| Anti-social Behaviour Bill
|
|
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): I am sorry that the Minister was not present for the whole of my introductory speech moving the new clause. Had he been, he might have understood even more clearly the strength of feeling and the justification for it. I welcome the Minister's closing remarks. I am sure that the whole Committee will be interested to see the consultation document. I strongly commend to him the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). He should take the Hansard for today's proceedings as part of the response to the consultation. There has been great Column Number: 436 unanimity on the issues across the Committee. I said from the outset that I did not pretend that the new clause was absolutely right, nor did I expect it to cover every issue. That is why my hon. Friend tabled new clause 11 to cover ownership, which is also a factor in my constituency and in many others.In my constituency I have always strenuously made the point that I do not criticise those who wish to have an itinerant lifestyle. That is their choice—I am a libertarian and I consider it to be a free world—but obligations go with that choice. Those obligations are the same as for those who live a conventional lifestyle. All must obey the law and not interfere beyond reason with how others live their lives. We have heard today how a significant proportion of travellers, although certainly not all, do interfere with those who live more conventional lives. That is what we seek to combat. The Minister said that we should not link travellers and criminality. I was at pains not to make that link 100 per cent., but the Minister does himself a disservice if he does not recognise the widespread view in the community—a view shared by some police officers—that many travellers are involved in criminality. I will not put a percentage on it, but it is certainly higher than the percentage for the rest of the population. Many senior police officers make that point to me. We should not shy away from that out of any form of political correctness. This debate is about a culture of behaviour. If people wish to have a certain lifestyle that is fine, as long as they accept the same norms of behaviour as the rest of us do. As the hon. Member for Gedling rightly said, the Bill is about setting a series of norms—drawing a line in the sand, as he put it—for what is acceptable and what is not. The Bill is therefore a useful vehicle to deal with this problem. The Minister referred to existing legislation by which public bodies, the police and local authorities can deal with unauthorised encampments and the other problems caused by travellers, but in far too many cases that is not happening. I hope that the guidance that the Minister is talking about will be adequate, but I have my reservations. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) mentioned children. We have seen how they have been used by some as a means of preventing actions under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. No one pretends that the needs of children should not be taken into account, but that should not prevent the other powers from being used to protect the rest of society. Liz Blackman: Is it not therefore important that we take up the Minister's offer to see the guidance at this point? Yes, a certain amount of information will transfer into the process, but there will be other points that hon. Members wish to make. Mr. Paice: I thought that I had made it clear that I welcome the Minister's offer to show us the guidance. I am still entitled to have my reservations until I have seen it in action and know whether it works. Column Number: 437
3 pmThe Minister referred to the sufficiency of authorised sites but, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South said, many travellers will not use them. My constituency has a large number of authorised sites, many of which are half empty. Yet there are unauthorised sites that cause the problems that I described. The Minister and those who, as he said, are not present would be mistaken to believe that simply ensuring that there are enough sites will solve the problem; it will not. There are many who, for all sorts of reasons including family disputes or feuds—they seem to be commonplace among some traveller fraternities—will not use existing sites if someone else is on them. However, that does not excuse unauthorised encampments on public or, as it relates to new clause 5, private land, which cause immense cost and inconvenience to the private landowner—a business or an individual—who has to deal with the problem. That is the reality of the world we live in. Every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate has spoken about the mess that the travellers make and I want to stress that issue. Part of my objective in tabling the new clause was to get rid of that mess, make the travellers liable for it and require them to take it with them when they move. Unless I am mistaken, the Minister did not say anything about it when he talked about the guidance, but I hope he will give the matter due thought in his consideration of it and of the results of the consultation. The message from his hon. Friends is as strong as it is from Conservative Members, that the mess is a major part of the problem. The hon. Member for Crawley thought that unauthorised encampments would be more acceptable if it were not for the waste, and that is probably true. The mess and the smell of the detritus left behind is horrendous. The Minister is mistaken if he does not accept that that is an issue. Mr. Hawkins: As my hon. Friend knows, I agree with everything he says, especially his last point. Does he agree that when the Government review the issue—the Minister helpfully said that he was taking all our points into account—they need to understand that if all the laws that could be used against travellers were enforced, and proper financial penalties were levied on them, they might not then be in a financial position to benefit from the black economy? Thus they could not use the tactic they have used in my constituency: using their ill-gotten gains from the black economy to buy sites. Would not it be a way to ensure that the mess was cleared up if they had to pay for it? It would also prevent them from buying sites. Mr. Paice: To be honest, I am not sure I go all the way with my hon. Friend. I shall not say that they all have ill-gotten gains; it is not for me to know how some of them make their money, but I suspect that some have obtained money that at the very least they probably have not declared to the Inland Revenue. That is putting it as politely as I can. Travelling people should be subject to the same legislation, including tax legislation, as the rest of us. That is the sort of issue that annoys, frustrates and angers our constituents who obey the law and pay their taxes. They find it astonishing that some people apparently do not do so. Column Number: 438 I welcome the Minister's remarks about the guidance, which I hope is as strong in finding a better balance as he implied that it would be. There is widespread frustration, which he has witnessed today, that the current measure, however carefully drafted it is and however proper it appears, is not working. It is not being used in the way that the instigators, from all parties, wanted it to be used and we must take the matter further. I hope that the results of the Minister's consultation will be available before the Bill completes its passage, so that further legislation to toughen it up may be incorporated if necessary. This has been a very useful debate. Without wishing to pre-empt what may happen in later stages, it has probably created more unanimity than any other debate during the Committee's proceedings. As its instigator, I am pleased by that. I hope that the Minister will accept that unanimity and produce something that helps all our constituents who suffer greatly from the problem that we have been discussing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 22 May 2003 |
