HL Deb 12 July 1968 vol 294 cc1266-92

2.21 p.m.

LORD WADE

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wade.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Prohibition of unauthorised camping in designated areas]:

LORD WILLIS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "being a gipsy". The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together. I wilt be very brief, because I understand that we have to finish by 4 o'clock, and there is the danger that we may lose this Bill. A number of suggestions have been made about various Amendments in a document which I and am sure other noble Lords received this morning. It is a pity that this came a little late, because I think some of the points are pertinent.

To come to these two Amendments, we have already discussed the principle behind them very thoroughly on Second Reading. There was much objection on both sides of the House to the phrase "being a gipsy", which we all felt smacked of some sort of discrimination against a certain section of people. We were assured by the Government spokesman that this was not intended and that it was merely a convenient judicial term. The point was raised that it was not convenient or right that ordinary travelers who were going on holiday towing caravans behind their cars, or who for one reason or another felt it necessary to stop on the roadside for an overnight stop, should be under the same heading and treated in the same way. These Amendments ought to be taken together, because I think they take account of that, the point being that one recognises that it may be necessary for somebody on holiday or touring round to stop for a short period overnight for one reason or another on a journey between one point and another.

My Amendments, which I. hope your Lordships will find acceptable, equalise the situation as between the travelling people and the ordinary traveller who normally, for 50 weeks of the year, lives in a house and for the other two weeks goes off camping or with a caravan. They provide that both are equal in the sight of the law; that both can stay for 24 hours or for a night, which is in effect what I mean, on the side of the road or on a convenient parking place, and then move on. I cannot conceive of many circumstances in which the ordinary person, the ordinary citizen leaving his home and going on holiday with his family, will want to stay more than one night on the side of a road. He is usually on the move. Therefore the second Amendment takes care of him.

So far as the gipsies are concerned, if the problem is that they stay by the road for longer than 24 hours—which, as I understand it, is the problem now—then this Amendment takes care of that problem as well, because they are forbidden to do it for more than one night. Therefore it helps the travelling people in this sense: that if the sites which are going to be provided for them under this Bill are too far apart and they have to spend a night on the road between one site and another, this Amendment legalises that and allows them to do it.

For all these reasons I think the Amendments are reasonable Amendments. They get rid of this unfortunate phrase "being a gipsy", and they equalise the positions of the ordinary travellers and the travelling people. They get rid of the problem of travelling people camping for longer than 24 hours and overstaying their welcome, and at the same time they allow the ordinary citizen the right to stay for a short period on the side of the road when he is on holiday. I beg to move my first Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 36, leave out ("being a gipsy").—(Lord Willis.)

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I am in rather a quandary here, because I should like very much to support the noble Lord on his first Amendment but I am not too happy about his other one. On Second Reading I brought out my objection to the phrase "being a gipsy". It is surely a departure from our established legal principles. I have always imagined that it is the act which constitutes the crime and not the type of person who does it. In this Bill a gipsy is described as a person embarking on a nomadic way of life. It seems to me, somehow, to be bad law. I cannot see why the words "being a gipsy" cannot be omitted. I quite admit that a great many gipsies are very untidy people. They are far more untidy, for instance, than the average businessman going on holiday with a caravan. But, after all, if they are very untidy on a site they can be prosecuted under the Anti-Litter Act. I do not really see that this makes a difference. We are rather dissociating gipsies from the other members of the community and I do not like it myself. I have no doubt we shall be told that there are very good reasons for it, but I still do not like it.

As regards the noble Lord's other Amendment, the one concerning 24 hours, I am rather frightened that you might get gipsies or ordinary members of the public who, true enough, stay only 24 hours by the highway but who may then move on another 100 yards and stay another 24 hours. There could be a sort of general slow procession every 100 yards, and they might be able to put in a great number of hours on the highway in that manner. So while supporting the noble Lord very strongly on his first Amendment, I am not quite happy about his second Amendment, though I appreciate the reasons behind it.

LORD LEATHERLAND

When the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and I find ourselves in agreement, what we are talking about on that occasion is probably right. There are two questions involved here with regard to the inclusion of the words "being a gipsy" in the Bill. One of them, as my noble friend Lord Willis has mentioned, is the question of discrimination. It is surely wrong, if a person is brought before a court, to condemn him in advance by saying that he is a gipsy. The question is not whether he is gipsy: the question, in the eyes of the court, is whether he is guilty or not guilty of a precise offence. But there is another aspect of his matter, and that is that it seems to savour somewhat of guilt by association—you classify a man as being associated with a certain class and therefore he is prejudiced when-ever he comes before a court.

I like the idea (which the noble Viscount does not) behind the "longer than 24 hours" Amendment which comes next. I think it puts the gipsies on the same basis as the ordinary suburban dweller who takes his motor caravan and puts it in a field or on the roadside. Both should be judged on the same basis—not differently, because one of them is Joe Jones, gipsy, and the other is Joseph Jones. Esq. Although we are, strictly discussing the first Amendment, I hope that the second Amendment will also be carried.

The first Amendment which deals with a man being condemned or prejudged because he is a gipsy, raises the question: what is a gipsy? There are various dictionary definitions. Perhaps there is some legalistic definition. Some definitions say that he is descended from the Hindu and that the Romany language is largely based on the Hindu tongue. There were some in the 16th Century who said that he is associated with the Egyptians. But is rather difficult for a court when adjudicating upon a case to take into account considerations of that kind. Gipsies are citizens of this country, and in my view should have rights equivalent to those of other citizens. If they are guilty, punish them; if they are not, let them off. Do not condemn them because they happen to belong to what we are pleased to call a gipsy tribe.

LORD MOTTISTONE

I intervene because it seems to me that, although I support strongly both these Amendments, if we carry them we must also leave out Clause 10(1)(c). Otherwise, people will be able to park on occupied pieces of land for 24 hours without the permission of the owner. This is surely much too wide. I support these two Amendments. I believe that it is possible, with the permission of the Committee, to move an Amendment without prior notice. If this is so, I should like to move in due course to leave out paragraph (c).

LORD WADE

I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed. I will try to point to some of the practical problems. First, I appreciate the interest in this subject shown by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and others and also, if I may say so, the distinction Lord Willis made on Second Reading between the true Romanies and others—although I think this distinction is lessened through inter-marriage. It is a fascinating subject. I am inclined to the view that the true Romany descended from the people who migrated from Northern India between the 10th and 12th Centuries and first reached Britain in the 15th Century. In the following century, to be precise in 1563, Queen Elizabeth I ordered them all to leave Britain within three months. The penalty for failing to do so was death. In spite of that, they remained, and, on the whole, they appear to have been treated with toleration in Britain.

But with the kind of society in which we live to-day, those of a nomadic way of life present some problems. The proposal which I think is basic to this Bill, and to which a great deal of thought has been given, is that sites should be provided by local authorities specifically for those of the nomadic way of life—not that they should always remain on the same site but that, at considerable expense, sites should be provided. The counterpart to that is that those who benefit in that way should suffer certain penalties for remaining more than very temporarily on unauthorised sites. I see the dilemma; but there it is. If you accept that view, then you must face the situation.

The effect of the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, would be to extend the proposed penalty provisions in the Bill to all classes of caravanners. If there are penalties then, under the Amendment, they would have to be applied to everyone. But there are distinctions between those who live a nomadic way of life, take their possessions with them and carry on activities such as dealing in scrap metal and those who occasionally tour with a holiday caravan and do not take their possessions with them. I am bound to say that I think we must make a distinction, once we decide to undertake the considerable expense involved in providing these local authority sites for those of the nomadic way of life.

I have read the memorandum of the National Council of Civil Liberties. I always read with very great care and interest what they say; but again I think there are practical difficulties. I hope that the new sites will provide the solution. Perhaps it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, were to intervene and to give the view of the Ministry on this subject.

2.36 p.m.

LORD KENNET

In the course of this discussion on this Amendment I think that all speakers, with the exception of Lord Wade, have lost sight of the dual nature of the provisions in the Bill about gipsies. By "dual nature" I mean that with one hand we lay a duty on the local authorities to provide a number of camping sites sufficient for the number of gipsies in their area; and, with the other hand, when that is done—and only when that is done; not before—we provide the same local authorities with the power to move on gipsies when they camp on the verge or on unoccupied land or on any other land without the permission of the owner. Of course they can still get the owner's permission. We should not forget that.

My noble friend Lord Leatherland raised the bugbear of a court which might have to decide whether, in defining a gipsy they should adopt the 16th Century belief about India or the 17th Century belief about Egypt, or whatever it was. If my noble friend had taken the trouble to read the Bill he would have seen that a gipsy in law is a person of a nomadic way of life with no regard to his ethnic or national origin. A gipsy is simply a person of a nomadic way of life.

LORD LEATHERLAND

Will my noble friend allow me to interrupt?—I am sorry to do so. But that definition would also cover didekais, tinkers and all those travelling people, apart from the real gipsies.

LORD KENNET

Yes, it would. That being so, you are a gipsy if, in the opinion of the court which is trying your case—if you ever happen to be prosecuted; which is unlikely, and we hope it will not happen—you fit that definition. You may rest your defence on the fact that you are not a person of a nomadic way of life. That will be a question of fact for the court to determine. These provisions are objected to, as we know, by the National Council of Civil Liberties. I think we all received the sheet that they sent round the other day. I think this is a change of position on their part. Earlier they welcomed the Bill in principle, although they hoped to improve it in detail. Now their attitude has hardened against it, for what reason I do not know.

But this dual approach has been accepted by the Gipsy Council. One does not wish to place too much emphasis on this; for if ever there was a class of people which could be said to be not truly represented by any organisation it is the gipsy as legally defined. But there is a Gipsy Council which has their interests very much at heart and which represents those interests with considerable vigour and skill. This Council does not object to the giving of the power to the local authorities once the sites are set up.

The words in the Bill "being a gipsy", bearing in mind all that I have told the Committee, mean no more and no less than being a person for whom the local authorities are bound to provide sites. If we apply the clause to other people—

LORD WILLIS

If the noble Lord will forgive me, this is not so. He has said himself that it applies to people who follow the nomadic way of life.

LORD KENNET

A person who follows a nomadic way of life is a person for whom the local authority is bound to provide sites. Being a gipsy means being a person for whom under this Bill the local authority is bound to provide sites; therefore the local authority is justified in moving him on once the sites are set up, but not before. If we apply that to everybody, persons not being gipsies, we are giving the local authorities the right to move on persons for whom they have no duty to provide sites.

That is absolutely open-ended and would I think, be unacceptable.

LORD WILLIS

Like the noble Lord, Leatherland, I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. But there is a provision later—I know that we are not now discussing that Amendment—that they cannot be moved on until they have been 24 hours in your district, which seems to me a perfectly reasonable space of time for anybody on holiday.

LORD KENNET

In point of fact, I think that everybody has 24 hours because of the emergency provisions—if you are ill or have a breakdown and cannot move on. In practice it would be an odd gipsy, and I think it would be an odd holidaymaker, who was not able to find some illness or breakdown to justify an overnight stop. That is really the situation.

In conclusion, I feel bound to say—one should not be too confident about this—that if we take these powers from the local authorities they simply will not provide the sites. Why should they? The local authority interest, the county interest and the borough interest is to reach a sensible conclusion. At the moment, the gipsies are all over the place and give rise to a lot of inconvenience to other people. This is a problem for the county councils. At the moment, there are no sites for them, and this is a problem for the gipsies.

I would remind the Committee once again that we are trying, for the first time, to reach a reconciliation between the nomadic people and the settled people. That has become necessary because there is no longer enough land to enable nomadic people to lead a decent life without annoying other people. They have been living under the present system, harassed to a greater or lesser degree by Queen Elizabeth I and the squire, for about 400 years. The pressure on land is now such that we have to get a new system. The new system, which has been agreed by the local authorities, by the Gipsy Council, by the House of Commons and now, I hope, by this House, is this dual system. The local authorities must provide sites, and the Minister has power to make them if they do not—and he will. On the other hand, the local authorities have power to move the gipsies on if they camp round the place without permission. All that being so, I hope that my noble friend may agree to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD WILLIS

I am still not happy about the phrase "being a gipsy". Nor am I quite happy that everybody would be quite as diabolically cunning as my noble friend the Minister and plead a breakdown when they want to stay an extra 24 hours. But in view of the pressure on our time, and in view of the explanation which has been made (I hope that the Government will issue a leaflet when this Bill is passed explaining to everybody how they can plead a breakdown) I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

(LORD MERTHYR): The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has asked advice whether he can table an Amendment to this clause to leave out paragraph (c).

LORD MOTTISTONE

The last two Amendments having been withdrawn, my Amendment is now unnecessary.

LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (3), after "stationed" to insert "temporarily". The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment, aimed at clarifying the extent of the defence, referred to in subsection (2). Without an Amendment of this kind a cart and horses could be driven through the early part of the clause which prohibits unauthorised camping. Every caravanner would be able to allege that he could not move his van because of illness or because there was something wrong with the vehicle; or say that he intended to remove it as soon as was practicable. Hence this suggested Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 3, after ("stationed") insert ("temporarily").—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD WADE

I take the view that it is not necessary to insert the Word "temporarily". If I may refer to Clause 10 and read subsection (2) on page 8 of the Bill it states: In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove that the caravan was stationed on the land in consequence of illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency and then he removed it (or intended to remove it) as soon as reasonably practicable. The noble Lord has referred to that subsection, and I should have thought that was the fairest way to deal with the matter. It seems to me unnecessary to require a gipsy to prove that he stationed the caravan temporarily on the land since this clause, as drafted, requires him to prove that he removed it, or intended to remove it "as soon as reasonably practicable." Moreover, I think the whole nature of the defence illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency implies a temporary situation.

There is one other point which arose under the second of the Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, which was not moved. Those of a nomadic way of life do not as a rule have any particular mark on their caravans like the number plate of a car. An ordinary person on holiday with a car and caravan has a distinguishing mark, and it is easy to prove whether they were in a certain place for a long time, or a night, or whatever it may be. In the case of those we call "gipsies" for the purposes of this Bill, that is not so. It would seem to me that the clause as it appears in the Bill is the fairest version for both sides, and the most practicable. I hope that explanation will be regarded as satisfactory, but again I am always willing to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has to say.

LORD SOMERS

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Milverton because, as he says, the wording as it is at present depends on whether a person says that the caravan is there temporarily because of illness or some mechanical failure or for some other reason. Who is to prove this? Unfortunately, it is only too easy to say that one intends to remove one's caravan within a short space of time, but very often that intention is not carried out. Who is to prove that there is definitely a mechanical failure or illness? One would have to probe very deeply into the private affairs of the caravanner to prove that, and I do not think that is a thing one should have to do. It is much simpler to say that they may remain for a short space of time and then they must go.

LORD LEATHERLAND

May I, in three sentences, try to get to the heart of this matter? The Bill, as now drafted, says that it would be a valid defence if the caravan occupier could prove that he was unable to move because of illness or a breakdown. Surely, that excuse will apply only so long as he, or some member of his family, is ill, or so long as the caravan is broken down and cannot be moved.

I think that the clause as drawn is adequate to deal with any possibility that might arise. The bench, if the matter ultimately goes before them, will have to decide whether a case is made out by the prosecuting local authority, or whether the caravan owner can prove that at the time he was reported a member of his family was ill or his wife was expecting a baby, or whatever it might have been, or that mechanically it was impossible to move the caravan. And at the time of reporting, the police will no doubt do the probing that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has mentioned. I think that the Bill is reasonable in its original form, that the insertion of the word "temporary" will only confuse and that it is quite unnecessary.

LORD KENNET

I have little to add to what my noble friend Lord Leatherland has said. The Amendment presupposes who was able to prove that he intended to remove his caravan as soon as reasonably practicable but unable to prove that he was only temporarily on the land—a situation which I think is unlikely to arise.

LORD BROCKWAY

I had asked for an intimation when we were discussing this Bill and I must apologise for being late. On Monday we shall be discussing the Race Relations Bill and what worries me in this clause is that it singles out gipsies—

LORD KENNET

May I advise my noble friend that we had a half-hour debate on this point on the last two Amendments.

LORD BROCKWAY

I apologise, and regret that I was not informed that we had reached that point.

LORD MILVERTON

I am disappointed that the Committee should apparently, on the whole, be in favour of leaving this clause as it is, but if the Committee are satisfied that it means temporarily without necessarily stating so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Removal of unlawful encampments]

2.53 p.m.

LORD MILVERTON moved, after subsection (3), to insert: () The Court may also order the repayment to the local authority by the defendant of the reasonable expenses incurred in executing the said order".

The noble Lord said: This also is a simple Amendment. Its purpose is to enable a local authority to recover the expenses they incur in removing caravans from land other than land owned by the local authority. It seems reasonable for them to ask for such a power of recovery. I beg to move. Page 8, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD WILLIS

On the surface this Amendment seems reasonable, but it strikes me that the majority of people likely to be so dealt with by a local authority would be poor people, who would not be on that piece of land if they were not ire rather desperate circumstances. We have already been told—and I would emphasise this—that many of the provisions of this Bill will not come into operation for some time. There is likely to be terrible hardship for many travelling people this coming winter, and they may have, in desperation, to take refuge on land which is forbidden to them. It seems to me highly unfair if a local authority has power to expel them from that piece of land and, in addition, has power to heap these costs on to their heads. If a good network of these sites were in operation, I should not feel quite the same way, but in view of the coming winter hardship I oppose this Amendment.

LORD WADE

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for the view he has expressed. May I approach this matter from a different angle? At first sight this would seem to be a reasonable Amendment, but I am advised that the power of local authorities to recover the expenses of evicting gipsies was intentionally omitted on the ground that in practice is would prove to be somewhat embarrassing to the local authority. In principle, it might be right that a gipsy who parked on land without authority and refused to leave when asked to do so should meet the costs incurred in evicting him. But I am told that once he is put on the road, it would be for the police to see that he goes on and causes no obstruction.

I am advised that if the local authority seek to recover costs against a gipsy it will have to try to discover where he has gone to serve notice of proceedings on him. This clearly raises a number of practical difficulties and may involve wasted effort and expenditure. Again, if a local authority had power to recover expenses in connection with eviction, those who have to deal with the matter would feel that they were under some obligation to do so, and I am advised that, strange as it may seem, on balance those concerned with these matters do not wish to have the power, and would prefer that they should be under no obligation to attempt to recover costs. It is for that reason that I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.

LORD KENNET

I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Willis has said, but I should like to tell your Lordships that I have no evidence at all that any more terrible hardships face gipsies this winter than in any of the recent winters; and there is no reason to suppose that the coming winter will be an exceptionally bad one for them in any way. I would also say that local authorities will have no more power in regard to gipsies this winter than they had last winter.

LORD MILVERTON

I am sorry that this Amendment also has not received the approval of the Committee. It seems to me that it would be better to leave discretion in the hands of the local authority and not always indulge in this habit of placing the expenses of executing the law upon the taxpayer. However, since the views of the Committee are against me, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MILVERTON moved, after subsection (3), to insert: () No action taken by a local authority under this section shall render them liable in any way under any other enactment, or at common law, for obstruction of the highway".

The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment which concerns local authorities. We are bound to consider what in some circumstances might be the result of action by a local authority under this clause. For instance, what happens as the result of an order for the removal of caravans if a local authority places them on the highway? I understand that under Common Law the highway is for the purpose of passing and repassing, coupled with a reasonable right of stopping. Penalties are contained in certain Statutes for obstructing the highway. Will a local authority be guilty of obstructing the highway if it removes a caravan under this clause? For that reason, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD LEATHERLAND

Although I should have been opposed to Lord Milverton's previous Amendment, I heartily support this one. The noble Lord has envisaged a hypothetical case in which a local authority might be prosecuted for having caused obstruction on the highway by moving some gipsies or nomads from a field on to the road or the roadside. I was informed quite recently, in my county council capacity, that one of the county councils of this country had actually been prosecuted for this particular offence. That county council had caused gipsies to move on from some open land on to a highway, and the police authorities had launched proceedings against that county council for causing an obstruction. I think this most unfair.

Many local authorities, in pursuance of their duties, and following their lawful occasions, have to cause obstructions on the highway from time to time. They dig holes; they fill them up; and they dig holes again. They grapple with affrays that take place on highways; they evict householders and place their furniture out on the public footpath, and sometimes on the street; and they obstruct the highways by their drain-cleaning operations. But we do not prosecute a local authority for indulging in any of these socially worthy activities. I think it would be very hard on a county council, county borough, or London borough (and these are the authorities involved under this Bill) if they were liable to prosecution because, in pursuance of their action in turning gipsies out of a field on to the road, they temporarily caused some obstruction of that road.

We know that these operations are not always easy to undertake, and sometimes complications technically occur. I think that if we do not protect the local authorities in the manner suggested in this Amendment, it will deter many of these local authorities from undertaking the worthy duties which we seek to place upon them under this Bill. I sincerely hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted.

LORD WADE

I have endeavoured to obtain the best advice I can on this matter and having looked carefully into the point whether a local authority would be committing an offence, such as obstructing a highway, when it evicts caravans from private lands, I am advised that there would be no liability on the local authority. The advice I have been given is that the local authority would have no further responsibility for towing the caravan from the private land. This does happen, and the police take steps to ensure that the caravanners move along and do not cause obstruction. The local authority will be acting under an order of the court, and I must say it is difficult to see that they will in any way be wilfully obstructing the passage along the highway merely by virtue of the fact that they have carried out an order of the court in moving the caravan on to the highway. I should have thought that this was the caravanners' responsibility. It is not that I have any desire to make things difficult for local authorities, but I can only inform your Lordships of the advice I have received. I am afraid I cannot take it any further.

LORD LEATHERLAND

Perhaps I may intervene once again. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, and I are very sensible men. But a fortnight ago I was personally informed by the clerk of a county council that his county council had been prosecuted for just such an incident as this. In order to prevent such foolish prosecutions being launched in future, I want to see no obstacle placed in the way of county councils when they seek to carry out their duty under this Bill. I think the Amendment is necessary if only to warn those people who institute prosecutions that they have not a chance of succeeding when they try to prosecute a county council under this clause.

Loan WADE

Perhaps it would be helpful if I had conversations with the noble Lords, Lord Leatherland and Lord Milverton, and any others interested in this point. Clearly, I am acting on the advice given to me. This is rather a technical point. That is as far as I can take the matter to-day.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD WILLIS moved to add to the clause: () in any area to which section 10 of this Act applies, the local authority shall make an annual return to the Minister of the number of cases in which proceedings have been taken under Part II of this Act.

The noble Lord said: This is quite a simple Amendment that speaks for itself. It really asks for an account from local authorities of what is done in this particular field. Again, I think this is a matter where one wants to keep tabs on what is happening and try to get some kind of picture. My noble friend Lord Kennet seems to have taken up rather a contradictory position in the matter, for example (and it relates slightly to what I am now talking about), of this coming winter. He indicated that he agreed that there would be some hardship in the coming winter, and he sent me a number of circulars that had been sent out by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government urging that some help should be given. I was therefore surprised to-day to discover that my noble friend feels that the problems will not be any harder this winter than in any other winter.

In a debate earlier to-day he said that land was shrinking and the problem was becoming sharper: and I think we are all agreed about this. There is going to be g cat hardship this winter. I regret that there is no provision in this Bill necessitating local authorities to set up temporary sites, even if they have not all the amenities that we are asking for. But that is another matter. I am asking in this Amendment that an annual return shall be sent in by the local authority of what evictions, actions and proceedings are taken by them against the travelling people and against what are wrongly called in this Bill "gipsies". I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved. Page 8, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Willis.)

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I should like very briefly to support this Amendment. Of course, it is true, as the noble Lord said, that if the local authority do not send in this information through an annual return to the Minister, how can the Minister know that enough sites have been made available in the district for the gipsies? It is just as simple as that, and I can see no objection to the Amendment at all.

LORD KENNET

There is absolutely no objection to the purpose of the Amendment, but it is not really necessary to write it into the Bill because we can get this information in any event from the court returns, and shall do so. On the general question, I think there may still be some confusion in some of your Lordships' minds about this matter. These powers do not come into effect this winter. I think, to be perfectly frank, that it is unlikely they will come into effect next winter, either, because the sites will not be set up by then. I do not want to name periods, but they do not come into effect until sites are set up.

As to increased hardship this winter, hardship for travelling people has been increasing certainly for the last twenty-five years, and I should think probably the noble Lord would agree for the last fifty. It has now reached a point where it has become necessary to act. In the Government's view the widest action is contained in the Bill. There is no quantum jump in hardship expected or reasonably foreseeable this winter. Nothing will be different this winter from what it was last winter, except for the fact that we are one year further on, and when the Bill comes into effect things will be much better.

LORD WILLIS

May I say something else before the noble Lord sits down? I do not want to quarrel with him about this matter, because I think our sympathies are both engaged on the same side. But it seems to me contradictory to agree that this Bill is necessary because of great hardship and then to admit that the Bill, or a clause in the Bill, will not come into effect this winter, or even the succeeding winter, and therefore not to see that it is essential, in order to prevent the hardship that existed last winter and the winter before, to encourage or find some way of persuading local authorities to set aside temporary sites, without all the equipment and facilities that we are asking for under this Bill, so that that hardship can be ameliorated this winter. That is really what I am saying. I do not misunderstand the Bill at all. I am merely pleading that hardship could be ameliorated this winter by some action.

LORD KENNET

I think I have sent the noble Lord copies of the two circulars in which the Minister has asked local authorities to do precisely that.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Designation of areas]:

LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1), after the second "borough" to insert "or county district council". The noble Lord said: Under this clause the Minister may, by order made on the application of a county council, county borough council or London borough council, designate the area of that authority as one where unauthorised camping by a stationing of caravans is prohibited. If a county district council—that is, a non-county borough or urban or rural district—can show that sites are not and cannot be made available in their area, that authority should surely be empowered to apply to the Minister for their area so to be designated. Unless such a power is given the county district councils, the prohibition of gipsy encampments will depend on the county council providing an adequate number of sites throughout the county, which may not be done, and this may bring particular trouble in built-up areas. Hence this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 3, after second ("borough") insert ("or county district council")—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD LEATHERLAND

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, what this Amendment really means? On reading it I thought it meant that a district council could voluntarily, of its own volition, say to the Minister, "We should like to be designated as an area in which gipsy encampments can be established" but I rather gathered from the noble Lord's words that he wanted the district council to be able to say to the Minister, "We are an area where a gipsy encampment should not be established" Now which is it?—because my view will be somewhat determined by the reply.

LORD MILVERTON

I think the first is the answer which I would return to the noble Lord.

LORD LEATHERLAND

I am not particularly opposed to the idea that a district council should be able to make representations that its district should be designated as a place where a gipsy encampment can be established, but my experience on a county council is that the district councils are diametrically opposed to any attempt by the county council to establish a gipsy encampment in their locality. As I said on Second Reading, my county council have made Four unsuccessful attempts to establish gipsy encampments in various parts of the county, and in almost every one of those cases the local council, the district council, raised very serious objections indeed. And, of course, one can understand why the district council should raise objections. The district council is more closely associated with its inhabitants than is the county council, and no district councillor will get up and say, "What a good idea it would be if we were to have a gipsy encampment in our area", because probably that district councillor lives along the edge of the field next to the area which is to be designated. I do not think this proposal will be successful, whichever way we care to look at it.

This question of establishing gipsy encampments will be unpopular—it is the old story of Stansted all over again; we all want a third London Airport but we do not want it in our village. We all want gipsy encampments so that these people may live a semi-civilised life, but we do not want those encampments near where, we live. Therefore I think the broader view is the proper one to adopt here.

LORD WADE

I think the effect of this Amendment would be to enable the district council to obtain a designation order. Whether they would do so I do not know, but if they were to do so there is the danger that it would lead to patchwork development, and I am inclined to the view that it would be better if it were dealt with by the county council.

LORD KENNET

The problem would be that the poor gipsy would not know whether he was in a place where he could camp on the verge without being pushed on, or not, and this might be a little hard on him.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Multi-unit caravans]:

3.16 p.m.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL moved, in subsection (1)(a), after "of" to insert "not more than two". The noble Lord said: The National Caravan Council held a conference last autumn which was attended by all local authorities and all the local authority associations, as well as some Government representatives, to consider what action could appropriately be taken to correct a defect in the definition of a "caravan" in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The definition affected those caravans that are made in two parts for ease of transportation and are assembled into one unit of living accommodation when sited on a caravan park. That conference agreed unanimously that such units should be restricted to two parts. This clause is a direct result of that conference.

Unfortunately, the correction proposed to be made will not now apply to Scotland. The definition is embodied in an entirely new form of wording that was introduced at short notice in the Committee stage in another place. In this new form of wording the restriction of the parts to two was dropped, although it had appeared when the Bill was first published. The effect of this new definition as it is now contained in the Bill is that any prefabricated hut or structure, made in no matter how many parts, could be deemed to be a caravan. I am sure that that is not intended, and therefore I submit this Amendment, Which I understand has the support of the Government and of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and I hope your Lordships will approve it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 26, after ("of") insert ("not more than two").—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)

LORD WADE

In replying to this Amendment, may I interpolate a personal note? From time to time I have introduced or helped to sponsor Private Members' Bills but I have never seen such Bills reach the Statute Book. I hope this will be the exception. That being so, I am very pleased to be able to help it along, because this is one occasion where I can recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment. This is a very technical point. We are anxious that the definition should be as accurate as possible, and I think, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal has made out his case. I would recommend to your Lordships that this Amendment be accepted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

I should like to rise for one moment to ask for a point of clarification. I do not expect the point to be answered now, but I hope that if I can make it now it may be possible for the Minister on Report stage to give an assurance on what I am seeking. Under an early planning appeal on twin-unit caravans in 1964 a point was raised as to whether or not the assembling of the part, by inserting bolts, clamps, and so on, amounted to "development" under the Planning Act; and it was held to be so. This Bill, of course, cannot be widened to cover amendment of the Planning Act, but I think I am right in saving that both industry and the local authorities would welcome an assurance from the Government that in deciding planning appeals involving this point the Minister will not consider the assembling of the parts of twin-unit caravans to be development. As I say, I do not expect an answer at this moment, but if we could be told something on Report stage which would help to give an assurance on this point I am sure that it would be very well received both by industry and by local authorities.

LORD KENNET

Would the noble Lord be content if we pursued it by correspondence, in order to save the time of the House?

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

Certainly, if that would be for the convenience of the Government. It is only a point of clarification, but I know that it would be in the public interest and advantage if it could be done in that way.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 [Offences.]:

3.22 p.m.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL moved, in subsection (2), after "under" to insert "Part II of". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment in the names of my noble friends and myself. Part I of this Bill depends upon a contract between two parties, the owner of the caravan park and the occupier of the caravan, both of whom are quite free to take action on their own behalf if they wish to do so. The Caravan Council and the National Federation of Site Operators, who have throughout this Bill (and not only on this clause) co-operated very closely together, see no justification for legislating that the local authority should be empowered to intervene in such a contract, any more than in any other contract freely entered into by individual parties. If either party has a grievance there is nothing whatsoever to prevent its being adjudicated upon through the normal process of the law courts without the intervention of any local authority. Surely there is no need for local authority intervention. Surely it is far better, where there is a contract between two parties, if there is any dispute, to let those two parties, without any third party intervening, go to the court and have it settled freely. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 25, after ("under") insert ("Part II of").—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)

LORD LEATHERLAND

So far as Part I of the Bill is concerned, where the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, says there are contractual obligations between a landlord of a field or site and the caravan occupier on that site there may be a great deal to be said for the Amendment he has moved. But I shall listen to my noble friend Lord Kennet before making up my mind on that. With regard to Part II, which deals with gipsies, it is suggested in the Amendment that any local authority should be able to take proceedings. But Part II does not give authority to any local authority: the only local authorities that are given authority under this Part of the Bill are county councils, county boroughs and London boroughs. I wonder whether a county council would feel pleased if, because of some alleged contravention by gipsies in its area, legal proceedings were taken, not by the county council but by an urban or rural district council within the county. I will listen to my noble friend Lord Kennet upon this point, but it seems to me that it would be rather anomalous if, having given one authority power, you allow a subordinate authority to attempt to enforce that power in the courts.

LORD WADE

I think the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, may be under a slight misapprehension. May I read subsection (2)? It reads as follows: Proceedings for an offence under this Act may be instituted by any local authority". I am not dealing with the point of "any"; I am just dealing with the effect of this subsection. I think that means that proceedings can be instituted for an offence under Part I or Part II; and I think that was the point that was made. This has nothing to do with intervening in a contract. Part I deals with harassment and illegal eviction, which in certain circumstances may be offences, and it is just a question as to who should prosecute if there is an offence. If this Amendment were accepted, I think the effect would be to cast doubt on the power of a local authority to prosecute for offences—that is to say, harassment and illegal eviction—under Part I of the Bill.

Someone has to prosecute, whether it be an individual or the police or a local authority. Local authorities are empowered by Section 108 of the Rent Act 1968 (which replaces previous provisions for the prosecution of Rent Act offences) to prosecute for the corresponding offences under Section 30 of the Rent Act 1965. I understand that in practice it is normally the local authorities and not the police who investigate and prosecute in regard to these offences; and it is thought probable that local authorities will undertake the same functions in respect of offences under this Bill when it becomes an Act. That is to say, if there is harassment or illegal eviction, then probably the local authority, rather than the police, will prosecute. But the effect of this subsection is merely to make it clear that a local authority could.

As to whether this is any particular significance in the word "any", I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has to say. The point I want to make is that, so far as prosecution is concerned, there must be a case for prosecution and in practice it is really a question of whether it should be undertaken by the police or by the local authority. I cannot see any fundamental point of principle there. It may be more convenient that the local authority rather than the police should prosecute, if there is a case for prosecution.

3.29 p.m.

LORD MOTTISTONE

I should like to raise a point of clarification here. Clause 3(3) of the Bill refers to "civil proceedings". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when we last met in Committee on this Bill, went to some trouble to explain to us that under Part I of this Bill all the proceedings will be civil proceedings. This was his main argument, it being a county court affair rather than a magistrates' court affair. I may be ignorant on this point, but if it is a matter of evil proceedings it does not seem to me to be right to talk about prosecutions and the police. Surely it is more a question of the harassed occupants suing the site owners rather than a question of prosecution. I think we are crossing our threads here. Why on earth should the local authority set themselves up as a sort of super policeman on rather dictatorial lines, to supplement this process?

LORD WADE

I do not want to intervene too many times before the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, replies, but may I just read an earlier subsection. Subsection (3) of Clause 3 says: A person guilty of an offence under this section shall, without prejudice to any liability or remedy to which he may be subject in civil proceedings, be liable on summary conviction… There is nothing in that subsection that I can see to suggest that the local authority will be concerned in any way with this liability or remedy to which a person may be subject in civil proceedings. It is only in regard to an offence that subsection (2) of Clause 14 applies proceedings. I think the answer is that that applies to the offences in Part I and not to the "liability or remedy" which was referred to as a "liability or remedy to which he may be subject in civil proceedings". I hope I have mace my point clear.

LORD KENNET

If I may deal first with the point of my noble friend Lord Leatherland, I should like to be sure that I have understood it aright. The question was what would a county council say if in a designated area they had set up the camp for gipsies and the district councils then started prosecuting the gipsies and moving them on. I take the point, and if your Lordships will allow me I will look into it and have something to say to my noble friend either privately or at a later stage.

On the other point about criminal and civil proceedings, I have nothing to add to the explanation which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Wade (which I think was as lucid as could possibly be devised in a situation of such extreme complexity), and simply confirm that the effect of the Amendment we are now discussing would impinge only on Part I of the Bill.

LORD AIREDALE

I suspect that the answer to Lord Leatherland's point is to be found in the interpretation clause which gives "local authority" a very limited meaning indeed. It has the same meaning as in Section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

In view of what has been said—and I think we have had a very useful discussion on this point—I should like to consider this with my noble friends, as I am not sure that I appreciate fully all the implications. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and we can come back to it at a later stage if need be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Interpretation]:

On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

There is a small point which I found rather confusing. In the first three words of Clause 16 we find "In the Act…" It clearly does not mean the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, and it would not appear to be this Act, because Clause 17, we see, refers to "This Act". This Bill has been through all its stages in another place, so I cannot think that this is a misprint but that this particular wording "In the Act" is deliberate here. I think your Lordships should be told exactly why those words are inserted in this way. What is the Act to which reference here has been made, because I am afraid I just do not understand? It seems as if, having gone through all its stages in another place, it could not be a misprint, there must be some purpose behind it, and perhaps there is an explanation.

LORD KENNET

It is a misprint.

LORD WADE

May I congratulate the noble Lord on finding a misprint? If that were his only objection to the Bill, I should be delighted.

LORD LEATHERLAND

There having been one satisfied customer in the House, may another satisfied customer rise? My noble friend and I disagreed on an earlier stage over the matter of interpretation. With regard to the paragraph at the bottom of page 10 which attempts to explain what the word "gipsies" means, I wonder whether the interpretation now given in the Bill is sufficiently comprehensive: persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin… In my younger days one used to have a lot of people coming to this country who were referred to as Irish navvies. To-day, they would be referred to as constructional and civil engineering workers from the Republic of Ireland. But those people have a nomadic way of life. They come and work on trench digging or reservoir digging in a particular place, they live in huts for a month or so, then they move on to another part of the pipeline and live in some temporary accommodation there. Would they be included in the term "nomadic habit of life"? Is this definition of "gipsy" too comprehensive, too widely inclusive for what my noble friend has in mind?

LORD KENNET

I can only say to my noble friend that it must be for the courts to decide. I could not even start to suggest what proportion of the year spent in a hut as opposed to a caravan would constitute "denomadisation" under the Bill; but if he is worried about the matter, perhaps he could approach the sponsors of the Bill about the possibility of a change of wording. I cannot myself think of anything better.

LORD LEATHERLAND

I thank my noble friend for that. As an old newspaperman, I certainly would not permit "denomadisation" to be printed in any paper for which I was responsible.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before four o'clock.