HC Deb 17 November 1967 vol 754 cc885-96

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

On a point of order. It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the glory of this House is that it can adapt itself to the circumstances, and adapt itself very quickly. Everyone knows that our country is in a state of crisis and, indeed, in some senses, bleeding to death.

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to tell us, in the absence of the Leader of the House—if he were here even for the purpose of telling us that he had no statement to make, which at least would be something—what we who are concerned with the state of our country can do to stop this complete and total neglect of the House of Commons this afternoon—not merely neglect, but positive insult—as evinced by the way in which proceedings have been carried on today.

Mr. Speaker

That is a matter not for the Chair but is one which the hon. and learned Member must take up with the Leader of the House and those of whom he complains. Mr. Iremonger.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)

On a point of order. Before I—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member will realise that his point of order is coming out of his own time.

Mr. Iremonger

Be that as it may, if I may say so with respect, Mr. Speaker, I must first raise with you a point of order.

In writing to you to ask for my name to go forward in the Ballot for the Adjournment, I indicated that the topic which I intended to raise was one for which the Minister of Transport was, in my opinion—and, indeed, is—answerable to the House, but unless my eyes deceive me something has gone wrong, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, whom we all respect, is here from another Department. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it can be put on the record that this is clearly not acceptable and, secondly, whether it is possible now to remedy this mistake?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has put on record the point that this is not acceptable, but I am afraid that there is nothing he can do to remedy it at the moment. It is a matter he should have resolved before coming to this debate.

Mr. Iremonger

Then I begin by making the strongest possible protest against the fact that my clear indication that I wanted to raise the matter with the Minister of Transport was disregarded without my being informed, and that the hon. Gentleman is sent down here instead, to answer for a matter for which he has absolutely no responsibility whatever, although he may have a passing and, irrelevant interest.

Therefore, I proceed to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport, to whom these points will be emphatically conveyed by the hon. Gentleman, a grievance which is annoying my constituents and for which the Minister of Transport is directly and personally responsible, and which I am asking the Minister of Transport to redress forthwith.

The grievance arises out of the continuing presence, directly encouraged by the positive action of the Minister of Transport, on the grass verge of Woodford Avenue in my constituency—a trunk road for which the Minister of Transport is responsible, and the freehold of which is vested in the Minister of Transport—of some score of families of caravan-dwelling travellers. These people have been trespassing on this land periodically and briefly for many years past, but they have recently been there for some months on end; and, unless the Minister of Transport responds to my plea, they are likely to remain there indefinitely. Perhaps the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is satisfied at that.

I visited this site last Sunday, and I saw some 20 caravans all inhabited, there and a dozen or so cars and lorries which had been pulled off the highway across the public footpath and parked on the wide grass verge which is Ministry of Transport land. The grass is heavily churned up by wheel tracks and trampled into a muddy slush. The caravans are surrounded by filthy refuse. On examining the ground around the first three caravans I observed human excreta in various places. The fence between the grass verge and the school playing fields adjoining it is broken in many places and is everywhere piled with junk, and bits of broken, twisted metal, rusting entrails from cars and refrigerators, and rotting fabric and timber. Rotting refuse, food and ordure and detritus of every kind is scattered all around. It is also apparent that the lorries are used for carrying to the site old cars and metal junk and bits of machinery, which are apparently broken up and presumably, peddled to scrap metal dealers while discarded pieces are allowed to pile up all around the caravans, to be left there when the people go away. If all the caravans, lorries and cars, all the human beings, their animals, dogs and rabbits, were removed it would take many man-hours, much cartage and haulage, much renovation and repair, at the cost of public money to which the inhabitants of those caravans have contributed absolutely nothing, and many months, to restore this public land to decent condition?

On the opposite side of the trunk road and all around in this vicinity live many thousands of my constituents who, at much trouble and expense and at considerable financial sacrifice to themselves in rates and taxes, maintain a high standard of cleanliness, sanitariness and decency. These people are bitterly resentful and outraged that public authorities financed from their own heavily taxed pockets should not only permit but, in the case of the Minister of Transport, as I shall presently show, abet and encourage this continuing series of offences against them in the shape of these sustained public nuisances.

I represent these people, and on their behalf I ask the hon. Gentleman to convey to the Minister of Transport that it is her fault, the Ministry's fault, and that it must be stopped.

I do not want to be accused of painting the lily or gilding gold, but perhaps I might add that my constituents complain to me in detail, for example, of indecent exposure by the children of these people, who use the open public land along the highway as a latrine. They complain of the loss of amenity value of the neighbourhood, which is reflected in house prices. They complain that the continuous burning of bonfires in the open air makes smoke and acrid smells which are a nuisance to them. They complain that the inhabitants of these caravans, who have no water laid on, are always coming to their doors and begging for water.

They say—although it would be unfair for the House to prejudge any issue that is not brought to court—that there is a disturbing increase in petty thieving in the neighbourhood. They complain, rightly in my view, about the danger of the spread of diseases through refuse and sewage being exposed to the air, especially in the summer. They point out that the adjoining playingfields are occupied by children from the Beal school next door and that the presence of the school makes this settlement particularly objectionable, partly because the children from the settlement use the playingfields as a latrine, and partly because, on Saturdays and Sundays, they trespass on the school ground and use the playing fields without authority, churning up grass and spoiling the surface which is maintained at public expense.

They also complain that the caravan dwellers keep vicious dogs, which make it particularly dangerous and difficult for small children to be allowed to wander about as they should in the school grounds.

The fences are constantly being broken down, and these are expensive for the local authority to repair. In any case, it is obliged to leave it unrepaired in one place because crude latrines have been constructed by the settlers on the other side of it. They point out with some justice that the settlers who are creating this nuisance with the connivance of the Minister of Transport pay no rates, and it is doubtful whether they pay any taxes, whereas the people who suffer from their presence pay both rates and taxes.

I put the responsibility for this outrage against my constituents on the Minister of Transport. Woodford Avenue and its verges are her responsibility. They are vested in her. In certain respects, the borough council acts as the Minister's agent, and in the past it used to act promptly on its own initiative, as in duty it should, to turn trespassers off the site when they infested it. Now, the Red-bridge Borough Council is forbidden expressly by the Minister of Transport to do it.

I have in my hand a copy of a letter from the Town Clerk addressed to the Minister of Transport dated 8th November asking specifically for the prohibition against the Council as the Minister's agent moving these caravan dwellers from the site to be withdrawn and, furthermore, for the Minister and not the ratepayers to shoulder the cost of renovating the site and fencing it off.

I urge that the Minister of Transport should be asked by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who has no standing in this debate, to say "Yes" to both the requests contained in the letter addressed to the Minister of Transport by the Redbridge Borough Council. The only alternative for the council is to proceed under the Public Health Acts, which is a lengthy and virtually ineffective procedure, for technical reasons upon which I need not enlarge now.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will warn his right hon. Friend of the depth of feeling locally about the position. I cannot answer for the Redbridge Borough Council, and I cannot anticipate any decisions which it may make, but I should not blame the Council if it sued the Minister of Transport herself in respect of the public nuisances committed on her land with her consent. I should not blame the council if it defied the Minister's prohibition as being obnoxious, both in law and on grounds of public health, and towed away the caravans and vehicles anyway. I should not blame the Council if it sought an injunction in the High Court against a repetition of the prohibition purporting to have been made by the Minister.

I know that there are sociological problems involved. This may be how the hon. Gentleman has sneaked in to this debate, if I may say so without being offensive. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, for all his welcome presence personally, should come here and tell the House what we know from this publication of his Ministry, "Gypsies and other travellers", published by the Stationery Office. I know all about this. I personally was brought up on "The Romany Rye" and "Lavengro". Though there is precious little true Romany blood involved in this. I know all about the problem of the itinerant travellers, the gipsies, the Irish tinkers, and all the rest.

I am not without sympathy for their difficulties or without hope that they may be solved. But two wrongs do not make a right. To plead the interest of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which it may well be the hon. Gentleman wants to enlarge upon, is sheer prevarication. Certainly the difficulties of one Ministry in solving one problem do not justify the Minister of Transport in unlawfully creating another problem for totally innocent and law-abiding citizens and committing an indecent and insanitary offence in so doing.

The Minister of Transport's complicity and connivance in this offence is particularly cowardly and unfair—and my use of the word "cowardly" is further justified by the fact that that Minister has not even come to the House this afternoon. It is particularly cowardly and unfair because local people do not understand that the Minister of Transport has a rôle to play in this matter. They do not understand that this is the fault of the Minister of Transport, and, therefore, the odium falls locally upon the excellent and conscientious elected councillors and officials of the Redbridge Borough Council. This odious comparison is made particularly speciously attractive, because it so happens that other travellers have been moved from other land in the near neighbourhood, in Chigwell and in the Borough of Redbridge in the Woodford constituency. They have been moved from land which is Borough Council land, and people who object to the travellers on this Ministry of Transport land, from which they have in the past been moved, quite rightly, by the Redbridge Borough Council, ask why they cannot be moved off now, when Chigwell has moved them off Chigwell's land and the Council has moved them off similar land just down the road in Woodford. Therefore, it is particularly unfair on the Redbridge Council that the Minister of Transport should not recognise her responsibility and act or allow the Council to act on her behalf. The Council and its officials would, could, and are keen to do their duty if they are not actually stopped from doing so by furtive and sinister Ministerial duress exercised by the Minister of Transport.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to ask the right hon. Lady, who should either herself or through an Under-Secretary be replying to this debate, to confess her dilemma to the Cabinet and to ask for its blessing, regardless of the embarrassment of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, for her to do her plain duty and redress my constituents' grievances which are her direct and personal responsibility.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw (Ilford, South)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) for allowing this particular subject to be discussed. I do not intend to take up the time of the House for very long, and I am not particularly concerned who is sitting on the Front Bench as long as the message gets through.

I feel that I should speak on three counts. First, mine is one of the frontages which, unfortunately, faces this encampment. The hon. Member for Ilford, North told me that he visited this site last Sunday, but I see it every day and I must subscribe very much to what he has said about the chaos which has been perpetrated by these people.

Secondly, I am a member of the Redbridge Borough Council. As such, I would again subscribe to the point that the hon. Gentleman made that in fact this council, which is very anxious to deal with this matter, has incurred a great deal of odium from people who are not aware of the actual situation.

Finally, I am the representative of a number of parents whose boys attend the Beal Grammar School. I have here the reply to a letter which was sent to the Ministry of Transport as long ago as October of last year in which the usual reply was given. I told the Minister at that time that a boy from the school had been attacked by a dog belonging to the intinerants who were encamped there.

Up to now, to some extent anyway, the gypsies have come and gone, and there has been as it were a change round, but it seems now that this is becoming a permanent encampment. I suggest that it is time that something was done about this situation, appreciating, of course, that difficulties arise because we are dealing with human beings, and because there are problems in finding places for them to encamp.

4.20 p.m.

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

May I say, first, that I understand that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who moved his Motion so adequately, did not object to me personally, although I think that he objected to me ministerially, and perhaps I might say why I am here.

The reason is that the subject matter of caravan dwellers, gypsies, and itinerant travellers falls within the lot of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to deal with, and the fact that this problem arises on property owned by the Ministry of Transport does not, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise if he thinks about it, determine Ministerial responsibility. The major problem must be related to the Department which deals with these matters under the law. This is why I am here, though any specific matters which the hon. Gentleman raised which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport alone will be transmitted to that Department. The Ministry of Transport would have been glad to be represented here, but, for the reasons which I have given, it was thought proper and constitutional that I should take this debate, and I shall do so to the best of my ability. The two previous Adjournment debates on this subject in the House during the last 12 months, one in February of this year, and one in December last, were answered by my colleague the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the intensity of the problem in his constituency, and his statements have been corroborated by the hon. Member for the other part of the Borough, Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw). There is no difference of opinion about its being an intensely unpleasant nuisance and annoyance. Indeed, the report which was made to me personally before this debate confirms all that the hon. Gentleman said about the degree of annoyance and nuisance which this encampment is causing.

Anyone who has had any experience of this matter, as I have had as a constituency Member, realises how extremely embarrassing, difficult, and sometimes beset with problems the situation is when, in a particular locality, there is this haphazard unauthorised parking, without proper conveniences, without water, without hard standings, and without the sort of things which make this kind of life tolerable for the residents around, and make it difficult for those who are forced to live under those conditions.

There is, however, one hopeful note about the situation. Usually when the House is called upon to deal with this kind of personal problem there are so many factors, and so many interests involved, that it is sometimes difficult to come to a clear decision about a solution, but now we have the publication to which the hon. Gentleman referred, "Gypsies and other travellers", produced by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and we know the magnitude of the problem. This extremely valuable report has been produced on a scientific basis, as opposed to a romantic and sentimental basis, as is sometimes the case. It is precise and effective, and shows the magnitude of the problem. There are some 15,000 gypsies, or about 3,500 families to be catered for.

For a long time, although now with greater certainty because we are sure of the facts and the distribution of those who make up the category of people dealt with in the Report, the Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon Friend at the Ministry have said that the permanent answer to this problem is the provision of proper sites. Circulars have been sent, one this year, and one last year, drawing this to the attention of the authorities. Since the publication of this Report, my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Wales have been having further consultations with the local authorities about the provision of permanent sites.

Despite the fact that the authorities have been asked, over a fairly long period to provide sites, until recently progress has been extremely disappointing. There have been a number of authorities which have struggled and attempted to do something. I am glad to say that we are on the verge of more authorities coming forward with positive plans. Kent, the county in which I live, has given a splendid example in providing five of these permanent sites.

What ought to be realised by the local authorities, by both hon. Gentlemen and their constituents as well as the public at large, is that the problem can only be permanently solved, not by forever chivvying the gypsies, but by providing, as soon as may be, permanent sites. The difficulty is that when many authorities have attempted to tackle this problem in such a constructive way, they have met with very bitter opposition from the local inhabitants who have got used to seeing the chaos and mess at the side of the road, or wherever it may be, and some of them think that a permanent camp for gypsies would result in the same sort of thing.

Anyone who has looked at the publication "Gypsies and Other Travellers", and the photographs in it, knows that this is not true. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has seen any of the camps, but I would be glad to arrange for him to see those in Kent if he has not. There are permanent standings there, and nearly all the problems and the nausea surrounding roadside camping disappears when there are hard stand- ings, proper toilet facilities, water laid on and so on.

We are very glad to know that Essex is making a very valiant bid to provide camps for this winter. Havering is making such an effort and, on the other side of the water, Bexley is about to make an announcement. Some progress is being made, at last, in the borough of the hon. Member for Ilford, North Both my Department and the Ministry of Transport do not believe that merely giving additional powers to move gypsies on is any way to solve this problem. All that one is doing is relieving the problem in, say, the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but creating the same problem time and again in other parts of the country. It is no positive solution at all.

We are corresponding with all the London boroughs, including Redbridge. We know that there have been difficulties there about a possible site and we would like to have further discussions. The answer must be not in harrying the gypsies, but in providing sites for them as quickly as possible. Up to now there has been some difficulty about this, apart from the difficulties of local objections. It is sometimes thought that if one authority goes ahead and provides sites, this will attract gypsies from a very wide area.

It is now a firm policy on the part of the Government that these sites must be created. When one realises the total number to be accommodated—3,500 families—one appreciates that the number and size of sites, with perhaps 15 or 20 standings to a site, is not a very ambitious project. One hopes that most of the authorities will be able to get ahead very quickly with the provision of sites because it is only in that way that the problem will be overcome. In the meantime, if we can do anything to help the immediate problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, we will. As I said, we have already called for a return from all the authorities and have had a report from Redbridge.

I hope that it is in that light that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the problem can be solved by the provision of permanent sites which can be regulated and controlled, and which not only remove the difficulties and problems to which he referred but give many of the itinerant dwellers the opportunity to take a place in society, to let their children go to school and in turn become good members of society. We have found so far, in that part of Kent in which I live, that, with a temporary site for only two years, the transformation in its inhabitants who have children accepted in one school was encouraging and remarkable. It is in that spirit that the Government hope to solve the problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock.