§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, I have introduced this Bill this session in the form in which it left the Select Committee to which your Lordships referred it. The Bill came back from the Committee considerably altered one or two points. The whole question of registration was struck out by the Committee, although a careful perusal of the evidence will show that nearly every witness whose opinion was asked on the subject spoke in favour of registration, or in no way disapproved of the principle. I think, therefore, that I might be justified in saying that the Committee came to the conclusion adverse to registration more than anything from an objection on their part to the trouble and inconvenience always attendant upon every system of registration. Personally I have always attached considerable importance to registration, because the difficulty throughout has been not with regard to the powers which existed for coping with the evils so much as the difficulty of putting those powers in force on account of these dwellings being able to be moved constantly from place to place, and by that means to evade the ordinary rules which have been adopted for the regulation of dwellings of a more fixed nature. I think it would have been very useful in many 98 other ways, and for police regulation generally, that these movable dwellings should be registered and known, and that there should be some means of following them up. Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was first introduced in your Lordships' House it contained much more than it did when it was last here, for it at first contained regulations with regard to the education of children in movable dwellings. Those provisions were, of course, dropped when the Children Act passed giving very large powers to local education authorities for enforcing the education of these children. In enforcing the law under the Children Act the local education authorities have found that it was more or less necessary for the ordinary working of the Act to make a list of movable dwellings which were habitually within their area, and I conceive that it would have very much facilitated the dealing with this question had some system of registration been introduced by which it might be clearly known to what persons the regulations wit h regard to movable dwellings applied, rather than leaving the matter vague and uncertain. But the question of registration has, as I have said, been set aside by the Select Committee to whom the consideration of the Bill was referred. I have, therefore, introduced the Bill this session in the form in which it recommended itself to the Committee, feeling sure that that was the feint in which your Lordships would give it the most favourable consideration.
The provisions of the Bill as so amended are really confined to what was originally Clause 5 of the Bill, which gave power to the county council, or whichever was the registering authority in the area, to prohibit certain places as unfit for encampments, either on sanitary or health grounds, or because they were in other ways unsuitable. That principle, with a limitation, is the foundation of the Bill as it left the Select Committee. Clause 1 lays down that where it appears to any county council that the presence of movable dwellings on any specified place or places within the county would be dangerous to the public health, the council may by by-law prohibit any movable dwelling from being on such specified place or places. Clause 2 enables a county council to prohibit the encampment of a movable dwelling upon any common or roadside waste or upon any land in private occupation, provided the persons who proposed to encamp there had 99 not the necessary permission; and the clause further gives power to the county council to prohibit camping even upon private ground where it appears that it would constitute a nuisance to the neighbourhood. Then there is this very important provision with regard to the exercise of these powers, that they must be under rules to be laid down by the county council and approved by the Local Government Board, and before the powers are made use of the county council must have already provided suitable camping grounds. Thus the effect of their restrictions will not be open to the objection that was urged against the original Bill—that if put into force without any such provision as this it would have the effect, first, of driving dwellers in movable dwellings into counties where such restrictions did not exist, and, when those counties had in turn made similar protective provisions, of driving them, as the expression went, "off the face of the earth." This has, we hope, been prevented. I think it was the admitted view of the Select Committee that such provisions as are in the Bill would only be put in force in places where movable dwellings had become an aggravated nuisance and danger to the district, and would be left to lie dormant wherever it was found that the existence of the movable dweller was not an aggravated inconvenience to those who lived around him.
I have in the course of my connection with this Bill received a large number of letters and appeals from admirers of the wild and free life of the gipsy, in favour of preserving his freedom. But I am afraid they overlook the fact that the habits of the gipsy are not altogether suited to the refined and elaborately regulated state of community life in which we live. No doubt we all of us, particularly, perhaps, when we are bothered with the variety of returns which we have to fill up and the inquisitions into all our private affairs, wish sometimes that we were left with the old freedom to do very much as we liked without the careful and parental supervision of Government; but I am afraid we must admit that in the highly-organised state of society in which we live such is impossible, and that the free and romantic life of the gipsy must be sacrificed somewhat to the well-being of the crowded community in which we live. I ask noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I trust that if there are objections to any of its provisions they will 100 be allowed to stand over until the Committee stage.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
§ LORD ALLENDALEMy Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading has reminded your Lordships of the Parliamentary history of this Bill, and has referred to some of the changes which were made by the Select Committee on which he sat. When the Bill was before your Lordships' House for Second Reading two years ago there was, I think, a general feeling that, if not a universal nuisance, still a distinct nuisance was caused in certain parts of the country by these movable dwellings which called for a remedy by legislation if one could be found, but your Lordships appreciated the fact that the Bill as then introduced was not quite so simple as it appeared to be at first sight, and consequently it was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee, as your Lordships are aware, gave a considerable amount of time to the Bill and endeavoured to meet the objections that were entertained to it, and in the course of doing so they to some extent transformed the Bill. Though the Committee may not have succeeded in meeting all the objections, they are to be thanked for their labours. For myself I can express appreciation of their work disinterestedly, because although originally appointed to serve on the Committee I was unable to attend owing to indisposition and absence abroad.
I can say at once that it is the view of the Local Government Board, which Department I represent in your Lordships' House, that the labours of the Select Committee should not be thrown away, and that the Bill should be amended in Committee with the view to making it a more workable measure than it would seem to be at present. Besides the Department which I represent, the Home Office would have something to do with the administration of this Bill if it became an Act. They, I believe, foresee some greater difficulties in the administration of the measure than do the Local Government Board; but my noble friend Lord Beauchamp, who represents the Home Office, is here to deal with the objections from their point of view and that of the police. I am glad that the registration proposals which appeared in the former Bill have been abandoned. That was a very much 101 more difficult matter than appeared at first sight. The principle of registration seemed easy enough, but when it came to putting it into practice and to registering every little tent, and perhaps a tarpaulin on two or three sticks, it would have been found quite unworkable. Other objections were stated by the Committee in their Report, and I think there will be a general feeling of satisfaction that the principle of registration has been abandoned.
The Bill as amended embraces three chief purposes. There is, first, the prohibition of encampments on specified places on the ground of public health; secondly, the provision of camping grounds by county and county borough councils, with certain provisions ancillary to that; and, thirdly, the transfer from district councils to county councils of the powers and duties under Section 9 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885. With regard to the prohibition of encampments, Clause 1 of the Bill in its present form will enable a county or county borough council to prohibit by by-law any movable dwelling from being on any specified place where its presence might be dangerous to the public health. In regard to that, I may say that it appears somewhat doubtful whether prohibition by by-law is a suitable procedure. A resolution oft lie county or county borough council, approved by the Central Department and published by means of notices throughout, the area, would, I think, be a more appropriate procedure. As to the provision of camping grounds, Clause 2 of the Bill would enable county and county borough councils, with the approval of the Local Government Board and by agreement, to purchase or take on lease land. for camping grounds. I have no wish to raise any difficulties in that matter, which would be one for the county councils or whatever authority the power is given to in the various counties; but as the object of the Bill seems to be to some extent to restrict the use of grounds, I think that in the counties where legislation on these lines is desired it may be found somewhat difficult to acquire land, and though some landowners may be willing to sell or let land for the purpose yet their neighbours would very likely find considerable grievance in the encampment of gipsies close to their dwellings. But that, as I say, is a matter for the county or county borough councils concerned.
It will have been noticed that in their 102 Report the Committee express the opinion that no legislation is called for with respect to showmen, or entertainers as they are called, and I think some provision might be made for eliminating this class altogether from the Bill. It may be rather difficult to draw a strict definition of what is meant by "showman" or "entertainer," but if no legislation is to be better that they should be eliminated altogether from the provisions of the Bill. As to the encampments, it is places should be subject to approval by some central authority, probably the Local Government Board, otherwise a council might use the power to exclude gipisies from their area altogether. These are several of the directions amongst others in which the Bill might be usefully amended. It seems to me that Clause 3 is quite unnecessary and should be omitted.
§ LORD ALLENDALEClause 3,which refers to the amendment of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe point of Clause 3 is that it transfers the powers to the country councils. It is only a question of changing the authority which has the power of enforcing the provisions under the Sanitary Act.
§ LORD ALLENDALEThat is a matter which can be dealt with when the Bill is in Committee, but the view is strongly held that the clause is unnecessary. As the noble Marquess has said, Clause 3 would transfer to country councils the powers and duties of sanitary authorities under the enactment so far as they relate to movable dwellings. As to cost, considerable expense would no doubt be incurred in regard to requisitions for obtaining camping grounds. This is a point which probably the Committee did not fully appreciate. Still, if the ratepayers in a district demand legislation of the character proposed in this Bill and are willing to have a charge placed upon them for the purpose, it is, of course, their affair. The Local Government Board and His Majesty's Government are very anxious that the labours of the Select Committee should not be thrown away, and therefore I join in hoping that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISEURYMy Lords, may I say first, on behalf of the Select Committee of which I w s a member, that we are very grateful to the noble Lord who has just sat down for the kind way in which he has received the result of our efforts, and for the promise which he has given on behalf of His Majesty's Government that they will not in any way interfere with the Second Reading of the Bill. The noble Lord, in the course of his speech, went into a good deal of detail, of w rich I do not in any way complain, but he will forgive me if I do not follow him into that detail because some of the matters with which he dealt are more appropriate to the Committee stage.
I should like to call attention to one or two points which emerge from the Report of the Select Committee, a id which, I think, arc of public interest. The Report, in the first place, will help t he public to realise what the dimensions of the problem really are. There was a vague, idea that it was a vast and grievous problem which had to be dealt with. Speaking for myself, I carried away from the evidence which we heard the conviction that that was an error, and that the grievance is not of a very large character. The areas to which the grievance applies are relatively small and rare. That is the first consideration. The second is that the mischief which those who live in movable dwellings are accused of doing has been greatly exaggerated. This erroneous view of the public is largely due to the fact that the gipsy van-dwellers have been confused with ordinary tramps. That is not surprising. Where, in districts where there are both, an unwashed person of a violent character intimidates somebody or other the victim does not accurately distinguish whether the aggressor is a tramp or a gipsy, and probably does not know the distinction between the two.
It is important for the public to realise that, so far as major crime is concerned, gipsies came very well out of the inquiry. As far as we could make out, they are not any more criminal—in any extreme sense of the term—than persons of a corresponding class who live in ordinary houses. No doubt they belong to a low class and are not strictly orderly- in their behaviour, and there is a good deal of petty pilfering and taking of rabbits which do not belong to them; but, taken in the bulk, and considering crime of an important kind, we 104 had very strong evidence before us that they were not responsible for it. Nor can it be said that they are more immoral or dirty than other people as poor as themselves in this country. It is very important, I think, that that should be realised, and that we should recognise that no amount of legislation with respect to movable dwellings will reach the most extreme form of the evil which is associated with the tramp and vagrancy, and which urgently requires attention as soon as His Majesty's Government have finished meddling with the Constitution.
The next point is this, that the actual condition of the law is not deficient. The difficulty is in its enforcement. Take the sanitary law, for example. The sanitary law extends to movable dwellings, but the difficulty is to apply it, and it was with a view of a more general application of the sanitary law that the Select Committee proposed to transfer the authority from district councils to the county councils, because as a movable dwelling is exhypothesi moved from one district to another it ought to be under the jurisdiction of the larger authority. The criminal law, too, applies to movable dwellings, but there is a difficulty in enforcing it in the case of small crimes such as cutting sticks out of hedges, leaving the gates of fields open whereby cattle stray on the public roads, and mild poaching in the sense that they poach not to sell but to eat. There is a great deal of difficulty in enforcing the law in regard to these offences, for the police cannot be ubiquitous and keep in touch with the vans. It was for that reason that the Committee made the important proposal which is inserted in the Bill. If you cannot keep the police in touch with the van-dwellers by putting a policeman wherever there is a camp, then the better method is to limit the places where there can be camps so that the police can exercise adequate supervision. It was with that object that Mr. Justice Bray suggested that, in the few areas where the gipsy difficulty is an important one, the proper remedy was to set aside certain places in which gipsies could camp and where they would be conveniently under the supervision of the authorities. We did our best to put Mr. Justice Bray's proposal in drafting form, and it appears in the clauses in the Bill.
I ought, perhaps, to notice what Lord Clifford said on the subject of registration.
105 May I interject the observation that I think your Lordships have every reason to be grateful to my noble friend for the trouble he has taken in connection with this Bill, both for having brought it before the House and for the exceedingly conciliatory way in which he allowed us to deal with it in the Select Committee. The Committee were not agreed on the question of registration. Although my noble friend was, in fact, overruled, he was overruled by a small majority, and it is clear, after the statement of the noble Lord who spoke last, that His Majesty's Government agree with the majority of the Committee. Therefore it is pretty certain that the original provision with regard to registration will not be reinserted. I may say I still doubt the value of the registration proposal, and thought, as the noble Lord said, most of the witnesses were in favour of it, there is some limitation to be added to that general statement. For instance, Mr. Justice Bray was not in favour of registering vans, but he was in favour of registering the individuals who live in the vans—a very different proposal. I do not think there was any great enthusiasm for registration on the part of the official witnesses, and that is confirmed by the speech of the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Local Government Board.
The noble Lord, Lord Allendale, asked us why we deal with showmen if it is our opinion that showmen ought not to be included in this legislation. We intended in the Amendments which we inserted in the Bill to exclude showmen. That was the object which the Committee had in view, but there was this difficulty, that there is no definition in law of a showman. We turned all sorts of authorities on to search for a definition, but could not find one. Therefore we did not like, in so many words, to say that the Act should not apply to showmen, because we thought that afterwards the great profession over which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack presides would make mincemeat of our Act of Parliament. Consequently we adopted the only other device open to us, and made clear our intention of leaving to the authority whose business it would be to enforce the law discretionary power to interpret our wish according to the spirit in which it was made. The Local Government Board are not to agree to any regulations which interfere with showmen. That was, in effect, tine method by which we tried 106 to get round the difficulty. I see that the Lord Chancellor thinks that our amateur efforts were not worthy of very much respect. No doubt when we get into Committee the noble and learned Lord will be able to show us how it ought to be done, and we shall gladly accept his advice. I speak on behalf of the whole Committee. We are entirely in the hands of the Departments in this matter. We have no wish to enforce upon them legislation which they tell us is unworkable, and we are in the position of accepting anything which the Government suggest by way of amendment.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP)My Lords, I am sure the noble Marquess who has just sat down recognises how much the police authorities of this country are interested in the subject before your Lordships. I therefore venture to intrude upon the House for a few moments in order to say something upon this Bill from the point of view of the Home Office. If Lord Camperdown will allow me, I should like on this occasion to drop a tear over the disappearance of the Standing Committee. It seems to me that a Bill of this kind, when everybody is agreed that something should be done and the difficulty is really one of administration, is a measure which might have been discussed by a Committee of that kind somewhat more easily perhaps than can be done in your Lordships' House. The Bill which is now before us is based, as the noble Marquess has said, very largely on the recommendations of the Select Committee. In that way it differs from the Bill first introduced into your Lordships' House.
I should like, in order to make the position of the Home Office quite clear, to quote some of the evidence which was given before the Select Committee. The view of the Home Office is that what is needed is a more effective enforcement of the existing law in cases where gipsies are guilty of offences. I would refer your Lordships to the evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. Pedder, a Principal Clerk in the Home Office. In reply to a question [p. 49, Q. 1029] Mr. Pedder said—
I think our information does go to show that it is a failure to enforce which is at all events largely responsible for failure of effect, for this reason—that for many years complaints have come to us from different counties, mostly the Home Counties, that new powers were wanted, and so on and so on. When inquiry has been made, when the Home Secretary has written back to say, 'Please 107 direct your attention to these powers and tell me what you have done with them,' the answer Las been extremely vague, and sometimes none at all, and the matter has dropped.Clause 5 of the last Bill tried to deal with the matter by giving local authorities practically an unrestricted power to prohibit movable dwellings by by-law. That is not found in the present Bill. Clause 2 of this Bill endeavours to deal with the matter in a different way, and, in the opinion of the Home Office, it is open to some objections, though necessarily not the same objections.
§ THE MARQUESS OF. SALISBURYAlthough Clause 5 of the original Bill does not reappear, a great deal of it does. Clause 1 is, in its essence, a large part of Clause. 5.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI agree; but I was only dealing with it in so far as the police are concerned. It is Clause 2 of this year's Bill with which the Home Office are more particularly concerned. Your Lordships will notice, in the first place, that the noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord Clifford of Chudleigh), who speaks, I think, on this occasion on behalf of the County Councils Association, proposes to add to the powers of county councils various powers which will enable them to spend more money out of the rates, because by the first part of the clause county councils are allowed to purchase or take on lease land for the purpose of camping grounds. But it is not so much the addition to the rates with which I am concerned, but the effect which the provision must have upon the police. The proposal in the latter part of Clause 2 places on the police the duty of removing from commons and private land persons who encamp there without authority. That, in our opinion, involves a wide and rather questionable extension of the functions of the police. At present it rests upon private owners to remove trespassers; and the duty of the police is confined to seeing that there is no breach of the peace. The Home Office think it undesirable to make an exception from the ordinary law of trespass in respect of one particular class—namely, van-dwellers—and to subject that class alone to prosecution for trespass.
The effect of Clause 2, it is thought, might in certain cases lead to considerable difficulty. If the facilities for camping are reduced the feuds and fighting between gipsy families, which are already not uncommon, are likely to be more numerous, as 108 hostile gipsies would then find themselves compulsorily encamped side by side. The Chief Constable of Surrey takes the view that the policing of camping grounds would he necessary, and he says lie is not able to undertake that duty with the present staff under his command. So your Lordships will see that in that wav a still further burden might be thrown on the rates. It would be a question whether the county council should not appoint a special staff of men for this purpose. At any rate, a special staff would be necessary to collect the fees referred to in Clause 2 (3) (d). Then we find some difficulty with regard to another matter. The policeman or other officer finding more than the prescribed number of movable dwellings upon a particular ground would often be unable to discover who was the last coiner responsible for the excess, and, even if he were discovered, it might be that his horse was in a condition which would not enable him to get further. Again, it is not clear whether the provision in Clause 2 (3) (b) is intended to enable councils to authorise certain gipsies to encamp in certain places, or whether it is only intended for holiday makers in caravans. The provision is unsuitable to gipsies who would find it hard to understand such regulations and would not know where to apply for the written permission. As your Lordships will have seen, there is no matter of principle on which I have had to criticise the measure, and perhaps, with the assistance of private negotiations before the Committee stage, we shall be able to put down Amendments which will be agreeable to all parties.
§ LORD FARRERMy Lords, I should not have risen to address your Lordships were it not for the fact that the noble Marquess opposite seemed to make more light of the difficulties with regard to van-dwellers than we who live in the Home Counties think is the case. As a member of the Select Committee who considered this matter, I certainly came to the conclusion that these people were increasing largely, and were a great danger to the health and the safety of the public. Even this short debate has shown the extreme difficulty of dealing with the question at all, but as a resident in the Home Counties I must say that the evil has reached a pitch which really demands that some action should be taken on the part of the administrative authorities. I seldom take up a local paper without finding some reference to this subject. In a report, 109 in a Surrey paper last week, of a meeting of the Reigate Rural Council I read that
Mr. B. W. Parsons, in accordance with notice of motion, moved that the Surrey Standing Joint Committee should be again urged to make arrangements at once for a police constable to be domiciled at Irons bottom, as the nearest constables were at Henley (3½ miles distant), Salfords (4 miles), and Reigate (4 miles), and continued complaints were made as to the insolence of gipsies and the destruction of property, and annoyance caused by the nuisance Of filth and by dirty clothes exposed on the hedges of the highways. The mover said that at the present time there were fourteen vans by the side of the road, and in each there were 110 fewer than four or live people. There were absolutely no sanitary arrangements. People were in the habit of giving gipsies water, and if they were unable to get it they would not stop in the place. He did not know whether the water company could help them, as people had no right to give the company's water away, Gipsy people were like beggars, they were always on the "cadge." He thought it was very hard that if a poor man in the borough were to beg he would get a month, but yet these people were free, because there was no policeman to look after them.—Mr. Garland said that in the district in which he lived they never saw a policeman.—Mr. Hallett said it was certainly a matter of urgency, and if their request was not acceded to, lie would suggest a deputation being sent to the county council. They had to pay a heavy police rate and they wanted protection for their property.—The Chairman said he entirely sympathised with what the speakers had said. A nuisance of an unspeakable character undoubtedly existed. He would he only too glad if the resolution was also sent to the Home Secretary.—The proposition was carried.Then, again, at an inquest held at Kingston on the eighteen-months-old son of wandering parents it was shown that the child had been badly burnt in the kitchen of a lodging-house; but, in spite of medical advice, the parents dragged the child about with them until it ultimately died from the effects of the burns and exposure. At the inquest Inspector Parry, of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said the father kept a diary of the places visited, which showed that since last October they had stayed in forty-one different towns in all parts of the country. The Coroner, Dr. M. H. Taylor, said that—If anybody wanted to move a pig from Surrey into Middlesex, he would find all kinds of restrictions placed upon him. Yet people like these could go anywhere and take with them a sick child needing the most careful treatment, and nobody interfered. It seemed to him that property was far more valued in this country than human life.I could quote other evidence as to the extent of the evil, but I will only- add that these nomadic vans are a very real part of the vagrancy problem.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, I do not wish to detain the House, but I desire to thank your Lordships for the reception you have given to this Bill. I have no doubt that many improvements in it will be able to be made in Committee, and I hope that, with the assistance of the Local Government Board and the Home Office, the Bill may be brought into a form in which it will prove of great use. I should like to say a word regarding Clause 3. The whole purport of that clause lies very much in the evidence of Mr. Pedder, which has been quoted by the noble Earl. It was clearly shown, in the course of the evidence which the Committee took, that it is not so much powers that are wanted as the getting of some body who can and will use the existing powers. For instance, Mr. Pedder said that there were about 1,800 authorities who might have made by-laws but only 216 had made them, and that the best use had not been made of the by-laws even in those 216 cases. Therefore there is something wrong in the distribution of the powers. We came to the conclusion that for these wandering and movable people the area of the sanitary authority is too small, arid that the powers should be confided to larger authorities. As regards the noble Earl's statement that I am endeavouring to increase the charge on the county rate, I can only say that this is a permissive power. What county councils complain of chiefly is the increase in the rates caused by matters in regard to which they have no option. If every increase in the county rate was entirely on the initiative of the county council, as this would be, they would have comparatively little cause for complaint. With regard to the police, I admit that in some cases the Bill might increase their work, but we had evidence to show that if the system of camping grounds was adopted the labour cast on the police would be very much decreased, inasmuch as they would know exactly where to find the people whom they would have to look after. As to the further stages of the Bill, I will not put it down for Committee until I have consulted with the noble Earl. I agree that a great deal may be done by private consultation with the Local Government Board and the Home Office, and 1 hope that when the Committee stage is taken there will be a set of Amendments which will render the Bill a more workable measure than it is at the present moment.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.