LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin)

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

Lord SANDFORD

I rise to say that the district councils, who bear responsibility for managing these sites, very much welcome these amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 284D.

Lord DIGBY

I should like to support this amendment on behalf of the Association of County Councils, because my noble friend Lord Ridley has tabled almost identical amendments, which I shall not move should this amendment be successful. I shall not repeat the noble Baroness's cogent arguments, but I should like to highlight one particular aspect, which is the importance of Amendment No. 284D, which enables the Secretary of State to designate districts for prohibiting unauthorised camping instead of waiting for the whole county area to have sufficient sites. My county of Dorset is the only one so far designated, but I must tell your Lordships, as chairman of the committee which provided these sites, that it was very frustrating when, having covered more than 80 per cent, of the county, we still had to wait a long time before designation. I think the facts speak for themselves. Twelve years after this Act was enacted, only one county has been designated. I am sure that if we can proceed by districts it will be of great advantage.

I should like to add a short word on the criminal sanctions which have been in force. This amendment puts them back into the Bill. Our experience in Dorset, as the only county where they are applied at present, is that providing they are there, they do not need to be used. Like the fence, its existence helps to avoid its use. If the gipsy liaison officers, who are a vital part of this human relations problem, have the sanction behind them, they do not need to use it—and they have been a great success. They are much better with the authority; they do not have to wield the stick. This amendment was in the No. 1 Bill. It was agreed by both the local authority associations and the gipsy association. I hope the Government will feel able to accept it.

Lord DA VIES of LEEK

From this side of the Committee I should like briefly to support my noble friend. In Staffordshire, where I had the honour to be the local Member of Parliament for a quarter of a century, there are 91 unauthorised sites and, according to the figures that I have officially, 72 authorised sites. I hope that ultimately this muddle can be cleared up. I think it is good that this was put into the Bill and that some attention will be paid for it.

Lord AVEBURY

I must apologise in advance for detaining your Lordships at greater length than have some other noble Lords who have spoken. It is because there is a great deal of meat in these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irving, and ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. They should not be allowed to pass without some examination and, I am sorry to say, in certain respects, criticism. If one looks first at Amendment No. 284B, the Caravan Sites Bill of the last Government—which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, whom I am glad to see is in her place—repealed the whole of subsection (2) of Section 6 of the 1968 Act. As the noble Baroness pointed out when moving the Second Reading of that Bill, it was proposed at that time to abolish the limit on the duty of the metropolitan county councils and the London boroughs to provide for only 15 caravans in each district or borough as well as to repeal the power of the Secretary of State to grant exemptions from the duty to provide any sites on the grounds of lack of suitable land. It was then further proposed to repeal the exemptions that were granted to 26 county boroughs because they had had no gipsy population in the five years prior to 1st April, 1968.

That was in exact accordance with the recommendations of Sir John Cripps, as was the undertaking given by the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government at that time, that none of the inner London boroughs would be obliged to provide sites for more than 15 caravans. In these amendments the 15-pitch limit has, in effect, reappeared; but, because of the 1972 reorganisation, it would now apply to the metropolitan counties which are far larger and richer in resources than the old county boroughs. It would be disproportionate to lay such a trivial obligation on them to provide only 15 pitches compared with the counties, which have an open-ended obligation to satisfy the demand for accommodation by all gipsies resorting to their areas. My amendments to Amendment 284B are designed to remove the 15-pitch exemption in the same way as was done by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in the Caravan Site Bill which she introduced before the I election.

1399 Turning to Amendment No. 284C, this represents a considerable departure from the Cripps Report which merely suggested that the various proposals for strengthening the enforcement powers in Section 11 of the 1968 Act should be examined by a lawyer—and that is what he said—but that if there were to be any move towards complying with the demands which the local authorities were making at that time, it should be conditional upon a proviso that, in relation to unoccupied land, the powers should be exercisable only if the land was required immediately for some other purpose or if vacant places were shown to be available on a site within a reasonable distance. Sir John Cripps also said in relation to camping on the verges of highways that enforcement should be allowed only where there was a specific danger to traffic or where space was shown to be available within a reasonable distance. As drafted, this clause would allow caravans to be removed on the authority of the magistrates' court if the court is satisfied that the caravans were parked on land unlawfully; and the order of the court may be applied indiscriminately to any caravans on the land whether or not they can be identified personally and without any proceedings having been taken first under Section 10, which contains the criminal sanctions against parking in designated areas.

It was at one time thought desirable to remove the criminal sanction (as the noble Lord opposite will confirm) and it was then pointed out that, if you did that, you would sweep away the defences which are now available, giving the local authorities an unchallengeable right to clear gipsies from any land in designated areas. I am not happy about giving local authorities these new powers and I was certainly unaware of any process of examination of the proposals such as Cripps had recommended. But, if we have to consent to what is proposed here, we should restore the defences of Section 10 to enable a gipsy to plead that his caravan was stationed on the land in question in consequence of illness, or mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency. My amendments are intended to secure that a contravention of Section 10 must be proved before the courts may grant any order to permit the removal of any caravans.

1400 Because I have left in the words which extend the power to caravans not individually identified in any order of the court, I am afraid that, even with those concessions, serious injustice could arise, and it is no exaggeration to say that life might be endangered in certain circumstances. The authority must first proceed against an individual occupier of a caravan on the land; but once the conviction has been secured against such a person, then any other caravan on the same land will be in contravention of Section 10 and may be towed away on the order of the court without further safeguard for their occupants. The council might proceed against a particular gipsy because he is easily identifiable by name and can be brought to court, but they may be unaware of the fact that in the next caravan there is a case of serious illness. They get their conviction and return to the site with the bailiffs, the bulldozers and an army of council officials to remove the invalid along with all the rest, being perhaps completely unaware that any health risk has arisen. If anybody tries to stop the removal of the caravan in which a gipsy may be lying even at death's door, he runs the risk of being prosecuted under subsection (4) of the new clause and fined £200. On Report, it would be desirable—and I should have given the noble Baroness notice, but it is a point that occurred to me rather late—to make provision for the person who is accused of obstruction under that subsection to be able to offer a similar defence to that which Section 10 provides for unlawful parking; that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the caravan that he had tried to stop being removed was occupied by someone who was there for any of the stated reasons—health, mechanical breakdown or other emergency.

Turning to Amendment 284D which, as the noble Baroness confessed was not in line with the Cripps Report—in fact their specific recommendation was that designation continued to be granted only on a county basis to authorities who have a duty to acquire or appropriate land to accommodate gipsies—I am not happy about the idea of extending this concept to districts, as I said when we were considering at Second Reading the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, from which this particular amendment is copied.

1401 I quoted then from the original Circular 37/70 which was issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government when Part II of the 1968 Act was brought into force, following the assurances which had been given by the late Mr. Arthur Skeffington, the then Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The circular said that Ministers intended: to exercise their powers to designate … in such a way to avoid creating a patchwork of relatively small areas where it would be an offence for a gipsy to camp. Such a pattern would create a difficult position for the councils of adjoining areas and a confused one for the gipsies themselves". Designation does not act as an incentive to other authorities, as was claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when we were discussing the first designation orders on 14th November, 1972. I thought I heard the noble Baroness, Lady David, repeating this canard this evening, that designation provided an incentive.

I said then in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford (at col. 698 of Hansard for 14th November 1972): It is just a pious hope, and the logic of expecting them to get on with their duties as a result of designation orders made in county boroughs that are in their neighbourhood escapes me for the moment". We were talking in that context about St. Helens in particular. I should like to examine what happened in the North-West as a result of the designation of that particular county borough. At that time, 14th November 1972, I gave the figures of provision already made in Greater Manchester and Lancashire, and this is to be found at col. 669 of Hansard of that date.

There were then 73 pitches in that area compared with an estimated 525 families there. If we look now at a count which was taken by the local authorities on 16th July this year, and recorded by the Department of the Environment, we find that there are now 95 pitches on council sites in the area; so there has been an increase of only 22 sites in the whole of Lancashire and Greater Manchester during the intervening eight years compared with the 204 pitches which the local authorities in that area told the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that they were going to provide. The Committee will be obliged to agree that this is a deplorable record, and it proves that the designation of St. Helens 1402 had no beneficial effect on the neighbouring authorities.

The fact is, if one looks at the figures, that no county has provided adequate accommodation for the gipsies residing in or resorting to their area, including Dorset which the noble Lord mentioned. The record of Dorset is certainly very much better than that of most other authorities. In the July count there were still 33 gipsies living on unauthorised sites in the county. Therefore it cannot be said, as is required in the 1968 Act, that the county provided adequate accommodation for the gipsies resorting to the area, even if the basic provision the county made satisfied the demand from those who were there more permanently.

If I may take one or two examples, last night a noble Lord who lives in Surrey was complaining to me about the mess which gipsies made in that county. They have 150 pitches on authorised sites and 152 on unauthorised sites. In Kent they have 166 authorised pitches and 382 unauthorised. In Essex they have 102 authorised and 254 unauthorised. In Northamptonshire they have 16 authorised and 63 unauthorised.

Looking at those figures, we must ask: What is going to happen in counties such as those if one designates a district or group of districts within those counties? First, the gipsies will obviously be unaware as they travel from one place to another whether they are lawfully entitled to stop in a particular place. Secondly, the districts which have been given the powers will decamp their surplus gipsy populations into the neighbourhood, just as St. Helens did into Lancashire eight years ago. Thirdly—and most important—we should be creating a situation which Ministers have repeatedly said in their circulars should be avoided. For example, in Circular 49/68 it says: … the Ministers nave repeatedly emphasised that gipsies should not be needlessly moved on from place to place until sites have been provided for them. It is particularly important that local authorities should not drive gipsies out of their areas, to become the responsibility of neighbouring authorities, in the period before a countrywide network of sites is established". As I ventured to say when discussing the Bill of the noble Baroness—and I was, very glad to hear the noble Baroness Lady David, say this this evening—the recommendations in paragraph 4.40 of 1403 Cripps are potentially of greater importance than any of the legislative provisions we were then discussing or which are contained in these amendments. If we had an agreement between the Government and the local authorities on quotas for each county, and a time-related programme to fulfil them, then we would be able to measure progress against some objective criteria instead of thinking so much in negative terms, as we seem to, about the methods of social control of what is an unpopular minority.

That was the key to the solution. If I had my way there would be no designation at all until the local authorities had agreed to these quotas and the timetable which Sir John Cripps proposed. That would give them an incentive to get on with the job. Perhaps the movers of this amendment would consider driving such a bargain before Report stage, and whether or not it is possible somehow to incorporate the idea which the noble Baroness has commended in these amendments.

There are two drafting errors in Amendment No. 284D. In subsection (3) the words "in the order" should be replaced by "therein" because adequate provision has to be made in the area and not in the order by the magistrates' court. In subsection (6) after "area" in the last line I think the words "of the council" should be inserted to make it clear that there is an obligation not only to notify the gipsies in a district which has received the designation power—if we have finally to agree to that—but also that those gipsies who live in other parts of the county who may be equally affected should be informed as well.

In Amendment No. 284G I notice that the new power to remove unlawfully parked caravans comes into effect three months after the passing of the Bill, but the exemptions of the 26 county borough areas are to be continued for another 12 months. I suggest that perhaps there should be some harmonisation between these two periods.

Whatever we do in the field of legislation, the solution of the gipsy problem lies in some new spirit of determination by local authorities and the Government. The whole of the unaccommodated gipsy population of this country could be taken care of on authorised sites for the cost of 1404 four new town halls or one five-hundredth of the amount that we are intending to spend on the replacement of Britain's nuclear deterrent. One can only be amazed that it should take so long and that progress should be at such a funereal pace. The explanation of it is that the gipsies are not a powerful lobby themselves and their cause is a loser for anybody who takes it up, while the chairman of a local residents' association or a councillor who opposes a site can always pick up a few cheap votes.

It still has not dawned on the public as a whole, or indeed perhaps on some of the Members of the Committee, that official sites that are kept tidy and properly managed under the control of the local authority are infinitely preferable to the mess that gipsies make—quite unavoidably—on the unauthorised encampments that we so often see. Nor is it realised that by harrying the gipsies from pillar to post, and thus preventing their children from attending school, we are storing up trouble for yet another generation. However belatedly, I hope that this will provide an occasion for saying once again that we want Ministers, councillors, leaders and friends of the gipsy community to join together in spelling out those truths and starting a new campaign to ensure that there are sites for all the gipsies in the country.

Baroness STEDMAN

I should like to support my noble friend in her amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred to the comments made by him and by myself when the previous Government's Bill was before the House. We only got to the Second Reading stage and then had an Election. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury was sufficiently of a realist, as I am, to know that it does not necessarily follow that a succeeding Government has the same views about a subject in exactly the same way as the one that went before it. I think my noble friends are to be congratulated on the consultations that they have had with the department to see how far they can get along the lines which we had hoped to go along but, for heaven's sake! let us, if the Government are willing to accept it, get something on the statute book and then build on it in the future.

1405 The subject of designation has been a very thorny problem in my own area where our city and our district have done a lot to help gipsies. We have one very high-standard site for some 22 families, with educational facilities attached to it. We have another one, not quite so good, for 50 families, which will house all who come into our city, apart from peak periods when they are travelling between agricultural jobs just for a few days at a time.

Much to our surprise and delight, we received only a few weeks ago from the county council via the Department of the Environment a grant of £500,000 for the improvement of this second site, which would then have brought us up to standard, and the county would have been willing to have supported the designation of our part of the area. For some reason our Conservative Member of Parliament managed to persuade the Minister to withhold it for the time being while he had another look at it, and in the meantime there was a further round of cuts and we have lost it. We feel very strongly about it and, quite frankly, if the noble Earl can take that back to his department and have a look at it, I would make a special plea for the reinstatement of as much of that grant as he can manage.

On the question of designation, it is important because it would empower the police to remove the unauthorised encampment and it would avoid the need on the part of district councils to take quite costly and often repetitive county court proceedings. I am quite sure that if the police, at any rate in our own area—and I can only speak of that—find there are special circumstances, there is not the harassment to which the noble Lord referred. The police are reasonable, and, if there is a woman in labour or someone who is very ill, they adopt a responsible attitude about that.

If you have the proper regulation of the unauthorised encampments then you get a very considerable saving in local authority funds, and that aspect certainly ought to appeal to this Government. If you have a countrywide plan for the sites for these gipsy encampments, it will take time and may have to be programmed over some five or six years, but it is unjust towards those district councils which have provided adequate accommodation that, 1406 when they have done their duty in that way, they should not then be able to claim designation. I think if a firm commitment was made at this stage by the Secretary of State to designate individual districts, it would be an incentive to the county councils to get on and do the job throughout their county, and to other district councils, which would then perhaps receive some of the unlawful campers, to be a little more progressive and to something about it themselves. I support my noble friend in her amendments.

The Earl of AVON

I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to clarify one thing. He said fairly early on in his speech something about "Amendment 284B and some amendments to it". If there are any, I have not seen them.

Lord AVEBURY

Yes, I did in fact mislead your Lordships. I had intended to put down an amendment to Amendment 284B, removing the 15-pitch limit. I omitted to do that but hasten to declare that I shall rectify that on Report stage.

The Earl of AVON

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is rather difficult to answer on certain points of this kind. May I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that I think we should be speaking to Amendment 318A as well as the ones she mentioned? It is only a small technical one on the schedule. I am happy to commend all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Irving, which were so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness. These are Nos. 284B through to G, 318A, 320A and B, together with 326A. I am happy to recommend these to the Committee, together with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to Amendment No. 284C, which are Amendments Nos. 284CB through to 284CE. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Ridley has also put down some amendments, which are Amendments Nos. 296 to 299, 299A and 327. I am afraid that I cannot recommend these, but I shall come to them later.

As this Committee may have realised, versions of all these amendments were contained in our original Local Government Planning and Land Bill. They are therefore not a party political issue and in this context, though it is hardly necessary, I would remind your Lordships that 1407 we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for placing the 1968 Act on the statute Book.

The original proposals were themselves the result of the fullest possible consultation by the department. There was a round of consultations about recommendations of the Cripps Report with all conceivable interested parties. They gave a clear indication of the nature of the legislative changes required on this subject. In particular they showed a need for further study of possible changes which will make the enforcement powers more effective. Eventually after a further round of discussions with the local authority associations and gipsy representatives and their support organisations, agreement was reached last year upon an overall package of changes. However, these proposals were deleted from the Bill by the need to shorten it for reintroduction in another place. During progress in the other place Ministers have declared their continued support in principle for the original proposals and their readiness to consider appropriate amendments to the Bill should it be procedurally possible to reintroduce them. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Irving, the noble Baroness and others have been able to make use of the period since then to bring forward proposals which contain broadly not only the original proposals but also some improved and acceptable drafting changes, as well as taking into account the latest views of the local authority associations on some of the issues.

These amendments have embraced the repeal of exemptions of certain authorities from the duty of site provision, changes in enforcement procedures in areas designated under the 1968 Act and proposals for designations in districts and the exemption of site-providing authorities throughout Great Britain for any requirements for a site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

Perhaps I may briefly speak on the first of the queries of the noble Baroness, Lady David, which was: what are we doing about the Cripps Report? That concerns paragraph 4.40. This recommendation was never seen as an item requiring legislative changes. Such discussion on time-related quotas requires 1408 administrative arrangements for a programme of planned discussion. I understand that such a programme was started by the department soon after the publication of the Cripps Report. Such discussions, I am afraid, are not now consistent with the Government's view of the necessary relationship between central and local government on gipsies. As you know, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies by way of caravan sites. It is for them to decide the number and nature of such sites and not for central Government to impose any targets. Of course, they do consult the department on levels of provision that might be suitable for designation, and this can be the subject of useful discussion.

Lord AVEBURY

I do not think it was ever suggested by Cripps that the targets should be imposed by central Government on local authorities, but that if, as a result of the discussion process the total of the provisions which the counties intended to make, as notified to the Government, did not add up to the same figures as the known population, there could be another round of consultations to see whether any improvements could be effected in the contributions of individual authorities. So the process would be consultative rather than compulsory.

The Earl of AVON

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I rather agree that it is consultative: that is really what I was saying.

Baroness DAVID

May I intervene for a moment? If the Minister is going to make the designation, it seems to me that if generally they do not have an overall plan, with quotas and so on, it is very difficult to make a sensible decision on designation.

The Earl of AVON

If the noble Baroness will let me get a little further, I think that I shall come to that point. If I do not, I ask her to get at me again. They do, of course, consult the department on levels of provision that might be suitable for designation and this can be the subject of useful discussion. But the initiative must come from local government and we do not wish to interfere by central 1409 Government decisions upon quotas of sites and programmes of development.

The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me some more specific questions. First, she asked about the amount available for grants. It is, of course, inevitably limited and as a result we have had to scrutinise expenditure carefully. Owing to heavy expenditure in the first quarter of the year, we had to suspend grants for a limited period. However, I am happy to tell your Lordships that, as a result of a downturn in expenditure in the second quarter, we have now been able to lift the temporary suspensions. That sounds like what was being talked about.

I have some figures for caravans which seem rather to support some of the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, produced. Caravans on unauthorised encampments are 4,792, on authorised local authority sites 2,975 and on private sites 1,185. These are figures at July 1980. Figures on numbers of families are less precise and do not relate simply to numbers of caravans, but I shall write to the noble Baroness with more details.

The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has also tabled amendments which seek to reintroduce our original proposals and almost entirely as we originally drafted them. So we accept the principle behind his proposals, but now prefer the drafting proposed in the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, which is a Mark II version, as opposed to the noble Viscount's and our own Mark I version. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendments when they touch upon the same subject.

I should now like to come to a couple of paragraphs which I think will clarify quite a number of the points which have been made. I said earlier that this is a package, and the aim of the package is to try to expedite action on one of the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his Act of 1968; namely, the provision by local authorities of an adequate network of sites for gipsies throughout the country. This aim must surely still be acceptable to all sides of this Chamber.

Nevertheless, experience of the working of the 1968 Act showed that it was being very slow in achieving this aim. Accordingly, the previous Administration 1410 asked Sir John Cripps to see how this aim might be expedited. His recommendations in 1977 were broadly accepted by the then Government. I understand that this decision was then followed by extensive consultations on these recommendations with both the local authority associations and all gipsy and other interested organisations. I have a long list of details of those consultations and they led eventually, as I said, to an agreed package which was first introduced into this House as the Caravan Sites Bill. Although that Bill fell because of the 1979 general election, its proposals were largely repeated in our No. 1 local government Bill and now appear in a further revised form before your Lordships tonight.

These proposals should expedite the achievement of this aim—and that is why noble Lords should really accept them with gladness—by the provision of grant towards the capital cost of sites provided by local authorities, and by providing for districts instead of whole counties being designated as having provided an adequate number of sites. Nevertheless, to encourage authorities to provide such sites, it seems only right that those who do so should be given more effective powers to deal with gipsies who camp on unauthorised sites in designated areas. Hence this package of proposals, all of which should benefit law-abiding gipsies.

Some few days ago, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, put down Amendment No. 129, which we rather brushed aside and I promised to say a few words on it. This was a proposed re-introduction of a specific power to pay grants to voluntary organisations. The Government accept the need to encourage the activities of voluntary organisations which are doing useful work in this field and already give certain bodies modest grant-aid. This is now provided on a non-statutory basis through the use of the prerogative powers. We will continue to provide such aid as is appropriate and within our resources and I prefer to see the grant remain on its present basis.

Since noble Lords, last week, raised the question of Scotland, I should just like to make the following points. First, the grants proposed in Clause 61 on gipsy caravan sites will apply to Scotland. Secondly, although the 1968 Act of the 1411 noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does not apply to Scotland, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 does. This latter Act enables Scottish authorities to provide sites. This Act also sets out the licensing requirements for such sites; hence Amendment No. 284E of the noble Lord, Lord Irving, to extend the proposals for the exemption of county councils in England and Wales to regional councils in Scotland.

I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 284G, on which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, commented. It is about the timings on commencement proposed by the Government in the original Bill. The three-month period before commencement of alterations to enforcement procedures is intended to give the Home Office time to propose and issue advice to the magistrates' courts that might be needed. A delay of 12 months in the repeal of exemptions from site provision requirements, enjoyed by some previous county borough areas, was advised by the local authority associations, in order to allow adequate discussion between county and district councils about programmes for site provision, without any prejudgement that the provision of sites is imperative in all cases. The remainder of the Bill comes into effect within one month of Royal Assent. I have probably spoken enough, and, if I may sum up, the Government are happy to accept the amendments to which I originally spoke and also the amendment to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

Baroness PHILLIPS

Before the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, replies—and I should not like to strike a note that does not fit in with the general harmony—I should merely like to say, having seen the appalling mess and destruction that confronts one on certain motorways or side roads, that I hope that the noble Lord is always talking about the genuine Romany. There are people who are not genuine gipsies and I thought that he spoke in a slightly derogatory way about the residents.

I have had many deputations from residents in areas where they are genuinely distressed by the kind of people who camp in fields behind them, then go away leaving total destruction and all kinds of rubbish which is never collected by 1412 anyone. I am sure that the noble Lord was talking about the genuine gipsies, but I thought we should be clear in our minds about whom we are talking when we say that local authorities must designate areas and provide accommodation, because people who buy houses in certain areas also have rights.

Lord AVEBURY

It is not for me to reply to the amendments, but, if I may enlighten the noble Baroness, a "gipsy" according to the definition in the 1968 Act, is a person of nomadic habit, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. That means, for example, that the Irish tinkers are equally gipsies within the meaning of that Act, as is the true Romany. I did not, with great respect, single out the true Romany for attention in the remarks that I made, because the provision which I am suggesting local authorities ought to be making, and which should have been included in the programme recommended by Sir John Cripps in paragraph 440 of his report, applied equally to everybody who lived in caravans, whether they were Romany in origin or not.

I also made reference to the mess that gipsies make, and I recognise that this is a matter of great concern to residents. I hope that I was not dismissive of the work which many of them do, which is of great value to their neighbourhoods. But what I did say was that, sometimes, the chairmen of residents were able to get cheap, popular support by condemning gipsies in the neighbourhood, whereas the correct solution is to agitate with the local authorities for the provision of the sites which would render these unauthorised encampments unnecessary.

The mess which gipsies make is always on the unauthorised sites because they are not properly controlled and because no enforcement clean-up procedures can be achieved. While they are on the roadside, or on vacant land, or on land without the permission of the owner they make a great deal of mess because there are no facilities for refuse collection. Nor are there any sanitary facilities. Inevitably, there is an unsightly heap of rubbish in the neighbourhood of the caravans. Once you get them on to authorised sites where there are proper facilities for washing and where the local authority can collect the refuse, those problems are eliminated. That is why I tried to emphasise at the end 1413 of my speech that the sooner people realise that the removal of the unauthorised encampments is dependent upon the provision of an adequate, countrywide network of sites, the sooner we will get on with solving the problem.

Baroness PHILLIPS

I do not want to debate the point with the noble Lord, but the rubbish is not only on the sites; it spreads along the edges of the motorways. It is not domestic rubbish but pieces of cars which they have dismantled. These people are not living in poverty. We are talking about people who are living in caravans of great luxury. I do not deny them that right, but I think that the people who live in those areas also have rights.

Lord AVEBURY

I agree with the noble Baroness once again that the scrap remnants which result from the processing of old cars and so on create an unsightly mess on the borders of main roads. For that reason, it is important that the permissive powers contained in the 1968 Act to provide working areas in the neighbourhood of residential sites should also be properly utilised by the local authorities.

Baroness DAVID

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I was particularly glad to hear that the moratorium is off for the moment. I should be interested to hear more details about that. I am very grateful for what we have got and to hear that the amendments have been accepted. Tomorrow I shall read the debate in Hansard, particularly with reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. There may then be further amendments at the Report stage, but may I thank the noble Lord for what we have.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport)

With your Lordships' permission, I will take all these amendments as having been moved.

Viscount SIMON

I do not want to detain the Committee, and it may be that I have ill advised myself, but I do not understand at what stage we are going to discuss generally the principle of enterprise zones, about which we on these Benches have considerable reservations. This clause assumes that we are agreed about enterprise zones, but it only introduces the schedule which describes the machinery by which these zones are to be set up.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has been clever, in that there is an amendment to a clause in the schedule. However, I have very considerable doubts about the proposal that undertakings in these zones should be exempt from the requirements of industrial training boards. This has been put out in a Government paper but it is not included in the schedule, so far as I can discover. We are giving a great many advantages to undertakings 1418 in these zones and I am not clear why they should be exempted from the requirements of industrial training boards which are very much better applied by everybody. It is not entirely disconnected from a later passage in the Government's paper, which said that there should be no reduction in the standards needed to protect health and safety. I think that the training of employees is very important in connection with standards of health and safety.

There is no possiblity of putting down an amendment, because the provision is not set out anywhere. I am just wondering whether the noble Lord can explain to me how we deal with these problems. I have one or two others in my mind.

Lord UNDERHILL

There are two or three other points on enterprise zones that I should like to put to the noble Lord. I wish to say nothing to hinder enterprise zones, particularly as this is an experimental scheme which will help to find out the successes, or otherwise. Having said that, I am a little concerned that they may be too small and may have an adverse effect on other parts of an area, or even a region, and thus create problems. The Minister may be able to give me the answer. The limited size of a zone could have the effect of siphoning development away from other areas in a city. Little advantage would be gained if a number of small firms decided to move out of one area and to move into the enterprise zone. Nothing would be gained except that the community would receive considerable financial benefit.

I gather that the purpose of enterprise zones is to create further jobs, but there are no safeguards. If it is merely a question of a firm moving from one area to another, no extra jobs are being created. While it may help the area where the enterprise zone is situated, it may possibly create problems in another area. We know that run down areas of cities may not be in an enterprise zone and may have in them a considerable number of small firms which might wish to move into a relatively small area of the enterprise zone. There are no safeguards, and I think problems of that kind would arise. Therefore it would need to be monitored very carefully to see whether or not the experiment was successful.

Lord NORTHFIELD

Since the principle of enterprise zones is being discussed, may I say that I am very strongly in favour of them and that I am glad the Government have introduced them? Some years ago, when we were debating the problems of the inner cities, a number of us made the point that in some of the really difficult areas of the country the best thing to do was to relieve them of rates and taxes and to give them other freedoms, in the hope that the sheer intractability of their problems would be conquered by concessions of this kind. That is what enterprise zones are about: they are for areas where the normal processes of development have failed to solve the problems, where the problems are difficult, where for 10, 20 or even more years we have been unable to get their economies moving. A number of us have said over the years that that is the kind of solution which might help them, and this led finally to the experiment being introduced.

As for the problem about firms moving and not creating more jobs, one of the answers to my noble friend is that very few firms will move just for the sake of moving into an enterprise zone. The costs of moving today are horrific. It is not going to be so easy to pull up sticks, move over and not create new jobs. If, when they move, they respond to the freer climate and to the reduction of taxes in an enterprise zone, they may create more jobs in their new location and expand more quickly there than they would have done had they stayed put where they were.

One could go on with this kind of argument. I hope that the general doubt which has been cast on these zones will not be pursued. I think this is a very worthwhile experiment. If they fail in a few years' time, we can write them off, but goodness me! looking round at some of the intractably difficult areas I am glad that at least we are having an experiment with them.

Lord BELLWIN

Not for the first time in matters of this kind during the passage of the Committee stage of this Bill I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for having put the points so well that I had intended to make. I think we must accept right from the beginning that this is an attempt at an 1420 experiment. It is an attempt to do something to take areas which are desperately in need of something dramatic, and if we run into snags and difficulties, as we may well do—and there are one or two amendments here which raise certain potential problems, which we acknowledge: we do not run away from them—we shall have to see whether the overall benefit in totality is not greater. It is an attempt to do something and, in general, it has been very much welcomed, not by everybody but by most people, and I hope that the Committee will feel likewise.

I am not claiming that this is the total answer, as I said yesterday when we were dealing with UDCs; but it is an attempt to do something, and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, will feel that way, at least sufficiently to want to see how it goes. As to his point on the training board, I am advised that it was not considered suitable to go into this Bill, as such, but will be dealt with in some legislation as quickly as we can.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

There is one point which I should like to raise. Of course we welcome it; we are not troglodytes on either side of the Committee and any experiment is welcome. I should like to thank the Minister once again for all the notes that we have had and for getting into the Printed Paper Office this morning the document on enterprise zone policy and proposals. I will not bore the Committee by reading it all through because noble Lords can read it for themselves. I just wonder about land reclamation in places like Stoke-on-Trent, which has a wonderful record for land reclamation—a whole tip of 15 million tons made into a rolling meadow. In mining areas and places like Stoke-on-Trent where clay pits have been dug out, could not an enterprise zone be considered there, so giving employment to possibly a dozen people for three, four or five years on land reclamation? That might be a point worth considering. It would be unfair to bring pressure on the Committee, but I should like it to be on the record that this kind of thing may be considered.

Lord BELLWIN

I am not sure that this is the moment at which we should be talking about this. I think we should recognise that this is going to be a costly 1421 exercise for everyone concerned and, therefore, despite the enthusiasm of many who would like to have a shot at it, we are having to limit it to seven places in England and Wales and one in Scotland.

The problem of derelict land is really something else. Obviously in an area which is a candidate for an enterprise zone such matters as land dereliction are factors to be taken into account. The derelict land grants which are available are liberally dealt with at the present time. We are anxious to do as much as we can in regard to this. It is one area in which, in my experience of the last year or so, there has been a much more open-handed attitude. We recognise that if we do not do this now it takes years to build up a programme, and we could lose that programme. That is why we must give this some priority, which we have been doing.

Clause 153 agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD

I must say bluntly to my noble friend that I oppose this amendment. I think it is very ill-advised. I have an interest in this matter in that I am the chairman of a new town and so far as I know we are the only new town which has applied to have an enterprise zone. So I have a direct 1423 interest in not seeing this amendment carried. My view is that the new towns are in a strong position to designate land in this way; to designate areas which are suitable to be enterprise zones. In my case—and I am happy to have this opportunity to run a trailer for my application, in the sense that nothing has been finally decided and so one can live in hope. In my own case we have 300 acres of land between GKN Sankey—a huge heavy engineering works—and the central ordnance depot of the Army. In other words, it is a piece of land whose neighbours will not complain. They are not the sort of people who would be injured in any sense by what the pessimists think might happen in an enterprise zone. It is an absolutely admirable site for an enterprise zone and I hope we are going to get it.

Why should we, as the development corporation, have this power? Frankly, because we have the duty under the designation to seek to redevelop this area. In our case it is a whole 30 square miles of previous total dereliction left in the East Shropshire coalfield, very similar to an inner city situation. We have a total obligation to redevelop that area and to bring in industry in order to provide more jobs, and more prosperity for an old, dying area. If we are set up to do the job of setting out 50, 100 or several hundred acres of industrial estates and we have the power to set them out, to recoup for them, to manage them—to do all these other things—why in heaven's name should we not have the power also to ask for an enterprise zone? After all, it is a further weapon, if I can use that word, to secure increasing employment opportunities for the area. In my case, not only is it a previously derelict area, but it has a 13 per cent. unemployment rate. That is not based on our failure as a new town corporation. It is based on the collapse of the old industry of the area which is for ever running into the sand under our feet. We cannot create new jobs fast enough in the new industry to make up for the collapse of the old.

It is for exactly those circumstances that I believe the Government were intending these enterprise zones. If I may come some distance to meet my noble friend, I am sure it would be sensible that 1424 such applications by new town corporations should have at least the goodwill of the district council. I can tell him that that is precisely what the Government are asking in their consultations with the new towns. If one makes such an application, one must have at least goodwill on the part of the district council, or the tolerance of the district council, to see the whole thing through. That is quite properly being asked of us. Although my district council quite unusually is against these enterprise zones, nevertheless it has said that it will not hinder the operation of one if in the wider execution of our duty and our powers to rejuvenate this area we, the development corporation, think it is a good thing to have such an enterprise zone. That is a little way towards my noble friend, but on the general principle of what he is saying—the head-on collision with the power, his total opposition to its being given to new towns—I must totally part company with him. I think it is a very good idea that we have a chance with other people to have these zones.

Lord BELLWIN

I am terribly tempted to say, "Need I say more?" As to the noble Lord's plug for his application or wish, I can only say, "I hear what you say". Of course, that will be done in another place in another way. I have noted down some splendid points to make, but frankly I do not see there is any point in making them because the noble Lord has put the case so well. There is an absolute wish here for a total involvement in this matter by the local authorities. This thing is never going to get anywhere if the local authorities do not want to do it, and we have no intention at all of pressing anyone to do it. In regard to the new town development corporations and so on, whatever I said would simply repeat what the noble Lord has said, and in those circumstances I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may feel able to withdraw his amendment. I will go into more detail if noble Lords would like me to do so.

Baroness STEDMAN

I am sure we would not like it at this time of the night and at this stage of the Bill. I yield to no one in my admiration for what my noble friend Lord Northfield and his board have done in Telford. They have done a fantastic job. The land reclamation they 1425 have carried out is equalled by nothing else in this country. But I cannot see why the noble Lord is quite so vehement about the suggestion which my noble friend has put up. If he has got the support of his district council, as he says he has, what is to prevent it going through his district council? If we have only limited funds to give on enterprise zones, have we not really got a first duty to the inner cities that are so run down and that do need them? I know that Telford New Town has its special problems. I know it has a higher unemployment rate than it would like or that we would wish to see there, but I do not think we are all that much apart from each other. If my noble friend has the support of the regional district council, there is no reason why a new town should be in it. They should be able to make their case to their district council.

Lord BELLWIN

It will have been seen from those already designated that the clear emphasis obviously is to the local authorities, the districts concerned. That must be a priority. But to take statutory steps to exclude, as this does, would be wrong. At the end of the day the priorities, the decisions, must be based on a judgment. To exclude the opportunity for new town development corporations and the others to have their chance to make their case is further than we ought to go. That is really all I am saying.

Lord NORTHFIELD

I think my noble friend Lady Stedman must have misheard me. I did not say that I had the support of the district council; I said that unusually they were actually opposed to it, but they have made it clear that they will tolerate it and will not hinder the operation of a zone if we are fortunate to get it. That is good enough as far as I am concerned. They see that some experiments of this kind might well need to be made and they are not going to stand in the way. As far as the general principle is concerned, why should the development corporation have these powers rather than the district council, or equal with the district council, in circumstances like this simply because we are providing acres after acres of industrial land throughout the whole town in order to attract employment? That is more our duty, or at least our 1426 power, than that of the district council. So why should we be stopped short when it comes to having this extra industrial zone which is called an enterprise zone? I cannot see the logic of the noble Lord's argument.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

I still strongly believe that it is right that this power should be conferred on democratically-elected bodies. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said. In view of the fact that we are on the seventh or eighth day of the Committee stage of this Bill, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division.

Lord BELLWIN

May I say en passant to the last observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it is the seventh day; it only seems like eight days. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to make the designation order establishing an enterprise zone subject to 1427 Affirmative Resolution procedure. It may help the Committee if I very quickly and briefly spell out the formal procedures that must be gone through before an enterprise zone can be established. First, the authority receives an invitation to draw up a scheme. There is no obligation on the authority to take up the invitation and no sanction or reserve power if they do not. Secondly, if the authority do take up the invitation and draw up an enterprise zone scheme, they must publicise it in draft and give people a chance to comment on it. Thirdly, the authority may amend the scheme in the light of the objections, adopt it, and notify the Secretary of State. The adopted scheme must be publicised. Only then can the Secretary of State lay an order designating the area as an enterprise zone, and that order, under the Government's proposals, will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure.

Precedent suggests that enterprise zones designation orders should be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. Enterprise zone schemes will have a similar effect to special development orders under the Planning Acts. Unlike the enterprise zone scheme, there is no requirement for public consultation prior to the making of a special development order; yet such orders are subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure.

The nearest analogy to the sort of fiscal concessions we are making available in enterprise zones would, I suppose, be the advantages available in assisted areas. Again assisted areas are established by Negative Resolution procedure, without any requirement to consult those who might turn out to be on the wrong side of the boundary.

I believe that the procedures we have provided prior to designation give every opportunity for the proposal for an enterprise zone to be scrutinized by those most directly affected; mainly those in and around the zone. Moreover, we intend that the formal invitation to prepare enterprise zone schemes will include directions to consult the county authorities and other bodies, including neighbouring districts, where their interests might be substantially affected.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, might feel that it would not be necessary 1428 to add to what is already an elaborate procedure a requirement for Affirmative Resolution in both Houses, and I wonder if he may feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Lord UNDERHILL

I very much appreciate the detailed outline given by the Minister of the procedure prior to the order being placed. I think the safeguards are excellent. The point I was trying to emphasise is that Parliament wants to have control over public expenditure, which I would have thought noble Lords opposite would very much appreciate. There could be an argument as to why one area is given a zone, which will be very costly, and another area is not given a zone. But, in the circumstances and in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I shall not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord BELLWIN

If the noble Lord would allow me, it might be helpful if I were to tell him straight away that we are prepared to accept this amendment.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

I am pleased to hear that. My antennae had not informed me of that, as they sometimes do when the Government are going to accept an amendment. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

I remain firmly in my seat.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

Enterprise zones will offer major inducements to developers, particularly through the rating exemption. If these inducements stimulate the development of industrial or commercial enterprises, then, unless they have moved directly from one area to another, that will be a positive gain and will not undermine similar developments if they exist outside the enterprise zone.

The situation, in our view, is rather different in the case of retail developments. Retail developments draw on a more or less limited geographical catchment area. The introduction of a new major retailing outlet in an enterprise zone could have a substantial impact on existing retail developments. The very possibility that such developments might be established, stimulated by the rating exemption, could well threaten proposed retailing developments near the enterprise zone. We would wish, therefore, to see this amendment, which would remove the rating exemption from major retail space users, carried, and these amendments define the users as a business occupying space of more than 300 square metres. This would effectively protect local shop users outside the immediate periphery of an enterprise zone. Unless these amendments are accepted, we feel that difficult situations could arise for retail users in adjoining areas. In effect, the rating 1431 exemption granted to the substantial retail users within the zone will give an unfair economic advantage to those particular users. I beg to move.

Lord SANDFORD

I am not sure whether or not I wish to support this amendment at this stage, because I am not sure how my noble friend intends to deal with the problem. That there is a problem, or could be a problem, caused by a hypermarket taking advantage of an enterprise zone I have no doubt at all, but I have a feeling that it may be possible to deal with it within the terms of the Bill rather than by this amendment.

Lord NORTHFIELD

I share the slight disquiet of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, about the problem of large hypermarkets. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can indicate whether he thinks that Amendment No. 286A, which we have just carried, would be one way of dealing with such developments if there were dangers to retail operations in the area, or other big public investment in retail opportunities in the area. Alternatively—and here I come to my second point—can he tell us that in drawing up the schemes for these enterprise zones the Government really will be open and flexible with the authorities of the new town corporation, as in my case, and come to them and say, "We would like to put a limit on the size of these operations before we could openly allow them in"? In other words, is there a real flexibility in the Government's mind or are they asking for absolutely total freedom for anything to happen in this field of activity?

Lord BELLWIN

I should have thought that this was arguably one of the most difficult aspects of the proposals—some would say the most difficult aspect of the proposals—but speaking to the specific amendments, these amendments would exclude businesses with more than 500 square metres of retail floor space from the rating exemption. That would give rise to practical difficulties. There would be, for example, a powerful incentive for retailers to try to subdivide their activities in some artificial way so that they might become separate and smaller units. This, surely, would be a recipe for litigation, uncertainty and possibly even waste. However, I know that a number of 1432 authorities who are keen to have enterprise zones are nevertheless concerned about unlimited hypermarke