Travellers' Sites: Why Bourne? Article for Bourne Local 18 July 2007

In twenty wonderful years as Bourne’s MP I have had many requests to take up personal cases, or causes in the interest of the town as a whole. I have always tried to be as helpful as I could.

In all this time no one has ever approached me to say that what the town needed was a base for gypsies or “travellers”.

My initial reaction when I heard that S.K.D.C. was proposing this was disbelief. There are so many useful things that public money might be spent on. And so strong a case for economy to keep the Council Tax down (a matter on which I think that our District Council – and let me be quite fair to a party of which I am no longer a member – has a very good and commendable record.) Why spend money on something for which there is no demand?

If this requirement is being imposed by statute, the District Council should use every legal argument to challenge and resist it.

In any event such an encampment should certainly not be sited in Bourne. It would be much more suitable in Peterborough – or in the parts of the South Kesteven nearest to Peterborough - where there are much more substantial employment opportunities.

The same rules should apply to Travellers on benefit as to everyone else. If Travellers are able-bodied they should be required to seek work. If they are deliberately sited away from significant job opportunities they and their families will be condemned to permanent welfare dependency. That cannot be in their interests – or in my view in those of the rest of the community.

Nor should the normal planning rules be flouted in the case of Travellers. Consent should not be given to concrete over green fields. Nor should a Travellers’ site be located next to a residential area. The only thing that should be built next to existing houses, if anything, is more homes.

I trust that after careful reflection and consultation with the people of Bourne, this proposal will be withdrawn.