§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. C. Morris.]
§ 11.41 p.m.
§ Mr. A. H. Macdonald (Chislehurst)In calling the attention of the House to the problem of controlling caravans occupied by vagrants, I should point out that I have deliberately used the word vagrants rather than gypsies because, in discussions upon this subject, whenever the word gypsy is used there is always some kind of debate about the distinction between a gypsy and a true gypsy, or between a Romany and a didicoi. I am not indifferent to the distinction, but for my present purpose the distinction is irrelevant. I am simply concerned with people who occupy caravans and move, at irregular intervals, from one place to another.
I shall begin by referring to the circular issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 14th June, No. 26/66. In many ways, this was a most admirable document. It contained a statistical analysis showing the extent of this problem, and it went on to put forward a constructive remedy, namely that every local authority should endeavour to provide a small permanent site on which these vagrants could find accommodation on the basis that if every 416 local authority did its little bit it would go some way to solving the national problem. So far so good. But there were one or two weaknesses in the circular, to which I would draw attention.
The circular did not express that note of urgency, which I consider the problem requires. It asked local authorities to submit to the Ministry within six months their ideas and accounts of sites that they could provide. These reports are due about now. But they are still only reports, and even now no local authority is required to do anything. The London Boroughs Asosciation, an admirable body, has only now got round to considering this question. Six days ago it considered a report on this subject from its Works Committee. In passing, I would say that it was a most excellent report, going into the subject in detail, ending with one or two recommendations, including one for legislation on this subject, which I would particularly recommend to the Minister.
The second criticism I have of the circular is that the references to finance were negligible, if not non-existent. The question arises, when considering the provision of these sites, of whether the local authority is to provide financial support or whether the sites are supposed to be self-sustaining. If there is to be a rate contribution, clearly there are implications. On the site at Bromley 417 which my local authority intends to provide, the economic rent of each patch would be £4 16s., but the rent proposed is only £2 a week. On that basis, there will be a subsidy from the ratepayers amounting annually to £1,600.
My third criticism of the circular is that it refers, correctly and justly, to the deep distress and anxiety suffered by the vagrants, but does not refer to the equal distress and discomfort suffered by ordinary residents and householders when they see these vagrants parking themselves at the end of their gardens and there appears no way in which these people can be moved on.
The fourth and most important criticism I have of the circular is that it does not contain in itself any assurance that the sites provided will be used. This seems important when associated with the question of finance. If the ratepayers are to provide financial assistance they will want to see that their contributions are not wasted. Several ratepayers in Bromley have put this point to me and, as a ratepayer there myself, I can well understand their attitude.
I turn now to the position in Bromley, the authority which contains at any rate half of my constituency. It is the position I know best, and it may be an example of the situations elsewhere. Without going too deeply into history, the immediate problem arose when Bromley Council cleared a site it proposed to redevelop for housing. The vagrants from that site moved on to the Orpington by-pass, and it is regrettable that they suffered a serious tragedy in that a child was killed on that road.
They moved on to the Ramsden estate in the constituency of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), whom I am glad to see here. I must not trespass into his affairs, but I believe he will agree that constituents like mine suffered a good deal of distress when they found these people invading the estate and parking on the verges. It is not surprising that the town hall was bombarded with letters and telephone calls from residents and ratepayers wondering what could be done about it.
Bromley Council acted promptly and efficiently. It appointed a committee to deal with the problem and gave it powers to act. I want to pay public tribute to 418 the work of that committee and its chairman, Alderman Smith, because it has dealt with this problem as effectively as it could, given the powers available. I stress that latter phrase because, naturally, one of the first things it did, under the guidance of the town clerk, was to review the powers available. It went as far back as the Police Act, 1848. It examined the Litter Act, 1958, the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and found that the powers available to it were meagre. It also studied the Highways Act, 1959, and found there a section which seemed to be just the thing, for it is laid down there that gypsies may be prosecuted for camping upon the highway or upon the highway verge.
A prosecution was brought under this Act and succeeded in the magistrates' court. But then, prompted by the National Council for Civil Liberties, the vagrants appealed and, in the higher court, the conviction was reversed. Although I am rather an admirer of the N.C.C.L., I wonder whether its action on this occasion was entirely wise. Therefore, the vagrants are currently on the verge of the A20 in my constituency. At 5.15 today—the latest information I have—there were 25 caravans and 15 other vehicles parked along the verge. From the point of view of the vagrants, it is an ingenious site. It is exactly and literally on the border between the boroughs of Bromley and Bexley. If they go out of one door of the caravan they are in Bexley; if they go out of the other door they are in Bromley. The A20 is a trunk road, so the Minister of Transport is also interested. It is not easy to determine the responsible authority.
I have referred to what Bromley is doing. I have been in touch with the leader of the majority party on the Bexley Council and the Ministry of Transport. I gratefully acknowledge the attention being paid to this problem. Bexley is tackling the problem, although it is not as far advanced as Bromley. I acknowledge all that has been done and the correspondence I have had with my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. But it remains the fact that these people are still on the A20. The householders and residents round about watch with mounting astonishment and dismay to see 419 that they are still there and that, apparently, nothing can be done.
There is no water or proper sanitation on the site. There is a very real risk of fire, not only to the caravans but to the factories apposite. I am advised that a fire appliance had to be called out the other day. There is also the road traffic hazard.
Bromley has provided a temporary site within the borough. When it was first provided it was occupied by 30 of these people. According to the last count, it is now occupied by only four. Am I being cynical if I associate that diminution in numbers with the fact that rent is charged on the temporary site, whereas no rent is charged on the verge of the A20? This is why I ask for an assurance that the permanent sites, when provided, will be used?
I liken this to the problem of car parks. It is unreasonable to persecute motorists for parking on the highway when no public parking space is available. But when public car parking space is provided it is reasonable to require motorists to use it. That is why I ask for an assurance that the sites will be used.
I should like an assurance that there will be provision made on the sites to deal with the problem of litter. It is maddening to see caravans with mountains of scrap and litter behind them knowing how it got there but knowing that to prove it is quite another thing, which is necessary in order to bring home responsibility to an individual. When the sites are provided is it not possible to establish a collective responsibility for the decent maintenance of the sites?
May I digress briefly. Bromley seeks to provide a permanent site, and this is to be on land owned by the G.L.C. Negotiations have been going on for six months, but the G.L.C. is seeking to impose conditions; in particular, a condition that the lease shall be subject to six months' notice. This hardly seems reasonable when the total expenditure by the ratepayers is to be £13,070. My hon. Friend has previously offered to mediate between the two authorities, and I appeal to him to consider whether it would be helpful for him to take a hand in bringing the two authorities together.
I do not want it to appear that I am in favour of persecuting these vagrants, 420 although it is true that it is the distress and annoyance to householders which looms largest in my mind. I do not want to appear to be a persecutor. I warmly welcome the circular issued by the Ministry. Seven days after it was issued, I put down a Question asking whether local authorities had adequate power to control the sites. The reply assured me that they had. I confess that I was not entirely convinced. I am still of the opinion that the existing regulations are hardly adequate to make a success of this desirable enterprise.
It is often argued that the vagrants should be free to choose their own way of life, as other people are free to choose theirs. With that sentiment I have no disagreement, but I would add two provisos. First, their way of life should be such that it does not interfere with the right of others to lead their lives in the way they choose. That condition is not fulfilled by the site now upon the A20. Secondly, their way of life should be such that they pay their due contribution towards the public expenses of the community and the maintenance of the public services. Again, this proviso is not fulfilled by the site on the A20. I cannot find that people when they are there are paying any form of rent or rates.
This problem can be solved, because not a quarter of a mile from this site on the A20 there is a little caravan site occupied by vagrants. It is not much to look at, but the people who are there have been integrated and are fully accepted by the community. So this is something which can be done, provided that there is good will on both sides and provided that the proper regulations are imposed at the outset.
I conclude by urging as strongly as I can upon my hon. Friend that this problem, at least in my own constituency, needs urgent consideration. I ask him to consider the implications, both legal and financial, of the otherwise admirable circular that his Ministry issued in June.
§ 11.56 p.m.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) has very properly raised this matter, which I know has caused him and 421 his constituents great concern. I can understand his desire to have it discussed. I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words about it.
There is no doubt that the Borough of Bromley has tried, and has incurred some unpopularity with its ratepayers as a result of trying, to do something about this difficult problem. I pay tribute to the borough's efforts. My hon. Friend said that he thought that our circular was a very good one. I appreciate that, and I am glad that he said it. He said, however, that it lacked a note of urgency. The difficulty is that in this complicated question, where much thought is required as to what is to be done, to rush the local authorities for the sake of getting quick answers would not have been wise. It would have been nice to have had a sort of superficial speed about it and to have Rot a certain amount of information, but the danger is that we might have gone off at half cock.
If we are to do any good, we must have a very thorough assessment of the situation. We need to know how widespread the problem is. We need to get the collective wisdom and experience of the local authorities in deciding how best to deal with it. Therefore, I do not apologise for the fact that we have spent six months in waiting for answers to the circular.
The answers are due this month. So far 20 authorities have sent in answers. On the whole, most of those 20 authorities have not got a serious problem. But one would imagine that the authorities which answer most quickly are those which are likely not to have a big problem and therefore they do not have to do a lot of work on it. There are some more answers to come in. As soon as they arrive, we shall certainly study them.
§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)Has the Ministry yet received a reply from the Kent County Council?
§ Mr. MacCollI cannot say without notice. I am not sure about Kent. I intended to go on and mention the Greater London Council, which is what my hon. Friend was dealing with. The position there is that they were excluded from the normal procedures in the circular, but they have set up a working party. I was glad to hear from my hon. Friend that the London Boroughs Committee had 422 approved a report, and I have no doubt that we shall get a copy of it. I was also glad to hear that it was a very good and thorough report. It should be very helpful.
First, we have to decide what the problem is. That is not always easy, because on this subject there is so much emotion and passion on both sides. We have to decide how widespread the problem is, and what is required. We then have to encourage the supply of more and more sites of the right kind for use by the vagrants. That is an important point. If I may say so, I do not see much use in regarding vagrants as though they were large numbers of irresponsible people who have to be provided with a considerable amount of welfare services. As my hon. Friend has said, these people know whether they are going. They are fairly shrewd, and many of them show all the external signs of prosperity.
One has to concede, too, that they are performing a valuable function, because until local authorities, either as a result of the encouragement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), or of their own volition, decide to do something about scrap, and particularly automobile scrap, the vagrants will be doing something that someone has to do. One therefore has to look at the matter from the point of view of what kind of provision is best to enable them to live the kind of life they want to live, without their getting too much on the nerves of their neighbours. That calls for mutual tolerance on both sides.
To my hon. Friend's rebuke that the circular showed too much sympathy with the vagrants and too little with the ordinary respectable public, the answer is that in writing to local authorities the important thing is to get them to do something. They get the other side of the picture put fairly forcefully by their own councillors and ratepayers; it must be got across to them that something must also be done for these people. If we do not act, someone suffers. If some authorities do a lot and others do nothing it is unfair on the former.
Having got an idea of the right strategy to adopt and the right kind of provision to make, we have to consider how it can be made effective. That, I concede, will 423 probably call for legislation on quite a number of matters. My hon. Friend asked whether it would be possible under existing legislation to provide a specific grant for this purpose, and we shall have to look at that point.
Having provided the wherewithal, it is important, using my hon. Friend's own analogy that in order to succeed in getting cards off the road we have to provide parking places, in the same way, if we are to succeed in getting the vagrants off the roads and public places, we have to provide adequate other facilities. Then we can begin to enforce the law effectively. Merely to start at this stage by being severe with the vagrants and harrying them with prosecutions will not do any good unless there is some alternative site for them. It will merely scatter them and spread the problem.
Therefore, the second stage is to have the right kind of facilities available and accessible, and then to look at how we can get those facilities used. I am afraid that I can give my hon. Friend no assurance that they will be used—that would be beyond any Government Department to ensure. We can only seek to encourage their use, and encourage local authorities to get them used.
§ Mr. MacdonaldI quite appreciate that one cannot ensure that they are used, but as he is contemplating legislation, would he contemplate legislation to discourage parking somewhere else when the sites have been provided?
§ Mr. MacCollI was coming to that point. Having got the sites, which one is confident are the right sites, one can then look at the sanctions to secure their use.
When my hon. Friend mentioned some of the provisions that are being used and their weaknesses, he did not mention the point that was discussed together with Bromley, when he came to see me, and that is, the use of byelaws under the Local Government Act. Our view is that those byelaws would be worth a try. We said that at the time, but I gather that nothing more has been done about it. I quite accept that it is not much use doing this until there are adequate provision of sites, which brings me to the point about the particular site to which my hon. Friend referred.
424 I am sorry to hear that it has been impossible for these two authorities—the Bromley Borough Council and the Greater London Council—to come to some agreement about the use of the site. We made is clear in our discussions as my hon. Friend knows, that we thought it was a good idea that the site should be used. I will have a look at that to see if there is anything more that we can do in the matter.
My hon. Friend raises this matter at an interesting time, because we are about to receive the report from the London Boroughs Committee and the results of the circular. It is interesting to have a discussion about it preparatory to that. I must, however, make the point that it is too early for us to make an assessment of the problem and to get the collective wisdom of the authorities on what they think could be done. My right hon. Friend has an open mind on the matter. He is not shutting his mind to the possibility of legislation, if that can be managed. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is such a master at Private Members' Bills, might think that this is worthy of his skill. However, it is no use having legislation for the sake of giving the impression that we are doing something, when in fact we are not really tackling the problem. The important thing is to answer the questions: how big is the problem, where is it, and what kind of facilities are required?
§ 12.9 a.m.
§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he approached the problem which both the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) and I have in common. When the gypsies first came to our area they settled mainly in his constituency, but nowadays large numbers of them have come over the border and are now living in Orpington. I have not seen the site on the A20 to which he referred, but I am sure he is well aware that we have a large number of itinerants—I think the word "vagrant" has a rather opprobrious overtone—living on the borders of the A21 just beyond Green Street Green in my constituency.
Whatever one may say about this matter, it excites the passions and the frenzy of permanent residents in the neighbourhood. The mess created by 425 the activities of the people who live in these caravans does create a problem, however great the social value they may have. I admit there was something in what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that, so long as local authorities are not undertaking this work, the residents in the caravans are performing a valuable social function, but I would like him to put that to the people who live along the A21 and see what sort of reaction he gets. I invite him to come down to the London Borough of Bromley, if he has not already done so. He could quite easily, within a short space of time, tour the site on the A20 to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chislehurst referred and also the other one which most interests me in my constituency beyond Green Street Green.
This problem has been troubling us for some time. As the hon. Gentleman said, one had, first of all, a settlement on the Ramsden estate. They moved away from there, and, finally, a number have settled on the site which I have mentioned. In the intermediate period, they were also at Pratts Bottom, adjacent to a small village, where they cause quite a lot of nuisance.
426 I hope that the Minister will agree that, as the outer fringes of Greater London become more and more built up, it is less and less possible for caravans occupied by itinerants to be placed in the interstices between the built-up areas without some kind of impingement on the permanent population, and we should, therefore, be thinking of sites provided much further out. This is why I intervened and asked whether the hon. Gentleman had yet had a reply from the Kent County Council. It is my impression that very little is being done in the rural areas of Kent, and we in the London Borough of Bromley are bearing far more than our fair share of the burden in South-East England as a whole. The London Borough of Bromley has made at least some attempt to tackle this problem, and——
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.