HC Deb 29 September 1931 vol 257 cc327-36

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 9th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. KELLY

May I not move the Second Reading of the Spiritualism and Psychical Research (Exemption) Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER

The Question is, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. PALING

I want to raise a question regarding the flooding in and around Doncaster. The Minister of Agriculture is probably aware, arising out of information which has already been given to him, that owing to the serious flooding of the River Don a fortnight or three weeks ago, a considerable area has been seriously damaged. While a big area of agricultural land has been flooded and crops lost and farmers put in a serious position, that is not the worst part of the situation. In other places where large populations are living, the flooding varied from nine inches to as much as four feet six inches deep. In four distinct places there were nine inches of water, and in three others from 15 inches up to four feet six inches of water. In the worst places, where about 1,200 people lived, the water remained for a fortnight. A fortnight last Sunday the water began to flow into this particular area, and on Monday night, when it reached its height, there was in some of the houses which were in the lowest situation nearly four feet six inches of water. Palisades in front of the houses were nearly buried in water.

The people had to leave their homes. The local council made the best efforts to get help, and the residents were in the nature of refugees. They had to take refuge among neighbours, and those who could not find refuge in that way had to be accommodated in the schools and in one of the clubs. They were in a terrible plight. Most of their furniture was destroyed and nearly all their food and clothing was lost. Their allotments, which were close to the housing estate, were flooded and most of the produce and live stock destroyed. What we are concerned about is that this thing has been threatened for some years and nothing has been done. In 1923 the county council brought a Bill to this House asking for power to put drainage works into operation. Those of us who were interested in the area which was most affected by subsidence tried to get into the Bill some powers to deal with the particular flooding which was due mainly to subsidence, but it was stated that the powers for which we were asking were much too large for a Bill like that. We were promised, however, that steps would be taken as early as possible to deal with the matter on a big and satisfactory basis.

11.0 p.m.

Alter that, the Royal Commission on Subsidence was set up, and after viewing Doncaster and this area, they came to the conclusion that the problem in that district was of such an urgent character that it could not await the report of the Commission, and they set up another commission to inquire specially into the flooding and draining of this area. This Commission made their recommendations in 1928, and a Bill went through the House and became an Act of Parliament giving powers to set up an area drainage committee in April, 1929. In order to show the serious nature of the business round there, the Royal Commission—the bigger Commission—after reporting that they had some evidence of the amount of coal that will eventually be taken out and the amount of subsidence that will take place, say: Long before that period is reached, however, the existing system of drainage, it is apprehended by some of the witnesses, will be rendered entirely useless. The surface would become either waterlogged or a great lake. Agricultural values will be destroyed, industrial developments will be hindered, workers on the land will be driven from their homes, while the process itself would constitute a serious menace to the public health. The Commission which inquired specially into the Doncaster area stated: In the Doncaster area, where long stretches of country are below or little above the 25 feet contour, the effect of subsidence would be very considerable. It is therefore quite intelligible that the prospect of the development of coal mines in the Doncaster area should have aroused some apprehensions of alarm. It was felt that unless adequate measures were taken there large tracts of land would be in danger not only of losing their agricultural value from waterlogging but of being submerged, and that the same fate would befall roads villages, and farm buildings. I submit to the Minister that that has taken place—not that all places are submerged, but that these floods have shown what is likely to take place at almost any time when the water in the river rises to the top of the banks.

There is another point I want to make clear. The River Don has what is called "spillways" in the Bentley area. As far as I can remember, the last floods in this area were between 30 and 40 years ago. Those spillways were pat in at this particular point, now the Bentley area, because it was thought that when the river reached a certain height the water would come over these spillways, ease the banks, and prevent the possibility of the banks breaking. This area was selected because at that time it was largely agricultural, and it was thought that the flooding over the stillways would do less damage than in any other area. Those particular stillways came into operation, and huge volumes of water poured over them into the area round about Bentley. Previously, before subsidence took place in this area, when water came over these stillways it rested in the area—it was agricultural land largely—and, when the water in the river went down, quickly made its way off the land into the river, with very little damage done except to that agricultural land.

Since that time mines have been sunk round about that neighbourhood, and all the land about there has gone down nearly four feet. In some places in Bentley the land is only 16 feet, or round about that, above sea level. Because of this subsidence a large part of this area is in the shape of a saucer. This time when the water came over the stillways it made its way for a mile or two from the river down into the saucer, put out of action the pumps erected there to deal with the ordinary average rainfall and accumulated to the extent that I mentioned when starting my speech.

It was from one foot three inches to four feet six inches in the worst cases, and it stood there more than a fortnight before it could be got away. It was over a week before any reduction was made in the height of the water there, and last Sunday, when I went down there, I found that in the houses which were worst placed there were still nine to 15 inches of water. That is a very serious position for these people.

Since these stillways were put in not only have mining operations caused subsidence, but huge numbers of people have come to live there. What was previously an agricultural area is now an industrial area, and, if my information is correct, about 1,500 people are rendered entirely homeless, in addition to the fact that at least 1,000 or 2,000 other people had water in their houses for at least a day or two. The Commission suggested that measures might be taken to avoid the misfortune which had occurred, but from that day to this nothing has been done. I put a question to the Minister and he said that there was a small scheme costing £300 which had been submitted to the Department, but it had been turned down. That was such a small scheme that it could not have dealt with the situation. The information which was given to me a fortnight ago was that there had been a big scheme costing £250,000 sent in by the Doncaster Drainage Board and it was waiting for the approval of the. Minister of Agriculture. The Minister subsequently said that the scheme had not been sent in. I understand that the same scheme was recommended by the Commission as long ago as 1928.

The drainage board has been in operation for two and a-half years, and nothing has been done. When the flooding occurred the local council asked for an inspector to be sent down. This was done and the inspector made a report. I suppose that report is confidential but if it is not, and if it is possible to give us any information as to the result of the inspection, I hope the Minister will give it to us tonight. In any event, I want to impress upon the Minister the urgency of the problem. This difficulty is one which has been foreseen for years by everybody with any knowledge of the situation, and what has actually come to pass was prophesied at least 10 or 12 years ago, and it may occur again if there is anything like an abnormal rainfall in that district. If nothing has been done I hope the Minister will see that the powers given to the drainage board are used in the near future, and that something will be done to stop this flooding. There was a suggestion that even if the big scheme which has been referred to was sent in and accepted, it would take such a long time before it came into full operation that if any flooding occurred between now and then that area would be flooded again. Another scheme was suggested to cost between £20,000 and £25,000 which would at least stop flooding in the industrial parts of this area and avoid rendering these people homeless. If the Minister had seen this place as I have, I am sure he would see the urgency of dealing with this question. The picture of desolation in this area is the worst that I have ever seen, and I am sure if he realised the actual position we should have the sympathy of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman can do to suggest a remedy, because I am aware that that is the business of the drainage board, but I think he has powers to get something done and these powers should be used as quickly as possible in order to avoid the recurrence of this trouble.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour)

The hon. Member who introduced this subject has given a very fair resumé of the position. It is, of course, perfectly clear that in this district, owing to a combination of circumstances, very abnormal flooding has taken place. I think, from all the information that I have been able to gather, that such an extensive flooding has not taken place in that district for, certainly, some 30 years. It is one of those cases where a very abnormal rainfall has accentuated the difficulties which exist in the circumstances of the drainage of the waters of the district, and as the hon. Member has said, the difficulties have been further accentuated by the subsidence in the area, due to the mining operations. The hon. Gentleman, of course, is anxious to know what can be done to avoid a recurrence of this trouble and to provide some safeguard against the losses which have been inflicted on the unfortunate people in some of these houses—losses, of course, which are very serious for many of them.

This area of the lower Don with which we are dealing comes within the special drainage district of the Doncaster Area Drainage Board, which was constituted in 1929, and, as I understand, the Drainage Board have been considering for some time a fairly extensive scheme for widening and deepening this river and raising its banks. It is quite clear that this trouble is due, not to breaking of the banks, but to the rising of the water and the overflow from the river, and at the present moment, as far as I understand from the report of the Ministry's inspector, in spite of the serious flooding, there has been no breaking of the banks.

Some time ago, I understand, the Ministry received a resolution from the Doncaster Board in favour of a Government grant being made, either through the Ministry or through the Unemployment Grants Committee, towards the scheme to which the hon. Member referred, which it was estimated, I understand, would cost something in the neighhourhood of £250,000; but the Ministry confined themselves, in the first instance, to awaiting the constitution of the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board under the Land Drainage Act of 1930. I think the reason for that was that the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board have power to make, to any internal board in their area, such as the Doncaster Board, a grant in certain circumstances set out in the Act. As it has turned out, this present disaster occurred before the catchment board, which has only been constituted very recently, could consider such an application, or before a proper application could be made to the Ministry. Unfortunately, in the interim—I will be quite frank with the hon. Member and with the House—we have had to announce, to all drainage boards other than catchment boards, the inability of the Government to make further grants for unemployment relief schemes under the various programmes hitherto put forward, and it is quite clear that the board concerned in this case have not in fact submitted a scheme to the Ministry. As I said in answer to a question on this subject, the only scheme which has been submitted was a minor scheme for the clearing of a tributary system—a small scheme amounting to a sum of £300. The Department went into that very carefully, and, as I understand it, our technical advisers came to the conclusion that it was not a scheme which they could approve. In any case it is clear that it was a very small matter compared with the present scheme.

With regard to the future, it, of courser must be a matter for the board to decide to submit a scheme. I have made it quite clear to the House that I fear that, unless there is some very great emergency, such as a breakage which will be of very serious import, the very limited amount of money which is now available to the Ministry precludes the possibility of our giving a grant of anything like the size that that scheme would entail. But at this stage I do not want entirely to rule out the consideration of any scheme which this board may bring up. It is clear that it would be the duty of the Ministry to consider that matter in all its aspects. It certainly would be proper, in my judgment, that it should be looked at with the greatest care and considered in the light of the views which the board may express. Indeed, I understand that it is possible that certain alternative proposals of a more modest nature than the large scheme may be proposed, but I do not know. The question of making further provision for the overflow of water by building some earth wall or embankment might of course be a matter for consideration, but I am in this position. I do not wish to express a judgment upon a case when have not all the facts before me, and I feel that it ought to be considered in conjunction with the report of the inspector who has inquired into the circumstances. On the other hand, I have to be frank with the House, and indeed with all the catchment boards in the country, on the question of the available finances at the disposal of the Ministry. While one has every sympathy and recognises the damage that has been done, one must realise that this case has been very abnormal and that it may well be that it will not occur in the extensive form that we have seen it this year for a very considerable time. I run afraid it is rather cold comfort that I am holding out to the hon. Member and to those interested in the problem. I shall look most carefully into the matter but Government assistance can only be given, in the very modest circumstances, in those cases where the matter is of very vital importance.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. While I am bound to confess, with all the facts before him, recognising, as he must, that the Royal Commission themselves felt that this area was so different from any other part of the country and was becoming more so with continued coal mining, that apparently he puts that with the exceptional cases we have had in the past few months, it may be due to unfortunate incidents from which we are now suffering but which may not repeat themselves for the next 30 years. I would remind him that that is not the case. Every day, every week, every month, more and more coal is being brought from the bowels of the earth to the surface. The subsidence is taking place almost daily, and the best mining engineer we have in that part of the country said that in the first seam the subsidence will be to the extent of anywhere up to four feet. The position between Sheffield, Doncaster and Goole is as follows: Approximately 18 miles from Sheffield to Doncaster the fall is about three yards per 100; from Doncaster to Goole, a similar distance, the fall is approximately one yard per 100; but with the continued mining subsidence round the Doncaster area, the fall from Doncaster to Goole is going to be nil. There is no possible means of water escaping unless really big schemes are undertaken. I am bound to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding the very real desire for economy, it would be false economy to turn down any scheme for this area which is likely to enable not only mining to continue but the people who perform the function of mining to live with safety in their homes. Therefore, I plead with the right hon. Gentleman not to carry out the terms of the reply that he gave on Monday last to a question, in which he said: The boards must, of course, have regard to the fact that there will be a limited amount of money available and only the most urgent schemes can be proceeded with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th September, 1931; col. 19, Vol. 257.] This matter is really urgent. It is of vast importance to all the mining com- munities in the area and to agriculturists round about. While it may be quite easy to postpone schemes in some parts of the country where they are not so urgent, it would be a crime of the worst form to refuse to concede that measure of financial assistance in this area. As a result of the Royal Commission's recommendations and the Act that was passed in 1929 a board was set up exclusively for dealing with this very special mining subsidence problem round about Doncaster. That is the Doncaster Board as distinct from the Catchment Board, who are dealing with the bigger problem. This particular situation has been in existence for approximately 2½ years and I have received complaints from farmers in this area telling me how their crops have been destroyed as a result of constant flooding, not flooding once every 30 years, but floods quite regularly which leave the poor and often small farmer in doubt as to whether having planted his potatoes or sown his other crops he is going to reap anything or not. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's Department has some responsibility to the farmers in that area. If the boards for which the Department are in some way responsible, having set them up originally, are failing to function, and are failing to provide the farmers in that area with the necessary safeguards, I think the right hon. Gentleman's Department ought to superimpose some influence and ought to inspire them into activity. It is useful work. It is providing for the farmers the only possible safeguard they can have, to get their fields drained and the small schemes undertaken and carried out, so that whatever security may be given will be provided for them as a result of the activities of the Doncaster Board. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman therefore to pay special attention to the big scheme, which is bound to repeat itself as a result of the continuous coal mining, and to the smaller scheme for which the Doncaster Board is responsible. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bring all the pressure to bear that he can and to insist upon the Board doing its duty.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Eleven o'clock.