§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
11.41 pm§ Mr. George Gardiner (Reigate)I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject of implementation of the Department of the Environment's model rules for the management of gipsy sites at Green lane, Outwood, in Surrey. To do so I must refer to the turbulent history of this gipsy site, to the lawlessness and anarchy that spreads from the site to constitute a threat to all who live round it, to the recent events that have brought this to a head and, I regret, to the bureaucratic procrastination that has allowed this sore to go on festering.
I should explain that the Green lane site is not in my Reigate constituency, but immediately over its border in the east Surrey seat of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. His constituents, like mine, are threatened by what goes on in the site, and he and I have always worked in close liaison to seek a solution. I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend, who, despite the burden of official duties, has always been ready to listen to complaints and to act upon them, both in representations to Surrey county council and to Tandridge district council, which has the task of administering that site.
In years gone by this site had many more pitches, but they have now been reduced to some 18. Each pitch can accommodate up to four caravans, which means that we have a potential of some 72 caravans being involved. A country lane, appropriately called Green lane, runs right past the site, from which it is separated by an earth banking, or bund, originally designed to hide the camp from the road, but which now serves as a stockade from which passing vehicles are attacked. The site is reasonably well provided with permanent washing facilities and latrines.
The gipsies residing in the camp are not travellers in any meaningful sense of the word, but are in permanent occupation. They divide basically into three large families or clans, who at times are at war with each other.
The Green lane site has a long history of lawlessness. I have police records going back to 1983–84, but the problem goes back further than that. Stolen cars are regularly brought into the camp for burning after being cannibalised; neighbouring properties, especially a timber yard, have been the targets for arson; gipsy youths have fired catapults through the windows of houses in Green lane and in Honeycrock lane leading into it; trees have been felled to blockade Green lane, or cars set alight to achieve the same purpose; passing cars are regularly hailed with stones and concrete blocks from behind the bund or barricade; and physical assaults and threats have been made against law-abiding citizens. Surrey police do all that they can, but more often than not it is impossible to find the culprit.
Just recently, events have taken a much more sinister turn. This began when the police discovered more than a dozen stolen cars in and around the site. They were part of what is known in the trade as a "ringing" operation—legally purchasing insurance write-offs, then stealing cars to cannabalise so that relicensed vehicles can be done up almost as good as new. Some of the cars found had even been stolen from garages before they had been sold.
1075 Police investigations were immediately resented by the gipsies, who seem to think that the law of the land does not apply to them. The adjacent timber yard was set ablaze again, almost as a demonstration against authority. There were increasing barricades of Green lane, and more incidents of stones and bricks being hurled through the windows of cars brought to a halt. Drivers have been injured before, and an injury happened again on 29 June. A police car containing officers making inquiries into this incident was pelted with stones in broad daylight, so firm was the conviction of some of these gipsies that they were above the law.
Following this incident, 50 police officers mustered from Surrey and Sussex, wearing riot gear, stormed the camp, and were able to make a number of arrests. Since then, the police have warned the public to stay well away from the camp. Green lane may not be a "No Go" area so far as the police are concerned, but it certainly is to my constituents and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). This is a scandal that just cannot be allowed to continue.
I have every admiration for the way in which the police have handled this matter, and I am not raising this as a law and order issue in tonight's debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East and I have been convinced over a long time that the root cause of this situation lies in the management, or lack of it, of this gipsy site, and related to it the obvious unsuitability of its layout. It is for these reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister is replying tonight for the Department of the Environment.
The camp has been there for many years, until 1986 under temporary planning permission. However, in the summer of that year it was proposed to make planning permissison permanent, to assist Tandridge district council achieve designation under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The proposal was put to the county council's planning committee by the county's own gipsy subcommittee, acting in concert with the Tandridge council. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East and I lodged objections to that planning application on the ground that the site should not be given permanent status until a better management regime had been instituted and been shown to work.
Alas, our warnings were not heeded by the county planning committee, which was moved primarily, I think, by the need to achieve designation under the Act. Permanent planning permission was granted, but at the same time a number of important promises were made to reassure the public. The first promise was that the earthwork bund would substantially be removed, retaining only as much as was necessary to set limits to the width of access to the site. Thus, the barricade would be removed from which attacks can be mounted on vehicles—public and police—by gipsies who can remain unseen. The second promise was that the circular service road inside—which serves as a race-track for the gipsies before vehicles are burned—would be severed, at the same time separating slightly the different gipsy families on the site.
I have to say that absolutely nothing has been done since to honour those two promises. I visited the site when they were made, and last Friday I went back—under police escort—to look at it again. Absolutely nothing has changed over the intervening two years. Tandridge council 1076 says that it is waiting for the county council and the county says that it is waiting for the Department of the Environment to agree to pick up the bill. So nothing is done. Meanwhile, the estimated cost is escalating, and it is doubtful whether any contractor would agree to work on the site. Certainly he would need to bring his equipment to the site each day—it could not possibly be left overnight.
At the time planning permission was granted nothing was said about the promises being dependent on Department of the Environment financing. Tonight I urge my hon. Friend to cut through this bureaucratic tangle to get something done, and fast.
A third promise was also made in that discussion two years ago. It was that Tandridge council would institute a reformed management structure for the site. Perhaps it did, but it appears to have had negligible effect. Now the council's spokesman speaks of a new working party to investigate its management and see what improvements can be made. It is, alas, the same old story that we have heard before.
Tandridge council employs a gipsy officer, but, by common consent, he is worse than useless. He seems to regard his role as defending the gipsy inhabitants from the outside world. He can never be found when needed and is regarded as an irrelevance by local residents and by the police.
The gipsy officer does not reside on site. I know that there are many arguments against having resident wardens and that it is generally better to let the gipsies order their their own affairs, but the record of lawlessness on this site is so persistent and serious that a resident warden must be considered. It would not be an easy job, but it must be done.
Then there is the question of the site rules and their enforcement. I have read the Department of the Environment's model rules, or guidelines, in appendix II of its useful booklet "Management of Local Authority Gypsy Sites". Are those the rules that apply on the Green lane site? No one knows. Nearly three years ago, I asked Tandridge council to let me have a copy of its site rules, but this was rejected by the council's housing committee in November 1985. The excuse was offered that tenancy agreements were a personal matter between the council and the gipsy tenant concerned. I still do not know what those site rules are.
If the model rules were applied, the council would have ample power to move in and evict trouble-makers, assuming, of course, that the will was there. The model rules say that the occupier
shall not (1) cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, and (2) burn car bodies, tyres, cables or other material likely to be offensive.If those are the rules at Green lane, then they are broken every week. The model rules also say that the councilshall not interfere with the right of the occupier to quiet possession of the pitch as long as the occupier complies with the residential agreement.Where the rules are violated repeatedly, there is no reason why the council should not move to evict.What is needed above all here is a new attitude by the council to the responsibilities of management. In the past, I have found officers at both district and county level far too inclined to make excuses for the behaviour on this site, even suggesting that crimes committed in the immediate vicinity of the camp were committed by the non-gipsy community.
1077 There has also been a reluctance in the past to deal openly with the public. When, two years ago, 11 gipsy tenants defrauded Tandridge council of £7,000 by tampering with electricity meters, it was considered by the housing committee in secret session, when it was decided not to prosecute. If it had not been for a vigilant local press, no one outside would even have been aware of it. Protective behaviour of that kind must go.
It was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East who first pointed out that successful management of this site demands the closest liaison between both councils, the DHSS, social services and the police. If site rules are applied here, and if the police, in the course of their inquiries, come upon evidence that those rules are being flouted, such information must be provided to the council, which must then act upon it. Meanwhile, control of the site must be far more direct and visible. The public must be reassured that commitments and promises made are honoured and that a new gipsy officer sees it as a prime responsibility to enforce them.
The lawlessness and anarchy that pervades the Green lane site is far too deep-rooted and has been allowed to continue for too many years to be ended overnight. But environmental improvements of the kind promised two years ago, a resolute management regime that has the will to evict persistent trouble-makers, and a determination to deal openly and honestly with local residents both individually and through organisations such as the Outwood Society will ensure that the Green lane site ceases to strike fear in the hearts of law-abiding citizens.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take all the action she can to make local authorities appreciate their responsibilities in carrying out national policy with regard to the management of gipsy sites, so that Green lane ceases to be a ghetto of crime and violence in what should be a peaceful area of Surrey's countryside.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marion Roe)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) for raising the issue of management problems of a gipsy site near his constituency. I appreciate that this is a matter which he raises with the support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). It is a problem which affects many people locally and I hope that my reply will he considered helpful.
I begin by stating that the establishment and efficient running of any gipsy site is fraught with difficulties. It is not a new problem, nor is it limited to any particular part of the country. That is why I have spoken often in the House on this subject. The problems involved are not intractable, but they demand much effort and attention if a solution is to be identified. I hope that I will be able to persuade my hon. Friend that we are moving in the right direction. We are all keen to bring to an end the kind of problems he has mentioned.
We are dealing with a number of issues. First, there is a need to provide sites to accommodate gipsies. Following on from that, we have to ensure that the sites are well run, satisfying gipsy need and fitting in with the local community. Finally, we must look at what steps can be taken when that is not the case.
Solutions to the gipsy problem must be considered in the national context. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear 1078 with me while I restate briefly what the law proposes on the subject. It is considered that there are about 10,000 gipsy families in this country for whom some form of accommodation is needed. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 places a duty on county councils, London boroughs and metropolitan districts to provide sites for gipsies who reside in or resort to their area.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can be satisfied that adequate provision exists for the accommodation of gipsies in a particular area, or that in all the circumstances it is not necessary or expedient to make adequate provision, he will be able to consider an application that the area should be designated. Under the provisions of the 1968 Act designation gives the authorities greater power to control unauthorised camping by gipsies in their area.
I recognise the difficulties that exist over the provision of sites in some areas, including Surrey, but I think it right that the House should recognise the progress that has already been made. At the beginning of this year there were, countrywide, 258 local authority sites in existence, providing approximately 4,250 pitches for gipsy caravans. Additionally we believe there are some 2,300 caravans on private sites. We recognise, however, that there is still a need for more than 3,000 pitches to accommodate the considerable number of gipsies without an authorised pitch. So we are making progress with getting sites established. But what then? How do we ensure that sites are well run?
The Government have given, and will continue to give, extensive assistance to authorities in the performance of their statutory duties. First, we make 100 per cent. Exchequer grant available for sites provided by local authorities. We have set aside £6 million for this purpose in the current financial year. This allows a modest level of facilities to be provided on each gipsy pitch and encourages pride of identification.
For many local authorities, setting up a gipsy site is a difficult business. To help, my Department has issued advice in circulars and various forms of guidance note. These have covered topics ranging from the location of sites through to detailed aspects of how a site may be constructed. We then supplement formal advice with regular informal liaison between officials of my Department and those of local authorities.
This assistance has been invaluable. The making available of expertise held at the centre has helped many local authorities avoid costly and potentially harmful mistakes. The national record of successful sites deserves recognition. It will not be news to my colleagues that these success stories disappear under headlines about problem sites.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I have not forgotten about the management aspect. Good management of a gipsy site is essential if it is to function satisfactorily, for those living on it as well as for those living near it. Good management is also necessary if value for money is to be obtained from the Exchequer grant expended. Satisfactory management proposals are therefore a condition of grant approval. Management is essentially the local authority's responsibility. Sites may be managed by the staff of the authority concerned or, more usually, by a warden, who is often a site resident.
Management advice is available. It is contained in a booklet, based on the results of a research project commissioned by my Department. That booklet is made 1079 available to anyone who needs it. It is geared towards managers. It is then up to managers to draw up specific site rules or a code of conduct. These should be easy to understand. They should be easy to explain to an illiterate gipsy. An example of a simple set of rules is set out in one of my Department's circulars. I wish to emphasise that these are practical steps which have been successful. Many sites have rules. Most gipsies follow them.
I have made it clear that site management is important. My Department has now become involved in an excellent initiative to take matters one step further. We are part-funding a course on site management. It is organised and certified by the Institute of Housing, in conjunction with the North-East London polytechnic. It will be starting in London in November this year. The interest being shown in it is considerable. There may be other courses starting elsewhere in the next few years.
I stress that these are all positive steps. We are aware that there are problems and we are confronting them purposefully. It is rare for authorised sites, including private ones, to cause any trouble. Trouble, when it occurs, is normally confined to unauthorised encampments. That is why my hon. Friend might take a little comfort. The problems to which he refers must be solved and there is a good chance that they can be solved.
Problem sites are essentially a management issue. Let me assure my hon. Friend that gipsies are not above the law. If the problems are serious, if they involve criminal offence, remedies are available. The police will exercise their powers, if necessary. They will assess every situation and act accordingly. In most cases, however, it need not come to that. Local authorities should be, and usually are, able to sort out these problems themselves.
Let me turn from the general to the particular. As my hon. Friend knows, the Green lane gipsy caravan site at Outwood was first established in 1964 by Godstone rural district council. This is now part of Tandridge district council. It was a large site with about 50 pitches for caravans. I understand that from the start there were problems in its management: in fact, it rapidly acquired a very bad reputation. There were quite violent disputes between groups who used it, and there was vandalism within the site.
As has already been said, the local authority found it extremely difficult both to provide and to operate proper management. After a fairly short time it was decided that the site was far too large for efficient control. The number of pitches was reduced, first to 25 and later to 18. A specific manager for the site was appointed and further improvements were proposed.
1080 That brings the story up to 1980, when my Department was asked to approve improvement works. These particularly concerned the electricity supply and individual pre-payment meters. My predecessors approved this for grant and then, in 1981, approved an alternative, more expensive but safer scheme, which was subsequently installed at a total cost of £29,949.
Unfortunately, accompanying the efforts made to improve the facilities at the site, the level of management supervision has decreased. There has not been a warden at the site for some years. It has also become clear that the site layout is unsatisfactory, and that has contributed to certain tensions. The recent troubles associated with Green lane are the result of not giving the site as much attention as it needs. The problem must be addressed by the local authority responsible for management. In this respect, the situation is improving. The county council, district council and police are meeting soon to discuss the problem. Proposals for better management of the site are already being prepared. Establishing better relations between all groups concerned is a priority.
I understand that a package of works for the site is being drawn up by the district council, which is acting as agent for the county council. The complete package includes building works, and has been provisionally costed at about £55,000. It will involve changes to the site layout. Some of the occupants will be relocated within the site. An earth bund which has been preventing proper access to the site will be shifted or removed.
If the developments result in an agreement on some scheme of capital works, there may follow an application to my Department for approval and further grant aid. Until such an application is made, I cannot know whether the cost would be eligible for grant. We will naturally consider any proposal carefully and sympathetically.
However, I want to underline strongly my view that the future well-being of the site depends on the management proposals brought forward. The site may need a permanent warden. If this is not possible, the district council will have to come forward with another solution. It is possible that the problems could have been avoided, and it is incumbent on the local authority to prevent their recurrence. Grant aid will be conditional on such an assurance.
I hope that this news will bring cheer to my hon. Friend. Everyone concerned in the matter is working together to help bring an end to the problems that have occurred on the site, and officials are always available to offer advice and guidance. In this case, I feel they can do no more. It is now up to the local authorities, county and district, to act.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.