respondents disagreed with the proposal to require all tier 4 students to demonstrate level B2 English proficiency, a requirement which will be a major problem for many schools and private colleges of further education. The IA states that unless English language schools can attract either EU students or student visitor route applicants, they face going out of business. The replacement estimate of 80 per cent, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, is not only difficult to believe but pure guesswork. Schools say that a £1 billion industry is being put in jeopardy.

The Government have recognised the particular difficulties of the English language sector, however, by creating the extended student visa route, allowing applicants to come here for 11 months, which is non-renewable. They are not allowed to work or bring in dependants, or to switch into other routes including tier 4. When this was announced in December 2010, the Minister said that he would monitor it closely to ensure that it did not become a loophole and take a decision on whether to make it permanent in due course. I understand that it is working well so far. I should like the Minister to tell us when a decision will be taken on incorporating this route into the rules.

In the past, some English language and FE colleges have been used as a way of gaining entry to the UK with the intention of working illegally. It would be useful to know whether the Minister has details of the attendance records of those admitted under the extended student visa route since it came into force on January 10, and if not, how else he is monitoring the new route. I hope that the bogus colleges have been eliminated since it was provided that overseas students could apply only to those schools which are accredited and the list of schools was reduced by some 90 per cent to 1,500, all of which are registered with the UKBA. But there may still be a residual problem with individuals who apply to a genuine college simply to gain entry. If so, what obligations do the colleges have to report unexplained absences to the UKBA, and are any statistics available on those absences as an indication of the use of education as a continuing route to illegal entry? I ask this question believing that the loophole has been finally closed, but it would be useful to have that reassurance from the Minister.

An additional problem has been created for the English language sector in that the Government suddenly decided at the end of July, without any consultation, that it was going to be subject to a new inspection regime in substitution for the one that has been operated—as far as I am concerned, perfectly satisfactorily —by the British Council for many years. This will be a monopoly handed to the Independent Schools Inspectorate, which has no experience or knowledge of the sector and intends to charge four times as much as the British Council has in the past. Since the BC/Accreditation UK inspection scheme is fit for purpose, which I ask the Minister to acknowledge, the right answer as proposed by the schools is that BIS and DfE should jointly designate the private further education sector as subject to regulation and approve BC/Accreditation UK as an inspection body under the powers of the Education Act 2002. Would my noble friend the Minister be kind enough to comment on that proposal? I shall ask him to address the overall problems of the sector that English UK has drawn to my attention, which are too numerous, complex and potentially disastrous to be covered adequately in this debate.

The rationale for the statement is clearly set out in the impact assessment: that too many migrants have been allowed to enter the UK and that the Government's aim is to reduce the level of net migration to sustainable levels. As students make up the majority of non-EU immigrants, yet we do not propose putting a limit on their numbers, we have to make it harder for student applicants to enter and harder to sustain themselves by working part-time while they are studying if they are not the brightest and best. Deterring students from coming to Britain will certainly reduce the numbers, but on the Government’s own estimate it will do so at a cost of £2.4 billion a year to the economy—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee—and possibly even more in the long term. Of course it is necessary to ensure that every student who enters the UK is studying at a bona fide education institution towards a qualification that will enhance their prospects when they return home, as the IA emphasises, but the statement does nothing directly to eliminate bogus providers, which I presume, as I have said already, have been eliminated by the inspection regimes put in place over recent years. It concentrates entirely on making life harder for all students, the legitimate as well as those who in the past have used the education route as a means of entering the country with the intention of illegal working.

It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend that no impact assessment was published for the previous statement of changes. The one that we are looking at today, although it does not say so, covers both this and the previous statement. Will the Government give an undertaking that Parliament will never again be asked to consider changes to the Immigration Rules unless we are provided with an IA?

The IA states that we need to filter out those who contribute least and who pose the highest immigration risk. There may be good reasons for the accreditation by Ofsted and its devolved equivalents of all tier 4 sponsors and for making them all highly trusted sponsors, as suggested in the IA, but are these changes in the statement? I do not see them either in the statement or in the Explanatory Memorandum. HTS accreditation costs £14,000, and I am told that all colleges, including those offering only the extended student visitor courses of up to 11 months not covered by tier 4, need to obtain this status in order to be considered favourably by applicants and their agents overseas.

I do not see, either, the changes in the English Language requirement mentioned on page 11 of the impact assessment, demanding B2 for undergraduates and above, and B1 for lower-level courses. Perhaps the Minister could point out where this is mentioned in the statement. There is enough paperwork to be digested in assessing the statement without the inclusion of text that refers to some other provision.

The estimates given for the reduction in student numbers and the costs and benefits arising from the changes in this statement and its predecessor, taken together, are subject to huge margins of uncertainty, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out. Increases in the levels of fees are bound to put off many applicants as well and the danger is that the combined effect of these increases and the present changes, together with increased competition from overseas, will seriously damage an industry that, according to an independent study for BIS, produces something like £14 billion of annual exports, potentially increasing to £26 billion in 2025. Reductions in the fee income from overseas students may undermine the high standards that we have always maintained in both higher and further education, driving students into the arms of our competitors and producing negative feedback—a threat not taken into consideration in the IA. Nor has account been taken of the intangible loss of the tens of thousands of former students who have attended our universities and colleges of further education all over the world and the links that they have with the United Kingdom.

The Government’s commitment to reducing immigration numbers, and their inability to attack other routes such as work or asylum, have led them to concentrate on education, relying on dodgy and unverifiable statistics and ignoring inconvenient responses to the consultation to arrive at conclusions already determined. I certainly hope that I am wrong in fearing the damage that may be caused by the measures that we are taking. I hope that my noble friend will be able to offer me an assurance that the Government will closely monitor the immediate effects of the changes in this and the previous statement on the higher and further education sector, and be prepared with remedial policies if it does turn out that we have impaired the contribution that they make to our economy by even more than the £2.4 billion we are already throwing away.

Localism Bill

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Avebury]

170B: After Clause 124, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning permission for sites for Gypsies and Travellers
In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after section 77 insert—“77A Planning permission for sites for gypsies and travellers
(1) The Secretary of State may direct a local planning authority to grant planning permission for an application involving development which provides a site for the accommodation of a specified number of gypsies and travellers.
(2) In the East of England and South West regions, the specified number of gypsies and travellers under subsection (1) may not exceed any number specified for that local authority in the regional strategy.
(3) In the North West and South East regions, and in any other region where there is a report by the independent panel appointed by the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the specified number of gypsies and travellers under subsection (1) may not exceed the number for that local planning authority in the independent panel report.
(4) In any other region, the specified number of gypsies and travellers under subsection (1) may not exceed the number in the gypsy and traveller accommodation needs assessment conducted under section 225 of the Housing Act 2004.
(5) In this section “gypsies and travellers” has the meaning given by regulations made under section 225 of the Housing Act 2004.
(6) The reference to a regional strategy applies to the regional strategy in place at the abolition of regional strategies under section 94 of the Localism Act 2011.””

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has just said that planning is a matter of getting the balance right. My amendment attempts to do that in the case of Gypsies and Travellers, the purpose being to ensure that caravan-dwelling Gypsies and Travellers have somewhere to live.

There are 18,300 who retain a strong cultural aversion to housing which is left over from the days when the whole Gypsy population was nomadic. Of these, some 3,000 now live in unauthorised developments or encampments, so that almost one in five of the population is statutorily homeless. That proportion had begun to decline over the past three years as a result of circular 01/06 and the establishment of target figures for planning permissions for Gypsy sites in every district of England through a three-stage process. First, there were the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments, conducted by experts on behalf of local authorities; secondly, public inquiries on the results of those assessments; and, thirdly, a review at the regional level providing that a minimum of 15 pitches were to be provided in every district, regardless of assessed need, and reducing the number in some authorities which had more than a proportionate existing population of Gypsies, such as Basildon in Essex.

As your Lordships may have seen, 90 families are being evicted from the Dale Farm site in that borough, while other local authorities in the county have been avoiding planning for any Gypsy sites up till now. This is an emergency situation which could be solved only by allowing the families who are to be evicted to relocate on to publicly owned land in the neighbourhood where temporary planning permission could be sought pending a permanent solution. Otherwise, these 90 families will be thrown onto the roadside, with all the trauma and disruption that that would involve for them, especially the children.

I repeat the suggestion I made to my noble friend Lady Wilcox that some of the land that is to be transferred by the regional development agencies to the Homes and Communities Agency could be earmarked for Gypsy sites because, if by some miracle the amendment were to be accepted, having the right numbers in plans would be no guarantee that local authorities would be able or willing to identify the tiny amounts of land to satisfy the need. This would be a possible immediate solution to the Basildon problem. Amending the purposes for which RDA land is to be used would be a simple matter, if there was political will.

The previous system was intended to satisfy local residents that, much as they objected to having Gypsies and Travellers in their neighbourhood, the small number they were being asked to accept was reasonable and had been worked out carefully and methodically, with a view to eliminating the unauthorised encampments that are a legitimate cause of complaint—not only against the homeless Gypsies but against Governments motivated by cowardice and barely concealed hostility towards Gypsies and Travellers.

Just as the Bill makes an exception for major infrastructure projects, we believe that a different approach is necessary—albeit for different reasons—in the case of planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Left to their own devices, local authorities will never make adequate provision for the number of Gypsies and Travellers who still live in caravans, in spite of all the obstacles that they have to face—as proved by the experience of the past half century. I had understood that the coalition would concentrate on the matters that had been agreed between the two parties. Leaving aside the points on which there were differences, tearing up the whole strategy for dealing with Gypsies and Travellers was a denial of that promise.

However, the numbers remain. Therefore, in the amendment we reinforce the numbers by requiring every local authority to grant planning permission for a specified number of pitches. In the case of the two regions where the numbers were in a completed regional strategy, those are the numbers. In the two regions where the penultimate stage had been reached, of a report by the independent panel, the numbers are those in the panel report; and in the remaining regions, we take the numbers that were in the GTAAs. We should have specified the minimum of 15 pitches for every local authority, but this can be added on Report if the Government agree to this amendment in principle.

Amendment 170C provides that the same numbers should be a “material consideration” in determining planning appeals in respect of Gypsy sites in the relevant authorities. That is not my preferred choice, but if we make no reference to the numbers at all, we already know what is going to happen. A report by the Irish Travellers Movement in Britain, a copy of which I sent to the Minister last week, details the responses of 100 local authorities in three different regions to inquiries about their pitch targets. In the east of England, the targets were 36 per cent below those in the regional strategy; in the south-west, the reduction was 32 per cent compared with the emerging regional strategy; and in the south-east, it was 82 per cent. Overall, there was a reduction of just over half in the plans, and there was widespread delay and uncertainty about how to proceed. This research confirms with a vengeance the fear, expressed by the CLG Select Committee in another place in its report of 28 February, that,

“abolition of RSSs will reduce the provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers and make it harder for local authorities to share out sites over an area larger than the local authority”.

The committee quoted with approval the written evidence they had from six different sets of witnesses, all asserting that the planning vacuum would have an adverse effect on the provision of sites, and effectively saying that over the longer term the new framework, or rather the lack of any framework, would mean an increase in the number of unauthorised sites. It gives me a feeling of déjà vu, from the similarly predictable disaster of 1994, when the 1968 Act was repealed. I said then—several times—that repeal would have a disastrous effect on the provision of sites, and so it did.

I now say, without fear of reasoned contradiction, that without this amendment many local authorities will not grant permission for any sites whatever, as the Mayor of London, for example, has indicated. In his draft London Plan under the previous system, 524 extra pitches were to be provided. That was then reduced in March 2010, close to the election, to 236 and then in October he scrapped the numbers altogether, leaving the boroughs to decide their own strategies, if any. The replies from individual authorities to the ITMB survey showed that many had taken advantage of the new freedom to reduce targets but many more had just not bothered to adopt targets at all because of alleged shortcomings in the evidence base in the GTAAs, abandonment of the 15 minimum, what was locally acceptable or that they were waiting for the replacement of circular 01/06, which I believe is about to appear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, it would be impossible to respond to my noble friend's amendment without paying tribute to his lifetime's support to Gypsies, Travellers and those in housing need.

The previous Government's model of top-down pitch targets has not delivered. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of caravans on unauthorised developments increased from 728 to 2,395. That is the caravan count published by DCLG. Local authorities are best placed to assess the needs of their communities, including Travellers. Our proposed planning policy asks local authorities to set targets for Traveller sites that are underpinned by a strong evidence base. The policy set out clear consequences for those authorities which do not make available land to meet the need that they have identified. The duty to co-operate will ensure that local authorities continue to work together on strategic issues. It will require local planning authorities, county councils and other public bodies to engage constructively, actively, and on an ongoing basis in the planning process. Local authorities will be required to demonstrate compliance with the duty as part of the public examination of local plans. If an authority cannot demonstrate that it has complied with the duty, its plan will not pass the independent examination.

A policy-led approach is a more appropriate one through which to address provision of sites through the planning system. The national, regional and local need for accommodation for Travellers would be a relevant material consideration for the decision-maker in any event. The planning, compulsory purchase and town and country planning Acts require that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Any consideration which relates to the use or development of land is capable of being a material consideration.

On Amendment 182, which is linked with Amendments 170B and 170C in the Marshalled List, the majority of new Traveller sites are small, private ones provided by Travellers themselves, not local authorities. That meets community aspirations on tenure, and their small size can aid integration with the settled community. A duty for local authorities to provide sites would therefore not be appropriate.

That was the finding of a recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report, entitled Assessing Local Authorities’ Progress in Meeting the Accommodation Needs of Gypsy and Traveller Communities in England and Wales: 2010 Update. The DCLG-chaired, cross-government ministerial working group on Gypsy and Traveller inequality includes a work stream to encourage new development of small, private sites and better publicity of the success of existing small private sites. That work was included following consultation with members and representatives of the Travelling community, among whom there is a consensus that such site accommodation is preferable to public sites provision.

The planning system is therefore the key place to deliver the provision. The Government published our proposed new planning policy for Traveller sites on 13 April. It tells local authorities to use a robust evidence base of local need, to set targets for sites and identify land to meet those targets. The draft policy is out to consultation. When I got the notes, they said until 6 July, but it has been pushed on to 3 August, so if noble Lords want to give their views, they are welcome to do so and have until 3 August. Local authorities are subject to a statutory duty under Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 to carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their district when they are undertaking a review of housing need in their district under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985. All local authorities prepare Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments under that duty, and some, such as Somerset County Council, have begun undertaking new assessments of need for Travellers residing in or resorting to their areas.

Given my response, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for drawing attention to the duty to co-operate. However, I do not attach any great confidence to that when you consider what has happened in the Essex region. Basildon has a large number of Gypsies and Travellers, more than it would have been asked to provide for under the previous Government’s system, and other local authorities within the county have done nothing whatever. Although this duty has been passed, there is no method for compelling the other local authorities to comply with it, so I do not consider it very effective.

I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply and for the kind remarks that he made about the work that I have done over the past 47 years on behalf of Gypsies and Travellers. If I do not get anywhere with this Bill, it will be a major disappointment. We have been here before, in 1994, when the 1968 Act was torn up. For many years after that, hardly anything happened at all. We were beginning to make some progress under the previous legislation. My noble friend said that the figures between 2000 and 2010 show that there was an increase in the number of unauthorised encampments and developments. However, looking at the last three years, the number was beginning to decline as a result of circular 01/06 and the obligations that had been placed on local authorities to carry out a detailed assessment of the numbers of Gypsies and Travellers who should be accommodated because they were residing in or resorting to the area. That was followed by extensive public inquiries and the redistribution of the obligation between the local authorities in an area.

Now the Government have decided—the Minister reiterated this—that local authorities are to be required to set targets for Traveller sites. I am asking why they would bother to do that when they have already done it. They have consulted experts and arrived at figures that have been validated by these public inquiries. Therefore, I am afraid that I do not attach very much confidence to what my noble friend said. Although I will comply with his request to cut my remarks short on this occasion, I intend to return to this issue on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 170B withdrawn.

Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Congestion Charges and Parking Fines

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords—

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my sense is that the House would like to hear from my noble friend Lord Tebbit and then from my noble friend Lord Avebury.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend knows the details of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, under which diplomatic cars are inviolable. Therefore, we cannot clamp them.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a helpful suggestion. The Government should seek statutory power to tow away any vehicle that has been the subject of several previous parking fines that remain unpaid.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I repeat the point that I just made. Diplomatic cars are inviolable. The other problem is that we could get into a tit-for-tat situation with our diplomats overseas. I suggest that that would not be a sensible course of action. It would be much better to continue to apply the pressure that we do.

Travellers: Dale Farm

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what amounts have been promised, by which government departments, as contributions towards the costs of policing proposed evictions at Dale Farm.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Home Office has agreed to set aside contingency funding, up to a maximum of £4.65 million, to assist with the costs of policing the proposed evictions at Dale Farm. The final grant awarded will be agreed after the operation and will only cover the costs incurred. In addition, the Department for Communities and Local Government has committed to provide up to £1.2 million to Basildon Borough Council to support the evictions at Dale Farm.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the decision to spend £117,000 per family on eviction of these people from the Dale Farm site considering that there are no other sites in the county to which they could be directed? Does this policy not simply mean that another £18 million will have to be spent by local authorities down the line on evicting the same families from even less suitable locations, to say nothing of the downstream costs on health, education and the social costs arising from these evictions?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, this is an extremely difficult and sensitive issue which my noble friend has worked on to good effect for decades. He suggests that this is an inappropriate use of potentially several million pounds of public money. However, there will be no need for any expensive police operation if those served with eviction notices leave within 28 days having exhausted all their appeal rights under our well developed system of justice and the rule of law. Why should one community group be allowed to flout our planning laws by suggesting disorder and thus an unaffordable police operation while a lone family or individual is easily required to comply?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Earl makes an extremely important point. If we carry on not properly educating Traveller children we will never break the cycle, because it is very difficult for Traveller families to engage in fully legitimate economic activity if they have not been properly educated. I referred to undertakings in my answer to the noble Baroness: the local authority has to deal with these issues.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain where these people are supposed to go, considering that there are no other sites in Essex, and no sites in the county plan?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the local authority has obligations under the law of homelessness, as the noble Lord fully appreciates. I go back to my original point: we cannot allow people to flout our planning laws.