What estimate she has made of the number of Gypsy caravans which are illegally parked on (a) land owned by caravan owners and (b) other land.

The count of Gypsy and Traveller caravans in England undertaken in July 2008 showed that there were 2,240 caravans on land owned by Gypsies without planning permission and 1,750 caravans on land not owned by Gypsies. This demonstrates the need to provide more authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers.

Last Saturday, a large group of Travellers moved on to a site at Hullavington in my constituency, which they own but for which they have no planning permission, and immediately lodged an application for retrospective planning permission. If the recent experience at Minety, also in my constituency, is anything to go by, they will be allowed to stay on that site, either permanently or at least temporarily, for the very reason that they are Gypsies. How can that be justified alongside the experience of my constituent, Miss Tina Johnston, in neighbouring Box, who is not a Gypsy but lives in a caravan on her farm? She has recently been thrown off the farm because she does not have planning permission; meanwhile, down the road, the Gypsies are being allowed to stay on the site because they are Gypsies. Surely there should be one law for Gypsies and for settled people.

On there being one law for Gypsies and Travellers and one law for the settled community, I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is one law for this country, and it is applied equally to Gypsies and Travellers and to the settled community. On the specific example that he gives, he will realise that, because of the Secretary of State's role in the planning process, I cannot possibly comment. However, I can say in general terms that retrospective planning applications are a respected part of our planning process that is used for Gypsies and Travellers and for the settled community.

I recommend that people, whether they are Gypsies, Travellers or members of the settled community, work closely with their local authorities. There is not an automatic assumption that when there is development on land, planning permission will be granted. A comprehensive and co-ordinated accommodation needs assessment for Gypsies and Travellers will provide local authorities with much greater tools.

The recent report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission showed that reasonable progress had been made on providing enough authorised Gypsy and Traveller sites, but that the Government will not reach their targets by 2011 unless a greater effort is made. What does my hon. Friend suggest can be done to ensure that we reach those targets and thus prevent the problem of illegal sites?

I thank my hon. Friend for the question and pay tribute to her fantastic work in her role as chair of the all-party group on the matter. Good progress has been made, as she suggests, but it is very important that we have a degree of political consensus. It is in no one's interests for Gypsies and Travellers to be set against the settled community. We need a comprehensive range of accommodation needs assessments in place to ensure that authorised sites are brought forward; otherwise, we will have community tensions and increased enforcement costs for local authorities and taxpayers. That is in no one's interests, so I hope that Members in all parts of the House—and, crucially, local authorities—can work together to ensure that we bring forward those much-needed accommodation assessments.

May I put it to the Minister that his claims that we have a planning system that treats everyone equally are at odds with the recent experience of my constituents in Prince's Risborough? Over the Easter weekend, Travellers moved on to land that they own that is both green belt and part of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. They are now using retrospective planning applications to try to defeat efforts by the district council to enforce stop orders and see the land restored. It is this business whereby people who pre-empt the planning system seem to gain an advantage that arouses such indignation and resentment from people who play by the rules.

I reiterate many of the comments that I made to Mr. Gray. Retrospective planning applications are a fundamental part of our planning process and apply equally—I stress the word "equally"—to Gypsies and Travellers and to members of the settled community. [Interruption.] As with the hon. Gentleman's point, Mr. Lidington knows that I cannot comment on specific matters, but he mentions green belt, and there is an automatic presumption against inappropriate development on green belt land. Gypsies and Travellers— [Interruption.]

Order. It must not be the case that when an hon. Member asks a question, he keeps interrupting the Minister. That is just not right.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is an automatic presumption against inappropriate development of green belt land. Gypsy and Traveller accommodation sites are classed firmly as inappropriate development in the planning guidance, and I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's local planning authority will take that into account.

Does my hon. Friend agree that where local authorities provide good facilities for Travellers, including an adequate number of pitches, by and large Travellers will not go on illegal sites? Also, the local authority will gain from them by charging a decent rent.

As ever, my hon. Friend makes incredibly sensible points. She is absolutely right. The provision of more authorised sites reduces tension and enforcement costs and ensures that we have good community relations between Gypsy and Traveller communities and settled communities. The identification and provision of more authorised sites is the way to go to ensure that we can deal with this problem.

The Minister mentioned in an earlier answer the necessity for a qualitative needs assessment of Gypsies and Travellers. Does he agree that any assessment should take into account both health care and education and employment needs, and that any sensible assessment would conclude that Gypsy and Traveller sites need to be near dentists, doctors, hospitals, schools and employment? They should be near to where those facilities are available—not in rural villages where there is no public transport and no such services, miles from anywhere.

I agree with the hon. Lady—she is right about access to health care and other public services. There are huge disparities and inequalities between Gypsies' and Travellers' life expectancy and educational attainment, and those of the settled community. It is the Government's job to try to help address that. Provision of sites close to health facilities such as dentists' and doctors' surgeries, and to good schools, is vital, but there are of course good schools, dentists and doctors in rural areas, too. Local areas and authorities are best placed to assess that.