New clause 5 - Removal of unauthorised encampments and waste
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
10:30 am
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
We now come to two new clauses. I shall be quite frank about the fact that I drafted the first and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath drafted the second. I am sure that he will explain the reason for the difference, should he catch your eye, Mr. Cran. We both address an issue that I hope strikes a chord not only with us but with Members in many parts of the House.
I have heard Labour Back Benchers speak in the House about the mess and other problems that can arise from unauthorised traveller encampments. That is a very serious problem in my constituency. Cambridgeshire has a long-standing history of hosting traveller populations that goes back to the days of casual agricultural labour. Those days are long gone, but Cambridgeshire still features strongly in the travellers' itinerary. Some counties are fortunate to be almost exempt from that itinerary, but those such as ours are not. I have heard Labour Members who represent much more urban areas also complaining about the problems.
There have been a number of attempts in legislation to address the problem of unauthorised traveller encampments on both public and private land. By far the most significant attempt to deal with the problem was the Criminal Justice and Public Order
Act 1994, in particular sections 61 and 62. One theme that has emerged from the Committee's proceedings is that although there are many powers in place, for one reason or another they are not used. I am attempting with new clause 5 to redraft section 61 of the 1994 Act slightly to remove some of the excuses for failing to take any action that police and public authorities have put to me. I do not pretend that I have necessarily got rid of all those excuses and I do not know what the Minister will say, but I am anxious that we try to ensure that there is no excuse for not using the powers to deal with unauthorised encampments that Parliament has given to police and local authorities.
Such encampments are a tremendous problem. Only this week there was a headline in the Cambridge Evening News about how two of my constituents had been burgled for the 192nd time. Their fence abuts on to a legal traveller encampment—there is great resentment that it is there, but there it is by the grace of the district and county councils. There is no doubt that those constituents and others whose houses abut the camp have been the constant victims of crime ever since it has been there. The crime has been not only burglary, but the throwing of rubbish over the fence, the breaking down of fences and so on.
That is a serious case, but over Easter my constituency also saw a huge influx of travellers. Most were in vehicles bearing Irish number plates, so there was nothing traditional or local about them—they were genuine itinerants. They came into the area and settled, in some cases on public land and in others on private land. The problem is not just that travellers come and park somewhere, causing an horrendous visual blight, but that there is a criminal element among them who use that facility to carry out burglary and robbery in the vicinity. Police officers are convinced of that, although it would of course be wrong to brand every traveller as criminal. I strongly doubt that it is any coincidence that a number of workshops have been burgled in the vicinity of my village in the two or three weeks since there has been an illegal traveller encampment three miles down the road. I think that the two are linked.
At present, the only recourse that private landowners have when a number of caravans arrive on their property is to go to court to obtain an eviction order. Only when the landowner has that eviction order will the police take any action to remove those caravans. The process is time-consuming and costs something in the ballpark of £1,000, but that is not all. Once that has been achieved, assuming that the travellers are removed, they leave behind them the most awful mess. They leave burned-out vehicles, scrap, broken glass and, perhaps worst of all, a vast amount of human waste—not just food waste, but faeces. It is unimaginable, unless one has been in the unfortunate position of seeing it for oneself. In new clause 5, I am seeking to require not only that those individuals be removed, but that they take with them all the waste that they have created.
I take the site that I have referred to—three miles from my village—as an example. It is 100 yd outside my constituency, but it is very close to where I live. The travellers there were removed after the landowner
went to court last week. He has been put to immense expense in order to clear the area. He is in the process of spending even more money to construct an earth bank of about 150 m to prevent the travellers from re-entering that site.
I am grateful for the supportive words that I hear from the Labour Back Benchers. The Minister may not be grateful, but I am. Those problems are not an exclusive feature of Conservative constituencies; it is a serious antisocial problem.
I see that the Government Whip has returned; the nodding will have to stop.
New clause 5 seeks to do several things. First, it seeks to remove from section 61 of the 1994 Act two of the criteria that a senior police officer must meet before he can take action. The first criterion that must be met is
''that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his''.
That is not too difficult to achieve. If one goes anywhere near them, one is told where to go.
The second criterion that must be met is
''that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land.''
I do not believe that threshold needs to exist. I am seeking to remove those two elements.
I am also seeking to remove section 61(2) of the Act. That is another loophole. It states:
''Where the persons in question are reasonably believed by the senior police officer to be persons who were not originally trespassers but have become trespassers on the land, the officer must reasonably believe that the other conditions specified in subsection (1) are satisfied after those persons became trespassers before he can exercise the power conferred by that subsection.''
That gives more excuses and opportunity for action to be contested in the courts—more opportunity for inaction. That subsection should be removed. I have also added that all waste must be removed because there is a question mark over whether property includes waste. I am anxious that when people are removed from land, they should be forced to clear that land.
It has been clear from the Committee's reaction while I have been speaking that it is a huge problem. It is totally and utterly antisocial, and is of huge cost to the landowner. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath will explain some of his experiences in his constituency, and why he has addressed the matter slightly differently. However, we are both trying to achieve the same end. I do not know whether I have got new clause 5 absolutely right; I do not have the help of parliamentary draftsmen. However, I ask the Minister to take very seriously the need to remove from current legislation every excuse for inaction. It is far too full of excuses, and of references to courts and to local authority departments. I am not belittling the need to look after families, but if one asks a social services department for advice on the welfare of a particular family, that request will go to the bottom of
its list, because it has many other things to do. Meanwhile, that family is parked on someone's land, despoiling the countryside or the community and causing various problems.
We need short, simple legislation to let the police know that if people are illegally parked for the purposes of residing on the land, they should be removed, assuming that that is what the owner of the land wants, and should take with them everything that they brought on to the site. That process should take place expeditiously. That is the only satisfactory way to remove what has become a blight on large parts of my constituency, and on urban and rural constituencies throughout the country. The problem is the same whether it concerns waste land or a green field, and must be resolved. I therefore hope that the Minister will heed not only my words, but the acknowledgment of the hon. Members who sit behind him, and accept that although my wording may not be perfect, the issue is serious.
Earlier in the Committee's discussions, the Minister said several times that the Government were undertaking reviews of various issues. I do not want to belittle his reviews, but taking action two or three years down the road is inadequate. The issue must be addressed quickly, and the Bill is a good vehicle to deal with it. It clearly, if I may say so, fits the Bill. I hope that the Minister, even if he cannot accept my proposal, will use the Bill as a vehicle to tighten up the legislation and to ensure that the powers that have been given are used swiftly and effectively.