Housing and Planning Bill (Ninth sitting)
Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Teresa Pearce(8 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 84, page 34, leave out lines 19 and 20.
This amendment would retain sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004 regarding accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers.
I thank you, Sir Alan, and the Committee for allowing this hollow starred amendment to be considered. Before I start, I would like to express my personal interest in this subject. Thamesmead was built on the marshlands on the south of the Thames, where many marsh Gypsies and Travellers have historically lived, so we have a large Traveller community in my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead, and this is therefore something I feel quite strongly about.
Amendment 136 would lead to the retention of sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004. Section 225 requires every local authority, when carrying out a review of local housing needs under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, to carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers who reside in the area. Section 226 provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how local housing authorities can meet those needs. Clause 84 will remove the requirement for local authorities to make an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers when considering local housing need.
There has clearly been, and continues to be, a need to recognise the differing housing needs of Gypsies and Travellers. Anyone with a basic understanding of Gypsies and Travellers would appreciate that they have different housing needs. The impact assessment states that the aim of the policy is to
“ensure that all members of the community are treated equally”;
but we can treat people equally only if we fully assess their needs. People should be treated equally, but without a needs assessment, I do not think that can happen. The assessment also states:
“The Government recognises a perception of differential treatment in favour of Gypsies and Travellers.”
There may be such a perception, but surely we should legislate on the basis not of perceptions but of facts.
The Committee has seen a wealth of evidence about how devastating the impact on Gypsy and Traveller communities could be. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted:
“The former Commission for Racial Equality concluded in 2006 that Gypsies and Irish Travellers are the most excluded groups in Britain today”.
Provision for the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers continues to be lacking, and the foundation commented:
“The Equality and Humans Rights Commission, in reviewing activity since the 2004 Act, concluded that the overall rate of progress was slow, but that there were a number of positive aspects emerging, in terms of the types of sites being developed, and their permanence.”
The foundation went on to call for
“a continued focussed assessment of this community’s particular needs”
and for the requirement to assess Gypsy and Traveller needs to be retained.
The national charity Friends, Families and Travellers submitted evidence to the Committee. It is concerned that the provisions that are in place weaken the understanding of the specific accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. The 2007 Department for Communities and Local Government guidance on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments—that is a long title—states:
“In the past, the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers…have not routinely formed part of the process by which local authorities assess people’s housing needs. The consequences of this have been that the current and projected accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have often not been well understood.”
Friends, Families and Travellers is concerned that removing the requirement specifically to assess the accommodation need of Gypsies and Travellers will result in an even higher rate of homelessness in the communities as even fewer sites to meet their assessed need will be delivered, and even less land will be allocated in local plans. It highlights the concern that, as a result of the shortage of authorised sites, Gypsies and Travellers will have no alternative but to camp in an unauthorised manner, which has an impact not only on their community but on surrounding settled communities. Without authorised sites, they will have difficulty in getting access to running water, toilets, refuse collections, schools and employment opportunities. Local authorities already spend millions of pounds each year on unauthorised encampments, in legal costs, evictions, blocking off land from encampment and clear-up costs. Friends, Families and Travellers highlights a lose-lose situation, where Gypsies’ and Travellers’ needs are not assessed or met, and local communities are affected as a consequence.
The Community Law Partnership also expressed concern about the impact of the clause. It is concerned that Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs will be
“buried within general housing need.”
It highlighted the fact that Gypsies and Travellers
“are traditionally hard to reach groups, and as such require focused guidance for local authorities to assess their needs.”
It is also concerned that there has not been consultation on the proposals, and questions the recent consultation on planning and Travellers.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that good local authorities that plan ahead put arrangements in place, by way of emergency stopping places, which allow, in extremis, a number of Gypsies and Travellers to reside there temporarily? Although it takes time and is subject to consultation, which can be very fraught, that is the case with many authorities.
Teresa Pearce
That is the case with good local authorities but, as we all know from experience, some local authorities are better than others. We want people to be treated equally, no matter which local authority they fall within.
The London Gypsy and Traveller Unit is also concerned at the intention to,
“incorporate the needs of Gypsies and Travellers within the general housing needs assessments.”
It even produced three short films to raise awareness of the proposed changes within the Gypsy and Traveller community. It believes that,
“general housing needs studies such as Strategic Housing Market Assessments are unable to pick up the needs of marginalised, hard to reach communities such as Gypsies and Travellers.”
It adds that,
“these studies are based on demographic projections which are not disaggregated by ethnicity”
and often on limited direct surveys, which are likely to miss off the entire Gypsy and Traveller population. The unit believes that as
“Gypsy and Traveller site provision is generally faced with enormous opposition, it is crucial to have in place positive policies that recognise the full extent of need, as well as site allocations which enable the delivery of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in suitable locations.”
The National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups—the umbrella group for liaison groups across the UK —submitted written evidence questioning the proposal’s compatibility with the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010. Heine Planning Consultancy submitted written evidence supporting the retention of a duty to consider Traveller housing need and expressing further concerns at the impact of removing that requirement.
Michael Hargreaves, of Michael Hargreaves Planning, raised concern about the implications of deleting sections 225 and 226. He raised concern about the confusion and uncertainty for local authorities and about the impact on Gypsies and Travellers, and he believes the change will lead to anger and frustration in that community. He supports widening, not narrowing, the support to meet Travellers’ and Gypsies’ housing need.
The Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group believes that it is important that we have a mechanism to assist Gypsy and Traveller families with their accommodation needs, and that the proposals will worsen the housing situation for those communities.
The Traveller Movement, a leading national charity working in partnership with the community, highlights a number of concerns. All available data show that Gypsies and Travellers do not receive favourable treatment in the planning system. The Traveller Movement highlights a chronic shortage of Traveller sites and says that that shortage will grow in the future. It notes:
“Gypsies and Travellers already experience some of the poorest social outcomes of any group in our society and accommodation is a key determinant of these wider inequalities.”
It questions the legal implications of the proposals, which I will come to in a moment, and it does not support the removal of sections 225 and 226.
We also saw submissions from Ruston Planning Ltd, Hereford Travellers Support and the all-party group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, which raised further concerns about the proposals. In addition, we saw a written submission from the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, the main representative body for travelling showpeople, which shared its extreme concern about these proposals and their impact on its members’ work. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the impact on travelling showpeople. I would also be grateful for any reassurances he can give the guild and showpeople that the provisions will not impact them.
Policy on this issue is different across the nations. The Welsh Government are taking a different approach, introducing a statutory duty on local authorities to facilitate site provision for Gypsies and Travellers.
The amendment is necessary to continue support for Traveller and Gypsy communities, which are some of the most excluded groups in Britain. There are also legality issues, which I hope the Minister will be able to respond to.
The Community Law Partnership highlights the public sector equality duty. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are recognised as ethnic minorities, and the Government acknowledge that there is a shortage of suitable sites for them, so will the Minister comment on the potential under-provision of suitable sites, given that the needs of these groups will not be properly assessed?
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the UK has an obligation to facilitate the traditional way of life of Gypsies and Travellers. I shall be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether the removal of sections 225 and 226 would go against that.
Our amendment would ensure the retention of sections 225 and 226. That would ensure that Gypsies’ and Travellers’ housing needs continue to be assessed by local authorities. That would make sure that safe sites can continue to be identified for Gypsies and Travellers, avoiding the lose-lose situation in the Bill, where an under-represented group faces the prospect of its housing need being swallowed up by general housing need.
As it stands, the clause would lead to many unintended consequences: a shortage of authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers; a rise in unauthorised sites; less safety for Gypsies and Travellers; and greater pressures on local authorities and local communities. I therefore hope the Committee will consider the amendment.
Mr Jackson
I rise to oppose the hon. Lady’s position and to support the Government. The Government’s position is quite courageous, because this is obviously an incendiary issue, not least at local level. We in the east of England have been bedevilled over the years by unauthorised and illegal encampments. Indeed, I have had some choice words with my own local superintendent, who has failed to properly use his powers under the relevant legislation, even when emergency stopping places have been provided for Traveller families. The position in the north of Cambridgeshire is not quite as bad as it has been in the south, around Cambridge, but it has nevertheless been very difficult.
Mr Jackson
I am just developing my comments, and I will not detain the Committee too long. But let us establish something right from the outset. The general housing needs of the population, which will reflect the social, economic and demographic profile of a particular district, borough, city, unitary or county council, are reflected in the housing plan and the decisions taken by an authority based on the evidence available from professional officers. That evidence is given to elected members so they can bring forward the county structure plan, which is now the regional spatial strategy—the local district plan. That will take into account the preponderance in favour of local authorities having to house Gypsy and Traveller families.
Were the legislation to be changed along the lines set out by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, it would single out a particular group, and circumscribe the autonomy of the local housing authority and its authority to make reasonable changes and accommodations for particular individuals. That would exacerbate the resentment—and sometimes anger—among the settled community, who would feel that their housing needs were being disregarded in favour of a special group. Whether we agree with that or not, that is the perception there would no doubt be.
I say to the hon. Lady that I agree that the Government would be wise to look at the issue of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, but let us see whether we can nuance the existing legislation, which, as I have mentioned, gives rise to the provision of emergency stopping places. If there is a proper consultation, then let us all be honest: in the London Borough of Greenwich, in Northumberland and in Durham, there will be brownfield sites, which are not in commercial or industrial use and may be near an urban centre, that could be used as emergency stopping places.
I am not convinced that local authorities have been sufficiently robust in investigating those options. Perhaps the Department for Communities and Local Government has more to do to encourage them to consult and to look at best practice. It has been a tortuous process for my city council, not least because many of the councillors in the nice leafy villages to the west of Peterborough did not want them there; they wanted them in the east of Peterborough, which I represent. I lost out and three of our emergency stopping places are now in the east of Peterborough. We have borne that burden for the good of the community, and more local authorities can learn from their neighbours in that respect.
Teresa Pearce
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be saying that local authorities should be pressed to do more, but surely they would be so pressed by getting them to assess housing needs. That is not contradictory.
Mr Jackson
That is if one assumes that local authorities are not already discharging their proper statutory functions in providing appropriate housing, where they can, with registered providers to everyone who needs it in their local community. My difficulty with the hon. Lady’s amendment is that it singles out a particular group and would exacerbate community tension. I am not convinced that in practical, pragmatic terms it would deliver more housing for that group. I agree that more work needs to be done, but we need a less prescriptive, less heavy-handed approach. For that reason, I will resist the amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)
Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Teresa Pearce(8 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
What estimate has the hon. Lady made of the indicative costs of the proposal? As she knows, when local authorities proceed properly with selective licensing consultations under the Housing Act 2004, the cost can be prohibitive. In areas such as mine, which has a lot of people who do not speak English as their first language and a lot of transitory people domiciled in the private sector—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Harrow West let me finish? In that situation, the costs were quite substantial. Has the hon. Lady given that some thought?
Teresa Pearce
I have given thought to that, which is why I talked about “reasonable effort”. The original amendment said that the local authority “must” consult. It now asks for a “reasonable effort”, which is open to interpretation. Of course, there are costs in doing things properly, but we are trying to rid the private rented sector of rogue landlords who commit criminal offences by keeping people in properties that are unfit and unsafe. There is a cost, but the cost of not doing something could be far higher for the local authority.
Are banning orders only a way to punish criminal landlords or are they a way to improve standards in the sector by working with landlords and tenants to drive out rogue landlords? It will be fundamental to the success of banning orders for tenants to be brought in on the process. Not all tenants will want to play a part in the process and that is fine. The aim behind the amendment is for local housing authorities to consult affected tenants, ensuring they have the opportunity to have their say. If tenants have been subject to wrongdoing by a landlord, they will be able to provide further and wider evidence to the local housing authority. The landlord may have been prosecuted for one offence but could have demonstrated a consistent disregard for the tenant’s security and safety. That could be factored in by the local housing authority in the first-tier tribunal. It works both ways. The local housing authority and the first-tier tribunal could factor in positive experiences from tenants, although I suspect that those cases will be few and far between. In all cases, it will allow for the local housing authority and the first-tier tribunal to build up a more coherent case for or against a banning order.
I hope the Minister looks favourably on the suggestion because it would make this section of the Bill work better. For those reasons, we are moving that the clause be amended to include a requirement for the local housing authority to consult directly with any tenants of the rogue landlord or letting agent against whom it is hoping to make a banning order.
Mr Thomas
I rise to support the amendment and to add one or two brief thoughts. What would my hon. Friend, who spoke to the amendment in a very consensual style, think about a local authority that has not rushed into taking action against landlords because, for ideological reasons, it does not think it should or because the burden of other legislation in this time of significant cutbacks is too much for it to prioritise taking action against rogue landlords? The amendment would create that additional bit of pressure to ensure that local housing authorities always think of the need to consult tenants on an annual basis about whether rogue landlords are in action and whether the authority should act on that.
Let us take South Norfolk Council as an example. Presumably whenever the hon. Member for South Norfolk sees housing authority staff, he sits down and talks with them at some length about self-build and custom house building. Presumably, given his importance and the esteem in which he is held, it requires a considerable effort by those staff to deal with his inquiries. What my hon. Friend’s amendment will do is gently rebalance perhaps the enthusiasm within South Norfolk housing authority to focus on the needs of tenants, as well as dealing with his concerns. As I alluded to, there might be an authority—a Bexley or Bromley, perhaps, in London—that is so pro-landlord that it cannot envisage rogue landlords operating in its space.
Given that the Minister is determined—it seems to me, at least—to adopt the nanny state approach and not allow tenants themselves to go to the first-tier tribunal, my hon. Friend’s amendment would at least force local authorities to consider whether there is a need to take action. In that sense, it would be a useful annual prod to get local authorities to do a bit more in this area.