In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10,
a Motion was submitted by Councillor Lumby as follows. The Motion was seconded by Councillor Brook.
"This Council commits to write
to Central Government urging the urgent creation of criminal
offences of trespass when setting up an unauthorised encampment,
entering upon land as a trespasser with the purpose of residing
there in a vehicle and residing in an unauthorised
encampment."
Councillor Lumby introduced the
Motion and in summary raised the following points:
- It was recognised that that 96.6% of the
Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities used authorised
sites.
- The government’s consultation on the
criminalisation of trespass to create unauthorised encampments was
between November 2019 and March 2020. To date, no further
information had been forthcoming.
- Test Valley Borough Council had passed a
similarly worded motion in September of this year. The southern parishes of this district have now
asked for the council to consider its position regarding the
matter.
- Unauthorised encampments continued to be a
regular issue across the whole of the district, in the countryside
and in the city.
- Waste left behind following an unauthorised
encampment, if not cleaned up by communities, was a cost to the
council. There were also instances of
criminal activity and fear and unease in some
communities.
- Officers of the council have strategies in
place to deal with encampments, including producing court orders to
move unauthorised encampments on. This
takes on average 5 days and takes resource to complete. A quicker process was now required that allowed
the police to act without a court order. There should be disincentives to not create
encampments in the first place.
- The district needs to have sufficient
authorised sites to move the 4.4% who currently used unauthorised
encampments to.
During the debate
which followed on the Motion, in summary, the following points were
made:
- A Member
detailed their experiences of unauthorised encampments within their
community which had resulted in litter, disturbance and antisocial
and criminal behaviour.
- The motion
could impact on vulnerable, homeless people. For example, it would criminalise rough sleepers
or those sleeping in cars and encourage them to conceal themselves
which could mean that the council would be unable to locate and
provide assistance.
- There does
need to be improvements to how illegal encampments on private land
is able to be dealt with – but not from criminalising
activity. It cannot be assumed that the police would be able to
prioritise, and they had responded negatively to the
consultation.
- Without
site allocation, there could be further marginalisation of sectors
of our society.
- There were
probably adequate criminal processes already in place to deal with
some unexceptional behaviour experienced in some
communities.
- The motion
over-simplified a complex issue.
- The
council should come back to consider the matter once the government
had responded to the consultation.
- There was
concern that there was debate on a motion that would impact
primarily on one ethnic group. Support
of the motion may show an implicit policy direction of the council
regarding the matter – without having firstly considered all
associated issues, including equality and human rights.
- The Human
Rights Act served one sector of the community and abused another as
a consequence, i.e. the right to peacefully enjoy their own
property.
- Unauthorised encampments on open space and public land can have
a detrimental impact on those living close to the land that is
being occupied.
- Some
encampments had not resulted in trespass and so the proposals would
be unnecessary in such cases.
- Sites can
be allocated appropriately and having regard to infrastructure
(such as schools and GPs) to help ensure there was an inclusive
approach to gypsies and travellers as part of the
community.
- The Motion
would save money and officer and court time.
Before voting on the motion, the mover of the
motion (Councillor Lumby) gave his right of reply:
- There are issues for the traveller
communities, but there were issues for residents regarding
intimidation and fear when there was an unauthorised encampment
close by.
- Need an effective solution simply to
speed up the process of gaining possession, which currently takes
around 5 days. Also to encourage the
traveling communities to make use of the existing authorised
sites.
As it was the request of more than five
Members present in the meeting, a recorded vote was taken on the
motion.
Division Lists
The
following Members voted in favour of the motion:
Councillors Brook, Clementon, Cook, Cunningham, Gemmell,
Godfrey, Griffiths, Horrill, Humby, Lumby, Mather, Mclean, Miller,
Pearson, Read, Ruffell, Scott, Weston
The
following Members voted against the motion:
Councillors Achwal, Becker, Bell, Bentote, Bronk, Clear,
Craske,
Cutler, Evans, Fern, Ferguson, Gordon-Smith, Green, Hiscock,
Hutchison,
Laming, Learney, Murphy, Porter, Power, Prince, Rutter,
Thompson, Tod,
Weir, Williams
There were
no Members abstaining from voting on the
motion
Motion lost.
RESOLVED:
That
the motion as set out above be not carried.