|
Column Number: 429
Standing Committee G
Thursday 22 May 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]
New clause 5
Removal of unauthorised
encampments and waste
'.—The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows:
In Section 61 (Power to remove trespassers on land)
(a) For subsection (1) there is substituted—
''(1) If the senior police office present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period and that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave he may direct those persons or any of them to leave the land and to remove any vehicles, other property or waste they have with them on the land or which appears to the officer to be connected to their presence on the land.''.
(b) Subsection (2) is omitted.
(c) In Subsection (4) there is inserted after paragraph (b)—
''(c) Fails to remove any vehicles, other property or waste which he has with him on the land or which appears to be connected to his presence on the land.''.
(d) In Subsection (6) paragraph (b) is omitted.'.—[Mr. Paice.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question proposed [this day]: That the clause be read a Second time.
2.30 pm
Question again proposed.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
New clause 11—Deliberate despoiling and/or mis-use of land—
'(1) The Chief Executive Officer of the relevant local authority may make an eviction order in relation to premises to which this section applies if he reasonably believes that—
(a) a public nuisance is being caused by deliberate despoiling or mis-use of land by the owners or occupiers of that land;
(b) the eviction of any persons whether owners or occupiers or trespassers or visitors is necessary to prevent that nuisance and/or to correct the despoiling or mis-use of the land.
(2) A person commits an offence if he permits or authorises the continuing mis-use or despoiling of land or creation of a public nuisance on it or aids or abets others to do so.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
(b) a fine not exceeding £20,000,
(c) both.'.
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): It is a pleasure to be back on my feet after the luncheon interval, which gave me a good opportunity to collect my thoughts, although they may not necessarily be any more coherent. As we are within striking distance of the winning post I do not want to delay the Committee long.
Column Number: 430
Unauthorised incursions by travellers have been of great concern to many of my constituents. As I was saying just before lunch, one of the most alarming developments in the past few years has been the increased use of car parks, private and public, by travellers. When they use private company car parks, they cause not only untold unpleasantness, but severe commercial restriction. Despite legislation being passed, either there is confusion or different authorities claim that the problem is not a matter for them. Anything that would clarify the position would be welcome.
The frustration caused by the incursions is understandable. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) talked about the noise at night from generators parked near to people's houses. During the summer months when windows are open, both the smell and the noise come through. I am worried that some of the people affected will take the law into their own hands. I am especially worried about bank holiday weekends when local authority staff are stretched. None of us would condone such action, but the public need to know that there are strong measures that can be used.
The number of people who agree with the statements that were made this morning show that this is not a question of bigots who do not want to co-exist peacefully with others. I have an authorised travellers site in my constituency and I have been working with the community there. I have learned a lot about their way of life, and I have tried to improve conditions and the education of their children. The travellers themselves say that one of the biggest causes of antipathy towards them is the bad press that results from unauthorised incursions. The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that some of the travellers who make unauthorised incursions do not want to go to the official sites even if there is space.
Thankfully, serious problems have not occurred in Hillingdon in recent months. Having said that, I am sure that that caravans are now massing at the border and will arrive on a bit of land this coming bank holiday. The problem has not been so severe recently because of the strong action taken by the local authority and the Metropolitan police, but it has been serious in the past in my area and it remains so elsewhere. The Government should consider how they can help.
Liz Blackman (Erewash): I, too, can relate several awful incidents when groups of travellers have visited my constituency and left the sort of legacy of despoilment that other members of the Committee have described. Crime has increased and there have been acts of intimidation. Inevitably, the price of that conduct has been paid by the local authority and therefore by the local taxpayer.
The new clauses are born of the frustration felt by all Members of Parliament and our communities. We do not necessarily want more to be done; instead, we want what is being done to be done more quickly, efficiently and effectively. I share that frustration. Local authorities have been hamstrung to some degree by their duty under the welfare principle. However, on 15 January 2002 in a Westminster Hall debate, my
Column Number: 431
hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), then a Home Office Minister, stressed that travellers should—[Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. Will whoever has the bleeper please switch it off?
Liz Blackman: Thank you, Mr. Cran.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey argued that travellers should be accorded the same human rights as others, but that human rights considerations did not prevent the use of the law to prevent illegal trespass leading to antisocial or criminal behaviour. She said to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay):
''The right hon. Gentleman might be interested in a recent case in the High Court in which section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—the part that encompasses police powers—was challenged and found not incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I hope that that is another reassurance that he will take away with him. Each operation by the police is subject to challenge on the same grounds, so the police must bear the Human Rights Act in mind. However, within the context of what I have just said—that all people's rights are equal in our society—if people behave in an antisocial or criminal way, or in some of the ways that the right hon. Gentleman outlined, the full force of the law can and should be brought to bear.''—[Official Report, 15 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 67WH.]
That is quite clear. The point at issue is therefore enforcement, which is the subject of the new clauses and of our concerns.
The Government have none the less recognised that police powers need to be beefed up so that they can challenge unauthorised campers. Consultation is under way on guidance on how to do precisely that. Will the Minister let the Committee know how that consultation is proceeding? The intention behind the guidance is clearly to enable the police, the local authority and all parties concerned about such dire behaviour to deal with it more effectively. I hope that he will accept the intention behind the new clauses, which is to achieve what we all want.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling): Most of us agree with the aims of the new clauses, which are designed to undo the frustration that we all feel when it appears that existing powers cannot be used for all sorts of bemusing reasons. If the Minister is going to ask for the new clause to be withdrawn, we need to think about how we can make existing legislation effective and use the Bill to improve matters.
As members of the Committee know, it has been a recurring theme of mine that we should use the Bill to draw a line in the sand and say that the culture has to change. Our debate on the new clause has touched on the clash between individual rights and the general good of the community. Nothing is more important than individual rights, and most of us accept that each individual has certain inalienable rights, but they must be seen alongside the good of the community. The ''rights'' of certain individuals to create mayhem are taking precedence over ordinary people's ability to carry on with their lives, as evidenced by the activities of certain traveller groups.
Column Number: 432
The balance of rights is out of kilter, and I believe that the aim of the new clause is to rebalance them, not to trample over the rights of individuals who may have lifestyles that we do not consider to be normal, or of people who are eccentric and who drive around in a caravan or on a horse and cart and like living under the stars. People have a right to live like that if they want to, provided that doing so is not to the disadvantage of others. That goes to the heart of the Bill and almost every clause of it. We are having a very interesting philosophical debate about individual rights, collective rights and the general good. It is vital to balance individual rights with the general good and the protection of the individual whose rights are being infringed by people who will not conform. If we do not do that, the Bill will fail.
Laura Moffatt (Crawley): The new clauses address two aspects of illegal encampment. Even short-term illegal encampments by passing groups of travellers would be better tolerated by communities if the site was left in decent order. The reason why people have become more intolerant is that the sites are left in the most appalling mess. That is what communities find so difficult to put up with. Does he agree that people have been pushed to this point because of the filthy state in which the sites have been left?
| 
