| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.12 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East): The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) has illustrated graphically the problems visited upon Angus by the new age travellers, and I thank him for allowing me to speak briefly in his Adjournment debate, which I much appreciate.
Angus is used to dealing with genuine travelling people, and has installed some excellent travelling people's sites. The village of Letham, which is one of
Scotland's major beauty spots, is used to Robbie the Pict and the small number of Pictish-related annual events which have taken place over many years with little or no disturbance--indeed, with some enjoyment for local people.
If travelling people leave the area as they find it and arrive in small numbers, there is minimal disturbance, but what happened recently meant that some of the most picturesque and vulnerable areas were swamped with new age travellers, who caused damage to property and livestock, health and sanitation problems, and left a trail of angry people in their wake.
New age travellers driven from England should not look upon Scotland as a soft touch. Those scenes must not be repeated. Action must be taken to prevent a recurrence of such large-scale gatherings and the disturbance that they create for the surrounding communities. That can be done through exclusion orders and all the other available mechanisms.
I support Angus council's tough approach to the problems, and its initiative in calling for a summit meeting to review the situation, which will allow all the authorities involved--Angus council, the police and the Members of Parliament--as well as the individuals directly involved and Letham community council, to meet and plan ahead to ensure that there is a co-ordinated community response to any future recurrence in the Angus area.
I am sure that Angus council will echo the words of the hon. Member for North Tayside--this will happen again. We will have to be ready for it and take all possible steps to protect the local environment and the local community. What happened was unacceptable and we must ensure that we are fully prepared and able to act instantly on behalf of local residents and the wider community in Angus.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on securing a debate on this important topic, and I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). I note that he and his colleague, the hon. Member for Moray(Mrs. Ewing), are the only Opposition Members present for the debate--not a single Labour or Liberal Democrat Member is present.
The fact that we are having this debate tonight is a vindication of the Government's policy of ensuring that the provisions relating to collective trespass applied to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom. I must gently point out to the hon. Member for Angus, East that he and his party opposed that vehemently, along with Labour and the Liberal Democrats, when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made its way through this House.
At the time, those provisions were spoken against and voted against by Labour. For the Liberals, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)
denied that the problems that the Act was designed to address existed in Scotland. Yet we had the pleasure in the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday of the former leader of the Liberals, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), calling for action under the Act against new age travellers as a result of local complaints. It is not only within the Labour party that we see leaders finding that they must embrace Conservative policies that they had opposed.
Because we have taken action, even in the face of strong opposition from the Scottish National party and others, the police were able to act decisively in response to such calls. I shall try to deal with the various points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside raised, but it may be helpful if I say something about the background to the situation involving new age travellers in North Tayside.
My information is that, on 26 March 1996, a number of travelling people, including family groups, camped on Lour estate, near Forfar. The landowners requested them to leave the site. When they failed to do so, the group was required to quit by the police. Again there was a failure to comply, and seven people were reported to the procurator fiscal at Forfar for contravention of the trespass provisions in section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The group moved off the Lour estate and joined other new age travellers from various parts of the United Kingdom--including, as my hon. Friend said, Northumberland, Cornwall and Lincolnshire--who were camped on Dunnichen hill at Letham near Forfar. The purpose of the gathering was apparently to celebrate the battle of Nechtansmere between the Picts and Northumbrians, which is reputed to have taken place on that site. An unofficial festival was planned for the weekend of 17 to 19 May. Police estimate that, by that weekend, some 300 to 400 new age travellers had camped at the site, with about a further 1,500 people who intended to stay for the weekend.
That annual festival has taken place for more than11 years and generally passed without serious incident. Local opinion towards the festival over the years has been ambivalent, with many people--particularly shopkeepers--welcoming the activity and the added trade arising from the presence of occasional travellers and weekend visitors. However, it has become clear that, whatever the historical origins of the festival, it now represents a significant incursion on land, and a considerable public order and safety problem.
This year's event was scheduled to take place on the weekend of 17 to 19 May. Following complaints from one of the landowners, a large-scale police operation was mounted to restrict car access to the area. That was successful, and there is little doubt that the torrential rain that fell in the area that weekend and the absence of vehicles, which would have otherwise provided sleeping accommodation and shelter for many of those attending, contributed to the failure of the event.
A number of those gathered for the festival decided to extend their stay, in the knowledge that the following weekend was a bank holiday. During the intervening period, a group of individuals thought not to be directly associated with the new age travellers brought a sound system from Cornwall, including an 8,000 watt amplifier. Throughout the night of Friday 24 May, the police
received numerous complaints from the residents of Letham, as my hon. Friend said, some two miles distant, about the levels of noise coming from the campsite. On the morning of Saturday 25 May, police officers attended the site and took possession of the amplifier in the face of a great deal of hostility. Stones, bricks and bottles were hurled at the police. They have video evidence of the operation, which confirms that.
Over the second weekend, police mounted road blocks at three points to prevent further arrivals at the site. People leaving the site by vehicle were informed that they would not be permitted to return. Over the period of the police operations, 16 people were reported to the procurator fiscal under the illegal trespass provisions of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. A further 10 were charged with other offences, including police assault and breach of the peace.
At the end of the festival, police allowed one vehicle loaded with petrol cans to leave the site to collect fuel for some of the others. That has been the subject of inaccurate reporting by some sections of the media. I make it perfectly clear, therefore, that the police neither paid for nor provided petrol, as part of some kind of deal to persuade the new age travellers to leave. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tayside police have understandably taken great exception to those allegations, and the local commander has written in the strongest terms to the editor of the newspaper in question, who I hope will apologise.
For the record, a little more than 1 gallon of diesel was supplied by the police to two vehicles that had run out of fuel some distance from the area while travelling towards Perth, to enable them to get to the nearest garage. I would expect the police to extend such assistance to any stranded motorist.
On Tuesday 28 May, the new age travellers began moving off Dunnichen hill. The group subsequently travelled in two directions. One group travelled into the Grampian area, where it later stopped at Gourdon near Inverbervie--to the considerable annoyance of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside. The other group, I am led to believe, ultimately settled near Peebles.
The Gourdon group initially settled peacefully, with the police keeping a watchful eye on it. However--I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security--after they had cashed their DSS benefit cheques, a number of the travellers became, to put it politely, the worse for wear with drink. Two individuals left the site in a vehicle. The police assessed the manner in which the vehicle was being driven as a danger not only to those in the vehicle but to the general public. The vehicle was stopped and one individual was apprehended and, I understand, charged with road traffic offences.
The other occupant of the vehicle returned to the site and alerted associates there. That led to a confrontation with the police, and a number of arrests were made. Police subsequently directed the travellers to quit the site and informed them that if they failed to do so, the trespass provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 would be enforced.
I understand that the Gourdon group, consisting of approximately 100 people and 35 vehicles, left the site on Sunday 16 June. Latest reports from the Northern constabulary suggest that they are at present in the Spean bridge area.
The other group, consisting of about 50 people, including women and children, arrived at a site near Peebles on I June. They are camped on private property, and the landowner has written to the chief constable seeking their removal under the 1994 Act. I understand from Lothian and Borders police that the new age travellers do not intend to remain there much longer. They have indicated to police--my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will no doubt note this--that, once they have collected their DSS benefit cheques and repaired their vehicles, they will move on. I believe that that has been accepted by the police and the landowner.
The police have established links with the travellers and have told them that, if they do not move by an agreed date, they fully intend to use the powers available to them under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to eject them. That date will be notified to the travellers in advance, and the police fully expect that they will leave before the deadline. If they do not, they will be effectively moved on. The police believe that relationships with the travellers are such that the use of force will not be required. I am told that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale has been kept fully informed by the police.
The examples that I have just cited demonstrate that there is a growing problem with mass trespass in Scotland. The Government decided that having the power to deal with trespassers in Scotland was sensible and prudent, as we rightly anticipated that anti-social development. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office said in the debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:
First, provisions relating to the offence of aggravated trespass provide protection for those engaging in lawful activities, whoever and whatever they may be, from trespassers who intend to behave disruptively. The Act gives the police power to direct trespassers to leave the land if they reasonably believe that the trespassers will seek to disrupt or prevent a lawful activity on that land.
The second group of provisions in the Act is aimed at preventing mass encampment on private land by trespassers. Those powers are triggered only if people invade land with the intention of residing there, refuse to leave that land and then damage it, or destroy property, crops or buildings, or threaten the occupier, a member of his family or agent.
Thirdly, the police can direct persons assembling on land to leave the land when it is believed that a gathering will take place such as to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality by the playing of amplified music during the night.
The events that I have described demonstrate that the police are prepared to use those powers, and that they work. The use of the powers in the 1994 Act is, of course, essentially an operational matter for the police, but I have every confidence that the police will take all necessary steps to respond effectively to any complaints received. I
understand that the police believe that the powers that they now have are adequate to enable them to deal effectively with such situations.
I believe that the police in Tayside, as well as Grampian and Lothian and Borders, have acted firmly and responsibly in dealing with the incidents that I have described. By using the powers in the 1994 Act, they have been successful in limiting the damage that has been caused to property. Indeed, I understand that one landowner has complimented the police in Tayside on their handling of the situation at Dunnichen hill.
I deplore the behaviour of some of the new age travellers. They are taking advantage of the good will of society in a way that I abhor. They are souring public opinion against the traditional traveller whom the Government have done much to help. But I welcome the firm police action that has been taken, and I have every confidence that that will continue in the future.
The situation is yet another example of a strong law and order policy initially being vilified by the Opposition parties, yet a short time later they are only too willing to
urge use of such powers, especially when pressed by their local electorate into doing so. That is what makes us different from Opposition Members. The Government believe in protecting local communities from the damage and nuisance caused by new age travellers and their like. The Opposition's focus is on protecting the imagined rights of a tiny minority, to impinge on communities in a way that Opposition Members would find unacceptable on their own doorstep.
I welcome the opportunity to repeat my pledge that the Government will wage relentless war on all law breakers in every area of life, and will sustain the rights and security of our citizens on every occasion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside will take every opportunity to convey it to his constituents that, had he not been in the House, supporting the Government, those powers would not have been in place so that action could be taken effectively to protect the interests of his constituents with his support, as has happened in recent weeks.
Question put and agreed to.
"Scotland is not immune to this kind of activity . . . there is every reason to take preventive action".--[Official Report, 13 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 378.]
The Government therefore gave the police new powers to deal with trespassers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Those powers came into force in November 1994, and they fall into three broad categories.
20 Jun 1996 : Column 1107Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |