| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 599
Indeed, the National Gypsy Council, in its response to the Government's proposals to reform the Caravan Sites Act 1968 --I hope that hon. Members will read the response--made it clear that it welcomes the concept of private site initiatives for gipsies. It states that, in its"opinion, private sites are beneficial to all concerned : to gypsies because they offer them the security of a legal home and a base from which they can send their children to school, to local authorities and central government who are spared the expense of developing and managing sites, and to the local settled community by the reduction in numbers of unauthorised encampments".
It also says :
"private gipsy sites are in locations where the gipsies who live on them will want to be, they suffer none of the problems due to incompatibility which are sometimes found on local authority sites, and once private sites become established, families on it quickly prove themselves to be good neighbours".
The latter point was tellingly made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking, and I am sure that it will be echoed many times in the debate.
I appreciate, however, that many gipsies feel that the planning system is prejudiced against them and that when they make applications for planning permission, they are too often turned down by the local planning authorities as a result of local prejudice. I do not accept that the planning system is stacked against gipsies. I have to accept, however, that it is the gipsies' perception that it is.
I am determined to remove the suspicion and tension which frequently arise in relation to gipsy applications for sites. The planning system must not only be fair but be seen to be fair for gipsies and their neighbours. We shall issue fresh planning guidance as soon as possible on the factors to be taken into account in determining planning applications for the establishment of gipsy sites.
We shall require local authorities to include in their development plans policies for providing such sites. We shall seek to encourage authorities to look positively and impartially at planning applications. It is important that planning committees are not swayed by local opposition based on prejudice, which, of course, is not and must not be a planning consideration. I trust that, as a consequence, gipsies will have the confidence increasingly to make their own provision through the planning system.
Sir Cranley Onslow : I am delighted that fresh planning guidance is to be issued, and I look forward to studying it, but will the Minister take the opportunity to say whether it will differ significantly from the present guidance?
Mr. Baldry : As the consultation paper makes clear, we believe that the planning system should be fair to the gipsy population, but that it should offer them no privileges. My right hon. Friend referred to such a privilege, which gives gipsy sites preferential treatment in the green belt. Way back in 1968, that was thought to make sense, but we do not believe that it makes sense now. Therefore, the new planning guidance will be fair, but will put gipsies on an equal footing with everyone else who makes a planning application. That will be in the best interests of the gipsy population and the community as a whole. The gipsy population will know that they are being treated fairly and impartially, as can everyone else.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : I welcome the Minister's statement that no preferential treatment is to be given to gipsies. Gipsies may feel that they are being prejudiced against in planning applications, but that
Column 600
applies to almost everyone who makes a planning application these days. In my experience, when anyone applies for planning permission, the neighbours will almost automatically object, so gipsies should not believe that they are different from the general public in that respect.Mr. Baldry : As a Minister with responsibility for planning, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, because many people who have had planning applications go against them feel that the system was stacked against them. However, the important point is that the system must operate fairly and impartially, and the gipsy community must have the confidence, through the planning system, increasingly to make their own provision. Incidentally, that is what the gipsy community has persistently asked for.
As long ago as 1982, in a paper entitled "Gypsies and the Planning Laws", the National Gypsy Council drew attention to the fact that "there were and still are those families amongst us who are quite capable of finding, buying and developing their own sites. We said that, economically, this was more desirable than sites being provided for these families from Public funds"
but then expressed concern about the planning system. It is imperative that the community is confident that the system will act impartially.
We also made clear last August our intention to adopt a fresh policy to guide the payment of Exchequer grants to cover the capital cost of providing gipsy caravan sites such that it should cease to be payable generally. In future, when considering applications from local authorities for Exchequer grant for the provision of gipsy caravan sites, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will take into account the policy that grant should cease to be payable generally and all other relevant factors to which he must have regard within the existing legislation.
By seeking to encourage the maximim number of gipsies who are not at present on local authority or private sites to seek to make their own provision, we are, of course, hoping substantially to reduce the incidence of illegal camping. Illegal camping by gipsies or other travellers can affect the lives of whole communities, and we are determined to tackle the problem.
Illegal camping can cover a wide range of situations, from a single caravan camping unlawfully without authorisation on someone else's land, without permission and perhaps for a period of weeks, to a very large number of people congregating and camping on land for a weekend as part of a rave.
Clearly, reforms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 will not cover every eventuality of illegal and unlawful camping. There is clearly a distinction between the unlawful occupation of land by gipsies who wish to remain there for some time and the problem of a sudden, large-scale but short-term incursion by new age travellers. The consultation paper issued by my Department last August set out some clear and coherent proposals to tackle illegal camping by gipsies. We have received nearly 1,000 formal responses to our consultation paper. I have made sure that a list of those who have responded is available in the Library. Generally, there is a clear recognition of the problems inherent in the existing legislation and an acknowledgment of the need to review and reform the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
Reaction to individual proposals has been varied, some of it, I am bound to say, has verged on the hysterical. Some
Column 601
respondents have managed to work themselves up into a sufficient state to make their response in particularly strong language, and I do not believe that such commentators can have read seriously what we have proposed. I do not believe that, in a mature democratic society, it is unreasonable for the Government to try to ensure that, as far as possible, unlawful camping does not take place.That, after all, was the firm intention of the legislation when it was first introduced with all-party support some 25 years ago. It would be surprising if, in the intervening period, there had been any waning of the commitment to the rule of law and to trying to ensure as far as possible that there should not be unauthorised use of land and that farmers, village communities and local neighbourhoods should not be afraid of, or have to experience, a sudden incursion into their community of gipsies camping illegally. Such action was not acceptable in 1968 and is not acceptable now. We are determined to take the necessary measures to ensure that communities are protected from unlawful camping.
Mr. Ian Taylor : My hon. Friend has kindly placed in the Library a list of all those who made representations, many of them somewhat excitable. Has he asked the Home Secretary whether he has placed in the Library a list of all the police authorities that have made representations? My hon. Friend will be aware that there is profound concern about the real powers of the police, both under the existing arrangements and under the proposed new arrangements.
Mr. Baldry : If my hon. Friend goes to the Library, he will see that the document lists police authorities as well as all the parish and other authorities that have made representations. Given the range and number of responses that we have received from local authorities, county councils, police authorities, members of the public, farmers, landowners, parish councils and, not least, gipsies, travellers and travelling groups, it must be right for us to consider the responses carefully before introducing detailed proposals to bear down on unlawful camping.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned one proposal in our consultation paper that has clearly caused some concern. On the other hand, we need to consider how Parliament can make provision to prevent circumstances arising in which, if unlawful camping is prevented in place A, those who are moved do not simply go down the road to another field 200 yards away. Those are not easy issues. We shall act as speedily as we can to ensure that we can introduce legislation consistent with our manifesto commitments as soon as parliamentary time can be made available. As part of that exercise, I shall listen carefully today to the views of hon. Members from all parties.
My right hon. Friend's Bill has provided the House with a first opportunity to debate these issues in detail since the general election and since the publication of our consultation paper. Given that the original Bill was introduced with all-party support back in 1968 and that this is the first opportunity that we have had to debate the present Bill, I find it particularly disappointing that not one representative of the Liberal Democrats is present. After all, it was a Liberal Member who introduced the
Column 602
1968 private Member's Bill. I do not know whether we shall hear from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman today. It would certainly be useful to know where Labour stands on these difficult issues. In any event, we have the responsibility of government, and we are determined to take forward and tackle these difficult problems. We are determined to pursue the objective of the 1968 Act, which is to ensure proper provision of sites for gipsies, while bearing down on unlawful camping.10.42 am
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : The problem of illegal camping by gipsies will not in any way be solved by the Bill, which in my view will make the situation immeasurably worse.
I have always been concerned about illegal camping sites, which undoubtedly cause difficulties. Gipsies are an amalgam of various kinds of people ; like all people, they defy ready classification. The idea that at one stage gipsies were all people in nicely painted caravans singing folk songs with guitars while a horse pulled them gently round meandering country lanes has never been accurate, even if it is a nice image to conjure up.
Gipsies do not fall into that category today. They sometimes cause a nuisance. They sometimes collect scrap and they sometimes burn scrap and tyres on sites. When they camp on illegal sites without any sanitation, they may cause offence and difficulties to those who live in the adjacent area. Concerns about those difficulties are properly communicated to local representatives--whether the local authority or the local Member of Parliament. Local people feel a sense of injustice when gipsies take over a bit of open land in a smoke-free zone and start burning rubbish. After all, if the rest of the community emitted smoke from their chimneys, the local environmental health officer would be round with the threat of prosecution. I fully recognise the sense of injustice and outrage that people feel about illegal camping.
As I have explained, my judgment of the Bill is not based on the rosy romantic view that travellers are guitar-strumming Romanies. I am examining the realities, and it is on them that I base my judgment of the Bill. I want illegal camping to be reduced, not increased, and I believe that illegal camping will increase as a consequence of the Bill.
Shortly before the general election of 1987--hon. Members will appreciate the sensitivity of the situation--a group of gipsies camped on a site in what was to become my constituency of Bradford, South. The site was a former railways goods yard which had been earmarked for a transport museum. All hell was let loose. Local people rightly objected very strongly when, in an area landscaped at a cost of £250, 000, trees were torn up and vehicles driven over a recently reseeded and returfed area. Roses that had been planted by local people were picked by gipsy children, who had been allowed--indeed, encouraged, it was suspected--by a small group of councillors to do that. There were two sides : local residents and groups of gipsies encamped in the area. I suspect--I have no proof--that the gipsies were encouraged to camp on the site by councillors and officials. The designation of that area as a local transport museum was opposed because it had been promoted by West Yorkshire metropolitan county council, about which the local
Column 603
authority in Bradford was less than enthusiastic. The gipsies were used as pawns and local residents were encouraged to react by saying, "Whatever you do with the land, get the gipsies off it : if you use it for industrial development, it will at least be occupied and our difficulties will not be repeated."Mr. Nigel Evans : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in some instances local authorities designate and spend large sums of money on sites to which gipsies do not particularly want to go, and which they wreck simply because they are not interested in staying there?
Mr. Cryer : I have no experience of that. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to elaborate on that view in his speech. In the case to which I refer, the gipsies were being used as pawns. Fortunately, the outcome was positive. The gipsies were removed and transferred to other sites and the land remained designated for use as a transport museum. Instead of saying, "Now that we have got rid of the gipsies we can forget about it," the local community association in Low Moor in my constituency organised a number of transport galas on the site to emphasise that it would have a good public use. I am happy to say that we have had a grant from the Government to develop the site, although not in quite the way that I had expected. I should have preferred a stronger emphasis on transport rather than on estate development ; it appears that the grant was not given for wholly altruistic purposes. Nevertheless, after a very controversial start, the museum is going ahead with the support of the local community.
Had the local authority not made strenuous efforts to clarify the position, the outcome of the election in 1987 might have been different. The House will no doubt be delighted to learn that the Labour majority in 1983 of 100 was tripled to 309 in 1987 ; the House will be even more gratified to learn that the majority is now just under 5,000.
For some reason that I cannot fathom, Bradford was subsequently apparently targeted by gipsies and a fair amount of illegal camping took place. I received a number of complaints with which I sympathised. More recently, the local authority refurbished the two caravan sites in the Bradford metropolitan district area. As a result, all the caravans had to be moved off those sites, albeit temporarily. The refurbishment also caused camping problems.
Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North) : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problems are far less in the north of England than in the south? Kent and East Anglia have a far higher proportion of unauthorised camping than any other part of the country.
Mr. Cryer : I cannot make a judgment about that, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that illegal camping has not been a problem in the north, he is mistaken. There was a real problem in Bradford two years ago, which has been solved to some degree by the completion of the refurbishment of the two local authority sites.
It may be argued that a metropolitan borough the size of Bradford could provide more sites, but there are always difficulties with providing sites because of the problems that arise from the activities of some gipsies. The local authority refurbished the sites and increased the number of
Column 604
pitches from 32 to 47. As each pitch can accommodate two caravans, the sites at Mary street and Esholt provide a total of 94 caravan sites.I hope that this debate will follow a tenor of concern about the provision for gipsies and not the tenor of the
Conservative-controlled Pickles administration in Bradford.
Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury) : It was brilliant.
Mr. Cryer : The Government Whip, who should not speak in any case, claims that that administration was very good. However, there were many disadvantages--that is why that administration was thrown out neck and crop in the local authority elections.
Although the refurbishment had started, the Conservative administration to which I have referred stopped it. That was unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary, particularly when the refurbishment was not a call on local authority funds but part of a 100 per cent. grant from the Department of the Environment. Stopping the refurbishment was also dangerous. The builders were removed and jagged edges and holes three or four feet deep were left on the site. Children on the site could easily have fallen over and injured themselves. I hope that the concern of the House will be superior to that of that Conservative administration.
As £1,241,953 has been spent on the refurbishment of the two sites to which I have referred, I am critical of the fact that the Bill proposes the repeal of obligations of local authorities. All local authority sites will be removed from local authority ownership. They will be sold with a 76 per cent. discount and, if they are not sold within 12 months, they will be sold without a reserve.
It is outrageous that public investment should be placed in jeopardy and handed over to a private landlord for a paltry sum. It is true that the Bill also provides for recognised gipsy organisations to be considered as owners, but if the sites are not sold, even at a discount, or are sold at auction without a reserve, clearly the future of such sites might be in severe jeopardy. The sites do not even have to be sold to a recognised gipsy body at auction. That is a severe criticism of the legislation, particularly when such a great deal of taxpayers' money has been invested in those sites. I want taxpayers' money and the taxpayers' investment to be protected and not simply handed over to organisations that may or may not prove to be decent landlords. Those landlords may not provide proper facilities or ensure that the travellers who stay on the sites contribute to the community by paying a reasonable rent.
The nomadic way of life of travellers has been criticised. Indeed, that criticism was encapsulated in an intervention from the Conservative Benches. It is said that travellers move around to avoid the poll tax and that they are living off the state. That criticism, which is frequently heard, can be refuted if sites are provided on which travellers have to pay rent and contribute to society at large. We must always bear in mind, too, that children are involved. Any criticisms of their parents are visited willy-nilly on the children. That is generally accepted to be extremely unfair. The greater the number of permanent sites, the better, as they provide an opportunity for children to participate in an unbroken educational process. I have heard many criticism and comments about illegal sites. I have always pointed out that Bradford takes its fair
Column 605
share of the burden of site provision and that other local authorities should do the same. That was envisaged in the Caravan Sites Act 1968, but, as the Minister said, that provision is not being applied universally. As a result of that, three directions under section 9 of the 1968 Act are in operation requiring local authorities to make provision. I believe that there should be more directions.If the Bill is enacted, local authorities such as Bradford, which try to provide adequate sites, will still bear that burden while local authorities that have done nothing will escape scot-free. That is simply not fair and the burden on local authorities which have sites will almost certainly increase. If there is no possibility of a local authority providing a site, where will the magnet occur? It will occur in the local authorities that have already provided sites. Attention will focus on those authorities and gipsies will move to those local authorities rather than to local authorities that do not provide sites. The latter will be able to turn around and say, "The obligation to provide sites has been completely eradicated, so we are not going to provide sites, and the Department of the Environment is not going to issue a direction so you will have to go somewhere else--not here."
Mr. Nigel Evans : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if there are more directions, there will be more sites to which gipsies do not want to go in the first place? That will create problems. Would it not be better to follow the course described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)? We would then have sites to which gipsies want to go. They will get together and submit planning applications and will not experience the resentment of local people. If the gipsies do that, they will have followed a proper consultation process and the situation will be much better than if they are directed to go to a site where they do not want to go in the first place and where the local people will resent them.
Mr. Cryer : I am not opposed to private sites. Private sites provide a useful supplement to local authority sites, but there are not enough local authority sites. If we place a question mark over local authority sites, we do not necessarily gain more private sites. Private sites supplement local authority sites, and that is fine. It has been made clear today that the criticisms apply to any site. Few people want a gipsy site at the bottom of their garden or in their back street. Such criticisms will always exist.
Shifting the matter to the planning process so that gipsies will be able to have the sites that they want will not work, because the planning process is subject to objections and controversy. I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for Woking about consultation. I have been able to cite some unhappy examples of a lack of consultation. When Bradford, Leeds and Kirklees sought sites, there was massive consultation. Consultation is always a dangerous process for local authorities to undertake. They undertake it, as a matter of fact, with the best of intentions and with an idealistic view, but the local authorities always come out of it badly. Wherever they propose a gipsy site, there is always controversy. They undertake some consultation, but, whatever the process, whether it involves a local authority or private planning, applications will be fraught with massive controversy.
Column 606
Mr. Pike : Was it not always possible to have private sites, which Opposition Members certainly do not oppose, long before the 1968 Act? The fact that the 1968 Act has not been able to deliver public sites, in conjunction with the ability to deal with private sites, shows that there has been a failure to solve the problem because we do not have adequate private or public sites.
Mr. Cryer : I have outlined the massive controversy in Low Moor in my constituency. Gipsies invaded a former goods yard beside the transport museum. Curiously enough, while people were raging about that, within a couple of hundred yards of very angry meetings, there was a private site which everybody accepted and were perfectly comfortable with, so things worked perfectly well. Private sites can be acceptable. In that instance, there was planning permission and people got on well with the travellers who were living there. That is ideal, but the removal of any local authority participation and a dependence on private sites and planning processes will not be a solution : there will always be controversy.
Mr. Gill : I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument and I have some sympathy with it. One can speak only from one's own experience. There are two local authorities in my constituency, one of which has designation, the other does not. In the case of the local authority where there is no designation, a private operator would have provided a site, all things being equal, but I am afraid that all things were not equal. Under the Bill, there will be a greater prospect of that private operator and other private operators being able to make the provision which, for the past 25 years, has not materialised in one of the district councils in my constituency.
Mr. Cryer : I do not think that private provision should be encouraged at the expense of local authority provision--[ Hon. Members : -- "Why not?"]--because private provision can only supplement local authority provision. I am all in favour of that, but I am not in favour of removing the obligation on local authorities to provide sites. It is too soft an option.
I wrote to every local authority within the area of Bradford and nearby. I have written to Craven and Kirklees local authorities, for example, and I wrote to Leeds local authority long before it produced a site, amid much controversy. I wrote to Calderdale local authority asking it to provide sites because Bradford was taking the burden, and also asking why it was not prepared to share that burden. I am happy to say that some local authorities are seeking sites, but I do not want to remove that obligation, because too many local authorities will take the soft option and do absolutely nothing. The private solution does not guarantee that sites will become available.
Mrs. Judith Chaplin (Newbury) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one problem is that local authority sites are often much larger than private sites? That is what upsets many of the people who object to them, because they have a large provision with many facilities while private sites can be much smaller and thus do not arouse the same animosity as large sites arouse.
Mr. Cryer : I share that view, because it is prudent to have half a dozen smaller sites rather than one or two large ones. They can be made much more harmonious with the surroundings and the burden is shared more equally by the
Column 607
community. A large site means that a certain area is taking the whole burden. In the case of Bradford, 500,000 people are taking the burden. A large number of small sites scattered throughout the area is a much more harmonious solution. That is a perfectly legitimate argument to advance, but I do not think that it is a sufficient ground to eradicate the obligation on local authorities. Certainly in Bradford, many people have criticised local authorities for not being prepared to share what they regard as a burden.Sometimes people live in harmony with one another, and that is a great achievement, but the correct perception of travellers is not one of guitar- strumming Romanies living in wondrous harmony. Such a perception is based on folk tales and folk lore. Sometimes people can be objectionable. Sometimes their children throw bricks at doors. Sometimes they burn scrap tyres, and so on, to the general horror and discomfort of the neighbours. Making provision is a sign of a tolerant and civilised society. It is easy to make provision when people are not awkward and slip easily into the surroundings. The difficulty is in making provision when it is a conscious effort and a burden. Of course, that burden must be shared by many people and must be reduced as much as possible when a decision is made.
Mr. Heald : One of the points made by the National Gypsy Council is that local authorities do not always focus on what is required for a good gipsy site. The effect of clauses 2 and 6 would be that organisations such as the National Gypsy Council would be able to acquire sites currently in local authority control. If the discounts are allowed, about £40 million could be transferred to bodies that would then become powerful independent site associations tailored to gipsy needs and able to push forward the process of buying private land for gipsy sites. That is surely a laudable aim, giving people independence--I am approaching the point at which I am making my speech.
Mr. Cryer : I am not opposed to people being independent, but I oppose handing over a total investment of £56 million to bodies that are given preference in the legislation, but which in some cases will not be able to raise the ante for all the money ; I do not think that they should be given that opportunity, anyhow. If local authorities have made bad judgments about sites, either because they are too large or because they are on tips that happen to be available and convenient at the time, those difficulties will not be altered by handing over the money.
Conservative Members argue that a private planning procedure will enable gipsies to seek sites that they feel are most suitable to their needs. That is a rosy view of what the planning process is likely to produce. There is no reason why that process cannot go on at the same time as local authorities make provision. I argue strenuously that the Bill will be the soft option for local authorities because there is no provision whatever to guarantee an increase in the number of pitches available to the gipsy community at large.
Mr. Gill : I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and I have different ideological bases, because he represents an urban area and I represent a rural area. From my experience, when a district council wants to find a site it says, "We will look here, there and somewhere else", and
Column 608
automatically there is opposition. The community gangs up to oppose whichever site the local authority may have designated.Under the changes proposed in the Bill, landowners will volunteer sites. That will get over the first hurdle, because nobody is volunteering sites at present. In the changed circumstances envisaged by the Bill, and given the changed circumstances that affect the economy of rural areas, I am sure that the market will work and sites will become available. The fact that sites have been offered rather than
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. This is becoming a speech rather than an intervention.
Mr. Cryer : I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will make his own speech when the time comes. The idea that the volunteering of sites will provide a solution is not necessarily the answer, because people volunteer sites now. The hon. Member is right that I represent an urban area and he represents a rural area, so I cannot speak for rural areas and I do not attempt to do so. When sites have been volunteered, they have often been subject to the sort of controversy that the hon. Member suggests is allied only to the local authority process. All sites will be subject to controversy unless they are completely isolated from local inhabitants--by and large, that is the reality--or unless people have complete conformity with and acceptance and understanding of the way in which travellers live. That might happen, and it would be a splendid thing if it did, but on the basis of past human experience it is unlikely to happen.
I wrote to the Calderdale local authority several years ago asking it to provide a site. When this argument was being hotly discussed at meetings in 1987, the Conservative candidate said that there was not a single area in Calderdale flat enough for a site. That was completely nonsensical. Since then, I have pressed Calderdale local authority to produce a site, but it has not done so. There have been one or two suggestions. Control of the Calderdale local authority has now switched to the Conservative party, and there is no prospect of a site being produced. Undoubtedly, the local authority is waiting for this legislation so that it can say, "We will not have a site." That is very unfair. The legislation will bring a sigh of relief from local authorities.
Why on earth should Bradford provide sites? My constituency goes to the edge of the Halifax constituency. Why should my constituents bear the burden while other areas have the obligation removed? It is a mark of a civilised society that we collectively make such provision. On the other side of my constituency is Craven local authority, which stretches into the Yorkshire dales--an area with a romantic image that the gipsy traveller in a horse-drawn caravan would find absolutely perfect because it is rural ; yet there is not one site.
When I write to local authorities, I receive assurances that they will consider the matter and that it is under review. The obligation is on them to share the contribution to a group of people who cause difficulties from time to time but who, in the main--like everybody else--want to contribute to society and have a place in it. Gipsies have a particularly distinctive way of life. I am sure that the
Column 609
House recognises that obligation, so we have make provision. The provision must be nationwide, not on an arbitrary basis, as it will become if the legislation is passed.Mr. Nigel Evans : I accept that the provision must be nationwide, but it must be where the gipsies want to go. The report from the National Gypsy Council refers time and again to local authorities that do not understand the culture of gipsies. Local authorities come up with hare- brained ideas and spend many thousands of pounds on the gipsies, but, because they do not properly understand the culture of the gipsies, it is money which the gipsies say is absolutely wasted. It would be much better if the gipsies were allowed to select where they want to go, apply for planning permission and go through the proper consultation process. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) seems to think that the state or the local authorities must be the font of all knowledge, but they are not.
Mr. Cryer : I am not saying that at all. I have made it clear that private provision can happily supplement local authority provision in some cases. Let us suppose that a local authority provides a pitch with 20 sites. The pitch is taken over and the landlord says, "I don't think it is very comfortable ; we will reduce it by 15". That sort of thing can happen. Such cases will place a question mark over the provisions of the Bill.
There is no reason to suppose that travellers especially want not to go to Halifax, Skipton or other parts of the Craven area. Indeed, I should have thought that they would like to do so. Those local authorities should have the obligation that has existed since 1968 and which they have failed to honour in the provision of sites. The Secretary of State should have the power to make a direction. It is rarely used ; it is not some sort of centralised Marxist state direction, but simply an attempt to provide for a group of people who have a perfect right to their way of life, which, by and large, is different from that of the vast majority of people who like a stable, house-based existence. It is a mark of our society that we are prepared to make that sort of provision.
In addition, I argue that local authorities are accountable to some degree. Councillors are elected from all the political parties in the House. When Conservative councillors express their views at local authority elections, they do so because they are accountable and they are subsequently held to account, as are Labour and Liberal councillors. The idea that local authorities are some sort of Soviet imposing unyielding and unheeding decisions is simply not true. It might be argued that, by and large, gipsies do not have votes because they have not registered to vote and that their views might be ignored, but that is not so. In many local authorities where gipsies have sites, there is not much electoral advantage in providing them ; it is an example of altruism at work. It should be heart- warming to learn that people are prepared to make decisions and to make an effort without consequent electoral advantages being sought at the same time. It is a good thing that people should be altruistic, that they have ideals and apply them. Local authorities are accountable.
The idea that local authorities are completely divorced from the needs and aspirations of the gipsies is not true.
Column 610
Only local authorities can afford to employ, for example, gipsy liaison officers--as Bradford does--in an attempt to build up a relationship between the local authority and the gipsies. We should surely want that. Do we want people to remain for ever outside the system of democratic administration that we have built up over the years? Do we want them to remain an alienated, isolated group? Mrs. Chaplin rose --Mr. Cryer : I shall just finish this point. The fact that the local authority provides education for gipsy children inevitably means that the local authority is brought into contact with the gipsy community. That is a strong means of maintaining a link with gipsies and understanding their wishes and aspirations.
Sir Cranley Onslow : There is nothing in my Bill or in my approach to the problem that seeks in any way to put an end to the gipsy liaison officer system. Those posts will be just as necessary after my Bill, or something like it, reaches the statute book. However, the system under which we are obliged to live due to an outdated Act promotes confrontation and creates communal tensions which ought to be avoided.
Mr. Cryer : I was not criticising the promoter of the Bill. I was replying to an intervention by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and was making the point that the operation of local authority services perforce brings local authorities into contact with gipsy communities. They therefore understand the hopes, aspirations and needs of travelling people, even though they may not always deal with them adequately. What human institution deals adequately with all the people all the time? We do not, because of inadequacies of structure and humanity and because of the way we live, work and breathe. Nevertheless, the democratic structure of local authorities leads to some accountability.
Conservative Members cannot complain about the controversy created when local authorities propose sites and yet argue that local authorities impose their wishes on the community. The community often acts so strenuously against such a proposal that the local authority has to withdraw it amid a storm of protest. That is part of the democratic process. People should have the right to object to proposals. I do not believe that planning system will be devoid of the right to object to proposals, as implied by Conservative Members. Planning procedures nearly always lead to controversy --whether they relate to gipsies or to other issues : a factory, a tannery, or whatever. Objections will not go away, because such proposals are controversial.
I understand perfectly the anxiety and concern that are caused by the creation of illegal gipsy sites. My aim is to reduce illegal camping, but we shall not achieve that aim by removing the obligation on local authorities. I call on authorities such as Craven and Calderdale to select sites and to demonstrate that they want to fulfil their obligation to provide sites for a range of travelling people.
I should make it clear that my remarks, like those of every other hon. Member today, are not directed towards the new age travellers, who create different problems ; we are concentrating our remarks on the traditional travellers, provision for whom has been made under the 1968 Act. It is unfair if local authorities do not fulfil their obligations. The provisions of the Bill will fritter away a
Column 611
great deal of public investment that was made in the best of spirits and with the best of intentions. I am not prepared to accept that. I believe that private sites should supplement local authority provision ; I am not opposed to them. According to the figures provided by the Minister and the promoter of the Bill, we are short of sites. The January 1992 count showed that there were 13,500 caravans and about 4,500 unauthorised sites. My criterion is whether the Bill will increase or reduce the number of authorised sites. I believe that it is likely to reduce it and that it will encourage illegal camping. I therefore oppose the Bill.11.24 am
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : I very much welcome--as, I believe, does the House as a whole--the initiative shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) in selecting this subject for his private Member's Bill. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, it is a serious subject. This is a difficult question to solve and it must be tackled in a sensible, deliberate and logical manner.
It is common ground, I believe, that a civilised society should show tolerance and a capacity to accommodate the nomadic way of life that traditionally has been led by the gipsy people, but we should not let tolerance descend into licence and into threatening, disruptive and violent behaviour against the settled community and other property owners. That is entirely wrong, and something which the House should set its face against.
It seems to be that for 25 years we have had the solution that the hon. Member for Bradford, South advocates and supports--a compulsory obligation on local authorities to provide sites. However, that has not worked. Faced with the fact that it has not worked, and faced also with the growing number of so-called gipsies--nomadic or itinerant people, anyway--we have to seek a different solution. It has to be a solution similar to that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred. It has to be acceptable both to the gipsies and to the communities through which they pass or in which they encamp for the winter.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the difficult situation in my constituency. I know that communities throughout the home counties, including Surrey, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred, face similar problems. We have been seeking a gipsy site. It may surprise the hon. Member for Bradford, South to hear that sites throughout east Hertfordshire have been sought for the last 25 years, and that we have not yet found an acceptable one.
I have, for a variety of reasons, vigorously opposed every site that has been proposed. My objection has usually been connected with the inappropriateness of the site and the very disruptive effect on the environment that gipsy sites would have. I very much welcome the Minister's proposal that gipsy sites should not be allowed on green belt land if settled communities cannot also settle there. The rules on green belt land should apply to gipsies, just as they do to any other members of the community.
The Minister's proposal today will remove a great deal of the anger and frustration and the sense of unfairness and injustice that many members of the settled
Column 612
communities would feel if they were not allowed to live on green belt land while gipsies were allowed to place their caravans there. That brings me to the serious incident that occurred outside Hertford last year. East Hertfordshire district council has been unable to provide a site. As the Minister said, his Department had imposed a direction upon Hertfordshire, as on Surrey, to provide gipsy sites, on pain of being taken to court if they failed to meet their obligations. Therefore, Hertfordshire renewed its search for a site.I thoroughly deprecate the decision of the county council on where to place this site. The only site suggested by county council officers that was acceptable to the Conservative-ruled county council happened to be in the only district represented by a Labour member. As an example of an objective way to seek a proper gipsy site, what could be more cynical or wrong? It was on green belt land immediately outside the town of Hertford, alongside a combined council and private housing estate, which had enjoyed--and still enjoys--beautiful views of countryside, green belt and woods which also provide recreational facilities for the people of Hertford and the Sele Farm estate.
After that land was proposed for a gipsy site, what happened? Like keeping poultry--it is the same with gipsies--once a site on which gipsies may be entitled to camp is designated, it attracts all sorts of other nomadic vagabonds. And so they came--in large shiny caravans pulled by Land-Rovers and Jaguars of recent vintage.
| Next Section
| Home Page |