WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order) (Hansard, 23 April 1969)

§ Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton)
The issues raised on this Bill have already been fully canvassed before the House, and this is not a matter on which it would be appropriate for me to detain the House for long.
On most of the questions of which I have to speak, the situation is shared by West Bromwich in common with Walsall, save for one important distinction. The whole matter arises from the West Midlands Order of 1965, an egg from which there hatched a variety of problems in the West Midlands. Briefly, that Order amalgamated several authorities into five county boroughs. Many of the activities carried on by those authorities were under local Acts, but these applied only to the local authorities which now no longer exist, so that we should, if nothing were done, be left with an administrative vacuum.
Article 51 of the Order deals with the matter in this way. It provides that those Acts shall continue to apply to the areas to which they formerly applied or to the new authorities in which they are incorporated until 31st December, 1970. At that moment, Cinderella will lose her clothes, and, unless she makes other provision, she will go naked to the conference table. [Laughter.] For hon. and 608 right hon. Members opposite who do not live in the area, it may be a matter of some frivolity, but it is not entirely a matter of levity for those who do.
If we are left with no statutory powers after December, 1970, the West Bromwich Corporation will have to resort to the general powers in a number of local government Acts. The House knows how few local authorities succeed at present in conducting their affairs purely under the powers in general Acts. It would mean that, for example, Wednesbury market would have to close. Wednesbury market has existed from the days when a royal charter was conferred upon the lords of the manor of Wednesbury. It is a market in which I bought my toy animals as a child, and it is very dear to the hearts of the people who take advantage of it. If there is no legislation, there will be inconvenience for everyone, and rather more than inconvenience for the residents of West Bromwich.
I turn now to the matter which engaged the principal attention of the House in the earlier debate. In this Bill it arises on Clause 75, which provides that the consent of the corporation shall be required to the placing of any movable dwellings in a public place. It is a provision to control the movement of caravan dwellers. I say at once to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) that at one time I shared in substantial measure their reservations about this Bill. However, I am sure that they will agree that this is not a problem on which it helps to be heated or dogmatic.
In the overcrowded residential areas of the Black Country, residents who wake to find caravan dwellers literally touching their garden walls can, perhaps, be understood, if not always excused, if they do not rush out to welcome the newcomers. It is a situation fraught with difficulties for everyone. Sometimes, the caravan dwellers behave so as to endear themselves to the local community. Sometimes they do not. Even when there is maximum tolerance and sympathy on both sides, in situations where there is no running water and no toilet facilities, the effects can only lend support to those who would behave as parishes used to behave towards indigent paupers, pushing them on to the next parish. But we solve no problems in that 609 way. Moving caravan dwellers along without thought to where they go, so that they create a similar problem elsewhere, while they are replaced by vagrants from somewhere else, is a heartless and brutal way of dealing with the problem and it solves no one's difficulties.
When the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, is activated, a number of these problems will disappear. Until then, it will not do just to play this game of musical chairs at the expense of both the local residents and the caravan dwellers. It is here that there is a substantial difference between the situation of West Bromwich and that of Walsall, because the West Bromwich Council is trying quite sincerely and in good faith to deal with the matter.

§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Archer
I am very much obliged that the hon. Gentleman accepts this.
Together with the council of Wolverhampton, West Bromwich Council is looking at a specific site where it is hoped that it will at least be able to make its contribution to the problem.
Normally I do not have a great deal in common with the present council of West Bromwich. It has a different political composition now; I do not approve of its activities, and I am sure that it does not approve of mine. But I know most of the councillors, and I know the officials of the council, and I can assure the House that I accept that this is a genuine search for a solution to the problem.
If the House desires, I can give further details, but it may think that that would be undesirable at this rather early stage in the search. When the matter comes to Committee, the Committee will no doubt expect further details. As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, if those details are not forthcoming it may very well be that the Committee will take a certain view as to whether the Clause should be included. Having supported the Bill on Second Reading, I shall regard it as very much an obligation to keep a close eye on the matter on behalf of both the caravan dwellers, for whom hon. Members are properly concerned, and the residents of West Bromwich. In those circumstances 610 I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)
Having had an extremely helpful reply from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the conclusion of the last debate, I do not wish to detain the House any further, but I would be grateful if he could repeat his assurance and make it clear that it also applies to the other two Bills.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) that the West Bromwich Council is different in this respect from the Walsall Corporation in that at least it has shown willing by entering into discussions with the Wolverhampton Corporation to provide a jointly operated site. I congratulate it on that and hope that its endeavours meet success and that the Minister, as he promised in the Circular he issued after the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, was passed, will expedite loan sanction so that this contribution towards the solution of the difficulties of that area can be made as soon as possible. I only wish that the Walsall Corporation had shown a similarly forthcoming attitude.
I wish the hon. Member every success in the further progress of the Bill.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)
In response to the hon. Gentleman's invitation, I give the same assurances on the caravan Clauses of this Bill as I did on the last. We recommend that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, but my right hon. Friend will look very carefully at these provisions. So long as they do not breach the kind of conditions I stated before. I think that he would make a report in the same way. We do not think that the matter should be dealt with piecemeal. If an authority wants to do policing measures, provision of sites should be made at the same time.