Unauthorised Encampments

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me in this debate, not least because I have in my constituency a very large community of travellers, some of whom have been resident there for a very long time. Some live on the Good Friday site, which came about, predictably, on Good Friday when a group of Travellers moved in. They fell under the third category of Travellers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), whom I congratulate on securing this debate. Those in that category buy land and then illegally improve it.

The group moved in with diggers and concrete-laying equipment, and laid out a properly made up caravan site. They had no permission, and, unfortunately, the council was caught napping. The chief executive was not available and nor were the councillors who might have been able to do something about it. As a result, we have a major problem there. Other sites in the area that have been purchased and then improved without permission have also proved to be very difficult to remove. That infuriates local communities more than any other issue. We have seen such developments across Warwickshire, Hampshire and Gloucestershire, and it infuriates law-abiding constituents to see the law flouted in such a way.

A related issue is the allocation of housing after an appeal. In the Markfield area of my constituency, a site went to appeal and, as a result, 112 new houses, which had been opposed by local people, are now being imposed on the community. That further increases the tension, not least because at Groby, just by Markfield, I have had another problem of illegal encampments on roads.

What we need is a new policy. I very much welcome the plans of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to introduce new powers for councils in relation to Traveller sites. The plans do not excuse councils from not implementing the existing rules; for planning officers, that can be a huge challenge because such an issue is not necessarily at the top of the list. Nonetheless, I welcome the plans to give new powers to local authorities.

In addition, we should not automatically be expanding areas on which we have a large number of existing sites. There should be a fairer distribution across the country. [Interruption.] I am most grateful for the applause from my hon. Friends. It is absurd that this tiny community in my constituency, between Bagworth, Newbold Verdon and Barlestone, should have a disproportionate number of sites. Moreover, why should we not put the new sites nearer roads, so that travellers can actually travel? Not all the communities are settled.

Why allow travelling people who are coming into the area to park their caravans way off the roads? The situation has been further exacerbated by the policy in the Republic of Ireland, which, paradoxically, took a very tough line with itinerants. As a result, we have a large number coming over here.

Moreover, we also have large numbers of illegals coming over from the European Union. Romanians, for example, have chosen to come into the area. I have to say that Leicestershire county council has been magnificent in the way in which it has helped the children of those communities in the schools. In particular, Barlestone Primary Church of England School, which has a disproportionate number of Traveller children, has made very great efforts.

Notwithstanding how we feel about trying to help such minority communities, we have to come back to the fact that the majority is very dissatisfied. If we have a situation in which most people think that the law is an ass, they will take the law into their own hands. On that note, I will end and ask the Minister to take note of my concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gray]

I noticed that episode when it was recently mentioned in the newspapers, but that has not been my experience. All the illegally occupied sites in my constituency, and I think throughout the west country, have gone on to be fully occupied by Gypsies and Travellers. I have not seen any being sold on, although I suppose there is no reason why they should not be. However, I have my doubts about whether a local authority would give planning permission to a settled person to take over a Gypsy encampment afterwards. I certainly recommend that it should not.

The numbers are extremely interesting. When I was special adviser to the then Secretary of State for the Environment we had the great joy of repealing the legislation that required local authorities to make provision for Gypsies and Travellers in their counties. We did so because when the Labour Government passed the provisions there were, from memory, 3,500 illegally parked caravans in England. In 1996, by the time we had repealed them, there were 6,000 illegally parked caravans, so the illegals had more or less doubled. That was in addition to the 7,000 pitches that local authorities had by then provided. Those authorities had provided twice as many pitches as they were required to under the Act, and a further 6,000 were illegally parked. That total of 13,000 caravans in England has now become 18,355, according to a recent survey. The number went from 3,500 to 18,500 in as many years.

[David Tredinnick]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point, which can perhaps be illustrated by a comparison with road building. When an extra lane is put on a motorway it does not solve the problem; it just brings in another lane’s worth of traffic.

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend is right. It is what I would describe as a Parkinson’s law of Gypsy caravans. No matter how many sites are provided for them, more appear. That takes us back to the original question of the definition of what those people are. Who are Gypsies? What are Romanies? What definition do we have under the law? The answer is none at all: the more sites are provided, the more people appear to fill them.

I therefore do not subscribe at all to the underlying principle behind planning policy guidance note 01/06 that somehow a local authority must demonstrate that it has made adequate provision. It is not possible for a local authority to demonstrate that. No matter how many sites it provides, it is perfectly possible for the Gypsy and Traveller community to say that there are not enough. Indeed, there seems to be a moth-to-a-flame attraction: the more sites are provided in a county, the more Gypsies and Travellers appear to try to fill them. Wiltshire and the west country as a whole seem to be a bit of a hot spot for that.

That seems to me to be completely wrong, and the Government have indicated their intention to address the situation. We must do so by abolishing Lord Prescott’s planning guidance note and the regional spatial strategy and by telling local authorities exactly what they are told in relation to homeless people from the settled community: the rule for the settled community is that if someone needs a council house they go to see the local authority or—too often—their MP, or a housing association. To get a house one must demonstrate need, in a certain prioritised way, and a local connection. If someone came to my constituency surgery and said, “Hello; I come from Inverness and I am homeless. I want you to get in touch with the local authority and get me a council house,” I would say, “I’m awfully sorry. You must get back to Inverness and get your council house there. You aren’t going to get one in Wiltshire because we demand a local connection.” Precisely the same applies to the Gypsy community. They are very nice people. A number are close friends of mine. Those who live in Wiltshire have a right to proper Gypsy encampments there. However, those who come to Wiltshire from elsewhere have no right to demand that the people of Wiltshire should pay for sites to accommodate them. Exactly the same rules should apply to them as to anyone else with regard to planning and housing.

An example from my constituency, which I think is an outrage, highlights what has gone wrong with our planning process. A very nice lady came to see me. She had an organic farm in the village of Box in my constituency. She had a caravan, in which she lived, in the centre of the organic farm, which was about 15 acres. Rather bizarrely, the local authority looked at the profitability of the organic farm and concluded that it was not profitable and was not a going concern, and that she could not make it a going concern. Had it been profitable my constituent would have been allowed to carry on living in the caravan. That in itself is bizarre. She was required to leave the caravan, although, incidentally, she was allowed to leave it for chickens. It could remain where it was as long as she did not live in it. Fine so far.

Next door, just down the road, is an entirely vacant field that was bought at a very high price by a group of Travellers. They moved on to the site and are in the same position as the non-Traveller organic farmer. They went to appeal and said, “We are Gypsies” and the inspector was required by law to give them permission to remain in the field, adjacent to the one from which someone from the settled community had been removed. That seems to me to be disgraceful. There is no reason why any group in society—white, black, green, gay, straight, Chinese or anything you like—should have different planning rules from those affecting anyone else. There should be one law for one, and one law for all.