HL Deb 24 May 1909 vol 1 cc1110-22

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

My Lords, last year I introduced a similar Bill with which I did not proceed because a very large portion of it was in process of being dealt with in a Government measure, which, I think, has met with almost universal acceptance in the country—I refer to the Children Act. That Act dealt with the question of the education of children who live in movable dwellings, and dealt with it in a much more thorough way than I or the County Councils Association could have ventured to propose. What is contained in the Bill now before your Lordships is the remainder of that Bill after deleting the part that related to education.

I am quite aware that on this question there is a good deal of sentiment, and I am very far from decrying that sentiment. I am, perhaps, one of the last persons who ought to decry it, for in common with a noble Lord who is not here, Lord Poltimore, I happen to have had a first cousin some five or six generations ago who was elected king of the gipsies. Therefore, I have some sympathy with a gipsy's life. There is a great deal to be said for a free life in the open air, sleeping beneath the starry canopy of heaven, free from the interference of a socialistic world and with all the pleasures of constant change of scene; and there are times, I confess, particularly in the month of August, when we are discussing very doubtful legislation in the somewhat vitiated atmosphere of this House, when I sigh for such a life. There is also the old historic sentiment. The nomad tribes of Europe, driven by a relentless civilisation to wander into every country, invading every country and conquering none, afford a melancholy instance of the proverb that no nation that did not build ever became great.

But we must not be carried away too much by sentiment in these days. There are many of your Lordships who are descended from those who came over to England with the Norman Conqueror, but I venture to think that if any of your Lordships were to endeavour to live in a Norman castle, with the hygienic conditions which were common in those days, you would rapidly fall into difficulties with the local authority, and that is a position the hardihood of which is so great that I do not think in these days any one would attempt it, except, perhaps, members of the Judicial bench. We are all bound by sanitary and hygienic rules, and it is impossible to contend that it is justifiable that any body of the community should be entirely free from them in these days.

It has been argued, however, and perhaps some of your Lordships have received a memorial from the Showmen's Society to this effect, that these people are already under the Public Health Act of 1875, which gives special powers to sanitary authorities to make rules and regulations and pass by-laws, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board, to deal with dwellers in vans and tents. It has been pointed out to me, and I daresay will be argued by the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board, that these rules and regulations are quite sufficient to meet the case. But the fact is that, although the powers possessed by the sanitary authorities differ very little from those which by this Bill your Lordships are asked to approve, there is this difference. In the first place, we maintain that a wandering community like those who live in movable dwellings should not, as at present, be subject to ever-varying and ever-changing by-laws, but should be subject to one set of by-laws, and that wherever they go they should carry these regulations with them. The other point is this. Granted that the powers of sanitary authorities are sufficient there still lies this great difficulty, that they take no account whatever of the mobility of the van dwellers, and that is at the bottom of the whole trouble.

The van dweller settles in a sanitary district. He breaks every law and regulation, it may be, of the sanitary district, but the moment that the sanitary authority begin to move to keep him in order he puts in his horse and leaves for another sanitary district, and the sanitary authority, like Dog-berry, allow him to go and thank the Lord they are rid of him. The sanitary authority have no machinery whereby they can pursue him when he is out of their district, and he proceeds to follow the same course within the new sanitary district. This Bill proposes that these wandering dwellers shall be given some kind of local habitation. They are, in the first place, to be registered, and, secondly, the power of controlling them is placed in the larger bodies of the community—namely, the county councils and the borough authorities.

I will touch very briefly on the various points raised in the Bill. Every temporary erection which is not intended to be moved and is not naturally moved is left where it is under the regulations, which almost invariably deal with temporary structures, of the local sanitary authority. There is no possible reason why such an erection, however temporary, however in- sufficient in its kind it may be, should not be left under the existing sanitary authority. The difficulties I have pointed out only commence when the temporary dwelling partakes of a movable nature. It has been urged that a movable dwelling should not include tents and light structures of that kind; but after very careful consideration, after trying many alterations and finding all of them more or less unworkable, I am afraid they must be included.

If the Bill were limited to vans and only to tents and temporary structures so far as might be necessary to bring the accommodation up to the hygienic requirements for the number of people occupying them, you might have the Act entirely evaded by persons living exclusively in tents which they could convey in a vehicle which in no way was used for the purpose of residence. It was for this reason that in drafting the Bill I felt bound to include tents as well as vans; and I am sorry to have to do so, because it renders it necessary to deal with several classes of tents which one would gladly leave out. To make the Bill symmetrical it is absolutely necessary that every dwelling which is designed to be and is liable to be constantly moved should have some place to which you may refer to find out its antecedents and the persons who are responsible for it. Your Lordships will notice that Clause 10 provides that nothing in the Bill shall apply to any movable dwelling used by any portion of His Majesty's naval or military forces or to any encampment which may be certified as under proper supervision by the Territorial Force Association of a county. You will also note that not only canal boats but house boats of all descriptions are expressly excluded from the action of the Bill.

Clause 1 merely provides for the registration of movable dwellings. Then by Clause 2 the Local Government Board are empowered to make regulations with regard to the registration. It is to be a condition precedent to registration that the registering authority should be satisfied that on sanitary and hygienic grounds these places are fit places for persons to live in, taking into consideration the number of people who will live in them, the question whether they are children or adults, and the question of the sexes. This is a regulation which is common to both urban and rural authorities, and I can see nothing whatever to complain of in it. This kind of regulation is made every day with regard to houses. The regulations as a whole, with this exception, go very little beyond the model by-laws of the Local Government Board. The matters dealt with in Clauses 4 and 5—certificate of registry and power to prohibit encampment—are exactly the class of things provided for in the model by-laws, with the exception, perhaps, of the prevention of fire. Anyone who has any knowledge of these wandering residences knows what a very great danger they are in the matter of fires. Half the fires which devastate moors and woods are due to people living this kind of life, and the necessity for some regulation is very great. In towns the regulation with regard to the sweeping of chimneys to prevent fire is a very analogous kind of regulation. Clause 3 provides that for the purpose of the registration of movable dwellings the registration authorities shall be the county and county borough councils.

Clause 5 is, perhaps, the one which introduces the most debatable matter into the Bill. That clause provides that— Where it appears to any registration authority that the presence of movable dwellings on any specified place or places within their area would be dangerous to the public health or constitute a nuisance to the neighbourhood the registration authority may by by-law prohibit such movable dwellings being on such specified place or places and any person acting in contravention of any by-law made under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. That is, I admit, a very large power, but it is a power much sought by county councils. None of the smaller authorities are willing to take the trouble or go to the expense of dealing with these persons, and the county councils think that they should be under their control. They consider that the county council would be the better authority to deal with them because, being the larger authority, they would be less likely to be swayed by any local or personal feeling, and would be better able to deal with the question as to whether a certain place was or was not suitable for the resort of movable dwellings. Although the camping of one movable dwelling on a certain spot for a short time may create no very great nuisance, yet the constant succession of such movable dwellings may very well constitute a considerable nuisance. The county and county borough councils are given power to deal with the encampment of movable dwellings even on land which is not waste and common land but the property of private individuals.

Clause 6 provides that it shall be the duty of the sanitary authority having jurisdiction in the place where a movable dwelling is for the time being situate to assist any registration authority concerned in carrying out the objects of the Bill by giving information and otherwise. It has been found by experiment that sanitary authorities are in most cases unwilling to act in matters of this kind on account of the difficulty of following movable dwellings and the expense that would be incurred; but if the work could be done by some other authority the local authority would be only too glad, in many instances, to assist. The proposal in the Bill, therefore, is that the authorities to control movable dwellings shall be the larger authorities, and that the smaller sanitary authorities should assist in the regulation of these dwellings. It is not by any means desired to take away from local sanitary authorities the power they exercise at present, but the fact is they exercise this power so very rarely that it is taking away from them nothing which they ever use. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 merely provide the machinery for carrying out the Bill.

I sincerely hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill. I am not prepared to argue that the details contained in it are incapable of amendment, and I am not going to say that they do not, perhaps, suggest the desirability of considerable investigation as to the necessity there is for them and the effect they would have if put into force. But I do say it is very strongly felt by county councils that this is a matter which decidedly needs regulation of some kind, and I think it will be to the advantage of everybody that this question should be ventilated and the matter carefully gone into. I hope, therefore, that whatever happens to the Bill in the future it may at least be allowed to pass this stage.

As I said at the commencement of my remarks, a portion of my original Bill has been rendered unnecessary by the legislation promoted by the Government. I have hopes that in this case, too, some future Government measure may work a cure. The Local Government Board have at this moment a Bill before Parliament for town planning, and here we have a class of individuals who are daily, almost hourly, planning towns and buildings of their own, varying from day to day and hour to hour, and they do it without any regulation whatever. I do not know whether it will be possible to bring this question within the four corners of such a Bill as that, but I do ask your Lordships to agree that this is a matter which needs consideration, and that it is only equitable and just that people who wander about and live in movable buildings of a very doubtful kind which could not possibly comply with the regulations appertaining to buildings inhabited by any other class of the community should be under some kind of regulations. That they should be entirely free from the regulations necessary both for health and sanitation is a matter which, I think, needs consideration, and which I recommend to the consideration of your Lordships.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH

My Lords, I should like to say two or three words on this Bill. It seems to me that the principal point in the Bill is that for securing the registration of the occupiers of these movable dwellings, and I have no doubt that is a sensible and good provision; but there seems to me no reason why, when an occupier of a movable dwelling obtains registration, he should not be required to obtain at the same time a licence and pay a certain sum for it. I see no machinery in the Bill for his being obliged to take out a licence and to pay a fee for it. It must be remembered that these people have a considerable advantage over other members of the community, for they roam about where they please and pay no rates and taxes. So long as they are favoured with pretty good weather they have a distinct advantage over other people, and it does seem fair that if they are to be dealt with in the manner suggested by the Bill they should be called upon to pay a reasonable sum for a licence to occupy these buildings. The money arising from these licences should be handed over to the councils who have jurisdiction in this matter. I have risen merely to throw out that suggestion. I do not wish to criticise anything in the Bill, and I venture to hope it may receive a Second Reading.

* LORD ALLENDALE

My Lords, as your Lordships were reminded by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, an almost identical Bill was introduced by him last year. It was then my duty to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government and to point out some of the difficulties in the provisions as they presented themselves to the Local Government Board, the Department that would be principally concerned in administering the Bill should it become law. I was then told by some noble Lords that I had displayed lukewarmness in support of the Bill. If I showed a certain amount of caution, it was not, nor will anything I may say to-day be, from any feeling on my part, or on that of the Local Government Board, that the question with which the Bill proposes to deal is not deserving of the attention of Parliament. But whilst fully realising that persons who live the existence which has been described ought not to be a nuisance to other people and a source of risk to themselves, it is found somewhat difficult to frame regulations for their control and to understand how the provisions in the Bill would quite have the effect that is desired by the noble Lord.

The general object of the Bill, as Lord Clifford has explained, is to provide for the registration and regulation of movable dwellings. These dwellings, I need hardly point out, are already subject to specific legislation under Section 9 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, and the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act of 1889. The two main features of the Bill are, first, the registration and control of movable dwellings by general regulations; and, secondly, the proposal to give power to local authorities prohibiting encampments in specified places in their districts. The existing law enables local authorities to make by-laws on some of the subjects dealt with in Cause 2, and many local authorities have already availed themselves of this power. The Bill proposes that there should be some general regulations instead of local regulations, and that their scope should be considerably extended. As I had occasion to point out last year, the Bill in this respect seems to go rather fluffier than is reasonably practicable or desirable, and the Department that I represent are of opinion that the scope of such general regulations will require very careful consideration. I gathered last year that amongst those of your Lordships who supported the Bill there was a general feeling that the people affected should be registered rather than that their existence should be destroyed, and I am afraid that some of the provisions of the Bill, if passed in their present form, would have the effect of altogether exterminating gipsies and others who would come within the scope of the Bill. Therefore I think the Bill will require a good deal of modification in that respect.

The noble Lord has, I am pleased to say, indicated that he would be prepared to move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, to which motion I hope your Lordships would agree; and if that course is to be adopted it will certainly save me a good deal of trouble in pointing out difficulties in the Bill at this stage. The intention of the noble Lord apparently is that the Local Government Board shall make regulations with respect to movable dwellings which shall prescribe some sort of standard of fitness, and that the local authorities who register shall have the right to refuse registration to dwellings that they consider insufficient or unsuitable. As I have said, I rather think the result of that would be that those gipsies who do not move about in a van but with a small equipment, perhaps in a small cart with rough material for putting up tents at night, would probably altogether disappear.

Then I should like to say a word on Clause 5, which, as Lord Clifford said, seems to contain the most debatable provision in the Bill. I question whether it is desirable to give local authorities a free hand in such a matter as prohibiting the encampment of gipsies and others in their districts. Local authorities have, I am informed, sometimes proposed by-laws on this subject, but I understand that the Home Office, to whom these by-laws have been referred, have been averse to approving them, and the same view has been taken in relation to similar proposals which have been made in private Bills. As I have said, the question of registration is certainly not an easy one to deal with; indeed, from the very nature of the case it cannot be easy, these dwellings being movable and it being difficult to trace them and to follow them about. In many cases registration would only be valuable in assisting identification. I think there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion made just now by Lord Zouche that these people when they are registered should be compelled to pay for a licence. As the noble Lord very properly pointed out, they have a great many advantages and are free from rates and taxes, and a small fee for a licence, if it is practicable—and I do not commit myself in the least to it, because I do not know whether it is practicable or not—is certainly a suggestion well worthy of consideration.

Another matter dealt with in the Bill is that of overcrowding. Local authorities already have power to take proceedings in the cases of tents, vans, and other structures which are so overcrowded as to be injurious to health, and it is questionable whether it would be practicable to go further than this and give them powers beyond what they already possess. The meaning of Clause 6, which makes it the duty of the sanitary authority to assist the registration authority in carrying out the objects of the Bill, does not seem to me to be very clear. The Bill contemplates, apparently, that the registration will be performed by county and county borough councils, but the enforcement of the Bill would lie with the police and local authorities in whose area the van and tent dwellers were found. I would, therefore, suggest that Clause 6 should be omitted, and that in its place a provision should be inserted making it the duty of the county and county borough councils and the police authorities to enforce the provisions of the regulations. Clause 8 provides that every registration authority under the Bill shall, not later than January 21 in every year make a report to the Local Government Board as to the execution of the Act within their area. It seems to me that it would probably be better that every medical officer of health should in his annual report refer to the execution of the Bill in his district. That would be, I think, a better way of dealing with it than that defined in Clause 8.

To go back to Clause 2, that clause refers to the renewal of registration from time to time. It seems to me that this also would be a very difficult matter to enforce. It would be impossible for a man who had registered in some northern county, for instance, and had removed, perhaps, to the other end of England, to go back to be registered afresh. This, however, is a matter with which, if the Bill goes to a Select Committee, the Committee would have an opportunity of dealing, and I need [...] say any more regarding it. I hope that after the remarks I have made I shall not be accused of having shown lukewarmness in support of the Bill. I have merely endeavoured to point out some of the directions in which, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, the Bill calls for amendment before it can be satisfactorily administered by them; and, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to use the words which fell last year from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in your Lordships' House, but who is unfortunately not in his place this evening. The noble Marquess said— I hope we shall not hesitate to give the Bill a Second Reading this evening. By doing so we commit ourselves only to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is, I conceive, this, that we do not desire that persons who adopt a nomadic mode of life should thereby emancipate themselves from the laws and regulations to which other members of the community are subject. I venture to think that that is the view of your Lordships and if the House is agreed generally on the principle of the Bill and will consent to refer it to a Select Committee, that Committee will have an opportunity of putting the Bill into shape, and of making it more workable, on the lines which I have indicated.

LORD BELPER

My Lords, I do not wish to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken for the Government into any of the details, because I understand from him that the Government are perfectly willing that the Bill should be read a second time, and that its details should be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of full consideration. If that is done by the general consent of the House I should certainly advise my noble friend to accept the suggestion. I may say that the County Councils Association, in promoting this Bill, have no idea that the details of the Bill could be passed in anything like the form in which they now are. It is clear that, in regard to a delicate matter of this kind, the first legislation should have the fullest consideration that can be given to it by a Select Committee, and if the Bill can be amended in any of the details to which tho noble Lord referred we shall be only too glad to do anything to facilitate that, in order that there may be some legislation which may meet the difficulties that have constantly arisen with regard to these nomad classes. I did not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Allendale, with regard to Clause 5. No doubt that clause gives certain powers to county councils. Those powers are guarded in this way, that it is only in cases within their area where it would be dangerous to the public health or constitute a nuisance to the neighbourhood for people to put their dwellings in these particular districts that they have this power to actually prohibit encampment. I think a county council is competent to exercise discretion of that sort. But, as I say, if there is any objection to the particular wording of this clause and it can be modified, we shall be only too happy that it should be considered. The Bill was read a second time last year, and I conclude from what the noble Lord has said that the Government are perfectly willing that it should be read a second time to-day before being referred t o a Select Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the course suggested is the one which was recommended last year by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, and it is the course, therefore, which we should desire respectfully to recommend to your Lordships to-day. We are very glad to hear that the measure is to be referred to a Select Committee. We think that the matter does require very careful inquiry. The scope of this Bill is a good deal wider, I think, than some noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships have indicated. Most of the speakers have spoken of gipsies as if the Bill only referred to gipsies, but it is far wider in its effect. The whole class of showmen, all those who cater for the innocent amusement of the countryside, come within the scope of this Bill. There is no reason, of course, why they should not be under proper regulations, but there is reason for caution in dealing with a matter of this kind. As your Lordships are aware, the association which showmen have formed is very much alarmed at the proposed legislation, and has made representations to your Lordships asking that Parliament should be very careful in what it does in this matter. The Bill would also include the summer encampments of working boys. All those are very wide powers, and when we find that these encampments are to be legislated for, not merely when they are in public places, but also when on private property—

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

In the case of camps of that kind there would be power to get out of the Bill altogether by obtaining a certificate from the Territorial Association that they were under proper supervision.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I understand that the Territorial Association would only operate in the case of military or quasi-military encampments. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that the Territorial Association is such an admirable body that it might be entrusted with the power of dealing with all encampments. But the point I wish to emphasise is that the scope of the Bill is extremely wide. Of course, if the evils which have to be met are great the Bill ought to be passed and ought to have a wide scope; but the question is, Are the evils great? Are there great objections from a sanitary point of view and from the point of view of fire and disease? It may be so, and we shall, therefore, await with the greatest interest the investigations of the Select Committee which your Lordships will, no doubt, appoint. Personally—and I believe my noble friends behind me agree—I think that is precisely the course which ought to be adopted with this Bill, and when we have the Report of the Select Committee in our hands we shall be able to judge how far the Bill ought further to proceed.

On Question, Bill read 2a.

Moved, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.