Gypsies and Travellers (Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend is right, and I thank him for making that point. Councillors are often directed to make difficult decisions on behalf of the wider community. On the night before a local election, those councillors said that only a Labour council could fight off the attack of having more Travellers in our community, and they are now running a campaign suggesting that the chosen sites in London Colney are near housing, a paddling pool and a children’s play area. The Government, however, have urged us to look for sites that provide a better quality of life, so I suggest that they have a word with their Labour councillors. Frustration is no doubt fuelled by the fact that we believe that we have no voice in the consultation. May I draw the Minister’s attention to a phrase in the EERA consultation that refers to"““wider distribution and choice for Gypsies and Travellers””?" Given the itinerant nature of that community, will she explain to my constituents why one section of society has been singled out for choice and diversity of accommodation, while the settled community, which has pressing housing needs, has received no special consideration? The consultation finished at the end of May and is now closed, and the contentious options are being considered. I hope that the Minister has read the consultation, will listen to the issues that are raised today, and will intervene before any new decisions are made on the spatial strategy revision. I wish to draw her attention to questions in the consultation that were irrelevant or puzzling to residents. The first was:"““Do you think 1,220 net additional pitches is a reasonable estimate of the level of unmet need for residential pitch provision taking into account how this may change over the period until 2011?””" I suggest that local people would find it impossible to answer that question in an informed way because they were given no information or data on which to draw. The second question, which was equally taxing, was:"““If you think 1,220 net additional residential pitches is not a reasonable estimate of need what alternative level do you think is a more reasonable estimate of need at 2011? And please make clear why.””" The document, however, points out:"““Establishing facts about Gypsies and Travellers in the East of England is not always easy...For instance there is no reliable figure currently available for numbers of Gypsies or Travellers resident in the region.””" Will the Minister tell my constituents how on earth they were supposed to answer those detailed and technical questions that will inform Traveller provision in my constituency and other constituencies? I doubt whether a simple reply such as, ““No more pitches for St. Albans, thank you; we believe that we have provided enough for our area””, would be taken as an informed, evidence-based view in the consultation. I think that that would be discounted as nimbyism. Question six was equally loaded and asked:"““Is it reasonable to accept the principle that each local council area should seek to provide at least one additional site?””" The terminology has moved on from pitches to sites, which can have vastly different consequences, although I am not sure whether the public would pick up on that. A pitch can vary in size and hold up to three vehicles, but sites have no specific size criteria. What exactly have my constituents, and other constituents who have taken part in the consultation, been asked to agree to? There were other equally impossible-to-answer questions, which I shall not go into, but I hope that the Minister has gained the flavour of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the consultation, which EERA undertook at the Government’s behest, and which will have important and far-reaching consequences for my constituents. There is a vacuum of information, which prevents balanced planning decisions from being made. Without that information, the planning system is being used to bulldoze through a huge social project of the Government’s making and which I believe is ill informed. By their own admission, the Government have little informed or accurate data on the Gypsy and travelling community and, as with any other proposed development, I suggest that they scrap the findings of the consultation, whatever they are—I hope that I have demonstrated that they are not informed—ignore totally useless and speculative responses to unanswerable questions, and do considerably more work on, and rigorous study of, the issue before asking my constituents to help to put their plans into practice. My constituents are understandably concerned about the proposals, and the impact on their local area and their quality of life. They simply want to be treated fairly and reasonably.