House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Jul 1991

Column 1330

5.5 per cent. of that 6 per cent. has already been swallowed up, leaving only 0.5 per cent. to cover any additional award above 4.5 per cent. by the teachers' pay review body.

The increase will be eaten up without any scope for essential and additional expansion of the sort which I have described and which is required by the Government. To meet that additional £11 million expansion in provision, most of it statutorily required, there will have to be a cut in spending on other services of about 6 per cent., which will mean cuts in teaching staff, larger class sizes and reductions in social services. That is already happening. Indeed, primary schools in the Neath area have suffered cuts in teaching staff and classes have had to be merged, resulting in larger class numbers.

Welsh Office Ministers, sitting in their ivory tower, seem oblivious to the savage impact of their policies on local communities such as those in West Glamorgan. One group who are affected are the elderly. There are 74,000 pensioners in West Glamorgan, many of whom depend on income support. Some of them suffered disgraceful cuts in the benefits that they received in April this year when retirement pensions for the over-75s and disabled pensioners were increased by 10.8 per cent. whereas income support was increased by just 8 per cent. That meant that those receiving income support lost access to benefits and rebates. Some of the most vulnerable sections of our elderly population suffered an additional cut in that way. Many of the 74,000 West Glamorgan pensioners have small additional private or widows' pensions to supplement their retirement pensions and that group is often hit the hardest by the present situation. What the Government give with one hand they take away with the other in tax increases and loss of benefits.

Many pensioners in the Neath constituency and throughout West Glamorgan are without cars. Many live in valley villages and rely on bus transport which, even with the West Glamorgan concessionary fares scheme, they find costly. For example, a pensioner making a return trip from Ystalyfera to Swansea has to pay £2.20 and from Seven Sisters to Neath, £1.65. Such sums may seem small to the Minister on his salary, but, repeated day after day, they eat into the income of our elderly citizens, especially as they face exorbitant water charges, a colour television licence fee of £77, standing charges on all the main services of telecommunications, electricity, gas and so on, on top of high heating charges for electricity, gas and coal, and, in addition, the continuously rising cost of living.

That is why I believe that pensioners would be enormously boosted by a new free fares system in West Glamorgan. That would be an imaginative targeted measure which would directly assist some of the most vulnerable members of our community. It could transform the lives of elderly people living in West Glamorgan and have a liberating effect on them. It would not just give relief to our elderly citizens, some of whom are living on the poverty line ; it would also enhance their quality of life and so ensure that they would be less of a burden on the state as they grew into old age. In fact, the Government would save money by such a measure. If they did their accounting in terms of social costs and benefits, rather then with the tunnel vision of their profit and loss balance sheets in which people do not figure, they would find that even injecting the additional funding needed to provide a free fares scheme they would

Column 1331

end up spending less money by having healthier citizens who were more at one with themselves, enjoying a better quality of life. The existing West Glamorgan concessionary fares scheme commenced on 26 October 1986 and provides for a one third cut in bus fares. Under the Transport Act 1985, bus operators working the scheme may not make a profit from the concessionary fares available to them and reimbursement must come wholly out of local authority budgets. The problem is that, under current Welsh Office guidelines and spending targets, no flexibility is offered to local authorities. They do not have the flexibility to provide that additional service either in terms of free fares for pensioners on the buses or in their spending commitments.

The cost of the present concessionary fares scheme is just £0.8 million, so a free fares scheme would cost an additional £1.6 million- -not very much. If West Glamorgan county council, Neath borough council, Swansea city council, Lliw borough council and Port Talbot borough council came to the Welsh Office with a specific request for funding for that additional £1.6 million, would the Minister agree to it? That is the question that I wish to put to him today.

Why should Neath pensioners, and pensioners throughout West Glamorgan, be deprived of a basic right enjoyed by many other pensioners in our society? According to a report published in 1988 by the transport and road research laboratory, 22 per cent. of the concessionary transport schemes available in Great Britain are free-fare schemes. Most are in metropolitan areas such as London, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. Many operate outside the rush hours, after 9.30 am or during the weekend. Millions of senior citizens throughout Britain can travel on the bus or the underground free of charge, but none of them is in Wales.

The Welsh Office should hang its head in shame. Why cannot the Government show some compassion and generosity for once and provide the funding necessary for Welsh local authorities which wish to do so to transform their present concessionary fare schemes into free-fare schemes? That will also have the benefit of improving revenues for the bus operators who at present, after deregulation, at times offer, particularly to residents in the valley villages, a shoddy service which runs out late at night and is very weak during the weekend. The additional revenue generated by carrying those extra passengers, although all the finance would be returned to the county, would make for a more effective service.

It is no use the Minister saying that it is up to local authority discretion whether West Glamorgan or any other Welsh authority spends part of its budget on a free-fare scheme. The fact is that their hands are tied by highly restrictive and in some cases punitive Welsh Office spending guidelines. Virtually all local authority spending in Wales, as elsewhere in the country, is centrally controlled--and tightly at that. Authorities do not have the discretion to operate such a scheme.

My simple and specific proposal could greatly enhance the quality of life for some of our poorest citizens, who have given their working lives to their communities but are now forgotten or ignored by the consumerist, materialistic, me-first culture in which the Government glory. I urge the Minister to respond positively to my proposal, and to provide the funding necessary to West Glamorgan and the boroughs within it, so that they may establish a free-fare

Column 1332

scheme as soon as possible. In that way, our senior citizens could enjoy transport in reasonable comfort at a pace that suits them so that they might take advantage of the opportunities otherwise denied to them.

1.17 pm

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on his success in raising the question of Welsh Office funding for West Glamorgan. His speech focused on local authority spending. On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced a provisional local government finance settlement for 1992-93 that proposed a level of total standard spending in Wales of £2,639 million. That is an increase of £206 million, or 8.5 per cent. on 1991-92, and is the appropriate level of spending for the coming year, taking account of all relevant considerations. My right hon. Friend also proposed a level of aggregate external finance of about £2,383 million--an increase of 6.7 per cent. on the current year.

The settlement must be seen in the context of the Government's success in bringing down inflation. It is a realistic settlement, and one that provides local authorities in Wales with a firm foundation on which to budget prudently for the coming year. It builds on the settlement for the current year, which increased total standard spending by 8 per cent. on budgets, and increased aggregate external finance by 11.2 per cent.

The level of expenditure per Welsh charge payer for which the settlement allows is £1,207. If local authorities budget in line with our plans for 1992-93, charge payers should, on average, contribute just £118 per head of that through the community charge, before taking into account various benefits and relief. The settlement for the current year, 1991-92, provided for an increase of more than £31 million in West Glamorgan county council's standard spending assessment to £263.5 million ; a rise of 15.1 per cent. on the level for 1990-91. That was the highest percentage increase in Wales, bar one county--Gwent--and represents an increase of almost 7 per cent. on the unnecessarily high budget set by the authority for 1990-91, which was £14 million over SSA. That decision resulted in a community charge for standard spending of £28 more than would have been necessary if the authority had spent in line with the Government's plans, and that placed an unnecessary burden on its charge payers. This year, the authority is receiving an increase in grant support towards its expenditure of £18.5 million. Again, that is the second highest percentage increase in Wales. Charge payers in the county have also benefited directly from the £140 reduction in community charge liability which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget. The aggregate increase in standard spending assessments for 1991-92 over 1990-91 for the four district councils within West Glamorgan is £8.9 million, a rise of 20.7 per cent. The aggregate increase in grant for those authorities in support of that spending is £5.9 million, which represents a rise of 16.7 per cent. over 1990-91. The increase in SSA for the hon. Gentleman's constituency is 16.6 per cent. over 1990-91, despite a slight decrease in population.

While Port Talbot, Lliw Valley and Neath set community charges in line with the settlement, it is unfortunate that Swansea city council chose to budget for

Column 1333

a charge of £57, no less than 52 per cent. above the settlement level of £38. That placed a quite unnecessary burden on its charge payers.

The levels of expenditure and support that I have just described were sufficient to enable the authorities concerned to meet both inflationary and service pressures in providing an appropriate level of service. The provisional settlement announced by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday will build on the foundation that has been laid. It would not be appropriate or possible to consider how the proposed settlement for 1992-93 will affect individual local authorities. My Department and the local authority associations in Wales are considering the grant distribution arrangements for the coming year and will make recommendations to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance in due course. With the exception of certain specific and supplementary grants towards current expenditure, Government support towards local government spending in Wales under the settlement is unhypothecated. That means that, while the Government provide the appropriate level of resources, it is for individual authorities to make their own expenditure decisions in the light of their assessment of local expenditure requirements and priorities. That is entirely appropriate and accords with the wishes of the local authorities. It is against that background that the funding of specific services such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman must be considered.

The hon. Member for Neath talked at some length about the position of the elderly and, in particular, about their travel arrangements. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the mobility of our senior citizens and I note his view that they should be allowed to travel free of charge on local buses. Of course, the Transport Act 1985 gives local authorities powers to fund travel concession schemes for various groups of people, including persons of pensionable age. The local authority may determine the nature of the concession and its level.

It is right that this is a matter for local authorities as they are in the best position to determine the type of concession which best suits the needs of their areas. Costs are an important factor in this. In West Glamorgan, for example, senior citizens may apply for a pass which entitles them to a third off normal single or return fares. The cost of this concession to the charge payer in the current financial year is estimated to be some £810,000, of which £402,000 will be met by the district councils.

However, the provision of free travel would not merely increase those costs by a factor of three to £2.4 million. I

Column 1334

understand that that is the correct figure, but it would generate much higher usage, as more people would take advantage of the concession. This would result in higher claims from the bus companies and extra costs to the council.

But there are points other than costs to bear in mind. The scheme run in West Glamorgan imposes no time restrictions on senior citizens who use it. This means that pass holders may travel at any time, including at peak hours. This is helpful to the pass holders and makes for economic and easy administration of the scheme. A penalty of free travel which the hon. Gentleman advocates would be the need to restrict the times at which concession holders could travel in order to ensure that adequate capacity is available on the buses for those who need to travel. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that restriction.

Mr. Hain : Does the Minister agree that millions of pensioners elsewhere in the United Kingdom enjoy this benefit? Why do not pensioners in Wales enjoy it?

Sir Wyn Roberts : As I said, it is entirely a matter for the local authority to decide what best suits its locality. I imagine that, as the hon. Gentleman said, many free-travel schemes are to be found in heavily urbanised areas where fewer disadvantages may occur. Indeed, it is for each and every local authority to decide what type of concessionary scheme it can operate successfully and afford. In looking at concessionary fares schemes, local authorities have to consider what is affordable and the effect on other persons who, for whatever reason, need or choose to use the buses.

The hon. Gentleman concentrated very much on the needs of the elderly. He will be aware that, in our "Caring for People" White Paper and subsequent guidance, we have set out a comprehensive policy to ensure care in the community for elderly people. Each social services department is leading the production of a joint county social care plan for service development with health authorities and other bodies, including the voluntary sector, and in close consultation with service users and carers. The first plans will be published by next April.

We are supporting the implementation of those reforms with a unique programme of concerted action in Wales. The Welsh Office initiative began in 1987, and 56 demonstration projects testing innovative ways to care for elderly people in their own homes have been approved for grants. Four of those projects are in West Glamorgan, and the Welsh Office has allocated approximately £2.5 million for them. One of the projects, the staying- at-home initiative which started in January 1988, explores ways to improve community services and, in particular, enable dependent elderly people who would otherwise require residential care to remain in their homes.

Column 1335

Squatting and Second Homes

1.30 pm

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) : I wish to discuss the case for a review of the law on squatting and its effect on privately owned second homes. Many people associate second homes simply with the wealthy who have a weekend cottage or a country home that they visit on Friday nights, returning to London or wherever on Sundays. In recent years, however, that has not been the only definition of a second home. More and more people own second homes because they must travel elsewhere for work and be away from their families from Monday until Friday, returning to the main family home at weekends. Many people have a second home simply because, as a result of mortgage interest rates, they have been unable to sell their home but have decided to move to their new home so that they do not lose that purchase.

Since I first raised the matter with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), I have been extremely grateful for the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office for the part that he and his officials have played in this thorny, pressing problem. There is no short cut to a solution and no easy answers. Many complex legal attitudes and issues must be looked at before we come up with an answer that will deal with the problem.

The current legal position is that squatting is an act of trespass which, in general, is dealt with by civil rather than criminal law. However, in cases of displaced residential occupiers--people who are displaced from their main residence--the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 apply. That gives immediate relief to lawful occupiers who are deprived of living accommodation. If squatters' actions result in making occupiers homeless, immediate action can be taken to remove the squatters. The criminal law deals with the more objectionable behaviour associated with squatting. If damage is done to the property during entry into or occupation of the property, an offence is committed under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Although the principle of the law may be excellent, in practice it does not work so well for those who own a second home and are caught with the problem of squatters. The law is inadequate for the current circumstances and needs to be reviewed urgently with respect to squatters in individuals' second homes, which are not only holiday homes but second homes simply because they are taking longer to sell their main homes than they had hoped.

I should like to mention two cases to highlight the heartache, misery and expense that squatters can cause. One relates to my constituency of Chelmsford ; the other took place elsewhere. For obvious reasons, I cannot mention any names. My constituents' home is still unoccupied and they live in fear of squatters returning to the property.

The first case was that of someone who is not a constituent. I should like to read the episode, which concerns the misery caused to a woman and her home. The local newspaper wrote :

"A woman wept last night in her dream home, now reduced to a stinking shell by squatters.

Mrs. X broke down in tears at the appalling damage to the house in which she had sunk her hopes and her savings.

Column 1336

The vandals even scrawled obscene rhymes on the walls, threatening to sort her out with a crowbar.

She said, How can I live here now? I never thought people could be this base. The house even smells of animals.'

The gang wrecked the two-storey house which was being converted to a single home from bedsits.

Mrs. X was only days away from moving in. Now it will take months and more than £15,000 to repair the damage caused in a drunken orgy of destruction.

The vandals ripped bannisters from stairs, smashed seven sinks, two showers and a bath, wrenched off every radiator, hacked out all the plumbing.

Floorboards were pulled up ; skirting boards stripped and plaster chiselled off so that they could pull out copper pipes ... Every room was covered in obscene graffiti. 10 hippies and two dogs lived in the house for just over a week. As well as the damage, they left beer bottles and rotting rubbish everywhere.

They started ripping the house apart after Mrs. X obtained a writ for their eviction Police today said that they were powerless to combat the squatters".

Every reasonable and decent person will have a great deal of sympathy with Mrs. X, given the reprehensible activities of the squatters who destroyed the home into which she hoped shortly to move.

The second case concerns constituents of mine who wanted to sell their house and in the meantime found another house into which they wished to move. So as not to lose the sale on the house they bought it and moved into it, having emptied their original home and ensured that all the windows and doors were securely bolted and locked so that no one could force entry. Imagine their horror when they discovered that squatters had entered the property. I believe that what they had done should be considered forced entry, but under the legislation it was apparently not an offence. They had managed to gain entry by removing the window panes without damaging them and had then unlocked the window. They proceeded to open the front door by unlocking it, brought up a van with their possessions and moved in. Nothing could be done by the police to remove the squatters immediately.

The squatters remained for just over a week, in which they held open house parties every night, inviting total strangers from the local public house to come and enjoy themselves and drink. The wallpaper, the carpets and the remaining beds in the house were damaged, and it was left to my constituents to seek a court order to get the squatters evicted.

My constituents were relatively lucky. It took quite a short time for them to get a court order, but they were determined, and because they could not have their case heard in a court in Chelmsford quickly enough they fortunately managed to find a court in Essex which was able to deal with their problems relatively speedily. They got their court order and the squatters left. But it cost those people a considerable amount of money to gain that quick access to the law. It cost them even more money because they had to repair the damage to their home before they could ask people to visit it with a view to buying it. That is unacceptable.

Fortunately, my constituents had the financial resources to seek redress from the courts, but many people do not have the £800--or, in some cases, more than £1,000--necessary to go to court to seek quick redress. It seems inherently unfair that people have to spend considerable sums of money to obtain possession of their home. One argument is that such people could sue the squatters for the damage caused, but that is not realistic. Most squatters

Column 1337

would not have the financial resources, even if they could be identified and taken to court. Suing or claiming damages from squatters is not a viable alternative.

It was for those reasons that, on 19 June 1990, I raised the matter with the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley at Prime Minister's questions. I said :

"Is it not time that the balance of the law was redressed to favour the innocent home owner, rather than the reprehensible activities of squatters?"

To her credit, my right hon. Friend replied :

"As my hon. Friend is aware, squatting that directly excludes a householder from his home is already a criminal offence. The police can act, and penalties are severe. However, squatting in a residential property which does not cause the immediate threat of homelessness can be dealt with only through civil action." My right hon. Friend continued--and this is crucial- -

"I agree with my hon. Friend that there appears to be a defect in the law, and I am looking into the matter further."--[ Official Report, 19 June 1990 ; Vol. 174, c. 797.]

I am grateful that my right hon. Friend looked into the matter further and I know that, over the past year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and his officials have considered the matter carefully and may possibly order a review of the law, which I welcome.

I accept that there are no easy answers ; the law on property ownership is complex and difficult. Obviously, the law must be fair and any solution must be fair to all parties. However, the law at present is grossly unfair. It is balanced away from the innocent victims--home owners--and a review must address that problem urgently. I accept, as I know my right hon. Friend the Minister would, that there is a problem of homelessness in this country. Fortunately, actions taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is dealing realistically with those problems. I am sure that everyone welcomes the fact that, in the past six months, the number of people sleeping rough on the streets of London has been halved due to my right hon. Friend's precipitate action and his imaginative policies of seeking to open up buildings such as the one in Soho square to provide night stay.

However, the fact that we have homelessness does not give squatters a divine right to take the law into their own hands and move into the properties of innocent bystanders who have taken all the care that they thought necessary properly to secure their homes against people breaking and entering, and squatting. It seems ironic and unfair that people lock their houses and ensure that they are secure but, because of the definition of what constitutes damage to a property when gaining entry, there is a legal way in which people can gain entry to those properties causing mayhem, misery and expense for homeowners, who find it can take some time to sort out the problem.

I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for what he has done and for the fact that at 1.45 pm on the day in which we go into recess he is prepared to listen to the problems that are close to the heart of people who, sadly, have become caught up with the activities of squatters. I urge him to ensure that his Department's review is concluded swiftly so that we can discuss in detail any suggestions that his Department is prepared to make for changing the law and putting an end to these reprehensible and anti-social activities.

Column 1338

1.45 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has expressed his case with characteristic lucidity, and I congratulate him. The problem that he has highlighted over the past year, since he asked the question of our right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), has got worse. The problem of squatting has been deteriorating over the past three or four years and I applaud the action that my hon. Friend has taken. He has highlighted the issue and caused us in the Home Office as well as my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to look at this fiendishly complex problem. It involves both criminal and civil law, landlord and tenant law and an individual's right to occupy property. It is exactly where criminal and civil law intermesh and where, over several hundred years, a complex set of statute laws has grown up.

Following my hon. Friend's question last year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have been engaged in a wide-ranging review of the law on squatting. I am afraid that I cannot make any announcements today, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it will not be long before I am able to make an announcement about the next step in what we intend to do.

Squatting is not trivial. It causes enormous inconvenience and, on occasions, great expense for those involved. The two examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford gave, one from his constituency and one from elsewhere in the country, clearly showed the personal tragedy as well as the expense and inconvenience that can be caused to innocent people who own property in which they are not currently living.

I am sure that people who have had squatters in their property feel the same as those who have been burgled. They may never feel comfortable in the house or flat again. Someone has entered the property by force and done the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford described. Although I have never been in that position, I am sure that I would not feel comfortable in my home for a considerable time afterwards. The emotional distress can be considerable.

I join my hon. Friend in rejecting absolutely any suggestion that squatting can ever be defensible or that it is normally--there may be exceptions-- related to homelessness. The majority of those who squat, as in the cases described by my hon. Friend, have chosen to invade the property of others in a measured and calculated way as they move from place to place. I have seen that in my own part of the country. Squatting is the unlawful occupation of someone else's property and it cannot be justified.

Squatting involves not only residential property. We have received alarming reports from different parts of the country about an increase in the amount of squatting in commercial and shop property. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has made a strong plea for further action in that regard. I know that the Confederation of British Industry, on behalf of its members, feels that more needs to be done about squatting by those who look as if they are professional gangs of shop squatters. They manipulate the law and sometimes set up shops for a few days and sell sub-standard goods. Of course, the use of any electricity or gas that may be connected to the property renders them liable to criminal prosecution, and the people who have purchased goods

Column 1339

from such places will find themselves in an unfortunate position. My hon. Friend's campaign has flushed out that additional dimension. We are trying to deal with the problem, but squatting in domestic properties is rather easier to deal with than the complex problem of shop squatting.

It is difficult to gauge the extent of squatting : it is like drug addiction, it is a hidden problem or a passing problem as people move in and out. It is difficult to obtain accurate statistics. Recent newspaper reports estimated the number at 50,000. Sometimes newspaper estimates are as useful as ministerial estimates, and I would not dispute that number. However, statistics are available for local authority properties. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning reports that, at 1 April 1990, approximately 5,200 local authority homes were being unlawfully occupied. Ninety per cent. of those were in London and 65 per cent. in just three

boroughs--Southwark, Lambeth and Hackney. Those boroughs are a byword for hopeless housing administration.

The 1986 London housing survey suggested that a quarter of an estimated 7,500 residential properties that were being squatted in were privately owned, the remainder being owned by local authorities and housing associations. The survey estimated that there were 12,500 squatters in London, about half of whom were under 25 ; only 8 per cent. were over 40. It is essentially a young person's problem. The survey revealed that mass squatting was rare and that, mercifully, cases involving young children were negligible.

Hard figures may be difficult to obtain, but the Government do not doubt that squatting represents a problem that merits serious attention. Squatting is one form of the civil tort of trespass and has traditionally been dealt with in the civil courts. This approach was justified in the past by the fact that squatting was seen as the simple occupation of property, which may be subject to genuine civil disputes. Where squatting is accompanied by criminal activity such as theft, criminal damage-- undoubtedly some of the matters to which my hon. Friend referred fell into the category of criminal damage--the abstraction of electricity and the use of gas, the general criminal law is available for use against squatters, as it is against anybody else. The problem is that it is difficult to obtain evidence when people swoop into houses or shops and move on.

The traditional approach, which has dominated our approach to the occupation of property as far back as records reveal--that is a long way-- has always been to leave it to the civil law. That approach was modified for the first time by the Criminal Law Act 1977, which made it an offence for a trespasser to remain on premises after being required to leave by a displaced residential occupier or a protected intended occupier--someone who has several defined legal interests in the property.

Given the seriousness of the predicament facing those who were made homeless by squatters, that approach was justified. Someone could come home, find people squatting in their home and have nowhere to go. That was put right, and Parliament decided that a civil remedy alone was insufficient.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and other hon. Members would like to extend that protection to those who are not made homeless by squatters but who nevertheless may suffer considerable hardship at their hands. I think particularly of my hon. Friend's constituents, who had moved to a new house but were

Column 1340

unable to sell their former house because squatters had moved in while it was on the market. After those squatters had been evicted, my hon. Friend's constituents were still faced with the difficulty and expense of returning their old house to a fit state for sale. That is a serious issue. There is no denying the feeling of injustice that my hon. Friend's constituents and others rightly feel at having been put in such a situation, often with little prospect of compensation from the squatters. They must feel helpless and in need of the law's protection. That is the point which my hon. Friend has been pressing on the Government.

My hon. Friend will agree that a distinction can be drawn between this sort of case, serious as it is, and cases which the law recognises in which lawful occupiers of property are made homeless. My hon. Friend draws attention to the case for a review of the effectiveness of the present law in dealing with the sort of case that I have just outlined. I assure him that, in reviewing the law, the Home Secretary and I have such cases very much in mind. As I have explained, squatting is not generally a matter for the criminal law, except in cases where squatters commit criminal offences. The civil remedy is to seek an order from the High Court or the county court to get possession of the property. The courts are aware that it is often important to move quickly against squatters, and expeditious procedures are now available. I have recently discussed these matters with the Lord Chancellor, who said that all that it is possible to do under present procedures to expedite matters is being done. In the most urgent cases, where there is a danger to life or limb or to property, it is possible to obtain an immediate ex parte injunction, although that involves much cost by those who are threatened.

Mr. Burns : The Minister has given two examples of the definition of emergency. An emergency is often more pressing to those who own a property than it is to the law, and they probably interpret it differently from the courts. For example, I suspect that in many cases there would not be loss of life or limb. The emergency for the people involved is that of no longer having their property under their control but invaded by others.

Mr. Patten : That is a good point, characteristically made by my hon. Friend, and we shall have to take it into account as we finalise the review of the law in this area.

It must be stressed that there are dangers in widening the scope of the criminal law in this field. In the past, some hon. Members have suggested changes which in practice would mean that anyone who could not satisfy a policeman or even a local authority official--and such officials are not necessarily as benign as local authorities officials in Chelmsford, now happily back under Conservative control since May--that he or she was in lawful occupation of the house could therefore be thrown on to the streets without further ado. In that context, I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates the difficulties. Even with less radical extensions of the law, we must be apprehensive about the prospect of involving the police in what may be genuine disputes over property rights or disputes between landlords and tenants and not disputes over squatting. There are considerable difficulties, and we would not wish to see chief constables or hard-pressed policemen and policewomen turned into a free eviction

Column 1341

agency for landlords. We must also be sensitive to the possible public order consequences of police involvement in squatting cases. I acknowledge that, in the great majority of cases, the squatter is in the wrong, and knows it. A further point which my hon. Friend did not raise but which underlines much of the complexity of the consideration that the Home Office is giving to this issue is the matter of third party rights. For example, in his constituency or mine, an absentee landlord may sell a property in which there are squatters and not care very much for immediate repossession. On either side of the property, or above and below if it is a flat, people may be grossly inconvenienced by the noise, smell and attendant nuisance.

That is a live question. In the spirit of the times, I know that my hon. Friend will spend almost the entire recess at his desk in the Palace of Westminster attending to the problems of his constituents. Over that time, perhaps he will give some attention to the problem and let me have his views. It may be that third parties should have the right. I do not know. It is a complex issue and such a right might give other people a gratuitous opportunity to cause trouble. The criminal law already intervenes in the worst cases of squatting. Before we go any further, we have to know precisely what it is that we are aiming to catch, and ensure that we do not aim too wide. It would be a good idea, particularly as matters concerning property are always sensitive, if there were wide agreement on both sides of the Chamber. If we make changes to the law, we want them to stick, in the interests of citizens, not in the interests of a personal or political point of view. Therefore, a fair measure of agreement would be a good thing.

I hope to be in a position to make an announcement about this issue soon, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend, who has spoken so forcefully about this important issue, gets a copy of the announcement on the day that it is made.

Column 1342

Newhill Sub-post Office

2 pm

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : The matter that I wish to raise might best be seen as a constituency case with several important implications. These may emerge as I present the case and suggest the need for consistency of standards and their relationship to general decision making. Although the debate is concerned primarily with the closure of a local sub-post office, it touches on the future of the whole postal and Post Office service. I shall suggest that there is a need for the role of the sub-post office to be adequately perceived and more fully appreciated.

Sub-post offices provide an important social service. They are a point of contact, and the best of our sub-post offices, and their staff, can be providers of information, advice and assistance to those who are most often in need of that support. That fact needs to be fully recognised and that service needs to be adequately valued and maintained. This point is a timely one to make shortly after the Prime Minister sought public favour through his citizens charter. Apparently, this charter is not to be accompanied by any adequate allocation of public resources. Without an acceptance that improved services and helpful approaches may require that the operation involved is a little more costly, and that profit motives may need to be a little less dominant, the concept of the charter will not be adequately fulfilled. Words may be fine, but actions are something else.

If the Post Office determines that there shall be fewer sub-post offices, individual citizens, perhaps many of them, will face extra cost and greater inconvenience and maybe comparatively severe extra costs or significantly increased personal inconvenience. The Post Office may benefit financially, but the individual and the affected community will gain nothing. If the individual counts, then, when such a decision is made, it should be seen as serious and the approach to such a decision should require greater consideration and care. That has not been our experience in regard to the loss of the Newhill sub-post office.

As I hope to explain, I have been unable to reach the conclusion that the closure of Newhill sub-post office received the care that one would have thought necessary. On 23 February, I received a letter from a Mr. D. Skipworth, one of the management staff of Post Office Counters Ltd. in Sheffield. It informed me that the Newhill sub-post office was to close. The letter read :

"The closure has been brought about by the decision of the Co-operative Retail Society, in whose store the Post Office is situated, to close down their operation in Cemetery Road with effect from this date"--

that is, 23 March.

"There are no other suitable retail outlets in the Newhill area to which we could consider relocating."

Therefore, the service is to end.

I think that I replied by return to inform Mr. Skipworth that I much regretted the loss of the facility, not least because it would be unhelpful to my constituents residing in the Newhill area. I added that the additional use of the Wath upon Dearne post office that would follow would mean greater inconvenience for my constituents. That is already a busy post office. I wrote that, if an alternative

Column 1343

opportunity arose that would allow Post Office facilities to be re-established in the locality, it should be considered as a matter of emergency.

Local concern became acute. I was kept informed by a Mr. J. Robinson, who was acting as the ad hoc secretary of an action group that had been formed to contest the closure. I met some constituents with Mr. Robinson and ward councillors at the Crown inn at Newhill on 17 March. There I met another shopkeeper whose premises, in my view, are adaptable for the purpose of establishing a sub-post office service, and whose personal record was certainly such as to qualify him for the position.

On 18 March I wrote again to Mr. Skipworth at Sheffield. I referred to the meeting that had taken place on 17 March and to the strong support that had been expressed within the community for the retention of the service. I referred also to the commendation of the representatives of the community who were present at the meeting for the transfer of the business to 189, Cemetery road, which is virtually adjacent to the location of the former sub-post office. I referred to the deep local anxiety, not least because many pensioners live in close proximity to the sub-post office. They had told me most firmly that the closure of the Newhill sub-post office meant additional 40p bus fares to use the alternative service. That may not matter to the Post Office, but it matters to my constituents. The local action group had a meeting with the district general manager, Mr. Marsden. Its members were advised--I was not--that Wath upon Dearne was over- provided with sub-post offices. At that meeting Mr. Marsden and his colleagues were left in no doubt that there was deep and bitter resentment about the closure.

I wrote again to Mr. Skipworth on 18 April, and did not receive a reply. I wrote again and asked whether those involved with the matter would concern themselves with my correspondence and favour me with a reply to my letters. I did not receive a reply. I tabled four parliamentary questions on 8 May. I hoped that the fact that questions had been tabled would stimulate Post Office Counters Ltd. to respond. I wrote to Sir Bryan Nicholson, the chairman of the Post Office, on 4 May. I received a swift acknowledgement from Sir Bryan's office, which told me that inquiries would be made. That led to a little flurry of action. I received a call to say that my letters had not been received by Post Office Counters Ltd. in Sheffield, although they were clearly addressed.

I asked my secretary to send copies of my letters to Mr. Marsden at the district office and then I telephoned Mr. Marsden, to be told that a careful check had been made and that none of my letters had been received. I was rather angry about that. The implication was that my secretary had not posted the letters. I made it extremely clear to Mr. Marsden that my secretary, who has worked with me for a long time, is of irreproachable character and that when she assured me that the letters had been posted, I knew that they had been. There was further evidence to justify the claim. When my secretary sent the letters to Post Office Counters Ltd. in Sheffield, she sent copies to Mr. Robinson, to the ward councillors and to the local press. All of them received the copies without delay. The ones that apparently went astray were those sent to Post Office Counters Ltd. I sent copies of the letters that were said to be missing and received a further reply. I should have said that I was told by Post Office Counters Ltd. that it would ask Royal Mail to investigate. I could not see Royal Mail being able

Column 1344

to identify the location of the letters that Post Office Counters Ltd. said had gone astray. I am not critical of Royal Mail for not being able to find that correspondence. I received a letter, dated 20 May, from Mr. A. J. Roberts, the managing director of Post Office Counters Ltd. He said that he was replying to my letter to the chairman. I would have thought it only courteous had the chairman replied himself. Mr. Roberts made it clear that the original notification to me of the proposed closure was not entirely accurate. He said :

"I am told that it was the initial decision by the Co-operative Retail Society to cease operations, allied with the over-provision of counter services in Wath, which led to the decision to close the Newhill office."

In February, I was told that the reason for the closure was entirely due to the Co-operative Retail Society, but by April Post Office Counters Ltd. has widened the cause.

The letter contained another interesting development. Mr. Roberts confirmed that

"the petition you mention was presented to Mr. Marsden at the Public Meeting held on 23 April."

My initial letter to the chairman of the Post Office asked him to receive a petition. I still have that petition. I was assured by the chairman of Post Office Counters Ltd. that it had already been received. That suggests a degree of carelessness--something to which I referred earlier. I was not happy about the letter from Mr. Roberts, especially as he suggested that I saw the regional manager and the district manager--the people responsible for the muddle and confusion in the first place.

I decided that the best thing to do would be to write once again to the chairman of the Post Office saying that I was not happy about the muddle and confusion and that I still wanted to present the petition. The Minister will understand that petitions of that sort are rarely in the legal condition that would allow me to present them in this Chamber. I wanted to present that petition to the man who bears responsibility for the Post Office. I thought that, at least, he would receive me briefly and graciously, and allow me to express the deep concern of my constituents and my irritation at the way that the matter had been handled. Instead, I received another letter from Sir Bryan--which was extremely courteous-- saying that Post Office business was so divided or parcelled out between the Royal Mail, Parcelforce and Post Office Counters Ltd. that such matters would be better dealt with within those departments, and not by himself.

Sir Bryan was courteous, and so he should be. However, he would not see me. I shall be blunt, and say that Sir Bryan receives emoluments of £149,195 a year to lead his industry. When a Member of this House--it does not matter from which side--needs to see the leader of an industry because of gross incompetence and confused actions within it, he should surely receive him. If what Sir Bryan says is correct, and his industry is now so well organised that he has no responsibilities, why does he retain his job? Many of our constituents have been made redundant for far less marked a change. If Sir Bryan does not have a role that allows him to meet Members of Parliament with a justified cause, is not that role superfluous? Either the man has a job to do and does it, or he does not have a job, in which case he should not be paid.

The Post Office may not be particularly concerned because old-age pensioners have to find an extra 40p to meet the additional cost of going to an alternative post office--

Next Section

Home Page