CARAVAN SITES BILL (Hansard, 5 July 1968)

HL Deb 05 July 1968 vol 294 cc583-634 583

§ 1.30 p.m.

§ LORD WADE
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Commttee.—(Lord Wade.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly.

§ [The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]

§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

§ Clause 3 [Protection of occupiers against eviction and harassment]:

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that such person shall have been residing in the caravan with the occupier for not less than six months immediately before the death.

§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. During the Second Reading I drew attention to the fact that the protection provided in Clause 3 to caravan residents went beyond the protection now given to people living in houses and flats. In his reply the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said he was astonished at what I had said and that if any noble Lord cared to read the Protection from Eviction Act 1964 and the Rent Act 1965 he would find that this Bill does not begin to approach the degree of protection afforded by the present law to the bricks and mortar dweller. I hope that now I am going to be able to show the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and your Lordships that this Bill, as drafted, does indeed give a greater degree of protection than is provided for people living in houses and flats.

§ The part of the clause which we are discussing follows precisely the Protection from Eviction Act 1964 in that it protects not only the person living in the caravan but also (and indeed quite rightly, as I am sure your Lordships will agree) the widow or widower, and, furthermore, any member of the occupier's family, even though such a person may have been living with the occupier for only 24 hours before the death of 584 the occupier. The Protection from Eviction Act was repealed by the Rent Act 1965 and this provision was amended on the lines of the Amendment I am now proposing. The 1965 Rent Act has now been consolidated in the Rent Act of 1968.

§ Schedule 1, paragraph 2, of that Act reads as follows: If the original tenant was a man who died leaving a widow who was residing with him at his death then, after his death, the widow shall be the statutory tenant if and so long as she occupies the dwelling-house as her residence.

§ Paragraph 3 goes on: Where paragraph 2 above does not apply, but a person who was a member of the original tenant's family was residing with him at the time of and for the period of six months immediately before his death then, after his death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the county court, shall be the statutory tenant if and so long as he occupies the dwelling-house as his residence.

§ It appears only logical that the latest form of wording in the Rent Act of 1968 should be embodied in this Bill; that is to say, the period should be six months and not a few hours or days of residence immediately before death of the occupier. In any case, I see no justification for protecting a relative who, perhaps casually, may have moved into the caravan for a few days, perhaps to nurse the occupier before he died. It is in this respect—that is to say, protecting from eviction a member of the deceased occupier's family who may have been living there for only 24 hours—that this Bill goes beyond the protection of the Rent Act to which I referred. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the Minister may feel that the case as I have put it is such that this Amendment is only right and reasonable and should be accepted. Surely we do not want to have two kinds of legislation for something which in many respects is the same thing. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 3, line 5, at end insert— ("Provided that such person shall have been residing in the caravan with the occupier for not less than six months immediately before the death.")—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)

§ LORD WADE
An Amendment in these terms was moved and defeated on a vote during the Commons Committee 585 stage, in Standing Committee E, on May 21. The question here is whether a relative should be required to fulfil the six months' residence test in order to qualify for protection by the Bill, if the former occupier left no widow or widower. I take the view that it would be unfair to deny protection to someone who, let us say, had given up his home to come and nurse a relative, even if he had less than six months' residence to his credit. I used the word "protection" and I think there is a distinction to be made between protection under this Bill and protection under the Rent Act, protection which might provide a tenancy for life or for a very long period as a protected tenant. Therefore the parallel is not exact.
The Rent Act provisions relate to succession to the tenancy and Clause 3 of this Bill does not. It gives protection from harassment and illegal eviction, which is the protection from eviction which the Protection from Eviction Act also affords to relatives of a deceased tenant, whether or not they had six months' residence to their credit. It seems to me that if the Amendment were accepted the effect would be to allow a site operator to harass or evict without a court order the relatives of a caravanner who had not completed six months residence in the caravan.
While we must try to get a fair balance, I think that would be unfair and harsh. The tenant under a good site operator would have nothing to worry about. I am sure that any reasonable site operator would give a month's notice and would not evict without a court order. Therefore I think there is no hardship here to a site operator. If we consider the circumstances, it is only a case of protection against harassment and wrongful eviction. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, may feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL
May I ask the noble Lord why there should be any difference between this Bill and the 1968 Rent Act? Surely the same reasons for including the section as it now is in the Rent Act apply to this Bill. I cannot see why the Amendment which I am proposing, and which is precisely the same as the 586 paragraph in the Rent Act 1968, should not be included in the Bill. I have listened with care to what the noble Lord has said, but why should there be this difference? I am not clear on that point.

§ LORD WADE
May I make it clear that the Bill is in the nature of an emergency measure, based on the precedent of the Prevention of Eviction Act, which was also an emergency measure.

§ LORD KENNET
I am not clear why the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, is pressing this precedent, because the 1968 Rent Act, protection for people who inherit house tenancies, goes further than the protection afforded by the Bill we are now discussing. The Rent Act, which was a consolidation measure, provides for succession to a tenancy. It provides that a relative gets possession of the premises and becomes tenant, whereas Clause 3 of this Bill does not say anything about becoming a tenant. It says merely that a caravan site operator (who of course corresponds to the landlord) may not harass or illegally evict a relative who is found in a caravan at the death of the owner.

§ LORD MOTTISTONE
I think that we want to get this in perspective. The way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke conjured up in my mind the picture of the wicked landlord rather than that of the wicked occupier of a caravan. It might happen that the wrong sort of person, who had moved in, as my noble friend said, just 24 hours before the death of his near relative, would he left in the caravan, a person who did not fit in with community life of the camp site and in such a case it would be in everybody's interest, though in clue course he might probably go of his own accord, that it should be possible for him to be persuaded to leave as soon as possible. The noble Lord also rather implied that if this Amendment were carried all landlords would automatically evict all close relatives immediately. If the close relative fits in, is clearly going to enjoy the caravan life and wants to stay, then the camp site owner would allow him to stay and there is nothing in the Bill which would contradict that. So it is a matter of balance. I should have thought, particularly with the background that my noble friend put before the Committee, that this is 587 not a case in which we want particularly to protect the casual inhabitant of a caravan who just happens to turn up at the right moment.

§ LORD WADE
May I say two words in reply? In the first place, I should like to get it clearly established that we are all agreed that the great majority of site operators are responsible individuals, and I am not making any suggestion to the contrary. We are introducing this measure only because there is unfortunately a small minority of bad site operators and it seems fair to give a measure of protection to someone who has perhaps given up a job or his home to look after a father or mother living in a caravan and then finds that he has no rights at all. It is only against this small minority of bad site operators that these provisions will be necessary. I do not think that they need worry the majority.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
I am sure that we all want to get this matter settled by agreement, if we can. I confess that I am somewhat puzzled. I appreciate that, as with house property, there are some less good site operators and that there are some less good occupiers of caravans. I had thought it was the purpose of the sponsors of this Bill to try to give occupiers of caravans the same sort of protection as tenants are given by the law under the Rent Act. I am not quite certain why we should not try to proceed on that basis and why we should import here from the Protection from Eviction Act which, so far as I am aware, has now been repealed.
If the noble Lord, Lord Wade, or the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, called my attention to something in the Rent Act which corresponds to the provisions in subsection (3), which my noble friend wishes to amend, and can point out that there is no such limiting proviso in the Rent Act, that would be a sufficient answer for me. But the Protection from Eviction Act was passed as an avowedly temporary measure. It was a Government measure, and the Government gave an assurance that it would be followed up by permanent legislation. Then, subsequently, that 'Act was repealed. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has said that this is conceived as a temporary measure, but 588 this is not, as the 1965 Act was, a Government Bill, and I do not know whether the Government have given in another place an assurance similar to that given in relation to the 1965 Act, that in the following Session of Parliament it would be overtaken by permanent legislation.
If we regard this as a temporary Bill, I think we need to pay less attention to its details. But if we have to proceed with this Bill on the assumption that it is likely to remain in operation until such time in the indefinite future as the Government can find opportunity to legislate on this matter, it seems to me that we ought to be guided by reference to permanent legislation rather than by reference to the temporary legislation.
I appreciate that we are dealing with a matter of harassment and not with full security of tenure. But I should like your Lordships to consider this case. A relative comes into a caravan, perhaps a few days before the occupier's death. The site operator knows nothing about him. People on caravan sites are thrown very much in contact with one another, and it is easy for one occupier to upset his neighbour, just as it is easy for an irresponsible site operator to upset all the caravanners who are there. But the Amendment seems to me to weight the balance strongly—excessively strongly—in favour of this relative who has just arrived and about whom nobody knows anything, to give him full protection for an indefinite period, even though he has not had so much as six months residence. If it were a shorter period than six months, I should feel happier. We do not want hardship to exist, but to some extent I cannot feel that the Bill is satisfactory as it stands.

§ 1.50 p.m.

§ LORD KENNET
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked why the Bill was not based on the permanent Rent Act system: that is, the law of landlord and tenant as it now stands, consolidated in 1968. It is, of course, for the noble Lord, Lord Wade, to answer, but perhaps I might offer one or two thoughts from the point of view of the Government about what this would mean. If the Committee were to take the view that this Bill should be based on the Rent Act, you would have to extend the whole sphere of rent machinery to caravans. You would have to 589 have the rent officer, the rent assessment tribunal, regulated rents—and I do not know whether you might not have to have old controlled rents, as well, or something to correspond with that. Maybe we shall come to this in time; I do not know. But certainly this Government at this moment would think this too big a jump to take.
Once you decide that it is not really time to subject caravans to the full panoply of rent regulations, and the full complications aid sophistications of landlord and tenant law, then you are left with the question: "We have to do something. How far shall we go?" I imagine that the sponsors of the Bill decided: "Let us model ourselves on the 1964 Protection from Eviction Act"—which was introduced in a hurry, because there was eviction and harassment, and people ought to be protected from it. In this field, too, I think we all know that eviction and harassment exists, and people ought to be protected from it. I imagine that this is how this clause got into the Bill in the present form. I think that is a reasonable presumption to start with.
It is a small point that we are talking about. I believe nobody ought to be harassed or evicted without a court order, even if they do not have a strong claim to be there. It seems to me a basic minimum provision that you do not turn dogs on people, you do not cut off supplies—and there are supplies to caravan sites, of course—you do not take them out by force, unless the court tells you that you have the right to do so. I should be sorry to see this struck out simply because it has gone out of the bricks and mortar rent legislation. It has gone out of the bricks and mortar rent legislation, I think, largely because the rest of the harassment and eviction provisions are working.
The Milner Holland situation is no longer what it was in 1964 when the Government introduced the Protection from Eviction Act. We know what it was like then; it was awful. This emergency Bill was introduced, and that stopped it to a large extent: and now the system has settled down under the Rent Act. It has not resumed, and in one way or another the plight of the close relative who moves in within six months of the death of the tenant has 590 passed out of the umbrella and protection against harassment, and gone to the other side, where there is no particular protection against harassment.
As I have said, it seems a small point, and so far as the Government are concerned, if the noble Lord. Lord Wade, were willing to suggest that the Amendment be withdrawn and that there should be consultations between himself and the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, and perhaps the Ministry—I do not know whether the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, of a shorter period might not be a good thing—one could explore it at greater length and greater depth than is perhaps appropriate in a full Committee of the House.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
It will be for my noble friend Lord Wakefield to do what he thinks right about this Amendment, but I should like to raise one point arising out of Lord Kennet's speech. He spoke of harassment. I do not know whether7 there has been any harassment of relatives who have stayed on in a caravan alter the occupier has died. I should very much doubt whether there has been. Nobody is taking objection to the provision here against harassment in general, but I am not really sure that it is necessary to make this measure apply to relatives who have stayed on. It seems to me, as I was saying earlier, to throw the balance too far in the other direction. It means that somebody who has come to live in a caravan just a few days before the occupier's death is irremovable except by a court order.

§ LORD KENNET
Or by consent.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
Yes; or by consent. But somebody can move in and just stay put, and he cannot be removed from that caravan, where he has no right, in equity, to be present, except by a court order. I am quite sure that in the vast majority of cases of this kind everything is arranged by agreement and there is no trouble. I hope it may he possible to arrive at some agreed solution on this, because there is not a great deal between us. But I should think your Lordships would wish to secure that the Bill holds the balance fairly in a case like this, and does not swing too much either in favour of the site operator or 591 of the relative who has come in at the last moment.

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, made the point that it was quite wrong that the person who has perhaps given up his home to nurse a relative should then have no protection. But nobody is going to give up their home to nurse a relative for a few days or a few weeks. Surely, anybody who has decided to give up their home and move in to look after a relative will have been there for some period of time. That is the point I am trying to make: that anybody who gives up a home, or goes to nurse a relative, will have been with that relative for a period of time, say, six months, and then, quite rightly, they should have protection. I feel that a few days, and only a few days, for the reasons that my noble friends have given, is something that ought to be looked at.

§ LORD KENNET
Perhaps I might nip in once again before the noble Lord, Lord Wade, answers, as it were, on behalf of the Bill. I do not know whether there is a prospect of the Amendment being withdrawn to enable us to have consultations, but if so I would ask noble Lords interested to look at Section 30 of the 1965 Act before we begin our consultations (or, if they have time, even before the Amendment is withdrawn), where they will find that there is still a protection against harassment of any residential occupier which is not repealed by the consolidation Act. We want to be very careful of the case of the relative coming in just before the death to make sure that he or she is not deprived of that degree of protection against harassment which the corresponding person living in the bricks and mortar house still enjoys under the 1965 Act.

§ LORD WADE
I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised an important point. On this hypothetical case, no doubt we can think up all kinds of possible examples. But there are undoubtedly cases where a relative is concerned about the father or mother, and does not think very much about what is involved in giving up a home, who will come to the caravan expecting perhaps to remain there for months, or maybe 592 years, and then the father or mother dies. It seems very harsh that that person should be in the position that the site operator can evict him or her without any notice, and without any protection from the court, or again, that the site operator might be entitled to indulge in harassment.
My concern is that there should be some protection. Of course, if there were protection, it would only be, as I understand it, that the site operator could give a month's notice, apart from the question of going to court. Therefore, perhaps a month is the right period to think about. I have no authority to give way on this point, but I am anxious to be as reasonable as possible, and very anxious that the Bill should not fail to get on the Statute Book. But, subject to that point, I am most willing to discuss this question.

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL
I think we must all be very grateful indeed to the Minister for the very clear way in which he has pointed out the position, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for what he has said. In view of what has been said here, and of the opportunity which is to be given for a detailed examination of this very difficult and complicated subject, I ask for leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "not exceeding £500, or (in either case)" and insert "to a fine not exceeding £500 or". The noble Lord said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we consider Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. It is more or less a quirk of the way the Amendments are set out that puts No. 2 in front of No. 3. The logical order is the other way round. No. 3 seeks to take out of this penalties clause all reference to imprisonment; No. 2 seeks to take it out for the second or subsequent offence. I am not certain about this, but I think it would be possible, if necessary, to have both Amendments in the Bill. The effect of that would be the same as putting in No. 3 alone. I am not quite sure how the Committee will wish to proceed in taking these two Amendments, but I am sure they can be discussed together.

593

§ LORD KENNET
Is the noble Lord quite sure that he has it the right way round?

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
Yes.

§ LORD KENNET
He said that No. 3 took reference to imprisonment out altogether, and No. 2 did so only for the first offence. I believe that No. 2 takes it out altogether, and No. 3 takes it out only for the first offence.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has it upside down and I have it the right way up. The effect of Amendment No. 2 (although it cannot be drafted as simply as this) is to delete the words "in either case"; in other words, the provision would apply only in the latter case. However, perhaps I can proceed to the matter while the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is clearing up this point in his own mind.
I think one must say at once that there is no question here of this Amendment being designed to condone harassment. It is quite clearly Parliament's intention that harassment is to stop, and that anyone who harasses caravan occupiers will be committing an offence. This is agreed. But I understand from various examples which have been quoted to me, and indeed from many utterances from Government and other sources, that imprisonment, particularly short-term imprisonment, is—I would not go so far as to say falling into desuetude, but certainly much less resorted to than it was only a comparatively short time ago. One of the reasons for this—not a very adequate reason, but nevertheless a reason—is overcrowded prisons. A more material reason is a shift of opinion against imprisonment, particularly short-term imprisonment, which is regarded as an unsatisfactory method of punishing offences of this nature.
So far as deleting imprisonment for the first offence only is concerned (I speak subject to correction here) there is the likelihood that the sentence for a first offence would in any event be suspended. I want to make it clear that I should like to see all reference to imprisonment deleted from this clause, but if the Committee do not think they could go that far. I should be happy to see it deleted at least in respect of the first offence. I beg to move.

594

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, leave out ("not exceeding £500, or (in either case)") and insert ("to a fine not exceeding £500 or").—(Lord Craigmyle.)

§ LORD KENNET
May I immediately apologise to the noble Lord. He was right and I was wrong.

§ LORD PARGITER
Before the noble Lord, Lord Wade, deals with this particular Amendment, I would point cut that the normal practice is that where a fine is to be imposed there is usually a default clause—a period of imprisonment which might be suitable. I am not arguing that if six months is the right alternative to a £500 fine, six months is the right alternative to a £100 fine: I do not think it is. The proportion seems to be all wrong. I would say that the imprisonment for a repeated 3ffence should be longer than imprisonment for a single offence. I think that that would be essential. But to leave it so that there would be a fine, and not to provide any default procedure, unless default proceedings could be taken under another Act, seems to me to be wrong. It may well be that default proceedings could be taken under another Act, in which case my point would not matter. But, otherwise, it seems to me that there ought to be a default clause in this Bill in any case, which would authorize magistrates, in the event of failure to pay a fine, or an indication that a fine would not be paid, to send the offender to prison.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
Default could be treated under another Act, could it not?

§ LORD WADE
I do not want to have to stress every time I speak on every Amendment that we are concerned only with a small minority of site operators who abuse their powers. I think that that is generally understood. Here we are concerned with a small minority for whom we have to consider an adequate deterrent. As I understand it, the effect of this first Amendment would be to eliminate the penalty of imprisonment for harassment or for eviction without an order of the court. The deterrent would he a fine of up to £100, or £500 for a second or subsequent offence. The maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment was laid down in the Protection from Eviction Act, Section 1(3), for withholding or withdrawing services 595 from an occupier without reasonable cause, or recovering possession of premises without a court order. So we have a precedent there. A similar penalty is prescribed in Section 30 of the Rent Act 1965 for offences of harassment and illegal eviction. There are other precedents with which I will not trouble your Lordships.
As to the provision in the Bill, as a result of an Amendment accepted in another place on Report stage, on May 24, lesser penalties are provided than the penalties provided in the Protection from Eviction Act or the Rent Act. The Bill does not now provide for both a fine and sentence of imprisonment. That was a change made in another place. We feel that the elimination of this power to imprison would seriously weaken the deterrent effect of the provisions for this small minority of site operators who, unfortunately, abuse their position. Although the corresponding power under the Rent Act has not been much used —1 understand that four persons only have been imprisoned for the offence under Section 30—its existence has almost certainly been of value in this respect. I understand that local authorities have found that landlords committing Section 30 offences frequently desist on being warned that they are laying themselves open to prosecution in a criminal court. It is for that reason, to act as a deterrent, that I think this provision is necessary. It is hoped that this provision will have a similar deterrent effect on this small minority of bad site operators.
On the second Amendment, I think the arguments are very similar. The difficulty about the fine of £100 is this. The incentive behind acts of harassment and illegal eviction is financial gain; and the risk of a fine which might be less than the gain resulting from the successful commission of the offences, is therefore less likely, or could be less likely, to deter the offender than the penalty, in the last resort, of imprisonment, which of course is a matter for the court to decide. What I fear is that if we were to delete this potential penalty for first offenders there might be an increased risk of victimisation against caravanners. Therefore I hope that neither of these Amendments will be pressed, and once again I stress that we are concerned here only with harassment and illegal eviction.

596

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
Nobody knows better than I do how anxious the Home Office is to keep the penalty clauses in Bills in line with precedent, but something has happened since 1965 and that is the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which means that any sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months will automatically be suspended. In my view that is sufficient justification for looking at this subject again. I am not particularly enamoured of either of these Amendments. My approach is slightly different from either of them. I feel doubtful whether it is justifiable to send a man to prison for a first offence under this clause. I accept that if he does not pay his fine he must pay the penalty for that, but I should find it hard to justify a court saying to a man who had been convicted of one offence, "You must go to prison for up to six months", even though we know that that sentence will be suspended.
I should have thought that a fine for a first offence would be sufficient. For a second offence I do not see why we should not be more severe than the Bill provides, because this is something he must have done deliberately, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, suggested, I should not mind seeing the period of imprisonment extended for longer than six months in the case of a second offence. I am not particularly anxious that that sentence of imprisonment should be suspended. I think it would be a good thing if he were to serve it. Could this matter be looked at afresh in the light of what has been said this afternoon and in the light of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, so as to ensure that a really severe penalty can be imposed on anyone convicted of a second offence but there is no chance of somebody who has been convicted of one single offence being sent to prison for it?

§ LORD KENNET
With regard to the Criminal Justice Act, there is one point which might be of interest to the Committee concerning sentences of less than six months being suspended. As a matter of fact in the case of the imprisonment of a landlord under the Rent Act, which we know most about, he has been given three sentences of six months, so it is not automatic that people will get these 597 short sentences. If the Rent Acts were carried over to the caravan dwellers the courts might automatically put them up to the limit of six months. There is also the point that the shorter sentences are only suspended, and it is not an argument for making caravan legislation different from the Rent Act. If the sentences are suspended for the one, they would be for the other, and it would be a bad plan if things were done differently in regard to imprisonment in the case of caravan dwellers from the way they are done for the bricks-and-mortar dwellers.
There is clearly a division of opinion between your Lordships. Some want to get rid of imprisonment completely, others want to got rid of it for first offenders and to increase it for second and subsequent offences. I should have thought that where there was such a three way split it would be equally simple and just to maintain the draft clause as it stands.

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL
Before the noble Lord, Lord Wade, replies, may I say, as we are discussing both these Amendments together, how much I was impressed by what my noble friend Lord Brooke said. I am wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will not think that for a first offender to be sent to prison is perhaps a bit much. If the noble Lord were willing to accept this Amendment I would not move my Amendment, and then one might have a further discussion to see whether the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is worth while pursuing—that is to say, to make the penalty for the second and subsequent offences stronger. I felt I ought to intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Wade, replied, to see whether he would be willing to consider that proposal.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
I go along with my noble friend in that suggestion.

§ LORD WADE
I think I should point out that this matter was considered on Report stage in another place and the conclusion at which they arrived was that the clause as it now stands is the right solution, and I am of that opinion. I am in particular difficulty about the proposal that on the first offence there should be a fine not exceeding £100 with no risk 598 at all of imprisonment. Let us face this frankly: the site operator who really wants to indulge in harassment and wrongful eviction will make mote than £100 out of getting the caravan dweller out, because it is often bound up with getting a new occupant to have a new caravan. I will not go into it at length, but the profit could be considerably more than £100, and for the fine to be a maximum of £100 with no imprisonment I fear would not be a sufficient deterrent.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, does not give much hope that he has an open mind on the subject. I was hoping that he would at least say that there is a chink somewhere in his thinking through which the suggestions made by my noble friends, Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Lord Wakefield of Kendal, might penetrate. If he will give me some indication I will willingly withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL
I should like to ask one question for clarification. In this clause there is frequent reference to "family". What s the definition of a "family"? I cannot find such a definition anywhere in the Rent Act. I suppose somewhere or other in legislation there must be a definition of a "family". This point is becoming rather important, what with people coming in from overseas who may be al owed to have two wives and various sizes of families, and it seems we ought to know what we are talking about when we discuss "family". If it is not possible to give a satisfactory answer now, perhaps something can he done to see what references ought to be made or what insertions ought to be put into this Bill to define a "family".

§ LORD KENNET
I willingly avail myself of the noble Lord's kind offer to leave it until next time.

§ LORD WADE
I, too, was about t 3 say that I should be willing to consider this. I have my own views as to an answer, but I am most anxious to be accurate.

§ Clause 3 agreed to.

599

§ Clause 4 [Provision for suspension of eviction orders]:

§ 2.20 p.m.

§ LORD MILVERTON moved to add to subsection (4)(c), "or other suitable accommodation for himself". The noble Lord said: At the basis of this Amendment is a feeling that caravans can never be more than a substandard form of housing accommodation. Accepting that, and accepting, as one may, that there is a case for the protective measures in Part 1 of the Bill for caravan dwellers against arbitrary eviction, we ought, I suggest, to oppose anything which would encourage permanent caravan dwelling. Every encouragement, we believe (when I say "we", I have consulted the Association of Municipal Corporations as to their views on this) should be given to caravan dwellers, even persuasion, to induce them to find normal accommodation. From every health, safety and amenity aspect caravans should not be accepted, we suggest, as a permanent form of housing. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Milverton.)

§ LORD WADE
I think we should realise that there are two categories of caravan dwellers. On the one hand, there are those who live in a caravan because they cannot find a house or cannot afford to buy or pay the rent of any available house. The other category are those people who prefer to live in a caravan, and I am not sufficiently authoritarian to suggest that we should compel people not to live in a caravan if they wish to do so. So far as this particular Amendment is concerned, may I read the first few words of subsection (4) of Clause 4: It says: In considering whether or how to exercise its powers under this section, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances… then it sets out certain questions.
The effect of the Amendment would be to require the court, in considering the case for an eviction order, to have regard to whether the caravan occupier had failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain "other suitable accommodation" such as a house. The effect of the Amendment is to bring in "house" as alternative accommodation. In the clause 600 as it stands at present, the "other suitable accommodation" is accommodation for his caravan, but this is only one of the questions to which the court shall have particular regard. It is also required to have regard to "all the circumstances", and it seems right that the court should have a discretion because of the widely differing circumstances. For example, if a caravanner has recently bought an expensive new caravan from the site operator, it might be wrong for the operator to try to turn him out, say, six months later, on the ground that houses could be rented in the neighbourhood; particularly if the motive of the site operator were to re-let the pitch to another person who would in turn be prepared to buy another caravan.
Moreover, the caravanner who has to move into a house is faced with the cost of furnishing it. This can be heavy, and if he has recently bought his caravan, or if he is poor, he might find it difficult to meet this cost. Therefore, I suggest that the court must be free to look into all these circumstances. I repeat that as the clause stands now the court is entitled to look into all circumstances. I think it better that this "other accommodation", not a house, should be one of all the circumstances rather than that the court should be specifically called upon to consider alternative accommodation in another house as one of the questions it must consider. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

§ LORD SOMERS
I am rather inclined to support this Amendment, because although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that there are people who have this disinclination to live in a permanent dwelling and a preference for a caravan, that is all right for them, I cannot say that it is a passion that has attacked me very violently. It may be all right for them, but it has a very bad effect on their children. Their children, of course, are able to attend school, but they tend to live a very much more restricted life. They lack the opportunities to mix with other children. I think that on the whole it is something to be discouraged rather than encouraged, and I think that the effect of my noble friend Lord Milverton's Amendment would do just that.

601

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL
I disagree with what the noble Lord has just said. Surely there is far greater freedom for the children of the family living in a caravan than in a flat at the top of some twenty storeys. Living in a caravan means that you are on ground floor level. You are probably on a site with a number of other caravans, with amenities, which under the 1960 Caravan Act must be supplied on any properly run caravan site. There are all kind of amenities and advantages for the children, such as mixing and so on, which trey will not have in a flat at the top of a great high building.
Noble Lords may have read the admirable report that came out some years ago. That report made it very clear indeed that with the latest developments for caravans you have the equivalent of an extremely well-equipped bungalow or flat, with the same sort of facilities, with every modern convenience possible, linked probably to sewers, with electricity and running water all laid on. There you have really excellent accommodation. I think we must get away from denying people the right of choice. If people have a choice surely they are entitled to exercise it. If they want to live in a flat at the top of a great building, let them be allowed to do so. If they want to live in a caravan or bungalow or in the country or the town, why should not they do so? Provided that the health facilities are satisfactory they ought to be allowed to have that choice, and it is a question of consumer choice.

LORD LEATEERLAND
I want to oppose this suggested Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, because I think it would give additional opportunities to landlords to evict the tenants of caravans—and we have to face the fact, however much we dislike it, that there is a great shortage of housing accommodation in the country today. We know that our local councils and our private developers are producing over 400,000 houses a year; we know that concurrently houses are falling into a state of decay, while the marriage rate is booming and the birth rate is higher than it was some time ago.
People who marry now and want a home of their own, rather than to live in lodgings or to live with their in-laws, 602 have probably only two choices before them: one, to buy a house of their own, because we know that the council housing lists are long in practically every part of the country; or alternatively to get a caravan, most probably as a temporary device so that they can save up enough money to put down as deposit to buy a house. I feel that we ought not to interfere too much in their freedom to make that choice if they want to. Naturally, while I do not want to see millions of caravans all round the country, we must be realistic, and A is a fact that without these caravans as a temporary expedient there might be lots of people homeless, or at best living in overcrowded conditions in lodgings in probably not very desirable areas.

§ LORD MILVERTON
With due respect to previous speakers, may point out that it seems to me that they have been led astray by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, talking about compulsion. There is no question of compulsion. This Amendment does not mean compulsion in any sense of that word. It merely presents an obvious alternative to finding suitable accommodation for the caravanner; and, if he has been unable to find suitable accommodation anywhere for the caravan, has he considered suitable accommodation for himself? That is all. I do not think the somewhat emotional speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, was really relevant to this subject at all. It is merely putting forward what should surely be an alternative. There is no attempt to compel a man to do this; it is merely suggesting that if he cannot find somewhere to put his caravan, he may find somewhere to put himself. That is all.

§ LORD WADE
I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, misunderstood me. I thought in his desire to get people out of caravans into houses then; was an element of compulsion, and it eras to that point that I was referring. So far as this Amendment is concerned, it is a question of to what particular points the court should have special regard. I should have thought that the alleviative of another house was not a point to which special regard should be given in the case of a caravanner who wants to find another site. Of course it will be taken into account as one of all the circumstances, and I hope that the noble 603 Lord may feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD MILVERTON
In view of the fact that this Amendment obviously does not receive universal approval, I beg leave to withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 2.33 p.m.

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. Subsection (5) provides that if a park owner obtains from a court an order for eviction, but the court suspends the enforcement of such an order the court shall make no order for costs. The subsection goes on to give a discretion if there are special reasons, but no special reasons are specified. I do not quite know what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has in mind in regard to "special reasons". It would be of help, I think, if we could be given some idea of what are the "special reasons".

§ If we look again at the Rent Act (I appreciate that we do not always necessarily want to have this Bill exactly the same as the Rent Act) the parallel section in that Act, I believe, applies only to agricultural employees. Surely it is inequitable that the court should make no order for costs in cases where a caravan park owner has obtained an order for eviction after the expiration of a contract. It seems to me that this subsection, as it stands, is, or could be, an incentive to caravan pitch occupiers to force matters into court. I am sure that nobody would wish to see that kind of incentive given. It is for this reason that I beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)

§ LORD WADE
An Amendment in these terms was rejected after a vote in another place on the Committee stage, Standing Committee E, on May 21. The effect of the subsection which this Amendment seeks to eliminate is that in normal cases where a county court makes an order for possession but exercises its power to suspend the execution of the order, each party shall bear their own legal costs. The court is, however, given a discretion under this Bill 604 to order the occupier to pay the owner's costs, or vice versa, if, having regard to the conduct of one or the other, it considers that there are special reasons for so doing. The material words are "having regard to the conduct of the owner or of the occupier."
I would suggest that this discretion should be left as wide as possible and as it is appropriate for the court to decide. There were similar provisions in the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act 1958 and in the Protection from Eviction Act 1964. As I understand it, failing a provision of this kind the recognised practice that a successful litigant's reasonable costs should be paid by the unsuccessful party would hold the field. A recent example of legislation in this field is provided by Section 33(6) of the Rent Act 1965, which lays down similar provisions in respect of actions for the recovery of possession of tied farm cottages. The clause as at present worded in the Bill gives a discretion to the court, otherwise the occupier who succeeds in a claim for suspension of the order might be faced with a quite substantial bill in regard to the site operator's legal costs. The court would have regard to the circumstances, and all we ask in this Bill is to give the court a discretion.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
I am not sure that it is necessary to do that. It seems to me that little, if anything, would be lost if this subsection were deleted. The fact that the only comparison nowadays is that one subsection which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has mentioned, indicates that it is only in exceptional circumstances that a provision like this should be put in. We are not dealing with anything so specialised as the situation with regard to agricultural tied cottages. I think that the deletion of this subsection would do the Bill no harm whatsoever.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
I wonder whether the Government can help us further about this. It is accepted that there is a similar provision in the case of agricultural tied cottages in the Rent Act. It is accepted that there was a general provision of this kind in the Protection from Eviction Act 1964. So far as I know, the general provision in the 1964 Act has since been repealed, 605 and therefore in the whole context of house property a provision of this kind survives only in relation to agricultural tied cottages. That being so, it seems to me that the onus of proof is on the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and his fellow sponsors, to show why something which has been considered by Parliament not to he necessary over the whole field of house property should nevertheless be necessary in the field of caravans. If the noble Lord answers that this, like the 1964 Act, is to be a temporary Act, I must revert to what I said before. In the case of the 1964 Act, we had a Government assurance that it would be overtaken shortly by permanent legislation. In the case of this Bill there is no similar assurance that the Government will be overtaking it by permanent legislation in the forthcoming Session.

§ LORD KENNET
In so far as the noble Lord is asking me once again to give an assurance of that nature, of course I cannot do so. I do not want to lean too heavily on it, but there is a sort of parallel between a caravan and a tied agricultural cottage, in that they are both smaller than the average-sized house, and both are found in the countryside. I do not know whether the noble Lord might agree with me that this would provide a reason for doing it that way this time and the other way another time, but if it does not I can only say that I do not know of any reason why noble Lords who are interested should not get together and talk quietly about this between now and another stage.

§ LORD WADE
In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, I am very willing to discuss this between now and the Report stage, but I should point out, as I have already done, that this point was considered in another place and a similar Amendment to this was rejected. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, keeps asking us whether this Bill is of a temporary nature. My general impression, reading the debates in another place, was that it was anticipated that in due course this would be overtaken by other legislation. To that extent it is in the nature of emergency legislation. I think I can perhaps put it that way. I think that expression was used on one or two occasions. However, I am willing to discuss this 606 point, while repeating that a similar Amendment moved in another place was not upheld.

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL
I am bound to say that I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has not been willing at this stage to agree to this Amendment. He has, however, stated that he is willing to consider it further, and I gladly accept that. I hope that, in the light of discussions we have, we may perhaps have a similar Amendment carried on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 2.42 p.m.

§ LORD MOTTISTONE moved, in subsection (6), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered Amendment No. 7 in conjunction with No. 6. As I shall explain, Amendment No. 7 is consequent upon No. 6. Subsection (6) prevents a court from suspending the enforcement of an eviction order in three circumstances: first, when the park is owned or run by a local authority; secondly, when the site is unlicensed and is, therefore, illegal; thirdly, when the park is due to close, in which case the suspension cannot go beyond the date of the closure. There is no argument about the second and third points; it is only this special privilege for the local authority owned parks that we seek to have deleted.

§ It seems to us that there is no good reason why an eviction order should not be suspended for a local authority owned park just as much as for a privately owned one. The sort of people for whom an eviction order is approved by the court will be similar in both the local authority park and the privately owned one. It seems that in a sense it gives a privilege to the local authority, because what does the evicted caravanner do but "up and go" when he is evicted to the nearest unsuspecting caravan site, which is probably privately owned. It gives a bias or privilege to the local authority for which there seems no justification. I should add that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned this point Oil Second Reading, and he has written to my noble friend Lord Wakefield to say that he and the Consumer 607 Council support this Amendment. With regard to Amendment No. 7, it is a fact that if that Amendment were not included the local authorities would still be able to claim the privilege of non-suspension of eviction because, as can be seen from the 1960 Act, they do not have to have a licence. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Mottistone.)

§ LORD WADE
I agree that it would be helpful to consider Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together. I regard No. 7 as consequential, and therefore I will not discuss it, except in so far as it is bound up with Amendment No. 6. If I am to be regarded as a champion of caravan dwellers I cannot be expected to speak with tremendous enthusiasm in opposition to this Amendment, but I would point out that in the Report stage in the Commons on May 21 a similar Amendment was withdrawn. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow the courts to suspend an order for eviction from a caravan site run by a local authority. The problem is that local authorities are acting in the position of housing authorities. They are also accountable to the electorate and are treated differently under the Rent Acts in a number of respects.
Local authorities as caravan site operators will have to go to the courts for an order before enforcing their right to possession. As the Bill stands, the courts will have no power under the Bill to suspend the execution of the order, but I understand that there is an inherent discretion to give a short period of grace. It would be helpful if we could have a comment on this from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The promoters of the Bill have suggested that we might give the local authorities this rather exceptional position, having regard to the fact that they are housing authorities.

§ LORD KENNET
I have little to add to the admirable account of the situation given by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. As housing authorities local authorities are exempt under the Rent Act, as others are not, from the provisions granting permanent security to tenants, but they are subject to the requirement to get an order from the courts before enforcing their 608 right to possession against a former tenant —that is, somebody who is no longer rightfully a tenant. This sets the matter in proportion. I feel that some noble Lords opposite are perhaps rather straining at gnats here. It seems such a very small thing. I do not know why they should have chosen to bring the local authority into line with the private camp site operator rather than to try to bring the private camp site operator into line with the local authority. It seem to me to be a matter of the swings and the roundabouts, and I do not know why they did not move to take away the power of the courts to grant a suspension of a licence to evict which was given to a private camp site operator, rather than the other way round. No doubt they had good reasons for it.
The Government would be more than content to see the clause remain as it stands. It is only one of countless examples where housing authorities are not subject to all the checks, balances, precautions and "belts and braces" in the interests of justice which Parliament has imposed on private landlords of one sort or another. I think that it could stand with all the others without fear of setting up any new principle or committing any injustice.

§ LORD MOTTISTONE
May I answer the point why we did not do this the other way round? We are not seeking to upset the Bill, which we support, and we feel that it is wise that this power of suspending eviction orders is placed in the hands of courts. We think it is reasonable that this should be so in certain cases. It would not always be for twelve months, but perhaps for a shorter period. It gives an opportunity to the caravan owner to go somewhere else and to make other arrangements. It does not seem right that because a local authority has the magic title "housing authority" it is seen to be a separate sort of entity. A local authority is run by people, the same sort of people as the caravan owners. Why should there be this special situation in which, because it is a local authority, the order cannot be suspended?

§ LORD KENNET
I can hardly let that pass. Does the noble Lord really think that a local authority is composed of the same sort of people as the rest of the population? It is composed of those who 609 have been elected by the rest of the population to take decisions on their behalf. That, I think, is a very different sort of person.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
We are now getting into deep democratic philosophy. What is important is that we should not be casting a moral slur on anybody. I have a feeling that my noble friends, in moving and supporting this Amendment, feared that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, was seeking in his Bill to draw a moral distinction between local authorities and caravan site owners.

§ LORD WADE
May I make it clear that I am not wishing to cast any such slur?

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
I think that is very helpful, because I cannot help suspecting that that is part of the reason why this Amendment was tabled. It is an excellent thing if all such suspicion can now be removed.

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL
I feel that there is a principle at stake here, in that, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said about countless examples of differences between local authorities and what I might describe as private enterprise, we should try where-ever possible to avoid making one law for one section of the populace and another law for another section of the populace, even though that other section be elected. As a matter of principle, the same kind of conditions should be applied universally, so far as possible. So I and my noble friends put this Amendment down to draw attention to our feeling that, as a matter of principle, we do not want differences of this sort.

§ LORD MOTTISTONE
As I have not had very much support from the Committee on this point, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 4 agreed to.

§ Clause 5 [Supplementary]:

§ 2.53 p.m.

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL moved to leave out from the first "the" to the end of the subsection and to insert instead: Magistrates Court acting for the petty sessions area in which the land is situated.

610

§ The noble Lord said: This point was discussed on Second Reading by a number of noble Lords, and I have put down this Amendment as I then said I would. I pointed out that magistrates' courts already have jurisdiction over caravan park conditions and site licences, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and I suggest it is only reasonable that they should continue to have jurisdiction over matters of occupation under this Bill.

§ The main reason why I should like to see magistrates' courts inserted here—in spite of what the noble Lord. Lord Leatherland, said during the Second Reading debate—is because I want the quickest possible action. A caravan is different from a static house, or bungalow or flat, in that a caravan can be moved at quite short notice. A magistrates' court sits more frequently and is faster acting than the county court. Generally speaking, I think that proceedings in a magistrates' court could come on within a few days, but the delay might be as long as two or three months in a county court. A caravan could be moved from one district to another in two or three months—although it could be moved in a few days, it is more likely to be two or three months or several weeks—so I am moving this Amendment in older to get quick action and to avoid de ay. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, leave out lines 31 to 36 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)

§ LORD WADE
This was discussed on Second Reading, when I am bound to say that I thought the balance of argument was in favour of the county court. But as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has honoured us with his presence this afternoon, I very much hope that he might give us the benefit of his advice.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will not accept this Amendment, and that the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, will be prepared to reconsider it. Of course, any system of justice must have some sort of orderly arrangement, and we are not unusual in dividing our courts into criminal courts and civil courts; and not unnaturally, the criminal 611 cases are heard by the criminal courts and the civil cases are heard by the civil courts. The matters covered here, of course, are entirely civil. They may raise quite difficult questions of landlord and tenant law and of the law of contract. It is true that in 1838, I think in a moment of temporary aberration, Parliament passed the Small Tenements Recovery Act, which provided that in the case of small tenements there might be a right of recovery in a magistrates' court; but this is an anomaly well known to lawyers, and when we passed the Rent Act in 1965 occasion was taken to give the Minister power by order to repeal that Act; because, those being civil proceedings, they were quite out of place in a magistrates' court.
One of the most common forms of action in county courts is an action for the recovery of premises, and nearly all county court judges have a great deal of landlord and tenant work on their hands. The county court judge goes round, and is very familiar with this work. As to the magistrates' courts, of course, if this Amendment were to be accepted one would then have to have further clauses providing for a form of procedure, because there is no form of procedure for civil proceedings in a criminal court, where they are used to summonses and indictments. In a civil case you would have to provide that they should start with either particulars of claim or a statement of claim; then you would have to provide for the time within which the defendant was to be at liberty to file his defence; and, of course, a date could not be found until after that.
The argument that it is much quicker to proceed in a magistrates' court was fully gone into when we were considering the Rent Act and the previous landlord and tenant legislation. It was said then that landlords are sometimes in a great hurry, and that it would be much quicker for them in a magistrates' court. I went personally into this matter very fully indeed, and I was quite satisfied that there was nothing in it. We now have a form of expedited proceedings in the county court. A county court judge can give his registrar authority to try a case he can remove a case from one court to another court, and there has been no difficulty at all. I inquired, as to these expedited cases, what the latest 612 figures show, and for the three months expiring on March 31 of this year the average period of time was seventeen days. So the idea that a magistrates' court is much quicker is not correct. Of course, the situation varies in different parts of the country. The last time I inquired about London, I was told that it took about five weeks to get a simple case of careless driving heard, and I know that at one time it was up to nine weeks—which no doubt worried my right honourable friend the Home Secretary very much.
Of course, where the magistrates' courts are under such pressure I do not suppose they are going to give expedition to a form of civil proceedings. They will no doubt think it is their business to clear those cases which are before them in which there are charges, particularly where a defendant is not on bail. But the county court judges, when asked for expedition in these cases, agree to expedition. I think that the previous year the average time was about 14 days, so that, on average, it is about 14 to 17 days. Then, of course, as in all civil forms of proceedings, the plaintiff has to file a document saying what his case is; and as it cannot be assumed the defendant has not a good defence, he must have time to consult a solicitor or to go to a lawyer; at any rate, he must have time in which to file his defence. And it is not until those things are done that the court can fix a date. Really, in relation to a period of 14 or 17 days nobody can have a complaint at all. I can assure the noble Lord that, speaking generally, it is not the fact that the case would come on any more quickly if it were taken in a magistrates' court. I hope that for those reasons—and a similar Amendment which was moved in another place was negatived without Division—that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw it.

§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER
As a lay magistrate, I should like to support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his arguments, which I think clearly define the duties of the justices of the peace. In my view, it would be quite wrong to put this additional work on to the magistrates' courts, since, as the Lord Chancellor has rightly pointed out, 613 it is very much a matter for the civil courts. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his Amendment.

§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL
I think we must all be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for coming here and intervening in this debate. I must say that I never thought, when I put down this Amendment, that it would enable us to hear that interesting and, I think, very valuable statement on this whole position. Therefore, I do not apologise to your Lordships—indeed, I hope I may be congratulated—for having tabled this Amendment, since it enabled us to have that very useful statement from the Lord Chancellor. In view of what he has said, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 5 agreed to.

§ Clause 6 [Duty of local authorities to provide sites for gipsies]:

§ 3.3 p.m.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words from "The council" to "the Minister". The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to change the wording at the beginning of subsection (2) of this clause. It involves a considerable change in the wording, but its sole purpose is to delete reference to "fifteen caravans". As at present drafted, subsection (2) is quite contrary to subsection (1). Subsection (1) says that the local authority is to provide adequate accommodation; subsection (2) says that a county borough or a London borough need not provide accommodation for more than fifteen caravans. What is the position when fifteen caravans are not adequate provision? The county boroughs and the London boroughs are being excused by subsection (2) from what is obviously the main intention of the Bill as expressed in subsection (1).

§ Clearly the reason for this is that in the county boroughs and in the London boroughs it may be virtually impossible to find adequate accommodation for considerable numbers; but, on the other hand, there are in such areas very often appreciable numbers of gipsies. This means that some alleviation from the full 614 duty imposed generally by subsection (1) may be essential for the London boroughs and the county boroughs. My objection is to the statutory maximum of fifteen. It seems to me that if subsection (2) is redrafted on the lines of this Amendment and the next following Amendment, which is a part of the same thing, a situation will be achieved in which the Minister can himself give the direction exempting from the duty imposed by subsection (1) the authorities referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). The Minister would use his common sense and also take advice from his officials as to what should be the maximum number in the area of one borough or another, but there would be no statutory maximum beyond which the Minister could not oblige county or London boroughs to provide sites. Were it in fact the case, as I am sure that often it will be, that there was no room for any sites, there would be no awful number of 15 which the county borough would be bound to live up to without the consent of the Minister. If, on the other hand, and there might be the rare occasion, there was plenty of room for more than 15 sites, the county or London borough would not he able to plead the provisions of subsection (2) as an adequate reason for not providing the sites that ought to be provided and what is the intention of the Bill should be provided. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, ling 17, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 20.—(Lord Craigmyle.)

§ LORD WADE
I was proposing to ask the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, whether he would be willing that Amendment No. 10 should be considered together with this Amendment.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
Yes, it is part and parcel of the same thing.

§ LORD WADE
As first introduced in another place, Clause 6 excluded county boroughs from the duty of providing sites for gipsies. We have now reached Part II of the Bill which is concerned with the provision by local autho6ies of sites for gipsies. As I did on more: than one occasion during the Second Reading debate, I must define "gipsies" as being persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin. As I say, this clause, as first introduced, entirely excluded county boroughs from the duty 615 of providing sites for gipsies. This total exclusion was criticised by a number of local authority associations and by honourable Members in another place during the Second Reading debate there. There were discussions, and ultimately this compromise arrangement was arrived at. I understand that it is fairly widely accepted. I am sure that it would be helpful if we could have the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, before I make any detailed comments on this Amendment.

§ LORD KENNET
That is the essence of it. I do not think that anyone who has studied the distribution of gipsies in this country and the fluctuations, where they go and when, could maintain that there is anything specially meritorious in the figure of 15 when applied to county and London boroughs. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has given the history, and I do not see why there should be any concealment about it. Originally the sponsors of this Bill, and those assisting them, thought: "Well, all right, county boroughs are supposed to be towns and cities, and London is supposed to be a metropolis; it is a great big city, and it is absurd to have sites for gipsies permanently established in cities. Let us, for heaven's sake, try to get these permanent sites established outside." So the county and London boroughs were left out with no duty on them to establish these sites.
Then naturally enough, all the counties pointed out that this would mean that a lot of gipsies would be flooding out across the frontiers because, in point of fact, there are gipsies—not a great many, but a reasonable number—who live in county and London boroughs. The councils said: "This is unjust; we are not against doing our share but why should we do everybody else's share, too?" There were more negotiations between the local authority associations who expressed the interests of their members, and a deal was done. It was not the most logically defensible deal in the world, but what deal ever was? It is a practicable and a workable deal. Everybody agrees that local authorities should set up a number of sites according to the number of gipsies that resort to them, and so shall the county and 616 London boroughs, except that they shall not be forced to set up more than 15 sites. This may seem a small number but, at the last time we counted, in Greater London there were only 97 gipsy families, which is six or seven stands per borough.
Obviously, the central boroughs are not going to be able to do this; the Minister will certify that there is no land available. It would be mostly the peripheral boroughs. It only requires seven boroughs to take 15 each and the problem is solved. The same sort of situation applies to the other conurbations. Let me remind your Lordships that 15 is not the statutory number above which a borough shall not go. It is only the maximum above which the Minister may not order it to go. If a borough thinks it can and ought to do more, there is nothing in the Bill to stop it.

§ LORD WADE
It is true that 15 is not necessarily the maximum, but there is something to be said for a limit of 15 when one considers the problem of the children going to school in urban areas. It is easier to cope with the children of 15 gipsy families. There is some merit in the figure 15, though, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet has pointed out, this was a compromise.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to mathematically rearrange the gipsy families around six or seven boroughs, but does that happen? I have the impression that the gipsies tend to concentrate in two or three. What happens to the number in excess of 15? Are they pushed on to the next borough, as always seems to be happening, unless the borough concerned is able and willing to provide more than 15 sites?

§ LORD KENNET
I think that the noble Lord's last remark is the point. There are boroughs in London, in the South East particularly, where they normally have more than 15 families. These boroughs and the neighbouring County of Kent have such a fine record in doing the right thing by their gipsies that one hopes they will he able to continue that fine record. But if they cannot, there is every reason to suppose that other boroughs, who may have a lot of spare land and not so many gipsies, will be ready to help them out.

617

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
I am obliged to both noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 3.15 p.m.

§ LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (2)(b), after "borough" to insert "or London Borough". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in which the London Boroughs are very much interested. We have already had discussions on the subject of this Amendment. Clause 6 places upon county councils, county borough councils and London borough councils an obligation to provide sites for 15 caravans for gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas. That may be a formidable obligement for a borough which presumably is closely built up. It has been thought necessary to make it possible for the Minister to exempt some boroughs from this obligation.

§ Clause 6 (2) (a) provides that any county borough or London borough in the case of which he is satisfied, after such inquiries as appear to him to be appropriate, that suitable land within the borough is not available; can be exempted by the Minister from the obligation of finding these 15 sites.

§ Then there is a further exemption in Clause 6(2)(b)—The Minister may exempt: Any county borough in the case of which he is satisfied that the number of gipsies resorting to the borough in the period of five years ending on 1st May 1968 was not such as to warrant the provision by the council of accommodation for them. That provision is restricted to county boroughs, and London boroughs, for some reason, are excluded. On the face of it, I should have thought that this was an illogical arrangement. If the exercise of this power in the case of a county borough is right, then I should have thought that conditions in a London borough were so similar that exactly the same powers ought to be extended to them. This Amendment proposes to insert the words, "or London borough" after "county borough", so as to make this provision applicable to both forms of authority.

§ There are, as the Minister has pointed out, certain London boroughs which traditionally have gipsy encampments but equally there are other boroughs which 618 have no gipsy encampments at all. If a gipsy encampment does not exist in the borough, it seems not to be right to make provisions for a gipsy encampment to be established there. It would be much better that the borough should continue as it is at present, without gipsy encampments, and the encampments should be provided on land elsewhere. I hope your Lordships will take the view, which seems to me to be the logical and right one, that these two classes of authority should be treated in exactly the same way. The London borough, if in fact gipsies have not been in the habit of resorting to it or residing in it, should be on the same footing as the county borough, and should be entitled to exemption from the obligation of establishing a gipsy encampment in a place where no gipsy encampment exists. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5. line 26, after ("borough"; insert ("or London Borough").—(Lord Ilford.)

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
This Amendment would have the effect of exempting London boroughs from the responsibility of finding accommodation for gipsies. My mind goes back to the days when the noble Lord was the very highly respected and safely elected Member for Ilford. In those days, I was either Chairman of the Essex County Council or chairman of that County Council's Finance Committee. If we were to pass the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord it would simply have the effect of transferring the financial burden for establishing these camps from the noble Lord's London Borough of Redbridge, which now incorporates Ilford, to the Essex County Council. I think that we in the countrified parts of Essex should probably regard that as an unfair transfer.
One learns from local newspapers in Ilford and district that Ilford have had some trouble with gipsies. I believe that the authorities have evicted, or moved on, or transferred, some gipsies quite recently. Probably the local council were quite right to move them on from the particular site they were occupying, which was in the neighbourhood of one of the very nice schools built by the Essex County Council before Ilford was snatched into the jaws of London. But there are other places within the London Borough of Redbridge, formerly Ilford, which could 619 well accommodate these gipsies. I know a place, over part of which I motor two or three times a week, which during the latter days of the war was occupied as a Yugoslav prisoner of war camp. So it cannot be argued that all London boroughs are without accommodation which could be placed at the disposal of gipsies.

§ LORD ILFORD
I did not say that all London boroughs were without accommodation. I said that the Minister said that there are some London boroughs which have got large encampments and which manage very well.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
But, as the lawyers say, inter alia, Ilford would be one of those exempted from the responsibility which the Bill seeks to impose.

§ LORD ILFORD
With great respect to the noble Lord, that is not the case. The two conditions are that land should not be available or that the gipsies should not resort to that particular neighbourhood. No one would dispute that land for a gipsy encampment was available in Ilford. It is. It is not easy to find it, but at that time it was available. If the gipsies remained there it was quite clear that the Minister could not act on subsection (2)(b), because that depends upon the average number of gipsies who had resorted to that particular district in the last five years. If the gipsies were living there, of course that would not apply. The Minister had no power at all to exempt the borough.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
The noble Lord admits that there are some London boroughs which have land that could be made available for gipsy encampments. If his Amendment is passed those London boroughs would not have to bear the responsibility for accommodating these gipsies. The burden would he fathered on to the adjoining county council, whether that be Essex or Surrey or Kent. I think that that would be an undue transfer of responsibility and an unfair opportunity for these London boroughs to transfer their financial burdens from their own ratepayers to those of the adjoining county. I hope that this Amendment will be rejected.

§ LORD SOMERS
With all due respect, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord 620 Leatherland, has read the Amendment properly. If it were passed, that clause would read: …any county borough or London borough in the case of which he"— that is, the Minister is so satisfied that the number of gipsies resorting to the borough in the period of five years ending on 1st May, 1968 was not such as to warrant the provision by the council of accommodation for them".

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
This gives them what might colloquially be called a "get-out"; and I want to block that.

§ 3.23 p.m.

§ LORD WADE
I think that the dialogue between the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has helped to indicate the nature of the problem. As I understand this Amendment, it would put London boroughs into the same position as county boroughs; namely, that only those London boroughs which have had a persistent gipsy problem in recent years—that is, the five years from May 1, 1958—would be required to provide sites. This would mean that only some of the peripheral London boroughs would need to provide sites. As none of them would be required to provide more than 15 pitches, and some of them—for instance, Bromley, Bexley, Havering and Redbridge—have regularly had in their area far greater numbers of gipsies than this, it would seem to me that the burden of providing accommodation for London gipsies would be largely placed on the surrounding counties, Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, most of which already have a considerable gipsy problem of their own. That is the nature of the problem, and again I have to point out that these clauses of the Bill are a compromise. I am sure it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would give us the benefit of his advice.

§ 3.24 p.m.

§ LORD KENNET
I will not enter for a moment into the artillery exchanges between Redbridge and the County of Essex, but it is an example of the kind of thing that happens. I think that this Amendment and the whole history of the London boroughs are really an example of the basic difference of approach between central Government, 621 under Labour control, and local government in this respect now under Conservative control. We have some county boroughs with a lot of land and a lot of gipsies, and some London boroughs with a lot of land and a lot of gipsies; we have others with a lot of land and a few gipsies, and others with no land and no gipsies. It is obvious that, in order to iron out this position, we need a centralised plan, an overall cohesive plan, for the whole of London. This, I may say, is what occurred to the central Government persons who were considering what sort of legislation would be desirable.
But not a bit of it! The Conservative-controlled Greater London Council and the boroughs, being interested at that time in some measure of devolution in accordance with their principles (which I do not profess fully to understand), that powers for this and that should pass from the county to the boroughs, conceived that it would be a good plan if the responsibility for the gipsies were to pass to the boroughs. We said, "All right, if that is the way you want to do it, presumably that is the way you will do it best". Now we have this Amendment which says, "No, let us limit it further", which means that those boroughs which have a lot of land and no gipsies will not have to do it. We cannot go back and give it to the Greater' London Council, though I have wondered how many noble Lords this afternoon share my thoughts and wish that we could do so.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
I can help the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as to the London position. A Royal Commission recommended that the boroughs should be the primary units of local government in London, and that is the policy that the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs' Association are now seeking to implement. As to this particular subsection and the Amendment, it seems to me to be very much of a compromise. On the views that were put before us so forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, paragraph (b) ought not to be in here at all. I can quite understand his point of view if he is prepared to move an Amendment to leave out paragraph (b), but he is inconsistent if he is suggesting that London boroughs and county boroughs should be 622 treated in a different way. What my noble friend Lord Ilford is seeking to do is to remove that inconsistency and to ensure that London boroughs and county boroughs shall be treated in the same way. It seems to me that a perfectly sensible course of action is being advocated by my noble friend, though evidently it is not acceptable to the Government.

§ LORD ILFORD
I think the difference of opinion which has developed in the Committee on this Amendment really turns upon subsection (2)(b); whether it is right that the Minister shall have power in the case of a London borough which has not got a gipsy population to make an order exempting them from the obligations which would otherwise rest upon them. That is really the issue between us and I am afraid that so far as my own conviction is concerned it remains where it was: that if there is no gipsy population in a borough it is better not to introduce one. Gipsies ale not always easy people to handle, however sentimental one may he about them. I should have thought it better not to take steps to encourage them into a borough. We have certainly had an interesting discussion. I was hoping that I could get a little more help from the Minister than I have got, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
There is one Question I should like to raise. In this clause use is made of the phrase "residing in or resorting to their area". This occurs on two or three occasions, one of which is in line 16. Only this morning I was asked what was meant by "resorting to" and with some haste I had to try to pass the question on to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who quite justly maintained that the notice was not only short but the writing illegible. I do not know whether he is in a position to answer. The problem really arises from this. The movements of gipsies are of course largely seasonal; they go from one place at one time of the year to another place at another time. They do it year after year, using the same routes and the same resting places on the way. Are these resting places places to which gipsies "resort" or are they just, as it were, 623 lay-bys? The meaning could affect the duties of local authorities under this clause.

§ LORD KENNET
In detail, I must admit to not being sure, but on the general question of what "resorting to" means in law I have had some inquiries made. There is no statutory definition, but the relevant authorities have been back through the courts' decisions since 1895 and they have found that they are consistent in using the dictionary or commonsense definition. I might "resort" to a place if I go there frequently. Many people may "resort" to a place if they go there once. It is to go repeatedly or in large numbers. What about these lay-bys or stopping-over places? It would be going too far if I were to attempt to answer that question. But the whole conception of the Bill is based on getting towards the time at which there are established gipsy camps all over the country between which they will freely circulate, with no presumption that they must stay any length of time in any one camp. It may be a place where the average length of stay would be only two or three days.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
I am much obliged.

§ Clause 6 agreed to.

§ 3.32 p.m.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE moved, after Clause 6 insert the following new clause:

§ Temporary sites

§ ".—(1) If at any time it appears to any local authority to which section 6(1) of this Act applies that the number of gipsies residing in or resorting to their area exceeds the number for whom adequate accommodation has been provided, such authority may license or may itself provide additional sites.

§ (2) Additional sites licensed or provided under the foregoing subsection shall not be occupied for more than six consecutive months in any period of twelve months.

§ (3) In licensing or providing any sites under the powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section a local authority shall not be under a duty to have regard to any standards specified by the Minister under section 5(6) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960."

§ The noble Lord said: As most of your Lordships who are well up in problems of draftsmanship will appreciate, this is my own way of putting down something which is not seriously intended to get on 624 the Statute Book and therefore I hope one of your Lordships will waste breath criticising the drafting. It is simply to ask what arrangements are to be made, or what arrangements ought to be made, on the temporary sites pending the completion of the more permanent sites which we envisage will arise in consequence of this Bill.

§ I think it was mentioned in the Second Reading debate that some gipsies are quite alarmed as to the crisis which apparently might develop even this winter, because I suppose in some cases it may take two or even more years for local authorities to find suitable sites and equip them up to the proper standards laid down by the Minister. So the trouble will not arise only this winter; it will be a continuous period of years with a crisis over two or three winters. It seems to me there are three things which need to be done: first, that preparation of some sort should be made for temporary sites; secondly, that there should be some definition as to what is a temporary site so that a temporary site does not in fact become permanently occupied although under temporary authority; and, thirdly, that the nature of the temporary site should be such that it is not felt essential that the Minister's standards should be maintained for the site to be occupied.

§ I do not know to what extent there are, over extended periods of time, considerable movements in the gipsy population, but presumably if economic conditions were to alter in such a way that there were a general shift as opposed to a seasonal one you might find gipsies residing in or resorting to areas where hitherto no facilities for gipsies had been necessary, in which case similar problems would arise there at some future date. So it is not only the forthcoming winter for which temporary facilities may be needed; some longstanding provision about temporary facilities may be necessary. I should be interested to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord Wade, or the Government have considered this point. If they think there is anything in it, no doubt they will themselves cause an Amendment to be made on the next stage. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 6 insert the new clause.—(Lord Craigmyle.)

625

§ 3.35 p.m.

§ LORD WADE
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lard Craigmyle, for the interest which he has shown in this subject. I think this must be regarded as a probing Amendment, and I hope I am not throwing too much of a burden on the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, if I ask him to regard himself as the person who is being probed. May I, however, make this brief comment? As I understand it, the powers do exist; but even for temporary sites planning permission is required. But within those limits, I am sure the Ministry is well aware of this problem.

§ LORD KENNET
I hope the noble Lord will be content with a short answer. I am much worried by the fact that we have got through only 12 out of 29 Amendments in two hours. We have only half an hour left, and we were hoping to conclude the Committee stage to-day. I indicated on Second Reading that there is no resting point between exhortation and compulsion in what a Minister can do. The local authorities have powers to set up gipsy encampments of any sort of type, and under the Bill the Minister will have powers to waive the requirements about standards if he thinks that in a certain area there is a case for getting more sites quickly and to hell with the standards, rather than insisting on each one being up to perfect standards. I hope that meets the point that the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, was seeking to probe.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
I am obliged to the noble Lord. I did not realise that the Minister had that power. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 7 agreed to.

§ Clause 8 [Location of sites in counties]:

§ LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "consult" to the end of the subsection and insert:

("(a) the council of the county district in which the land is situated;
(b) any person known to the council after reasonable enquiry to have an interest in any land which is likely to be affected by the proposal;
(c) such other authorities and persons as they consider appropriate.")

§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13 which stands in my name. This Amendment and the three following Amendments deal wilt the circumstances in which the county council, the acquiring authority, is required to have consultations with objectors and with other county districts. The Amendments are a little complicated. I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendments Nos.13, 14, 15 and 16, the new clause, were discussed together. These Amendments deal with the consultation which the county council must have with interested parties before they acquire land for caravan sites. The point in this group of Amendments can be stated quite shortly.

§ The Bill provides that the council must have prior obligatory consultation with the county district in which the site proposed to be acquired by the county council is situate. If the county district council in the area where the land is situate object to the acquisition O! land for the purpose of providing a camp, they have a right to object and the county council must then consult with them. If the consultation does not result in agreement, the county district council can then appeal to the Minister, and the Minister can make an order directing the county council either to proceed with their plan for acquiring a site or to refrain from doing so.

§ But the county district council are not by any means the only parties who may be affected by the acquisition of a caravan site. There are many people to whom the proximity of a caravan site may be of importance. I have been supplied with some particulars of the different institutions which the Greater London Council themselves have, in the area of Greater London and outside, which they consider might be affected seriously by the establishment of a gipsy encampment centre at a place where no such encampment exists.

§ The Inner London Education Authority owns or has an interest in buildings or land in the vicinity of a proposed site for a gipsy encampment; boarding special schools, of which there are many in the rural areas around 627 London, out-county playing fields and indeed any out-county establishment in the areas of the Green Belt. In all these cases there is no right of obligatory consultation before the county council proceeds with its plans. The purpose of this Amendment is to give not only the county district council but the other objectors an opportunity of consultation with the county council and, if the consultation does not result in agreement, a right of appeal to the Minister in the same way as the county district council is given.

§ There is a further point which is raised by the new clause. In the Greater London Council area there is no provision for consultation at all, and indeed the Greater London Council are the authority. What is proposed in the new clause is that the right of consultation should be with the London borough in which the encampment is situated, and that the consultation should proceed to an appeal to the Minister, as it does between the County Council as the County district council. It is a matter to which a great deal of importance is attached by the Greater London Council and by others whose institutions may be affected unless there is some effective right of objection on their part. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 6, line 26, leave out from ("consult") to end of line 28 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Ilford.)

§ LORD WADE
I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford for explaining these Amendments. I think it might assist the speedy progress of this part of the Committee stage if the noble Loid, Lord Kennet would comment straight away.

§ LORD KENNET
I have only one comment, which is extremely brief. I know the noble Lord cannot have forgotten it, but it seemed to me as though the noble Lord was speaking without taking account of the fact that these sites will be subject to planning procedure just as would any other development, and that those who object to them will have their opportunity for discussion and putting their point of view, and appeal to the Minister, through the normal planning procedure.

628

§ LORD ILFORD
Of course, there may be no objection to them on planning grounds. The objection may be based solely upon their effect on the existing and adjoining properties. I am not by any means certain that that would he a good planning ground for objection, particularly under the new arrangements.

§ LORD KENNET
That is an unfamiliar doctrine to me: an objection which is valid because of its effect on neighbouring properties but which is not valid as a planning objection. I am not quite sure what its position in Statute Law would be.

§ LORD ILFORD
Under the new procedure one has not a detailed plan but only a general statement. The individual objection about the effect which a gipsy encampment may have on a special school, for example, may not have very great weight when one is discussing planning in the broad terms in which it is going to be discussed in the future.

§ LORD KENNET
Surely a planning authority would attach considerable weight to that, and if there were a gipsy site opposite a school or a similar establishment, the authority would certainly take account of the views of the people who run that school or establishment. If it thought they were right, then this would seem to be a proper planning consideration. I cannot imagine that the planning authority would take another view of that.

§ LORD ILFORD
I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply, but I do not desire to trouble the Committee further with the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 8 agreed to.

§ 3.47 p.m.

§ LORD PARGITER moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:

§ Information to be given by local authorities to Minister

§ ".—(1) Every local authority to which subsection (1) of section 6 of this Act applies shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Part of this Act, give notice to the Minister—

(a) describing the number and location of sites proposed to be provided by them pursuant to that section and the number of 629 caravans for which accommodation thereon is designed; or
(b) describing the number and location of sites already provided by them or any other local authority in their area under other statutory powers and which are used or are available for use by gipsies and the numbers of caravans for which accommodation thereon is designed; or
(c) describing such other measures as have been taken by them or any other local authority in their area to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies.

§ (2) Every local authority as aforesaid, in giving notice to the Minister under the foregoing subsection, shall describe the arrangements provided by them or proposed by them for securing the provision of adequate facilities for the education, health, welfare and employment of gipsies in their area.

§ (3) Before giving notice under subsection (1) of this section every local authority as aforesaid shall consult with such housing authorities as may appear to them to he appropriate and after such consultations shall, in giving notice to the Minister, describe the arrangements to be made by such authorities for the provision for gipsies wishing to adopt a settled way of life of permanent housing accommodation.

§ (4) Where any site has been provided under proposals submitted to the Minister under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, the local authority shall give notice to that effect to the Minister."

§ The noble Lord said: I should like to take Amendment No. 17, which I now move, with Amendment No. 18. The new clause is an additional provision which goes further than the Bill as it stands at present. I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships. It arises largely out of the experience of the county of Hampshire, where they have done pioneer work in the permanent settlement of itinerant gipsies and people of that kind. They have provided rehabilitation centres, and they have done everything they can to encourage these people to go there, although they do not force them to do so. The welfare people have encouraged them in proper living, have looked after them and have helped them in the pursuit of permanent employment as against the type of employment they normally adopt.

§ The county authorities have had remarkable success in these efforts. I feel that the time has come when this work might be expanded. When these people have been got on to a caravan site that should not be the end of the story, but only the beginning. We ought to be 630 looking to the permanent location of people of this kind. The old days are over: the days when we had picturesque caravan dwellers, the gipsy and the tinker, who went round the cottages soldering tin kettles and cans, or who cut down the undergrowth, or made pegs or paper flowers which the gipsy women sold from door to door. Those drys are over and there is nothing like that at present. The sort of activities carried on in those days are no longer a fact of life. These people have now become scrap dealers, collectors of rags and bones, and the like. There is no reason why such activities should not be encouraged as part of an itinerant way of life. I do not object to their breaking up cars and selling scrap; but this could be done on a far better basis than it is now, and probably with the countryside less littered than it is at present.

§ The object of my Amendment is to provide that authorities will be under obligation to tell the Minister what they are doing, what provision they are making and what consultations they have had with housing authorities. In Hampshire they have been very successful in their approaches to the housing authorities, and this is a significant factor. People have been re-housed into housing estates and they fit in quite well, provided that they have first had the necessary rehabilitation. The husbands have become settled to regular employment and a permanent way of life, and the children have a settled existence with education and all the benefits that are provided for them.

§ That is the experience of Hampshire, but we should go further. It may be said that we cannot go further in this Bill at the moment. Perhaps the Ministry cannot go further and accept the impositions which would be placed upon them. But I am hoping that it will be possible to move in the right direction and to accept this new clause, and also the addition to Clause 9 which would place upon the housing authorities as well as the county authorities a responsibility to provide the sites and the rehabilitation. I hope that, as a result, we can bring more people into a more settled way of life. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 8, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Pargiter.)

631

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, in this Amendment. I understand that some six years ago a survey was made in Hampshire, and it was found that two-thirds of all the gipsy families then in the county were anxious to be permanently re-housed. That is a very significant fact. I should be the last to wish to drive into a council house people who want to continue to follow a nomadic form of life. On the other hand, the Hampshire survey—which could no doubt be repeated elsewhere—indicated that a substantial proportion of those now living the gipsy life would like to settle down if they received the requisite help.
The true gipsy is a wonderful person, but I cannot think that it is in the national interest that little help should be given to those who are now gipsies, and who wish, maybe for their children's sake if not for their own, to settle down in a more permanent way. I am thinking particularly of the children. I am quite sure that a considerable number of gipsy children do not get the chance in life which we as a Parliament would wish them to have. That being so, I feel that we ought to give every encouragement to those local authorities like Hampshire which have been seeking positive action on this matter.
I was a little disappointed that in another place the relevance of Amendments similar to these was dismissed on the ground that this would be interference with the gipsies. It cannot be interference if two-thirds of them wish to take advantage of something of this kind. So I trust that that argument will not be used against the noble Lord's Amendment. It may not be that we can do all this in this Bill, and certainly we do not want to hold up its progress. But I most sincerely trust that we shall get an assurance from the Government that they are in sympathy with the kind of policy embodied in these Amendments, so far as concerns those gipsies who would like to have a better chance of settling down permanently in a house.

§ LORD WADE
These two Amendments relate to what is known as the Hampshire County Council proposals, and certainly we should give encouragement to development along these lines. I 632 am very much in favour of helping gipsy families to get into houses if they so wish. But I am inclined to the view that we must be careful not to force them too quickly from their nomadic way of life, and that applies to those who wish to live in caravans.
I think the new clause is meant to be a substitution for Clause 9(1), but Clause 9(1) is not deleted and I think the two would conflict. Also, the Amendment would enable the Minister to direct any housing authority to provide housing for gipsies. This might mean that gipsies would be given priority in the housing queue. I think it would be wrong to give special preference to any particular group like the gipsies, and would or might be resented by members of the settled population who might find themselves on a long waiting list for housing and whose needs might be just as great. I am quite sure the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, appreciates that point, and I should be glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.

§ LORD KENNET
Nobody should withhold their admiration for the efforts and the general approach of the County of Hampshire to this problem, but we must look at what the Amendment says, at what effect the Amendment would have on the Bill, and at the changes it would introduce. First of all, it would require the authorities, in returns they make to the Minister, to include information about sites available or otherwise provided. That is a requirement for information to be given by the counties to the Minister. That is paragraph (b). Paragraph (c) would once again require information to be given to the Minister about other measures to provide accommodation for gipsies. I think myself that local authorities who are doing well in these matters will not hesitate to tell the Minister as quickly as they can—indeed, to tell everybody—and that probably it would be redundant to introduce a statutory requirement that they should tell the Minister or, indeed, anybody else.
The second subsection of my noble friend's new clause once again requires local authorities to report—again, it is only a question of information—the arrangements they propose to secure education, health, welfare and employment for gipsies. Again, I believe that 633 if they are doing well they will not hesitate to tell the Minister and if they are doing badly the Minister will not hesitate to ask them. There is no need for a statutory requirement. Subsection (3) goes a little further and requires local authorities to submit to the Minister proposals for housing those gipsies who want houses. This is actually laying a duty on them to get ahead and do something and to submit their proposals to the Minister, as opposed to merely telling him about what they are actually doing.
It is attractive, of course, but there is one great disadvantage, and that is that if you lay on a local authority the duty of proposing a special housing programme for gipsies you are going to deter them, I think, from doing anything else. It may take up so much of their resources in time, talent and ultimately money that they may not go any further than they are ordered to in providing the camp sites, which the Bill still thinks is the most important and urgent thing to get done. And if this goes any distance forward, it is going to raise great problems with the normal people on the housing list, who will say, "How can you let the gipsies jump in ahead of us; indeed, how can you let them on to the housing list at all before you have provided all the camp sites which are in the original approach in the Bill?"
So, in so far as this new clause simply imposes on authorities the requirement to tell the Minister what they are doing, I suggest it is not necessary; and in so far as it would lay a duty on local authorities to produce concrete plans for housing gipsies, I think that ought to be looked at in the long term, but not at this time. What we are trying to do is to stop them from being chased around the place. If only we could get somewhere where they could stay in their caravans, with all the disabilities of that way of life, without being chased, that would be an enormous advance, and the housing business could wait until later.
634 The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, twice came back to his figure of two-thirds of the gipsies in Hampshire who, I think six years ago, wanted to be re-housed. Of course, I do not question that that was the answer they returned when they were asked at that time, but I have a pretty strong impression, based on a reading of the National Survey of Gipsies recently published by my Department, that this would be way above the average national figure over any length of time, and that the number who would be quite content to carry on as they are, if only they could find somewhere to put their caravans, is probably way above one-third.

§ LORD PARGITER
Having regard to what has been said, I do not wish to delay the Committee. I think the Minister has damned it rather more than was necessary. He said it is all to be pushed into the dim and distant days of the future. We do not want to push it too far into the future. I hope he may indicate that if the associations approach him on this particular matter, with a view to discussing further implementation of the provisions, he will be willing to receive them. If I can have that assurance I will withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD KENNET
I am not certain to which associations the noble Lord refers.

§ LORD PARGITER
If a local authority association—any or all of them—approach the noble Lord on the matter, will he be willing to discuss it with them? We can then leave that particular point and get on.

§ LORD KENNET
I think they should approach either the noble Lord, Lord Wade or Mr. Lubbock; but if they wish to approach me, then that is fine.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 9 agreed to.

§ House resumed.