| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir Cranley Onslow : And Mercedes.
Mr. Wells : Yes--accompanied by Mercedes, and the odd Shogun. They first arrived about 18 months ago and arrived for the fourth time during the election campaign. They came in large numbers on a bright summer's day- -they are not to be found in Hertfordshire in the winter. They began to terrorise the town of Hertford. They vandalised public places and destroyed local areas amenities, and their children invaded the local school swimming pool. They swam in the pool, unguarded and at night, and they wrecked facilities.
Mothers did not dare let their children play in the play areas on the housing estates because of the so-called gipsies' children. I would not call them gipsies--I am not quite certain what to call them. They are travellers of some kind, but they are certainly not gipsies of the kind that the hon. Member for Bradford, South so romantically described--the gipsy with his horse-drawn caraven--and they were serious operators.
They proceeded to offer their services making drives, gardening and clearing areas of wrecked cars and lorries, which they brought to that beautiful field to deconstruct, burning the tyres and wiring. Plumes of black smoke arose from that beautiful site, day in and day out. People in Hertford stopped taking holidays, as they dared not go away. They had to stay in their properties to protect them from vandalism and burglaries, which shot up at that time.
No one can tell me or the House that we should permit the settled population to be terrorised and vandalised and to be deprived of the amenities of their homes and property in such an appalling manner. We cannot stand by and let that happen.
Column 613
Another consequence of the invasion needs to be considered separately in another Bill. The Commission for Racial Equality became involved. As the candidate for Hertford and Stortford, I was appalled by the desecration and lack of respect for property, and the inability, or unwillingness, of the police to do anything about it. I was also concerned about how difficult it was to remove those people.I held a public meeting during the election campaign, and I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule, which excited the Commission for Racial Equality to make a complaint. It seemed to have the capacity to command police resources to investigate whether, as a candidate, I had committed an offence against the racial equality laws. One afternoon, soon after the general election, I was solemnly interrogated by a senior superintendent, a sergeant and two constables in Hertford police station for two hours. The police then reported to the commission on whether it should take out a prosecution against me for committing such an offence.
What a waste of police time, and what an outrage. As a candidate and a representative, am I not entitled to put forward the views of the people of Hertford and to speak out against the outrages committed by people who had invaded the land near to their property? If we are denied that opportunity because of the Race Relations Act 1976, it must be one of the most undemocratic laws ever to be passed by the House.
I condemn the Commission for Racial Equality for even beginning to take up the case. The National Gypsy Council subsequently sent me some interesting evidence about the people who had denounced me to the commission, and told me that they were not gipsies, never have been and could not claim to be. The commission took up their case and condemned all of us who objected to the sort of behaviour that I outlined. In a letter to me dated 6 January 1993, the National Gypsy Council told me that those people had nothing to do with gipsies, and should not be thought of in the same way.
Mr. Nigel Evans : Does my hon. Friend agree that if he had been found guilty of inciting racial hatred because of his remarks about the antics of those people, the whole country would be guilty, because they, too, would have deplored such actions if they had taken place in their area?
Mr. Bowen Wells : I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The Commission for Racial Equality needs to think through what it is doing.
I objected, on obvious and sensible domestic grounds of common law and practice, to behaviour that is unacceptable, whether or not it is the behaviour of gipsies. The Commission should be careful about the way in which it uses its powers. I am not an admirer of its activities, although I am a passionate adversary of racial hatred and prejudice.
We must consider how to find a solution to the problem. First, we must not forget that there are many different types of travelling people in this country. I do not believe that there has been a major increase in the numbers of those I would call gipsies, whom I would describe in the way that the National Gypsy Council would like them to
Column 614
be defined in a new Bill--someone who has links with families of traditionally nomadic habit. That is as good a definition as any that I can find.We should make provision for people of traditionally nomadic habit to carry on their way of life, tolerantly and sensibly. I do not think that there is any disagreement in the House about that. Many people, however, seek to live in that way. Some are genuinely homeless and find the way of life more congenial than living in hostels provided by local authorities or living in appalling housing conditions in some of our towns. They find that it is better to be out in the open air in a ramshackle truck than with the sort of people with whom they would have to share accommodation in those circumstances. I have much sympathy for them, but I do not believe that they can be allowed to do that at the expense of the settled community.
Those living on caravan sites, whether gipsies or not, should be entitled to all the social benefits available to anyone who is without work or, for some reason, needs housing benefit or income support. The nomadic community living on caravan sites should be entitled to social security benefits just like the settled population. In that way, we should be able to take care of the homeless people, who can also move to recognised sites with water, electricity, sanitation and waste disposal. All those who camp on and invade the countryside have none of those facilities and create a serious health hazard for the settled community and themselves, apart from leaving someone else to clean up the mess that they leave behind.
We can deal with the homeless, provided that they can find places on legitimate sites and pay what they can for those sites through housing benefit. As such benefits are, or should be, available in every case, we shall be able to provide for those people on private sites, as the private site owner will be able to pay back the costs, and possibly make a modest profit. My right hon. Friend's Bill proposes selling sites to gipsies, to whom I have just given a narrow definition.
However, there are a number of different gipsy organisations. When the Minister considers legislation, he may wish to find a broader definition of "gipsy". I believe that the term should be narrowly defined, as those who are not traditional nomads must live like the rest of us. They can live as they like, but they must live on legitimate, licensed gipsy caravan sites and pay for them. Those sites must be hard standing, with proper sanitation, waste disposal facilities and running water. Those who live on them must have the ability to educate their children an important issue which we should all support. It is an offence not to send one's children to school, so we must make provision to enable those people to do so. We should use the money that we have made available to provide sites for gipsies many of whom are not rich, unlike the shiny caravan owners in Hertford, but of modest means. But their organisations are not insignificant. They can organise themselves and have the ability to manage sites. They are currently managing a site in Leeds. Through their management of the sites, they can make them acceptable.
They will begin to find the sites acceptable, as they will not have to share them with many other people whom they do not know, and with whom they have nothing in common and often fight vigorously before moving on. Many such people live in the countryside because they do not want to live on the council sites, which are open to a wide range of people as defined in the 1968 Act.
Column 615
In the Act, gipsies are defined as"persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or of persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such".
That is as wide definition. Who is a "person of nomadic habit"? I would say that it could be anyone who decides to go to live in a caravan for a week, which is far too broad a definition.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertforshire, North (Mr. Heald) said, we can provide resources. Gipsies can sell sites to raise money if those sites are in the wrong place and use the money to establish separate sites, which they can manage, own and keep clean. As a result, they will become acceptable. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking gave an example of a gipsy site that had been perfectly acceptable for many years. Gipsies can have such sites, provided that they are administered and managed by those who want them--not by a remote official or someone established in a hut and employed by the local council simply to monitor what is going on. That is the way forward.
We may have to introduce provisions to help some of the groups to borrow money initially. They will not have property against which they can provide security, but they will be acquiring a property. We may have to think of a way in which we can give some assurance to lending institutions, or possibly establish a fund from which gipsies can borrow in order to finance the purchase of sites. Representations have been made to me by people who say that would love to purchase sites but they do not have the money. We could make the money available through the discounting system envisaged in the Bill. We must sell the rest of the sites or we shall be leaving the local authority in charge of a site that it will have to continue to administer. Gipsies or organisations that do not purchase sites using the 76 per cent. discount clearly do not want to do so, and in such cases the sites must be disposed of. The sensible way to do so is to auction them, despite what the hon. Member for Bradford, South said. Those sites may than be used for caravans or for other purposes, but they will certainly have a value, even if the itinerant community does not want them.
Mr. Cryer : The legislation does not seem to contain a safeguard to prevent an attractive gipsy site in an attractive district from being purchased at auction by a developer and turned into development land, which would reduce the number of sites and hamper the provision. If all sites are simply auctioned to the highest bidder without any protection, that might be the outcome.
Mr. Wells : That scenario is unlikely. If the site is attractive, the gipsy community will want to purchase it using the 76 per cent. discount. Even if they do not do that, if the site is so attractive, I am sure that the gipsies will bid for it at auction, and I do not believe that there is a problem. Those sites that are clearly not wanted by the nomadic community and which they do not buy at the 76 per cent. discount rate should be sold and put to other uses. There are many other sorts of travelling people. I have spoken of the homeless and the traditional gipsy or nomadic person, but there are many others. Where are the Irish at this time of year? They inhabit our land, coming to this country in droves from Ireland and living in large caravans. The gipsy liaison officer in Hertfordshire tells me
Column 616
that they come only in the summer and go home to Ireland in the winter. There is no reason why we should provide gipsy caravan sites, or even settled homes, for Irish itinerants and tinkers who harass our communities during the summer.Mr. John Sykes (Scarborough) : Is my hon. Friend aware that they are able not only to come here to live at the taxpayers' expense, but to vote here?
Mr. Wells : I am well aware of that, and have long resented it.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : I am appalled by the remarks that have just been made about Irish people. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, under the 1949 treaty, there is absolute freedom of movement of people between Britain and Ireland? People from this country can go to live and work in Ireland and, in just the same way, people from Ireland can come to live and work in this country, and can vote in both countries. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the 1949 treaty and subsequent legislation should be amended?
Mr. Wells : Yes, I certainly am--and the sooner the better. I would not like the Irish people to think that I am condemning them all, but there are some itinerant people from Ireland who come here and behave badly, and I do not think that we should be compelled to provide sites for them to live on.
Mr. Corbyn : The hon. Gentleman seems to be heading off in a curious direction. Precisely what legal means does he propose to adopt to stop certain Irish people coming to this country? Apart from the prevention of terrorism legislation, which applies to people from any country, there is no legal provision to stop Irish people coming here. Is he seriously proposing that the relationship between the people of this country and the people of Ireland be fundamentally changed--
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his speech, may I point out the nature of the Bill we are discussing? It seems to me that we are rapidly heading towards wider issues that are not germane to it.
Mr. Wells : I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker : I was about to say the same. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was about to open up a different debate, but I do not propose to join him. There are undoubtedly problems with itinerant people from Ireland, and they need to be dealt with. We should not be required to make permanent provision for them in either caravan sites or settled homes.
The Bill deliberately excludes new age travellers, but they do come under the 1968 Act, so they are not entirely a separate problem. To be sure, this is a public order matter and a social security matter. It is shameful that the nation has to bribe these people with social security money to stop them breaking the laws of the land. What disgusting behaviour we have driven ourselves to.
We have to protect ourselves from this problem and I urge the Minister to press the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister to bring in legislation implementing the provisions of this Bill, the ideas in the consultation document and the views of the Home Office. A comprehensive Bill must be brought before Parliament
Column 617
so that we can properly provide for traditionally nomadic people and stop the vandalism perpetrated by all sorts of other people who take to the roads in the summer months.We must provide for those who wish to live in caravans by giving them sites in the private sector and by giving them social security benefits to pay for those sites if they are impecunious or unemployed. That is the sensible way forward to ensure equality for all our communities throughout the land.
11.52 pm
Mrs. Judith Chaplin (Newbury) : The Minister will know from the huge number of responses to the consultation document how much interest there is in this subject. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on introducing this Bill.
One reason why the problem gives rise to such interest is that it concerns not just real travellers but new age travellers, not to mention all who fall between the two categories. All the measures in the Bill and in the consultation document, although plainly directed at genuine travellers, also affect new age travellers, who cause so much anxiety in most parts of the country.
It is important to remember the differences between these various groups, because there are different solutions to be sought for different types of traveller.
I have been slightly worried during the debate by the fact that hon. Members talked exclusively of putting these people on sites, as if they will stay there permanently. But the definition of a traveller is that he wants to travel. It is like getting on one's bike ; these people travel in caravans and work in different parts of the country.
In many areas, such people come and do seasonal work from time to time. Huge numbers go to certain rural areas to pick fruit, for instance, and then move back to more urban areas in the winter. Then there are others who have moved into occupations such as collecting scrap. They, too, move around collecting it. It is, therefore, wrong to view the solution to the problem as merely finding places where these people can become permanent residents.
Some travellers come from Ireland and move around doing various jobs. They need temporary accommodation, which can often be provided by the farmer or other person temporarily employing them. Many of our roads are built by such people, so the person involved in road construction has a duty to provide a site where travellers can go without offending other people. He has a duty to provide the right site and facilities for them for as long as the work lasts. Few people criticise any of this or are worried by it, but many people strongly criticise the huge numbers of people moving around the country who are known as new age travellers. In my constituency, we are fortunate enough to have a large number of attractive commons, and for hundreds of years the sort of itinerant workers whom I have described have moved around in small groups on the commons without greatly offending the local population. It is only since the war that their numbers have increased and that they have begun to cause distress to local people.
On beautiful commons such as Bucklebury or Burden Heath, people used to expect to see just a few travellers in the summer months ; they would then move on. Not any
Column 618
longer. People are very worried, because larger numbers are arriving, settling for longer periods and doing immense damage. The beautiful Hungerford common, just outside the town of that name, has been the scene of great difficulties in recent years. Three years ago, a large convoy of travellers stopped on the common and caused great distress to the inhabitants of the town. They then went into the town, many of them strangely dressed, and into shops, where they offended the local people. Indeed, they drove them away from the centre of town altogether, to the disadvantage of the shopkeepers there. All this took place on the May bank holiday, and it was most upsetting for the people of the town. The next year, exactly the same happened again, only there were far more travellers.One factor that annoys many people is that the camps in which the travelling people live become virtually no-go areas for the police. It is intolerable that there should be such areas in parts of this country. Local people say that these people often do not even obey the law. Their vehicles are frequently unlicensed or uninsured. That should not be allowed, yet the police cannot deal with the problem. One of the local farmers tried to prevent more people going on to his land by parking a tractor across his gateway to a field. The police came and did him for not having a licence for it. He had not used the tractor for a long time. That merely served further to ignite passions in the local community.
Many people believe that such congregations deal in drugs, and that is often true. That, of course, is illegal and many believe that it will spin off into their families and affect their children. It is unsatisfactory that we have still not grasped that problem and done something about it.
Such was the feeling about the Hungerford common invasion that local people rose up and demanded a solution. The police moved in the third year. They watched to see where the congregations of people were coming from, and cut off the approach roads with huge tree trunks. That enormous police presence stopped the congregation, but it is wrong that residents trying to enjoy a bank holiday should have to live in a state of police siege, which was the impression given by the number of police vehicles and personnel. I pay tribute to the amazing efficiency of the police who prevented the gathering, but the travellers simple moved to another area.
Mr. Pike : I understand the problem to which the hon. Lady refers, but how will the Bill help to deal with it?
Mrs. Chaplin : I shall deal with the link later in my speech. My constituency has another large common, and for many years it has not been available for people to walk upon. It is, of course, Greenham common, which is known throughout the country as one of the key sites in the cold war which led to the banning of many nuclear weapons and movement towards peace.
Mr. Corbyn : The hon. Lady describes the problems in Newbury, Hungerford and Greenham common. I know the area well. Does she agree that the presence of nuclear weapons at Greenham common posed a far greater danger to the whole country than any number of new age travellers, tinkers, gipsies or anybody else?
Mrs. Chaplin : Most hon. Members, and most people in the country, believe that the presence of those weapons
Column 619
prevented the escalation of nuclear capabilities. Most of us maintain that there is still a need for an independent nuclear deterrent as an aid to agreed negotiation and a reduction in such weapons.Greenham common is no longer used by the United States air force, which has returned to the States. Everybody would like to see parts of the common opened up again so that people can use it as they did in the past. Many people have visited the common's perimeter fence. Local people are worried that, when it comes down, hordes of people--new age travellers and others-- may move onto the common and cause distress to the inhabitants of the area.
One of the problems with the Government's consultation paper is its narrow definition. It specifically mentions "caravans". It may surprise hon. Members to know that, although the cruise weapons and the USAF have gone from Greenham, the Greenham women have not. I hope that the Government will look again at the consultation document to try to ensure that it deals not just with caravans but with illegal camping in tents and sheds and all sorts of temporary buildings. That problem must be dealt with, as well as the problem of caravans moving around the country. As well as large congregations of people, small numbers also upset those who wish to see an end to illegal camping. As hon. Members have said, some travellers will no longer wish to travel. It is important to provide sites on which such people can make permanent homes, and they should be enabled to provide such sites for themselves. Some of them will wish to move into council houses, and I welcome the consultative document's proposals that that will be examined and encouraged. However, some people will wish not to move into permanent housing but to stay in their caravans on more permanent sites.
Some hon. Members have said that, although the number of sites has been increased, that has not solved the problem in the way that was envisaged when the Act was passed. The implication is that, because more sites have been provided, more people have taken up travelling, but I rather doubt whether that is the whole truth.
Nowadays, it is a great deal more comfortable to travel than it used to be. Caravan standards have been greatly improved, and some are infinitely preferable to some of our smaller houses. There has been an increase in the number of travellers, because many people prefer a caravan to a permanent home. Another factor in the increase is that some people have been unable to get houses or have to move around the country.
Mr. Ian Taylor : A gipsy in Surrey with whom I discussed the problem there said that gipsies resent many of the later definitions of gipsies and that the best definition in law should be that a gipsy is someone who, when travelling, uses the old-fashioned horse-drawn carriage. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mrs. Chaplin : That would limit the definition to a very small number of people, who could probably be accommodated on about two sites. I am not sure that it is a realistic definition. There is a huge variety of reasons for travelling.
Given the rise in the number of travellers, it is important to increase the number of places to which they can go without upsetting other inhabitants. We need to look more carefully to see whether people want to
Column 620
continue to move around the country or whether they want to stay in one area and live in caravans. The Bill addresses the latter point rather more than the former.It will always be incredibly difficult to find caravan sites that are acceptable, let alone popular with local inhabitants. Many counties still do not have designated sites. Even when it is possible that a private site will be opened, very often the local population feel instinctively that they do not want a site nearby.
In my constituency recently, a site was proposed on derelict land, well away from other houses, that had not been used for farming for a long time. From many points of view, it might have been a good site, but instantly, all those who lived within any distance of the area got together and said that they did not want a gipsy site there because they were worried about the effect on the value of their properties and the mess, the damage to the environment, the risk of burglaries, additional vandalism, and so on.
It may be unfair that people usually view travellers in that light, but the experience of many leads them to that conclusion--and travellers will have to overcome that prejudice when they look for sites.
The Bill embraces the privatisation or sale of all local authority sites, but perhaps that would be too restrictive. It should be possible, as in the case of council housing, for occupants or those coming to the sites collectively to purchase the sites from the local authority at a considerable discount. That is in line with many of our other policies-- particularly for council housing--and would be a worthwhile way forward.
Nevertheless, local authorities should still be allowed--as the consultation paper suggests--to provide sites if they considered that appropriate. They provide a mix of housing for others, and there is no reason why the same should not apply to sites.
Local authorities should more carefully consider the sites that they provide. We can all give examples of sites comprising a relatively small number of pitches, provided at apparently enormous cost. Given that expense, one wonders why the local authority did not provided proper permanent housing rather than pitches.
Local authorities should not be compelled to provide sites of a very high standard--not because those occupying them should be denied good facilities, but because they may not be necessary in the light of the standards of the caravans themselves. Sites with relatively few facilities could be provided that nevertheless accommodated their occupants adequately.
Local authorities should also carefully consider the size of the sites they provide. One reason for antipathy to sites is their large size and their impact on an area. Perhaps fewer, smaller sites could be made available. That should be a discretionary power, with local authorities--if they attach a priority to providing such accommodation in their areas--being allowed as much autonomy as possible. A larger number of private sites should also be available, but if that is to be done, planning regulations and rules will have to be re-examined. We are endlessly urging farmers, for example, to use their land in different ways and find alternative ways of improving their incomes. Farmers may have small sites that could accommodate a few caravans located near farm buildings equipped with a water supply and other facilities. They should be permitted to open them to caravans, and not be told that it is against council policy and prohibited.
Column 621
Temporary planning permission should also be considered. Local people may feel concerned that a long-term site to accommodate a large number of travellers will destroy their environment. If temporary planning permission is granted for a small site, that consent could be revoked if it caused difficulties. Then local people might be more likely to give their approval.The suggestion that travellers have a right to occupy a site for all time understandably worries local people, who do not know what may happen to their villages. Qualifications and standards that the site owner must observe could form part of temporary planning permission. If they were not met, consent could be revoked and the site closed. But unless temporary sites are made available, the problem of accommodating travellers will not be solved.
It has been said that travellers should not have privileges not enjoyed by ordinary people applying for planning permission. By and large, that is right. There may be an argument for more temporary arrangements in respect of sites than apply in other cases. If, as the Bill suggests, more small sites are provided, both by local authorities and private interests, there will be more accommodation throughout the country for people who want to pursue that way of life.
Once there is greater availability, it will be possible to clamp down on the illegal parking that so upsets and distresses those who live in the countryside. I welcome the consultation paper's proposal that a tougher regime should operate against those who park illegally. I hope that it will quickly be made law for local and highway authorities to act more speedily in moving on those who offend in that way.
Sometimes, local authorities do not act effectively. Many of us have experience of cases in which the authorities could have acted in moving on those who parked illegally but did not do so. Landowners often spend much time and incur considerable costs having people moved on from their land. When landowners start a legal action, they frequently find that the case cannot be heard for a long time because of the court's work load and they, therefore, experience difficulty in obtaining a possession order that will enable the caravans to be moved on.
There should be a means for landowners to take faster action, at lower cost, than now. The consultation paper makes no mention of action that landowners themselves could take to have people moved on more quickly.
There are many good things in the consultation paper, and the Bill adds to it in providing well for those who want to travel around the country or become more permanent dwellers. However, other ways of increasing the number of sites and of stopping illegal parking should be considered.
Last summer, we were all appalled by the huge groups of people who were moving around and causing terrible distress and
disruption--acting in a way that was intolerable to law-abiding citizens. I think that even more important than the matters that we have discussed this morning is discussion of how that can be prevented, so that it does not happen again this summer.
Column 622
12.19 pmMr. John Sykes (Scarborough) : I am pleased to have been called, and especially pleased to follow the interesting speech of my distinguished colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin). I am also pleased to speak in a week during which my constituency has had to suffer a small but unwelcome invasion by new age travellers for the first time.
My constituency has a unique history. Scarborough was originally a Roman signalling station, and then a Viking town. The people who settled there were led by a Viking called Scarli, which is how Scarborough got its name. Those who settled in the north of East Anglia became known as the north folk, which turned into Norfolk, while those who settled in the south were known as the south folk, which became Suffolk. The east Saxons settled in Essex and the south Saxons settled in what is now known as Sussex. Those who settled under King Hakon on Hakon's island became Hakonsea, now Hackney, and the island of Shells became Chelsea.
My excuse for that historical tour of England is my wish to draw the House's attention to the settled nature of our communities. The community in which I live with my wife and three children, and which I have the honour to represent, will be known to hon. Members as Scarborough and Whitby. It is so beautiful that 270 people applied for interviews in an attempt to succeed my distinguished predecessor, Sir Michael Shaw. Every summer, it attracts about 250,000 visitors and the number is growing every year ; but it also attracts gipsies and, as I have said, it has already attracted an unwelcome invasion of so-called new age travellers and people who travel around in caravans generally. Fortunately, no one from Greenham common has turned up to date. [Interruption.] In comparison, even the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would be welome in my constituency.
Mr. John Marshall : What--him?
In August 1990, the Seamer road--the main road into my constituency--was invaded by so-called gipsies and travelling people, who parked in a field. There were about a dozen caravans and they stayed for about five days. They left an atrocious amount of rubbish and filth--a disgusting mess--and Scarborough's ratepayers had to pay to have it cleared up. It was said at the time that the council would have to find a permanent caravan park for so-called itinerant travellers at Weaponess. I objected in the strongest possible terms to the intrusion.
A large percentage of my constituents are old-age pensioners, many of whom live alone. It is difficult to express the fear, distress and profound anxiety caused to those people by the prospect of a nearby gipsy encampment. I raised several objections and, fortunately, the proposal was turned down, though one Labour councillor was moved to write to the newspaper complaining that gipsies had rights, too. I am not talking about the old romantic show people--the old Romanies. I am not talking about fortune tellers. The plain, unvarnished truth about new age travellers and people like them is that, in many cases, they are dirty, lazy drop-outs, whose dedication to their way of life extends no further than the nearest benefit office, followed closely by the nearest pub.
Column 623
I am in no mood to take lectures from Opposition Members about the rights of politically correct new age travellers. Opposition Members would soon change their tune if they woke up one morning to find their back gardens invested by new age travellers. Let us not listen to the likes of Andrew Puddephatt of Liberty, who attacks views such as mine--and those of elderly people--on the grounds that they are intolerant, distrustful and prejudicial. Let us dismiss out of hand politically correct editorials in The Guardian such as that entitled, "A home to go to". The Guardian's response to Government proposals was as follows :"All nomadic people who travel through settled tribes are an easy target. They make easy scapegoats, particularly for politicians facing difficult elections The document"
a document produced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning
"is a deep disappointment given that Sir George Young, one of the Government's most progressive ministers, was in charge of its drafting."
According to the newspaper, the document makes
"no attempt to put the increase in perspective Seizing caravans from offending gypsy families might sound sensible, but what about the cost of placing the subsequent homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation?"
That is a question that the newspaper should address to its bosom chums in Labour-controlled local authorities, where so many council houses are empty that we have lost count of them.
The Guardian goes on to say that
"none of the fundamental causes is even addressed in the consultative document."
That is no more than the jargon of the left--a script straight out of the television programme "LA Law". As usual, its authors have managed to distance themselves from the facts. Conservative Members know the facts : the people who stand up for travellers are standing up for loafers and spongers, hiding their position behind a veil of wishing to preserve the gipsies' way of life at all costs. I believe that it is right to stand up for the taxpayer.
Why, for example, should the little man working behind a lathe in a factory pay out of his hard-earned wages to subsidise such a way of life? Why should the young husband and wife with a small child, who are just starting out in life, pay one penny of their tax to subsidise the way of life that the hon. Member for Islington, North is trying so desperately to preserve?
The Bill responds to the majority view in the country, and Opposition Members should do the same. They should listen to people such as the Mr. Gibson who wrote to The Independent of 2 September :
"Your article refers to the desire of the gypsies to preserve their way of life. I wonder if this desire includes events that have occurred here over the last few days. A couple of weeks ago, a solitary gypsy family, complete with lorry and caravan, parked behind a nearby empty warehouse unit. Within days they were joined by a dozen more families and since then our normally peaceful industrial estate has been overrun.
Break-ins and damages are rife. Anyone silly enough to have a diesel tank has found the tank drained. In our case the culprit simply had to open a valve. More diligent companies who keep their diesel under lock and key suffered even more. Their valves and locks were smashed and the diesel then drained. To make matters worse our local police claim to have neither the manpower nor resources to nip the problem in the bud.
No doubt the gypsies will claim that our problems are coincidental. In the meantime perhaps they could preserve their way of life elsewhere and their leaders could consider allowing the rest of us to preserve ours."
| Next Section
| Home Page |