§ 13. Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment against what criteria he has exempted three London boroughs from designating gipsy sites; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. GowIn designating Camden, Islington and Westminster, account was taken of the exceptional difficulty in these three inner London boroughs of finding land suitable for a gipsy site and of the size and nature of the gipsy presence in those areas. The decisions in each case were taken by the then Secretaries of State and the relevant statutory instruments were approved by Parliament.
§ Mr. GreenwayBearing in mind that thousands of my constituents have attended public meetings on this matter, 685 may I ask for my hon. Friend's assistance in resisting GLC and Labour party pressure to redesignate Kensington road and Ruislip road in my consitituency as gipsy sites? The people of the area suffered vandalism, theft and other troubles from these tinkers. [Interruption.] Oh yes, they did. It is no good Labour Members saying anything else. Why should Ealing be designated as a gipsy authority? There is no more land in Ealing than there is in the three boroughs mentioned in my hon. Friend's reply. If they do not have to have gipsies on Hampstead Heath, because of Labour politicians, why do we have to have them in Ealing?
§ Mr. GowI understand my hon. Friend's depth of feeling and I ackowledge the great tenacity that he has shown in pursuing the interests of his constituents. He will know that on 11 September a meeting took place between representatives of the London borough of Ealing and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, at which the borough acknowledged that it was necessary for it to find a suitable gipsy site. Correspondence between the borough and my hon. Friend is continuing.