HC Deb 17 March 1969 vol 780 cc145-59

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read a Second time.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

I am glad to see such a goodly attendance for the debate on this historic Measure. This is a general power Bill, much of it in the kind of terms of which the House will be well aware in relation to local authority general powers Measures, but I take it that the House, even as full as it is, would not be interested in all 93 Clauses of the Bill. For instance, it would not be of importance to the House to know that the sheriff requires some remuneration or even why there is a sheriff of York at all, or what help it will be to clarify the boundaries of freemen's wards. I shall therefore concentrate on two Clauses which I know have caused some controversy among hon. Members, and which, as I understand it, have caused the debate to take place

I hope that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) will soon be in his place, since he is most concerned with the first Clause to which I shall refer, namely, Clause 13, which relates to the exacting of tolls from vessels using the stretch of the River Ouse which is administered by the trustees of the River Ouse. Those trustees are the Corporation of the City of York, and they are such, I believe, by Royal Charter, but certainly for the purpose of private Acts going back to 1725.

The stretch of the river which comes within the Corporation's authority is 42 miles, 28 miles of which is tidal, below Naburn Locks to the Hook Railway Bridge. The rest is non-tidal, above Naburn Locks. The problem is that for many years the trustees have had power under these Private Acts to administer tolls above Naburn Locks in the non-tidal stretch, but due to decline of river traffic above the locks the tolls exacted have for many years not been sufficient to meet the expenditure required for the upkeep of the locks and navigation along the total stretch. The result is that a deficit has accumulated, now standing at about £99,000. In addition, there are debts amounting to about £50,000 which cannot be met by the existing rate of tolls.

The problem has been that if the tolls were increased to a more realistic figure above the locks the fall-off of river traffic would be accelerated, whereas river traffic below the locks has continued to flourish and so far has made no contribution to the general upkeep of the navigation along this stretch.

The Transport Act, 1962, created river boards and gave the British Transport Commission and the Docks Board powers to levy tolls in areas of navigation under their control. By Section 52 of that Act the independent inland waterway undertakings were given similar powers to exact tolls in relation to their stretches of navigation. In my view, the section was sufficient to cover the York trustees and they could levy tolls on the tidal stretch, but when the town clerk took counsel's opinion, counsel had some hesitation, and it was decided to clear the matter up by inserting Clause 13. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, Sections 43 and 52 of the 1962 Act are held to apply to the trustees; so tolls can be imposed in that tidal stretch.

Already, the trustees have prepared tolls for cargo vessels and pleasure craft and have put them to the Ministry of Transport—not because they were under a statutory obligation to do so, but so that the tolls could be vetted to see if they accorded with the prices and incomes policy. I am happy to say that, only recently, the Minister confirmed that the tolls fell within the policy and that we would have no objection, provided that, instead of a 3d. limit per ton mile on cargo vessels, the trustees did not impose initially a toll of more than Id. per ton mile.

The trustees never intended to do this, but were always content to limit the increase to Id. initially, leaving the maximum to be reached whenever the inflation of costs made it necessary or desirable. But they have always recognised that if tolls are imposed on river traffic when other forms of inland transport offer strong competition, more traffic will be driven off the river. A balance has to be struck. The trustees are aware of this, particularly as they have had the problem for many years in the non-tidal stretch of their concern. Publicity should be given to the fact that they will not act precipitately and that they are anxious to be as reasonable as their finances will allow them.

The second Clause which has caused controversy is Clause 30. Here, the Corporation was concerned about the problem of itinerant caravan dwellers parking on unoccupied spaces in the city, particularly those which had been subject of slum clearance. This problem is not unique to York. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who has taken an interest in these matters, brought forward recently the 1968 Caravan Sites Act, which was intended to deal with this problem. The hon. Member deals with it in the second part of that Act by providing that spaces shall be set aside within each local authority area for caravan dwellers, particularly, within the terms of the Act for gypsies. When those sites have been obtained and notified, the Minister should allow the other parts of Part II to come into effect, which would give the authority power to move on caravan dwellers who occupy pieces of land other than the authorised caravan site. In other words, there is both a stick and a carrot.

York Corporation has acted in advance of the implementation of the 1968 Act because Part II of that Act is not yet in effect. I understand that the hon. Member for Orpington may have something to say about that, Mr. Speaker, if he catches your eye. Until it comes into effect, the York local authority is under no obligation to provide any sites for caravan dwellers. Nevertheless, it has done so. It has provided a site in Love Lane designed to take about 15 caravans, and the proposal, as is not unnatural in the circumstances, has met with some resistance from local residents. The matter is before the Minister to consider whether a public inquiry is desirable. If he thinks it is desirable, then a public inquiry will have to take place in relation to that proposal.

But the local authority is anxious to comply with the obligations which will be imposed upon it under the 1968 Act. The local authority took its duty so seriously that it has undertaken voluntarily to provide that site. But it follows that if it is to act in advance of the compulsory powers under the 1968 Act, it should also have the stick, which at present it does not have in any provision either under a local law or under the general law. Therefore, the local authority proposes under the Bill to take power to move on caravan dwellers who occupy otherwise unoccupied pieces of land in the City. The Corporation proposes—this is not written into the Bill—that that power should exist until Part II of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, comes into effect.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

Am I correct in assuming that the powers conferred on York Corporation by Clause 30 come into effect immediately the Bill receives the Royal Assent? Will the hon. Member, therefore, not agree that there is a difference between the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, and the York Corporation Bill in that under my Act the powers to control unauthorised encampments do not come into effect until local authorities have provided sites, whereas in the Bill the powers pre-date the provision of sites?

Mr. Lyon

If the hon. Member had been patient enough to wait he would have discovered that I was coming to that point. He is correct. In the Bill we propose to take the stick and not provide the carrot. That is partly, as I have indicated, because the carrot has already been provided; the space is being provided voluntarily. Secondly, it seems to me to be an unusual requirement of a local authority that it should put a burden upon itself within its own general powers Bill to provide sites which it is voluntarily prepared to provide.

The local authority is well aware of the feelings of caravan dwellers, and particularly those of such itinerant caravan dwellers as gypsies, and of the feelings of the residents in the areas in which these caravan dwellers congregate. What it is trying to do is to effect justice between residents, both temporary and permanent, within the city. As I understand it, that was the intention of Part II of his Act. That is also the intention of the York Corporation. It is quite true that it is not putting upon itself the statutory burden to provide such a site, but it has not lost sight of the necessity for providing both the site and the power to move on those who occupy unoccupied waste land.

Therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the good intentions and good faith of the York Corporation in this matter and recognise that, if not unique, it is unusual for a local authority to provide a caravan site so early before the implementation of Part II of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968.

I do not wish to detain the House with any other matter in the Bill. If a point occurs to any hon. Member which he wishes to air, I hope that I shall be given leave to reply to it at the end of the debate and to any other matter that I have not been able to deal with at this stage.

One final matter which may cause concern to some hon. Members arises in Clauses 32 and 33. They provide very unusual powers in a general powers Bill, but they are required by reason of the historic buildings and amenities of the City of York. They restrict the kinds of advertisement which may be displayed inside or outside a building, and they also restrict the power of owners or occupiers to paint the exteriors of buildings, apart from the gutters, doors and windows. The powers are required because it is desired to preserve the historic core of the City of York for posterity in as much detail and with as much of the existing townscape as possible.

The Ministry is very much aware of the problems posed by an historic city of this kind. For that purpose, it has appointed the consultant, Lord Esher, to prepare a report about the problems of conserving the historic core of the city. His report has just been received, and he makes the point in it that it is desirable to restrict the kind of garish advertising which can sometimes occur not only on the exterior of a building, which to some extent is restricted by the town planning provisions which are part of the general law, but also on the interior of a building. He also makes some pointed remarks about the painting of some of the buildings. I have letters from the York Georgian Society strongly supporting both powers and indicating the necessity for them within a city like York.

I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to proceed to Committee.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) says, I have been caused some anxiety by the provisions of Clause 30. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I explain why the Clause has wider implications than may appear at first sight.

The Clause allows the corporation to … prohibit any person from causing or permitting a caravan … to be placed and left on any open space, waste land or other unenclosed land of any description As I have explained, my objection to it is that it duplicates some of the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Government have not yet seen fit to bring into force. Although the provisions of the Clause parallel those of Section 10 of my Act, in some respects they go rather wider in the offence they create, and would have fairly far-reaching consequences if the example were to be followed not only by York but my many other local authorities which have provisions of this kind in Measures which they are at present attempting to bring before the House.

The offence created by the Clause is somewhat wider than that in the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, because, as far as I can see, it applies not only to unoccupied land but to occupied land where the caravan is stationed with the consent of the occupier. In those circumstances, the planning Acts come into force, and we can leave it safely to the planning legislation to look after the case where a man has allowed a gypsy or itinerant to camp on his land without having first obtained a site licence or planning permission from the planning authorities.

My other criticism of the Clause—and this is not the main burden of my remarks—is that it states that a person who contravenes a notice, except in case of an emergency, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £20. No attempt has been made by the draftsmen to define what constitutes an emergency, or to give examples for the guidance of the courts. The equivalent section in the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, specifies certain emergencies, but if the Clause is left as it is it will be extremely difficult for lawyers to say what is or what is not an emergency.

I do not criticise the York Corporation for its failure to provide in its area authorised sites for gypsies because, as the hon. Gentleman has said and as the corporation has made clear in its memorandum, the corporation has taken steps towards providing a site for gypsies, and in this respect it is doing a great deal better than are the majority of local authorities in England and Wales. Lord Kennet gave the impression in another place on 13th February that rate of progress towards the provision of sites by local authorities was satisfactory. He said that gypsies are today twice as well-off as they were two years ago. In fact, the picture is very depressing. I congratulate York on its efforts voluntarily to provide a site, as so few local authorities are doing, in advance of the coming into force of all of the 1968 Act.

According to figures I received in a Written Answer today, only 402 pitches have been provided in the whole of England and Wales, as at 1st March, compared with 286 on the equivalent date last year. That is only 10 per cent. of the requirement. We need at least 4,000 pitches in England and Wales to cope with the present gypsy population. I calculate that if local authorities go on providing pitches at this pace it will be 31 years before there is a balance between pitches and gypsy families, leaving nothing to spare for mobility of population, or any increase there may be in the intervening period.

In spite of this very poor rate, the Ministers responsible have indicated that no Order will be made to bring Part II of the 1968 Act into force, and thus make mandatory the provision of sites by local authorities, while the present severe economic restrictions have to be continued. Therefore, as the corporation says, it is aiming to achieve the same object locally that that Part of my Act would have done nationally for the provision of sites by conferring powers on local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments.

I notice, and I am grateful for the concession, that the corporation is willing to amend the Bill so that Clause 30 shall not have effect after Part II of my Act has been brought into force and the Minister has designated York as an area to which Section 10 of that Act applies. This at least indicates that the corpora- tion concedes that it would be undesirable to have a large number of separate Clauses in local acts varying in their application all over the country and, at the same time, have on the Statute Book an Act expressly designed to secure uniformity of provision for the country as a whole. What would then happen would be that gypsies would find that perfectly harmless behaviour in Bradford would constitute an offence in, say, York, or that what was allowed in Nuneaton would be punishable by a £20 fine in Wolverhampton.

This is exactly the situation we are facing now and why we should be well advised to pay close attention to this Bill and other Bills promoted by local authorities coming on to the Floor of the House. We shall be faced with the same question because West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Warley and Worcestershire are all seeking powers analogous to those which York is seeking to control unauthorised gypsy encampments. Except for the first two of those authorities, the provisions are different in every case.

We hear a great deal about unnecessary legislation. York and those five other local authorities have gone to the trouble and expense of coming to this House for powers which would be conferred on them automatically if the Minister made an Order bringing Part II of the Caravan Sites Act into force, and if after that these authorities either could provide space for the gypsies residing in or resorting to their areas or they obtained exemption on one of the grounds specified in Section 6. Lord Kennet was clearly under the impression that only county boroughs such as York have a gypsy problem. He thus arrived at a very seriously under-estimated total for the unproductive spending which local authorities are having to undertake at the moment.

In York, I understand, £500 has been spent on fencing council land in Willow Street and Long Close area, while the administrative cost of dealing with unauthorised encampments has been in the region of £1,000. Expenditure has been incurred by counties of this kind. In Hertfordshire £1,405 has been spent—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must not widen the debate. We are talking about the York Bill.

Mr. Lubbock

You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this problem is not confined to York, but York is dealing with it unilaterally by anticipating the coming into effect of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968. I think we can refer in passing to the fact that York is not the only authority, nor are county boroughs the only component of local authorities, suffering from this problem.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I know the hon. Member's very keen interest in this question, but he must deal with it only so far as it affects York in the debate on this Bill.

Mr. Lubbock

Having made that point and drawn it to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, who I hope is to reply to the debate, I move on to another point.

Lord Kennet said that if he was to be convinced that his estimates of the amount of unproductive spending by local authorities was wrong, that would put a totally different complexion on the problem. If York is spending £500 on fencing a small area and it has the administrative expenditure of £1,000 in a single financial year one can multiply that by all the county boroughs trying to bring forward legislation analagous to this Bill produced by York, I estimate that the total would be a quarter of a million pounds a year. While that is a long way short of the estimate given by the Gypsy Council, it is an order of magnitude greater than the figure quoted by Lord Kennet. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will tell the York Corporation—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)

The hon. Gentleman has twice said, "When the Minister replies". This is not a Supply debate on gypsies. It is a Private Bill. I am not replying.

Mr. Lubbock

I correct that and say that when the Minister, as I hope he will, catches your eye later, Mr. Speaker, I hope that he will be able to inform York Corporation that Clause 30 is unnecessary because he has accepted the case that has been put, not only today but on every previous occasion, to show that the unproductive expenditure by local authorities is exceeding the amount of costs which would be incurred by them in providing authorised sites, as I am glad to say that York is already doing, and that he will make the Order bringing Part II into effect shortly.

If the hon. Gentleman cannot say that, I must ask, as a second best, that at least the Government should resist the incorporation in Private Bills of Clauses such as the one I have referred to which would cause tremendous confusion and duplication on the Statute Book and which will be totally unnecessary when in a short time the Order to which I have referred is brought before the House.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said that this was a general powers Bill and explained rather modestly that it included a number of miscellaneous Clauses. It is a very important Bill far beyond the two points he raised for the purpose of answering them—the tolls on river traffic and the sites for caravans. There are many Clauses which have no precedents. I hope that, if the House sees fit to send the Bill to Committee, those Clauses will be carefully considered.

I suppose that it is by a coincidence that the Second Reading of the Bill has come just one month after the publication of Lord Esher's plan for York. This is the first report of four studies commissioned by the Minister to consider the costs and problems of giving permanent protection to the historic centres of Britain's towns and cities. We understand that it will be followed by similar reports on Bath, Chichester and Chester.

I am tempted to look rather carefully at the Bill to see to what extent it falls in line with the objectives set out in Lord Esher's report. It is a pity that the debate occurs so soon after the publication of the report, because many Clauses touch on the recommendations of the report and I wonder whether they deal with these problems in the right way.

The hon. Member for York mentioned, in particular, Clauses 32 and 33. Clause 32 seeks to alter the general law with regard to out-door advertising and to give control to the corporation of advertisements inside premises which may be visible from outside. At present, this is foreign to the law, but the Minister may well see fit to exercise his powers to put this type of provision into regulations.

I understand that such regulations are in course of preparation. If it is right that this sort of provision should apply to York, it may well be right that it should apply throughout the whole country. I personally would object to it. York seeks an exception to the general law, which I believe is at present under consideration, and perhaps it would be better to wait until regulations come before the House applicable to the whole country.

Clause 33 is quite unprecedented. It seeks to give the York Corporation power to control the painting of the exterior of buildings. One could perhaps joke about the Clause when one reads subsection (4), which describes the exterior over the painting of which the corporation will have control. It says: … the expression 'exterior' in relation to premises means the external walls and roof and other external parts of those premises but docs not include windows, window frames, doors, door frames, guttering or tailpipes. Apparently one may paint one's drainpipes in the most garish colours, but not the woodwork of the house, without the consent of the corporation. This sort of Clause drafted in that way needs very careful consideration against the background of Lord Esher's report.

There are other Clauses which similarly seek to control the exterior of properties, such as Clauses 29 and 43. Then there is that rather peculiar Clause 19 giving the corporation the right to close streets without any sort of compensation to those whose businesses may be damaged by such a closure, although under the Clause it can only be for 14 days.

All these seem to be dealing with the matter of the preservation of York as a great historic city in a piecemeal way, and I cannot help feeling that it would have been better if this Bill had come at a time when we could have considered Lord Esher's report fully. I do not know whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can say—if he intervenes in the debate—what is intended as a result of these four important reports, the first of which has been published and the other three of which we still await. Shall we have the opportunity of debating them and of considering whether there is a need for a general reform of the law for cities such as York, Chichester, Chester and Bath? If the general law is to be altered, we ought to hesitate about altering it piecemeal just for one city at present.

Certainly we ought to look at this Bill—and I hope the Committee will so look at it if we commit the Bill—in the light of five objectives which Lord Esher set out in his plan for York. The first is that the commercial heart of York should remain alive and be able to compete on level terms with its neighbour cities, new and old. I understand that York attracts nearly 1 million visitors a year, although those actually working in the city number only about 1,000. Therefore, nationally it is important that we should see that our legislation about York is right, that it will preserve the commercial heart of York as well as the historic heart.

The second objective which Lord Esher set out is that the environment should be so improved by the elimination of decay, congestion and noise that the centre will become highly attractive as a place to live in for families, students, single persons and the retired. Again, in this legislation we ought to see that this objective of bringing more residents into the city is carried out. This, I gather, was one of the most important recommendations made by Lord Esher.

Lord Esher's third objective was that land uses which conflict with these purposes should be progressively removed from the walled city; and fourth, that the historic character of York should be so enhanced and the best of its buildings of all ages so secured that they become economically self-conserving. Fifth, Lord Esher says that within the walled city the erection of new buildings of anything but the highest architectural standards should cease.

That is the background to the Bill. In many respects, it will have to be studied carefully against that background to see that it contributes properly to the preservation of this historic city. I have commented that it deals with certain matters piecemeal. There is one Clause, for instance, which forbids the leading of animals through the city. I wonder about the drafting. That Clause would prevent one from leading one's dog through the city, and I hope that it will be duly amended in Committee. I believe that the intention is directed against the driving of cattle through the city.

The Bill calls for careful attention, and it is one which the House should send to Committee for close examination. We shall wish to look at it carefully again when it emerges from Committee to see that it carries out the principles stated in Lord Esher's report.

9.36 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)

I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that the Bill calls for careful examination and that it should go to Committee. I should advise the House to that effect.

I quite understand the annoyance expressed by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that a certain situation regarding gypsies has arisen in York, and I acknowledge his rebuke about our not having been able to introduce the wider legislation so rightly associated with his name. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to this debate and the implications of his comments in that connection.

Without going out of order, I can only allude to our position here, in that we are always in difficulty, being criticised, on the one hand, for urging people to take wider powers, do more work and spend more money, while, on the other, limiting the amount of money which they have. That is the difficulty, but with the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech I agree. The points of weakness in Clause 30 to which he referred are points of weakness which my right hon. Friend would wish to draw to the Committee's attention, and the Clause will have to be examined carefully before it is included in the Bill in final form.

The hon. Member for Crosby asked about the Esher report—

Mr. Graham Page

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of caravans, I remind him that the promoters said in their Second Reading statement that they had allotted a site for caravans and they were awaiting the Minister's town planning approval. Will that come forward before the Bill or how long will it take?

Mr. MacColl

Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. I cannot express any view about any planning decision which is before my right hon. Friend. That is a matter which must be considered.

Mr. Graham Page

My question was about timing.

Mr. MacColl

shall make sure that the importance of the point is fully borne in mind.

The four reports by Lord Esher will be of great value, taken as a group and individually. They will be available as a useful guide and give a lot of information about the proper planning and future of these important towns. Not only the citizens of those towns but the rest of us will derive great advantage from the wisdom in them. Here is one of the difficulties in the timing of certain Clauses in the present Bill. We would all agree that York is showing great initiative in wanting to take the powers, and in showing this interest in its position as a great historic city.

I am not sure that all the Clauses are required; in that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some of them cut across powers already in planning Acts. Some are unprecedented, and before they became common form would have to be considered very carefully. There are quite a number that my right hon. Friend and other Ministers will be reporting on in Committee, either because they are unnecessary because of existing legislation, or because they will have the effect of allowing the local authority to evade Ministerial control, which has been placed on Ministers by Parliament in the general law. I must warn the House and the promoters that if the Committee saw fit to accept the recommendations of my right hon. Friends the Bill would look rather different when it came back on Report. But, after all, that is the job of a Committee.

I warmly commend the Bill, which should go to Committee as a very interesting piece of legislation.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to just one point. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) regretted that the Bill seemed rather untimely in appearing about a month after the publication of the Esher Report. May I say to him and to my hon. Friend the Minister that the problems of conserving the historic core have been with the City of York for a very long time. They may have appeared to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to be pressing and urgent only in recent years, but we have been concerned about the preservation of a uniquely beautiful city for many years.

The provisions in the Bill, which may require some redrafting, and which the promoters are quite prepared to redraft, arise from the experience of York in trying to tackle some difficult problems which are perhaps unique to its locality. For example, there is the problem of the painting of buildings, which I do not think is widespread. Many Georgian buildings in the city have been defaced to some extent by the painting of the stonework as distinct from painting of the guttering, doors and windows. The Report has some approving words for the Red House, but in my view what was and could be a beautiful Georgian house has been completely spoilt by the application of the red paint which gives it its name. I hesitate to continue with examples, because one is the civic Mansion House itself.

This is a problem that faces us in historic towns, particularly York, in connection with which we need powers. The provisions in the Bill arise out of our experience and not so much out of the Esher report, which must in due course lead to legislation which seeks to make legislative principles to be applied to the preservation of all historic cities and towns. That will have to be considered and passed by the House.

It is a long way off, and in the meantime, the city of York, if it is not to deteriorate any further, needs these powers, and needs them very quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Forward to