New Clause 22 - Obligation to provide and facilitate provision of caravan sites
Housing Bill
6:45 pm

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 23—Amendment of the Housing Act 1996—

'(1) The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 18(1) after ''housing'' there is inserted ''or caravan site management and provision activities''.

(3) In section 2(2), after paragraph (c) there is inserted—

''(d) caravan sites for Gypsies and Travellers as defined by section 24(8) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 as amended.''.'.

New clause 24—Definitions—

''In this Part—

''Accommodation'' includes temporary stopping places as well as permanent accommodation.

''Gypsies and Travellers'' means Gypsies, Irish Travellers and such other groups as are established to be racial groups under the Race Relations Act 1976 and all other people who are of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such, but does include those who do not travel but retain nomadic character by reason of—

(a) the person's history including family history;

(b) the reasons for ceasing to travel;

(c) the person's future wishes and intentions to resume travelling when or if the reasons for settling have ceased to apply; and

(d) the person's attitude to living in a caravan rather than a conventional house.'.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

Gypsies have had a rough time. I think that that is all I will have time to say, although this is a serious issue. I am moving the new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). She gave me four pages of notes, all very serious stuff, but the gist of the argument is that if the United Kingdom is looking for decent homes for most of our citizens in England and Wales, we cannot exclude a significant minority of people who have been excluded for such a long time. They cannot find public sector sites any more. The statutory changes made in 1994 expected them to find their own land and build their own permanent sites, but local authority after local authority has denied them that possibility by refusing planning permission.

At some significant point in the future, we have to look at the position in Britain of the Romany and of Travellers in general in a much more serious light than we can this evening. In view of the lateness of the hour, that is all that I can add.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this topic towards the end of the Committee. It is important to make provisions for Gypsies and Travellers. I served for a number of years on Wiltshire county council at a time when sites were designated. That designation was accompanied by Government grants so that provision was made for Gypsies and Travellers. The main advantage for the county council was that it allowed greater legal force to move Gypsies and Travellers on from areas where they should not be. One of the retrograde steps taken by the Conservative Government was that they stopped the grants and decided to move away from designation. I supported that Government in general, but I did not do so on this issue. I think that many of the problems that we have had have been compounded by that wrong Government decision.

I note that the new clause deals purely with planning purposes. However, to deal with an issue that many of our constituents perceive to be a problem, we have to make proper provision—sometimes through local authority sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The Government ought seriously to consider returning to

the previous scheme. It worked well when authorities took advantage of it, and the authorities that had difficulties were those that did not opt for designation. As a Front-Bench Member, I put my hand up and admit that the previous Government made a mistake. Fortunately, the Major Government did not make many mistakes; however, that was certainly one of them. Ministers in the Department ought to consider seriously whether we ought to go backwards or forwards on the issue.

Mr Edward Davey (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

It is great when people repent. The hon. Gentleman did so with grace, and I am pleased about that. This group of new clauses is serious and enjoys support from many quarters. The National Farmers Union, for example, has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow to urge him to support the new clause, which we shall do if it is put to a vote.

We are talking about the rights not only of Gypsies and Travellers but of the surrounding communities. Because Gypsies and Travellers are forced to try to find land, they often come into conflict with communities. There are a number of examples of that from my constituency. Because there are no more designated sites under the grant regime, Travellers have tried to find land, which has caused huge problems because they have done so in an unplanned, quite anarchic way, and have often resorted to breaking the law. That perpetuates the antipathy that communities sometimes feel towards them. The group of new clauses would trigger a policy review by the Government, which would help both Gypsies and Travellers, and the wider communities that we represent. The group has great merit and I hope that the Minister will give it proper consideration.

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)

This group of new clauses is important, but we do not have time for a long debate now. I should like to make it clear that I agree with the premise behind the group, which is that the present housing provision and planning systems do not adequately deal with site provision and the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. Local authorities do not assess their housing needs as they do the needs of the settled population. The planning system does not allow Gypsies and Travellers to identify sites themselves, which the evidence shows is increasingly what they choose to do. It is hard to find appropriate sites, which means that more and more development takes place on inappropriate sites, which can result in difficult consequences for the planning system and community cohesion, and in confrontation. I therefore agree with the premise.

A major review is now under way. Officials in the Department are holding a series of seminars with stakeholders, considering the issue in great detail. We are looking at incorporating the consideration of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers into the mainstream of the housing needs assessment and the planning system, because those needs are not now so considered. The problem with the previous system, which had certain advantages derived from the duty in

legislation, treated the category of Gypsies and Travellers as an add-on that could easily be lopped off as soon as the political climate changed.

We want to consider how, ideally, we can bring such needs into the mainstream. We have not yet reached any final conclusions about whether that would require primary legislation, although we are obviously mindful of the Bill's timetable. Such matters can be addressed through secondary legislation and by changing how the housing needs assessment and planning system work—for example, by revising circular 1/94 to make it easier for Gypsies and Travellers to identify their own sites and get support in doing so. That is currently under way.

We completely agree with new clause 23, which is about housing corporations being able to provide funding for Gypsies and Travellers. That might also be done through secondary legislation, but we agree with the principle of implementing the intention behind the proposal. New clause 24, which asks for reconsideration of the definition of Gypsies and Travellers, is perhaps the stickiest and most difficult. There are different definitions in race relations legislation and the planning regime, which focuses on land use rather than ethnic definitions. However, again, we are keen to consider the issue further, as part of the review.

On that basis, I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East to withdraw the clause. We agree with the broad intention, but believe that at present there may be other ways of more effectively delivering what we are trying to achieve.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

I am grateful to hear what the Minister has said, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, too, will be pleased to read those remarks tomorrow. We need a serious debate on this matter, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

It being five minutes to Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [20 January 2004], as amended, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.