FLOODS

HC Deb 15 December 1960 vol 632 cc607-70

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: this House, noting with concern the widespread distress and damage caused by recent floods, and believing them to be a national responsibility, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give all necessary help to those individuals and local authorities particularly affected; to establish a national fund for the relief of distress caused by floods or similar disasters; and to devise adequate measures to prevent flood damage in future". This is the second Supply day which, under our present rules, is made available before Christmas. It is a feature of that procedure that we cannot conveniently ask the House to reach a decision formally on this Motion. For that reason I wish, I hope at the appropriate moment, to secure the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion. That is a procedural matter. I hope, and indeed expect, that the Government will be prepared to take the content of the Motion very seriously indeed, and that they will express their agreement with it.

Our Amendment begins by noting with concern the widespread distress and damage caused by recent floods. That part of the Amendment will, no doubt, commend itself to universal agreement. Flooding has been widespread. More than 30 counties have been affected by the floods that have descended on the country in the last seven or eight weeks. There are some ways in which we can make a statistical or monetary estimate of how much damage they have inflicted. Examples of that damage come to us from all over the country. On the Treforest industrial estate, for example, the damage is estimated at £5 or £6 million and the factories there are likely to be out of production for several weeks. That involves a further loss.

The National Farmers' Union estimates the loss on farms in a number of Welsh counties at over £1 million. The City of Bath has a record of loss totalling over £½ million. If we go on throughout the 30 counties, what total of damage shall we reach? We do not yet know. I believe that it will prove to be a figure well in excess of £30 million. It is well to set a figure such as that against what may be said about the formidable cost of flood prevention works. I do not deny that capital works aimed at preventing flooding are expensive.

However, we have to notice that, although flooding occurs only occasionally, and sometimes unpredictably, when it occurs the bill, even for monetary loss, is a very heavy one indeed. We should notice, too, that the effect of a disaster of this kind can be cumulative. If there is heavy rain at one season of the year it means that for months afterwards the higher ground, which would otherwise have been porous, is saturated. If heavy rain falls again in a few months' time it pours straight down to flood the lower levels.

We are now only in December. The months of January and February are ahead of us and there will possibly be very heavy rainfall during those months. On monetary grounds alone, therefore, we cannot underestimate this disaster. It is not only a question of damage in the sense that can be measured in terms of money. There is the distress, the misery and unhappiness caused when a home and its contents are wrecked. That home and contents are not only something on which money has been spent; they are things on which affection has been lavished. After the flood has subsided there comes the dreary and depressing task of drying out, clearing away the dirt and being left with a home that is sometimes an unhappy parody of what there was before the disaster occurred.

That is the experience of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens at present. In addition, we have to note, with great regret, the loss of life. On this occasion the loss of life was mercifully small, but the House should remember that in many localities that was due solely to the hour of day or night at which the disaster occurred. In more than one place if the disaster had occurred at only a few hours distance in time it would have occurred not in deserted streets and open spaces, but in streets thronged with people. The nation might today have been mourning a very heavy death roll.

We have to bear in mind the fearful suddenness with which such disasters can occur. One moment a street may be normal, with people going about their business. The next moment a torrent of water, 7 ft. or 8 ft. high, may be tearing down that street from end to end. It recalls the disaster described in Jean Ingelow's famous poem: The heart had scarcely time to beat Before the wave was at our feet. The feet had hardly time to flee Before the wave was at the knee, And all the world was in the sea. That is the kind of thing we are discussing vast monetary damage, widespread distress and constant peril that might easily strike again with more terrible results.

In our Amendment we say those are things which are a national responsibility. There is a national responsibility not only because of the bond of common humanity that unites us to those of our fellow citizens in the areas affected, but for a direct and practical reason. There are numerous features of modern life which produce the result that things which are advantageous to some of us increase the peril of flood to others. May I give one example of that. Last summer, I spent my holiday in the Isles of Scilly. As I motored to Penzance I drove over high ground in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. I drove over good, firm roads. The existence of those good, firm roads over land that was once porous and absorbed water is one factor adding to the torrents of water that descend into the lower areas

That single example has to be multiplied many hundreds of times all over the country. Anyone who benefits from the existence of firm roads, from asphalt, from sure foundations to any building in which he is interested, shares some measure of responsibility for what happens in areas that are flooded. The same is true of the drainage of certain fields. The very high degree of success which attends drainage operations in some parts of the country, which saves fields from being waterlogged, means that water is carried more swiftly into rivers which are sometimes incapable of coping with the burden.

The whole nation is concerned in this matter. That is why we are asking the Government to give all the necessary help to those individuals and to the local authorities concerned. In our Amendment we call upon the Government to give all necessary help to … individuals", That is the more important because of the limited help which they can obtain from insurance against flood. In general, insurance against flood is available at rates which people can afford to pay only in districts where floods are extremely improbable. Those who are most likely to need to take that precaution may find that it is either impossible or beyond their means to do so.

I will quote one example which illustrates that. In Exeter, the damage at present is reckoned at £200,000. Only a few days ago it was being estimated in the newspapers at £130,000. A more recent estimate is £200,000. That is a warning to us of how very great the total bill may prove to be compared with any estimates we can make at the moment. The Mayor of Exeter says that probably 90 per cent. of the householders who suffered, and 50 per cent. of the shops which suffered, were not covered by insurance at all.

The total bill of £200,000 for damage in that city alone is probably more than will be raised by the appeal fund for the whole of the County of Devon. It is, therefore, clear that, as between the total loss, on the one hand, and what can be met by insurance or appeals, on the other, there is a large gap which the Government are called upon to fill.

I was glad to notice that the Mayor of Exeter also said that he expects that there will be help from the Government towards the Exeter fund. He went on to say that, even so, he must redouble his appeals to members of the public to contribute to the fund. I do not doubt that other men in similar positions in afflicted areas will say much the same.

That same picture of a gap appears if we refer back to what happened in 1953, when there were flood disasters on the East Coast. The total damage on that occasion was estimated at £50 million, of which insurance met only £5½ million. The fund raised by the Lord Mayor of London met £5 million. The Government provided £2 million. That left a gap of £37 million which either fell on the people who, in the first instance, suffered the damage, or had to be met—we know not to what degree—by what the Minister has called the "fount of private giving".

We shall be told that the Government have given a general assurance that they stand behind what can be met by insurance and local funds. That has been said to us on more than one occasion when we have debated this matter. In that connection, I will draw the attention of the Minister and the House to an item in the Western Morning News of 14th December. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) told the House recently that his constituents were very generally satisfied with the Government assurance that they would come to their help. I am sorry to say that at a meeting of the Taunton Town Council this remark of the hon. Gentleman's was described by one councillor as the most ridiculous statement which could have been made on the flood situation. He and other councillors went on to express a considerable degree of local dissatisfaction and uncertainty.

It is fair to add that at the same meeting of the council the most complimentary and kindly references were made to the hon. Member for Taunton, so, clearly, this remark was not made with any personal malice against him. It was directed not so much against him as against the Government. The speakers at the council meeting went on to express the earnest hope that the Government would make a direct contribution to Taunton's relief fund, as, indeed, the Mayor of Exeter says that they are making to his fund.

Although I could go on quoting particular examples—Taunton, Exeter, and the rest—in the end it is obvious that this is a nation-wide matter. That is why some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have urged the establishment, as is mentioned in the Amendment, of a national fund to deal with the situation which can be created by flood or similar disaster.

We make that suggestion partly for the reason I have already urged, namely, that everyone in the nation shares some degree of responsibility for helping those who are immediately hit by floods; partly because there is, as the figures for 1953 show, an undoubted gap between what can be met by private benevolence, appeals or insurance; and partly because we want to assure all those individuals and families who have to seek help that they can seek it as of right and need not feel that they are asking for charity. These are powerful reasons for the establishment of a national fund of this kind.

I have in mind a fund the moneys of which would be provided substantially by the Government, though it would be open to private individuals of their own good will and benevolence to make contributions of their own to the national fund. It is right that I should take up one or two of the objections which the Parliamentary Secretary made to this proposal in a recent debate. It was suggested that the establishment of such a fund would dry up the fount of private giving. I do not believe that. I do not think that the Government believe it, either. If it was a valid argument, the Minister, in effect, would already have dried up the fount of private giving by the general assurance he has given.

Moreover, when a disaster of this kind occurs people who are more fortunate feel moved to express the sense of their own good fortune and gratitude for their own deliverance by making a contribution. That motive will still remain even if the Government are prepared to fulfil their responsibilities in the way we suggest.

The second objection was that if there was a national fund it would be very difficult to adjudicate on the nature of claims and the extent to which they should be met in every locality. A national fund would not mean that every claim in every part of the country had to be assessed and judged by a central agency. I picture such a national fund making grants to local funds whenever disaster occurred, and it would be for the local people to assess how the money at their disposal could be most fairly and justly applied.

It was suggested, thirdly, that the establishment of a national fund would involve difficulties and formalities of audit, and so on. There is very little in that argument. The pledge that the Government have already made will involve them, quite properly, in a Supplementary Estimate. That will involve a certain amount of clerical and Departmental work. If a national fund was permanently established under agreed rules, there would be, in the long run, a saving of administrative time.

When the Parliamentary Secretary raised these objections it seemed to me that he was giving us merely an interim reply and implying that the Government had not yet made up their mind. I hope that by now they have made up their mind, and that they have made it up in favour of the establishment of a national fund.

Our Amendment mentions help not only to individuals, but to local authorities. On this aspect I will content myself with one question. We have an assurance that any authority which has imposed on it an unreasonable rate burden because of disasters will receive help from the central Government. Can the Minister tell us what will be his criterion of an unreasonable rate burden? Can he relieve some of the local authorities of their present uncertaintly as to whether that undertaking will mean anything practical for them or not?

Beyond the question of helping those who have suffered, there is the perhaps more hopeful question of taking precautions, both in the short term and in the long, against a recurrence of these disasters. I most earnestly hope that neither the Government spokesmen nor any other hon. Member who takes part in this debate will try to ride away from this question by solemnly proving to us that the Government cannot control the weather, and that absolute 100 per cent. safety against any damage from flood would be impossible of attainment.

We all know that, but, if I may say so, the damaging admission made the other day that the Government cannot control the weather will give a shock to the more naïve and devoted admirers of the Prime Minister. Still, the cat is out of the bag, and we all recognise that. Nevertheless, the fact that we cannot absolutely rule out a disaster is not the slightest reason at all for not taking every reasonable precaution against it. No one can say with certainty that there will never be anyone anywhere who will suffer from fire, but that is no reason for neglecting adequate fire precautions.

Let us look at the short-term precautions—designed not actually to prevent flooding, but to mitigate its effects, and to relieve distress. From the experiences of the various areas affected we have certain lessons to learn, and they seem to me to be these. In the first place, by no means all the areas that might be affected by flooding have adequate warning systems. Some have; others appear to be sadly behind.

Secondly, in some cases, agencies that should have been providing for the relief of distress did not have a clear enough idea of their own powers and functions. I am told, for instance, of local officers of the Assistance Board in some areas not being clear about whether they were able to provide fuel to families in need of it, and having to engage in telephone conversations with London to reassure themselves on that point

Thirdly, it is true that in some areas a considerable number of organisations and individuals wanted to take part, but that part of their good intentions sometimes ran to waste because the exact rôle that each organisation was to play was not clear. It would be useful, I suggest, if local authorities in any area likely to be affected by flood had what might be called a flood precautions book; a clear, prearranged scheme for what ought to be done by all the various agencies—public, voluntary and semivoluntary—if disaster like this occurred, starting with those whose duty it was to give people warning, and going on to those whose task it was to minimise the effect of the damage or to relieve distress.

The areas that have handled this matter less successfully might find that they have a good deal to learn from those who have dealt with it more successfully. We want a pooling and a dissemination of knowledge and, in some cases, we want rather more co-ordination between one area and another. Mention was made in one of our earlier debates of areas that badly needed pumping machinery having difficulty in getting it from neighbouring areas whose need was not so great or who, perhaps, had no need at all.

We were also told of cases where the fire brigade was in doubt as to whether it might use its pumping gear when the need for it had been created by flood. There should not be any doubt about that kind of thing. One of the tasks now facing the Government is to review the experiences of the areas affected, and to make sure that failures in warning areas affected, and in the concerting of measures to relieve distress do not recur.

Beyond that, we have to look at what we might call long-term precautions. What can we do to make it, at the very least, less likely that flood will strike at all? I should like to quote a few words spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) in our debate on 14th November, when he said: It is reckoned that in five years out of ten the eastern half of England is short of water. In East Anglia, it is probable that in nine years out of ten there is a water shortage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960: Vol. 630, c. 63.] That is the other side of the medal; the reverse of the problem of flood prevention.

I believe that if one looks at the total rainfall that descends on these islands even in a normal year, or the average over a period of years, our total supply of water is fully equal not only to our present demand, but to anything that it is likely to be in the foreseeable future. That is true of the country as a whole, yet we have this recurring water shortage in the eastern half of England and this recurring liability to flooding in other areas.

That means that we must see that how we deal with the rain that falls on these islands is a national problem—

Mr. F. H. Hayman (Falmouth and Camborne)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, already, the County of Devon has promoted Private Bills to provide against shortages of water in the summer months?

Mr. Stewart

Yes. What my hon. Friend says is very much to the point The National Conference of Parish Councils also urged that the matter should be considered in this way.

More could be done in the provision of reservoirs to serve the function of drawing away water that might otherwise become flood water. It could then be stored, and be made available for areas less fortunate—or unfortunate, as one may view it—in their rainfall. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Hydrological Survey of the Severn, published not long ago by his Department, he will notice a reference to the part that could be played against flood prevention by the provision of more reservoirs in the upper reaches of that river.

There is also the possibility of underground storage of water on a great scale, or of arrangements for the movement of water from the west of the country to the east. On that topic, a very bold scheme was put forward in the 18th July issue of Engineering. Exactly how far we can go in this direction is still unknown territory, but it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to prevent the repeated occurrence of water shortages in eastern England and floods due to excessive rainfall in other parts of the country.

It can be done only if we look on a national scale at the conservation of water and the prevention of flooding. That is why river boards, dealing with the matter river by river—and sometimes, I think, more interested in problems of agricultural drainage than in the prevention of floods among large centres of population—are not equal to this task, and will not be equal to it even with the passage of the present Land Drainage Bill. Indeed, I am told that when hon. Members in the Standing Committee now dealing with that Measure have tried to introduce anything about flood prevention they have been assured that that is out of order.

On this national matter we may be told that we have to await the Report of the sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee. It is rather wryly that we remember that for the three years from 1952–55 the work of the Central Advisory Water Committee was suspended for what were called reasons of economy. If that economy had not been made, we might be a good deal nearer to a solution of the problem of flood prevention which has, on this one occasion, cost us upwards of £30 million.

In summary, then, what we are asking for is, first, better advance planning and co-ordination of local measures to warn against flooding, to mitigate loss, and to relieve distress. Secondly, we ask for the undoubted recognition, through the establishment of a national fund, of the whole nation's responsibility towards those who have suffered. Thirdly, we ask, in the long term, recognition of the fact that a national policy for water rather than consideration river by river could very greatly contribute to the twin problems of water conservation and flood prevention.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I should like, first, to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate; secondly, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, who knows that I have another Parliamentary duty to perform, and am unable to hear his reply; and, thirdly, to the Opposition Front Bench for bringing the very serious and distressing flood situation, which requires urgent treatment, before the House in this way today.

In the early hours of Sunday, 4th December, the County of Montgomery and its people suffered the greatest disaster that has ever been known, not only in living memory but in the records of that county. The county is purely agricultural. Almost all our people depend upon agriculture, and even in the small market towns, the shops and the markets and everything else depend upon agricultural prosperity and the agricultural population.

It is a county which has a very high agricultural production, and that is probably due to the fact that it is the main county through which the River Severn flows, right from its source at the southern end of the county on Plinlimmon. The river then flows northwards right through the county, and when it reaches the northern border turns eastwards into Shropshire and then flows southwards through Shropshire, Worcester and so on down to the Bristol Channel.

The Severn Valley is noted for its high agricultural value. It is certainly the best agricultural land in Wales, and could probably be claimed to be the best agricultural land in the whole of Great Britain. Therefore, the standard of agriculture is very high indeed. It has been noted for many years for its pro duction of some of the finest agricultural animals that are now so popular elsewhere, but which have originated there.

People are accustomed to floods in the Severn Valley. Certainly, the river does rise rapidly, but never has it risen either so rapidly or so high as it did on that Sunday morning. Our warning point is about one-third of the way down the course which the river takes, at Caersws Bridge, about five miles from Newtown, and usually the danger point is reached when the river rises to 8 ft. above normal at that bridge.

We have a very good warning system, but I suppose that because these warnings have been sent out and disasters such as occurred on that Sunday morning have not happened, people have, unfortunately, taken a chance; but there were very serious consequences to taking any chances on that Sunday morning. The river rose very rapidly on Saturday afternoon until, about midnight, it had reached very nearly 12 ft. above normal.

A particularly unfortunate circumstance from the agricultural point of view was that most of the animals were already in their buildings and, of course, the people themselves were asleep. The total population is only about 43,000 and the number of houses is between 7,000 and 8,000. That morning 706 houses, farmhouses, shops, and business premises were flooded. Forty-one families had to be evacuated, and it was very difficult to get them to leave their homes. Three have been permanently evacuated because the houses have become dangerous.

The figures of the agricultural losses are really appalling. In all, 360 cattle, 965 sheep, 292 pigs, 4,800 head of poultry, six horses and one dog, which, I suppose, was tied in its kennel, were lost.

The mere recital of the figures shows how serious was the position, but some of the farmers have lost their very all. There is one in particular, who was very proud of his farm, which is not far from the English border and is very near to the junction of the main tributary with the Severn. His Red House farm is very well known, as he is himself. During the small hours, he lost 80 cattle, about 120 sheep, 200 turkeys and all his fowls. He was left absolutely helpless, most of his machinery being ruined.

That is on the farming side, but there was also a very serious tragedy in Newtown. When the flood occurred above the town, the river carried away with it, of all things, telegraph posts, which were brought down through the main street of the town, swinging from side to side and just sweeping all the shop fronts away. One man lost all his savings and all that he had put into working up his business, and that meant a loss to him of about £12,000.

Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, so many of these people have not troubled to insure. There is one particularly striking case of that, because on the previous Monday, naturally, all the talk at the agricultural markets in the towns was of agricultural losses incurred owing to foot-and-mouth disease. One of the farmers on that Monday felt the danger of the situation and insured against the risk of foot-and-mouth disease. He was asked by the insurance people if he would not insure also against flood, but, unfortunately, he said, "No. "Within five days, the flood had come and disaster hit him.

I pay my tribute to the local people. I mention, first, the police. As far as they possibly could, they did everything to warn people and then, when the disaster did strike, in the little market towns, the villages and farms they were unsparing in their help. So were all those who escaped the disaster, but I pay the greatest tribute of all to the women, especially those in the villages and homes which escaped the disaster because they arranged—and they are still doing it, day by day—that bus loads of them should go to the distressed area and help. Today, they are still doing their utmost to clear up the mess and swab it all away. They try to bring comfort and relief as well by taking food and all that is needed for the families there.

A fund was set up and, as one knows, there has been an immediate and ready response. I am glad to think that this will be more than a local fund. I understand that an arrangement has been made for it to be a national Welsh fund, operated from Cardiff by the Lord Mayor of Cardiff. Whatever we collect from Montgomery will go into the common fund, quite rightly, because disaster has hit Treforest and other places, too. But this fund will be but a tiny percentage of what is needed to cover the terrible loss which people have suffered. Can hon. Members imagine the circumstances of a man such as the one I have mentioned, who has lost his all? He is about my age, and now, after working hard all his life, he faces the future with everything gone.

This is, therefore, a national problem requiring national treatment. I take housing first. I hope that the Government will accept not only that they must be generous, but that they owe a duty to these people which they can neither ignore nor avoid. What is more, whatever help these people receive will be refunded to the Government in the value of the produce which they will be able to bring forth in a very few weeks. I know that the Government are already acting in this matter. Whenever there is a shortage of resources in a local council to give help where it is needed, the Government have at once, almost by return of post, come to its assistance. But I want to know from the Minister what is the general scheme for help. These continuous floods which are hitting so many parts of our country concern us all, everywhere. We ought to have a national plan to deal with them.

More important, perhaps, are plans for the future. As I have explained, the Severn does flood, and it floods almost anywhere. The worst I have known prior to the present floods occurred thirty years ago. Fortunately, I was then at home and able to help. All we could do was to send a telephone message, in response to which two boats were sent, so that two of us could row along what was then a sea—much more than a lake—miles long, going through the various places affected. A similar thing had to be done this time, but, fortunately, some provision has been made since then and help was available through Welshpool.

The experience of the flooding Severn extends over centuries. I believe that the embankments along either side of the river were started in early Norman times. They are put well back from the river, but, of course, the river keeps changing its course, moving nearer to one and further from the other. So far as we know, an effort was made to repair them and put them right in Tudor times again in Cromwellian times and, last of all, at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. The embankment has fallen into a sad state of repair. Very often, gaps have been made, and these add to the trouble. When the river rises, the water goes through a gap and then, of course, it cannot return to the river itself because the embankment stands between it and the ordinary river bed.

The first thing I ask is that a survey be made of the embankments to see what is needed and to put matters right. Incidentally, why is it that the very excellent Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill is confined to Scotland? I see in the Explantory Memorandum that The Bill enables county councils and town councils in Scotland to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of flooding of land other than agricultural land". I regret the addition of the words "other than agricultural land", and I should like to see them struck out.

As I see it, it is an excellent Bill and there is no reason why it should not be extended to agricultural land, the duty being placed upon county councils and other councils to undertake responsibilities in flood prevention. I agree, however, that this would not deal with such a situation as arose this month. The powers of local authorities under such a Bill would relate only to the ordinary floods such as we have once or twice during the year.

What is needed is something far greater, and I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Fulham stress this. The strongest tributary of the Severn is the Vyrnwy, which enters the Severn just at the point before it crosses over into England at the Shropshire border. In the early 1880s, the Vyrnwy was blocked by the Liverpool Corporation and Lake Vyrnwy was created. This has had a very salutary effect in reducing the flooding of the Vyrnwy, which is the strongest stream flowing into the Severn all the way from its source to the point where it reaches the Bristol Channel.

In about 1946 or 1947, this matter had been very much in the minds of our local people, especially the county council. I led a deputation from the county council here to meet three Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who was then Minister of Fuel and Power, the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who was then Minister of Health, and Mr. Tom Williams, who was Minister of Agriculture. We put before them the idea that they should make a survey of the sources of the Severn. There are two strong streams which ultimately become the Severn. One is known as the Severn, which rises up in Plinlimmon, and the other is known as the Clywedog.

Our proposal was that those rivers should be blocked in the same way as the Vyrnwy had been. Of course, the main idea in the minds of my people, who were all agriculturists, was the prevention of flooding, but we went on to say that, if that were done, we believed, though we had not the expert information available to the Government, that there would be sufficient water to supply any of the needs of South Wales or the industrial areas of England.

Without a doubt, Mr. Bevan was very interested. He asked a great number of questions about the size of the lake and the volume of water which could be conserved. We pointed out that the conservation of water and the containing or disposal of surplus waters such as one has when floods come are very closely connected. If water is conserved in this way, one goes a long way towards preventing disasters such as have happened.

We asked, also—this was why we were seeing the Minister of Fuel and Power—whether it would be possible for the surplus water coming from the two lakes, Which would be large lakes, very much larger than Lake Vyrnwy, to be used for providing electric power. There was then our case to the Minister of Agriculture.

I know that the matter was looked into, but not very thoroughly, because there were more urgent things at that time which required the attention of the Government. Also, I expect that the amount of money involved was too great. I hope that the present Minister will look into the matter again. He has done a great deal with regard to the Severn Conservancy, and he is soon to receive its report. It may very well be that the answer is to conserve the water of both the Clywedog and the Severn.

I urge upon the Government that this is a matter which brooks of no delay. We do not know when such a disaster will occur again. As I have said, the last major one was thirty years ago, but this winter we may again be in trouble. I ask the Government to treat this matter as one of extreme urgency.

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke)

The Government welcome this debate. A terrible tragedy has struck the country in recent weeks. Unlike some of the great national emergencies we have known in the past, this has not been localised in one spot or one area, but has spread over dozens of counties. Instead of striking all on one night, as with the high tide on the East Coast, it has continued over a period—heavy rain in one place one day and in another place the next day. It has struck here and there, but not everywhere. We are not out of danger yet.

I cannot accept the estimate of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that £30 million worth of damage has been done. However, I do not wish to quarrel with him about that, because no one can say what the amount of damage will be by the end of the winter if this extraordinary wet weather continues throughout the winter months.

I believe that few people can fully visualise the personal tragedy which floods involve unless they have been into a house and seen that dark mark some feet up on the wall and the filth which has been left, as in the Rhondda, where the swollen river brought down quantities of small coal and coal dust which it had washed from tips beside its banks. One is filled with admiration for the people who, often with foolhardy courage, stayed in their houses although they were warned to leave, and for the exemplary patience of those who have gone back to their houses and set to work diligently to make their befouled houses happy and clean homes again.

I do not take this Amendment as a censure on the Government. Indeed, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham for the words with which he opened his speech. What is said in the Amendment is almost wholly in line with Government policy. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will say something about the national fund when he winds up the debate, but I believe that I can serve the House best by describing what has been done, what is being done and what will be done concerning flood prevention, the work of local authorities, and the rescue action which has been taken both voluntarily and in official capacities wherever floods have occurred.

In seeking to sum up the present position as I see it, may I say that I believe that there are lessons that we can and should learn from this extraordinary weather and its effects, and I shall be listening to the remainder of the debate in the hope of hearing further suggestions from hon. Members on both sides which can be adopted either centrally or locally. We have already a vast amount of experience in dealing with national disasters of this kind, but we should always be adding to our knowledge, learning the lessons and putting them into practice.

Mr. Hayman

Would not the right Gentleman agree that one difficulty in assessing the total result and cost of the floods is the dry rot which inevitably will occur in hundreds, if not thousands, of homes and the full effects of which, perhaps, will not be seen for a year or two?

Mr. Brooke

That is one reason why I am extremely anxious that people whose homes have been flooded should seek the best advice locally to guard against the risk of dry rot.

The cause of all the local disasters has been the weather. The Meteorological Office advises me that we suffered a heavier rainfall over the country as a whole in the months from July to the end of November than has been known in any year since the records were started in 1727. In Hereford, the river rose higher than at any time since 1795. But this continuous rainfall over the country has not been the whole trouble. It has been aggravated in certain places by torrential storms for short periods.

For example, the other day seven inches of rain fell in three days on the Brecon Beacons. This was on country already saturated with water, so that a very large proportion of additional rainfall runs off at once into the streams and rivers instead of being absorbed by the ground. In no way do I wish to be an alarmist, but I think that it is right to say that, with the soil in this state, there are bound to be further dangers if heavy rain recurs this winter. It is everyone's bounden duty to be alive to those dangers and to heed any local warnings which may be given.

One of the reasons why loss of life has been so small during the floods is that the local alert systems have been greatly improved. In some instances I have heard that people, although warned, would not leave their homes. That is courageous, but unwise. I entirely agree that everywhere, locally, the responsible authorities should check their warning systems and not leave it until the floods come.

Responsibility for flood prevention rests locally with the 32 river boards and the two conservancies—the Thames Conservancy and the Lea Conservancy. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) asked why we could not have a Flood Prevention Bill for England and Wales to match the Scottish Bill. The answer is that the Scottish Bill gives to Scottish local authorities powers which are already possessed by the river boards in England and Wales, which, year by year, have been stepping up their capital expenditure on land drainage and major flood prevention works. There is, however, an enormous amount more to be done.

Flood prevention has suffered through the interruption of war. Just as house building is always brought to an end by war, flood prevention work is another service for which no resources are to spare during wartime. That has added to the backlog. After a nil expenditure during the war, it was not until the 1950s that capital expenditure for flood prevention work became substantial. It is now running at the rate of over £6 million a year. The programmes forecast a steady increase in that sum.

I know for a fact that every river board is examining its programmes afresh in the light of what has happened recently to see whether any of them need to be enlarged or expedited. The river boards can consult the Ministry of Agri culture at any time about their programmes, projects or problems. The initiative lies with the river boards. It is not the case that the river boards have to bear the whole expenditure. In fact, of the £6 million a year which I have mentioned, more than half is being met by Government grants.

I am sure it is right that this work should be done locally. I am sure that it should rest with the local people in the first instance to study what requires to be done and to formulate their proposals. They should be able to look to London or to Cardiff for advice, guidance, expert assistance and money, but the Government have no sympathy with the view, which I have seen expressed in some newspapers, that all of this should be centralised in London and that all the work should be planned from London and carried out at long range from London with the local people not being brought into it. As the House knows, once we embark on a system of 100 per cent. Exchequer grants, that is what happens. The present machinery works well, although, I say quite frankly, there is a vast amount more to be done.

The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Fulham referred to the relationship between flood prevention and water conservation. This is an extremely important matter, but it is not an easy one. Reservoirs may be needed for both purposes. For flood prevention the reservoirs need to be kept empty and for water conservation they need to be kept full. Moreover, for water conservation purposes we might well need the reservoirs in one part of the river and for flood prevention in another part. I entirely agree that the two need to be studied together. There is, however, no easy solution.

I could not accept that the study of water conservation has been postponed for three years by a temporary interruption of the work of the Central Advisory Water Committee. The whole question of conservation has been made much more urgent in recent years by the rapidly increasing demand for water and, in particular, by the consumption of water by farmers for irrigation purposes, which is completely new. I took action in asking my Central Advisory Water Committee to report to me specially on these conservation questions. I have received an interim report from the Committee and am expecting a further report next year. I cannot say what it will embody. The Committee will be examining the matter nationally. It might recommend new legislation. If so, the Government will seriously consider what the Committee says.

Meanwhile, although one or two hon. Members at different times have said that the matter must be looked at nationally, I would say that it needs to be looked at nationally and locally, too. Each river basin has to be examined individually. I have had two hydrological surveys carried out by my technical officers, one of the Great Ouse and one of the Severn. Both surveys have been published. Six other hydrological surveys of other rivers are in progress.

The case of the Severn is particularly urgent from every point of view. Apart from the Severn's liability to flood, it is also known that fresh demands on the Severn for water abstraction are imminent and it is important that Severn water shall be used in the right way. Consequently, I have been successful in securing that all the bodies who are concerned with Severn water shall sit down together in a working party under the chairmanship of one of my officers. They are making a detailed study of the problems of the Severn in the light of the hydrological survey.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of strengthening the river banks. That is a responsibility of river boards. When I mentioned that £6 million capital expenditure a year was being incurred, I might have added that the river boards are, in addition, spending £3 million a year on maintenance works of various kinds.

In all this, the Government fully accept that we are not yet wholly on top of the problem of controlling river waters both for the prevention of floods and for the conservation of water so that there may be at all times a proper flow. I must, however, point out what nobody has yet mentioned, that it is not only flooding and conservation that must be taken into account. With many of the rivers one has also to take into account navigation, fisheries, industrial demands on the river water, the problem of pollution of the river and amenity aspects generally. This is all extremely complex. I assure the House that we intend to go forward studying the rivers in order of priority of urgency one by one and, in addition, prepared to examine in the light of the Committee's report, which will shortly be submitted to me, whether further legislation is required.

During the past two years, we have had the extraordinary fortune of the driest four months for centuries and the wettest four months for centuries. We must learn every lesson we can, both at the engineering level and at the legislative and administrative levels. As I have said, the Government will be happy to give careful thought to every suggestion that is made by hon. Members in the debate.

The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the position of local authorities. I have been discussing hitherto the preventive policy. Now, let us consider what has to be done in the way of remedial or rescue work when bad flooding occurs. I will come later to the position of individual sufferers. The local authorities may have to carry out work of one kind or another—restoration or construction, for example—as well as rescue work. All this will cost money. For a considerable part of it, grants are already available under ordinary legislation. If, for example, a road is swept away, the highway authority can apply for the ordinary highway grant. If the force of the waters renders houses unfit for further habitation the housing authority can obtain slum clearance subsidy, and so on. In addition, because the total expenditure of the authority will rise, those authorities which are recipients of rate deficency grant will be likely to get a supplement to their own funds automatically by the operation of rate deficiency grant.

I told the House at the beginning of the Session that if, after allowing for all the grants which accrue through one statutory provision or another, a local authority finds that it has to entertain expenditure which would place an unreasonable burden on its ratepayers, it can make a claim for special financial assistance and the Government will sympathetically consider any such claim. The House will realise that that stage is not reached for a long time. It is not reached until the bills have come in and the calculations have been made. Financially, the task of helping the individual sufferer is one that comes much more quickly.

Mr. Arthur Probert (Aberdare)

Would not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific? To give an example, a river which is not designated—in other words, has not been taken over by a river board—has now raised its bed 3 ft. or 4 ft. In consequence, the local authority has to take emergency action. How can the right hon. Gentleman assist such a local authority?

Mr. Brooke

It is quite simple. If it appears that work which it is necessary for the local authority to do, when it has been paid for and all grants have been taken into account, will throw an unreasonable burden on the ratepayer, the local authority can count on special financial assistance.

The hon. Member for Fulham asked me to define "unreasonable". Clearly, there can be no simple definition of that. One has to take into account the total amount of money involved, the product of a 1d. rate in that area, and, in addition, the level of the rates, because what might be a wholly unreasonable expenditure for a small rural district council to bear might well be within the means of the City of London or the City of Westminster. One has to examine this on an ad hoc basis. I assure the House that I have no intention of adopting a skinflint attitude. The responsibility will fall on me. I have given a pledge to the House and I wish to fulfil it faithfully.

I have explained so far about flood prevention work and local authority remedial work and I want to make it clear that nothing is being held up, to the best of my knowledge, in either field. Flood prevention is not being held up waiting for the report of a sub-committee, and local government remedial work need not be held up by financial fears—because of the pledge I have given.

We now come to the most human question of all, that of help to the individual. This comes, quite naturally, in the very forefront of the Amendment. I have made it my business to obtain reports from all the flooded parts of the country about what has been happening. These reports, though they tell of a terrible amount of human tragedy, nevertheless are reassuring in that, generally speaking, all the services seem to have worked together with an extraordinary smoothness and efficiency. I would not claim for one moment that there has been no difficulty anywhere. There has, of course, been the momentary hold-up here and there through some individual not quite knowing what his powers were and wishing to ring up authority.

The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the National Assistance Board. I have heard, contrary to what he said, much appreciation of the swiftness with which the Board has gone into action, and I know that it is the policy of the Board to give its regional controllers and local managers very wide discretion at times like these, on the general principle that the one thing that matters is that urgent individual need must be met at once.

But, of course, when the tragedy of floods comes the local authority has to co-ordinate the relief work. I should like to pay tribute, and I know that I can do so in the name of the whole House, to local authorities and their welfare services, to the police, the fire service, the Civil Defence service, and to the Service Departments, which, in some cases, have been extremely helpful in rushing equipment to the spot, and to all voluntary organisations, the Women's Voluntary Service, first and foremost, and to many others, including the Salvation Army. Everybody who has been available has come in to help. It has been a most remarkable tribute to the resourcefulness and readiness of the British people, without many orders, to come and act in co-operation and get on with the job when there are people needing to be helped.

Mr. Hayman

And the neighbours.

Mr. Brooke

Yes, and the neighbours. Even some of those who suffered themselves have been quick to go round to help those who have suffered worse.

Wonderful work has been done by the emergency meal services. To take one example, in Bath, which is not an enormous place, no fewer than 3,000 hot meals were served In one day. The food flying squads of the Ministry of Agriculture have been in action in various places. We really have shown, as a nation, how it is possible to rally to help. The rest centres have been open where necessary and it has been found most important to make maximum use of all the drying equipment, on large or small scale, that could be obtained to dry out houses and make them habitable again. According to my reports, there has been very little delay in getting all the services to work and in seeing that people are helped.

In the reports that have come in to me there have been far more expressions of gratitude for the way in which everybody has helped in an emergency than criticisms that everything has not gone quite right. Clearly, a job like that, whatever the form of the emergency, must be tackled first by people on the spot. I had let it be known through what I had said in the House that any local authority that was in difficulty could ring up the Ministry and we would endeavour to give a reply, if not over the telephone then within a few hours.

I am very glad that many local authorities have taken advantage of this. Indeed, collaboration between local government and central government as well as with the voluntary services has been so perfect that I have come to think that we may have some lessons to learn from this, too, and we might see whether we can put it into practice over a wider field.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

May I, with some knowledge of the aftereffects of flooding, ask my right hon. Friend a question? Where this drying equipment has been brought into play I have found, on many occasions, that six months or nine months later, when the householder thinks that all the problems have been solved and the difficulties put right, it is discovered that from under the floodboards smells develop in the house. The floorboards have to be pulled up to get rid of the smells. If this happens this time, will the local authority and the central Government feel that they should shoulder some of the financial responsibility in helping these people? The expense then will be far greater than the cost of the natural drying-out of the house now.

Mr. Brooke

I quite agree, and that is why I said earlier that local authorities should give advice to people about the possible dry rot that may develop if they do not attend to the drying properly.

Flood relief funds have been opened in most cases forthwith by the local authorities. That is the natural and proper thing to do. Do not let us argue about the meaning of "charity" and whether it is a good or a bad word. Whatever we did in the House I am certain that such funds would be established straightaway locally and people would subscribe to them. Indeed, many people among those who have not suffered from the floods want to subscribe as a measure of thank offering. They may not have suffered physically themselves, but want to give up something for the benefit of the victims.

What matters most is that all financial and other needs shall be met without delay, and I believe that we have achieved that. We have to see, therefore, that there is sufficient money in all these funds. For that reason, I said, and have repeated, that the Government stand ready to supplement any local funds which do not suffice to meet all the proved distress in the area.

The hon. Member for Fulham made reference to some remarks at a meeting of Taunton Borough Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) may have something to say about that. I have checked since the hon. Member spoke, and have ascertained that Taunton Council has been assured more than once that it can have money from us instantly the moment it asks for it, but the council has not yet asked for it.

A number of other localities have asked for it, however, and I want to tell the House what has been done. The Devon and Exeter floods were the first, and £50,000 has been sent, in response to a request, to Devon and Exeter. A sum of £25,000 has been sent to Bath Flood Relief Fund in response to a request; £20,000 has been sent to Horncastle; £5,000 to Maidstone; £5,000 to Williton; £4,000 to Newport, Isle of Wight; and £100,000 to the Lord Mayor of Cardiff's Fund for Wales and Monmouthshire.

In every case, when we have received a request, either by letter or telephone, the cheque has been posted forthwith. Any local fund which is in difficulties and has claims which it is unable to meet can act in the same way apply to us and the money will be sent at once.

I do not mind whether one calls this a national fund or not. My concern is that it shall work. It is working, and I trust that we will not divert too much of our energies from making sure that the machine does work into what strike me as being rather theoretical arguments about whether this fulfils all the requirements of a national fund.

I have been asked once or twice: why did not the Government say that they would do this on a for £ basis? The answer is that though that might be generous in some instances, it would not be sufficiently generous in others. A small place may have relatively scanty resources and may not be able to raise a big fund, though it needs the money. We do not want to be restricted by rules of that kind. We want to be sure of supplying the money when it is asked for.

We have informed all local authorities concerned of What our opinion is on the Lord Mayor's rules, which were carefully drawn up in connection with the administration of the big fund after the East Coast floods of 1953. I have sent one of my financial experts round to a large number of local authorities to help and advise them about any financial points on which they wish guidance.

The War Damage Commission has lent a number of its assessors, who have great experience in dealing with claims, and I have heard from several quarters how valuable it has been to have these professionally trained people on the spot to give advice to local authorities and the administrators of funds about practical questions of administration, and to give help and advice to applicants about putting in their claims.

We made plans to let all applicants know how they could get claim forms. May I say, in passing, that farmers who have suffered losses, if they send in claims, are having them transmitted to the regional controllers of the Ministry of Agriculture, and they are being dealt with in that way. There are, of course, various agricultural grants which may be available under existing legislation or practice to assist with the rehabilitation of farms.

The money that my Department is supplying to supplement various funds is being advanced out of the Civil Contingencies Fund for the moment, but a Supplementary Estimate will be required and will be submitted to the House. It will appear eventually as a Grant-in-aid on my Department's vote.

The first task is to make sure that any victim has food and fuel, and drying and cleaning material. The victims want as quickly as possible to get back to their old life and to carry it on as they have known it and enjoyed it. Only then do they start counting up their loss in money terms, and only after that will some of them, at any rate, be able to put in claims on their insurers.

A great many people who have suffered have been found not to be insured. On the other hand, a great many have insurance claims, and I am advised that for the losses through the first floods—the ones that occurred some time ago in Devon and elsewhere—more than 20,000 insurance claims have come in and that the insurers have already met over half of them.

The larger claims from individuals will take some time to prepare and to check, but all the smaller claims are being dealt with, I believe, with the utmost swiftness through these local funds, and I have taken action today—I hope that the House will approve—of making sure that the Press throughout the country has the addresses where these local funds are being conducted.

It has been suggested to me that there may be numbers of people—for instance, Welshmen outside Wales and Men of Kent or Kentish Men—who live some distance from Wales or Maidstone and do not know at the moment where to send money, but would like to help. I hope that the Press will give publicity to all that.

That is the general story which the Government have to tell. Floods are a terrible tragedy. I have indicated what remedial and preventive action is at hand. Frankly, I can see very few ways in which the rescue machinery could have worked more smoothly, though I am not saying that it was perfect. Everywhere, it was very largely due to local initiative with the Government standing ready to help.

I have made it my business to make sure, as far as I could, that the central Government's machinery was working on oiled wheels. If the Opposition's Amendment censured the Government, I should ask them to explain how the arrangements they would have made would have brought aid and succour more quickly to the victims. I do not think that their arrangements would have done that, and I do not think that it matters very much whether one calls this a national fund or not. One virtue of this arrangement is that the areas needing help from the Exchequer have automatically defined themselves. This has been where the civic authorities have thought the disaster sufficiently serious to open a local fund. If they have, then the Government stand behind them. If they have not, then that is at least some indication that they do not consider the emergency to have been abnormal.

My desire is to ensure that there is the smoothest possible co-operation between the central Government and local government and that there is sympathetic administration of all these funds. I shall listen to the rest of the debate with the greatest attention. The Government recognise the danger as a continuing one and that we shall not be out of the wood, or out of the wet, until the dry weather of next summer comes. [Laughter.] It may be that I am too hopeful, but I think that we shall dry off a bit in the summer.

I trust that it will appear, as the result of the debate, that if there are differences between us, they are not deep cut. They are surface differences, because I am sure that as compared with any small differences we might have, none of them counts against the unity of the House in sympathy with the victims and in united tribute to every man, woman and child who, often in conditions of hardship, exhaustion and sometimes danger, has rushed to the help of fellow citizens who have been hit by disaster.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies (Rhondda, East)

I have been much taken by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and some of the fears of Rhondda have been allayed by that speech, but not all of them. For most of last week I spent most of my time among the people in my constituency who have been seriously affected by flooding and by landslides because of the excess of water. I need hardly tell the House that what is left after floods of this character is a tragic sight.

I pay my tribute to the local authorities and the voluntary organisations for the manner in which they have met this great difficulty. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson), whose constituencies are adjacent to mine and who feel as I do but who may not get a chance to speak in the debate. Indeed. I am sure that I speak for all those Members whose areas have been affected by the floods.

I could tell the House of many extreme cases of distress and the efforts of many organisations to render all possible assistance. The Western Mail of today tells of Red Cross workers from Cardiff. Swansea and Maesteg who sent to Trehafod £3,000 worth of household utensils, blankets, carpets and so on which were badly needed in that area. That is an indication of the spontaneous response from many organisations in the Principality.

I could relate many harrowing experiences. That I do not do so is because I am mindful of the fact that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, want to speak. However, for a few moments I want to deal with some matters about which I have been gravely disturbed and which are causing much anxiety in my constituency and, I assume, in many other areas. There are two problems in Rhondda. In some parts, such as Gelli and Tonpentre in Rhondda, West and Trehafod in my constituency, there are wide areas where houses were flooded to a considerable depth, where the occupants sometimes had to be rescued by boats and taken to rest centres which the local authorities immediately set up. All that was a temporary measure and was successfully completed with the co-operation of both the victims and those who sought to give assistance.

Some days later, after the floods had subsided and families were in the process of being rehabilitated in their own homes. I visited one of the affected areas at Trehafod in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. That was last Thursday. I then had my first experience of the red tape and niggardly attitude which is so often associated with Government Departments. I accept what the Minister has said about the liaison between those Departments in general and the people concerned with flooding. However, I have to criticise officials of the National Assistance Board, divisional and area.

There were homes saturated with water and people trying to get back to normal and yet, because of the niggardliness of those officials, being refused a meagre two hundredweights of coal to dry out their homes. Some local officials acted more humanely and ultimately the difficulty was surmounted, but other officials were asking questions to decide whether people deserved that small ration of coal. There were men who had lost their working boots in the flood and who wanted to get back to work and who needed a small grant so that they could buy a new pair of boots. They found the attitude of the National Assistance Board's officials frustrating. I hope that those things will be adjusted if there are ever any floods in future.

I call attention to the circular which the Minister sent to local authorities. It said: First, as a first-aid measure the National Assistance are accepting claims to meet the immediate personal needs of people affected by flooding. If further information is required local authorities should consult the manager of the local office of the National Assistance Board. The circular is dated 8th December, but the floods occurred in Rhondda on the night of the 3rd-4th December. What instructions were issued immediately to the area offices of the National Assistance Board to deal with this emergency? Secondly, what instructions, if any, have these people to deal with such an emergency? The need for an overall plan to deal with such emergencies is apparent to anybody who witnessed the early confusion.

I would like to quote again from this document. It says: The losses by individual householders of personal businesses should be met in the first place from insurance in so far as an insurance policy applies, and in the second place from an appeal fund. In so far as voluntary contributions to such a fund are insufficient to meet all needs, the Government has undertaken to meet the difference between the amount available in the appeal fund and the need. In view of this it is not considered necessary for local authorities to make money available for this purpose from the general rate fund. Are we to take it from that that if a policy of insurance is held by a householder he will not be entitled to get any assistance either from the voluntary appeal fund or from the Government? What if his losses are far in excess of his coverage? Is he to be penalised for trying to meet such an emergency himself and falling short of his needs? If that is the case, surely it is totally unfair and unreasonable.

Mr. Brooke

Might I answer that point straight away? So far as immediate needs are concerned, there can be no question of asking people whether they have an insurance policy or are likely to be reimbursed for their immediate personal needs. However, when it comes to sending in a financial claim later, it is reasonable, because these are funds which have been provided either voluntarily or by the taxpayers, to ask whether the individual has an expectation of getting reimbursement in full from his insurance company.

Mr. Richard Kelley (Don Valley)

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by immediate personal needs?

Mr. Davies

In the next paragraph of the circular the Government were, to my mind, saying that they intended to evade what surely should be their responsibility by partially hiding behind the contribution to the Lord Mayor's Fund in Wales and other voluntary funds in other parts of the country. I am glad to have had some assurance on that score from the Minister.

I am sure that no hon. Member would like to see the spirit of giving in times of stress such as this done away with, but we must have some regard for the immensity of the need at the present time and the amount of money which funds of this kind usually attract. I have in mind that recently we had a national fund in Wales because of a pit disaster. It has taken six or seven months to amass £100,000. I am afraid that if we rely too much upon the local aspect for these funds we will not be doing our duty.

In the final paragraph of the circular to which I have referred local authorities are advised by the Ministry not to make money available for relief from the general rate fund. I am sure that that will be greatly appreciated by most local authorities, and in particular by local authorities such as Rhondda where the rate burden is already extremely high. I was pleased to hear the Minister say today that these considerations would be borne in mind when the payment to local authorities began. On 2nd November, 1960, the Minister referred to what would happen in the case of local authorities who had an unreasonable burden placed on them and on their rates. I contend that, in any authority, like Rhondda, where the rate burden is so high at the moment, it would be unreasonable to ask for an increase on the present rate. That is where the Minister and I would probably differ, on the interpretation of the word "unreasonable". I hope that the Minister who replies will give us his opinion about that.

Much will depend on the speed with which claims are met and decided, and the generosity and humanity with which they are decided by the responsible assessors. One thing which worries me is the reliance on the voluntary appeal fund. I am pleased to know that the south-west area of the National Union of Mineworkers has decided to contribute £3,000 to this fund. It has also decided to impose a levy of 2s. per adult and 1s. per junior, which will bring in another £8,000. However, I am sure that they would not want this to be interpreted as meaning that the Government should shelve their responsibility. That must be clearly understood, and I am sure that when I say that I am speaking for the executive of the South-Wales area of the union and the men who will be asked to make this contribution.

May I now deal with the second problem confronting us in Rhondda. About 200 yards from where I live at Pontygwaith part of the mountain slipped into the houses. This occurred at Brewery Street. About fifteen houses were seriously affected. Some were more seriously damaged than others, but they were all damaged by water sweeping down from the mountain. This caused great fear and distress on Sunday of last week. May I quote a statement made by one of the residents in a local newspaper. He and other residents got up early on Sunday morning when water poured through their houses to a depth of 6 or 7 ft. He said: The whole area behind is a vast watershed. It suddenly sprang numerous outlets and then the whole ground exploded. We tried to divert it into the main street but the mountain seemed to blow up round us. It was like being on the rim of a volcano. Had we been standing where we were a minute or two sooner we would have been buried. It was impossible to calculate how much mud and water dropped in on us, and there is considerably more hanging there now virtually by a few threads. A telegraph post was snapped as if it was a pencil. Near where the back garden walls had been smashed down two cars lay buried in the mud. That was the situation that I saw on Sunday, 4th December.

The problem lies not in what has happened but what is likely to happen. Even the local authority has said that this mountain may start moving again at any time, although the people have gone back into their houses. Behind the mountain there is a cavity of 100 or 150 yards which is still full of water. Were it not for the fact that we have had little or no rain in the days immediately following this occurrence I am convinced that there would have been a very serious catastrophe in the area.

I urge the Minister to deal quickly with this problem. Can we have some sort of warning system which will give the people who now reside in these houses some indication of the slightest movement in the mountain? Can he send in his technical officers at an early date to advise the local authority in the matter and to give them an assurance that money will be forthcoming from the Government to get on with the job of ensuring that such happenings will be prevented in the future?

There is much that I could say in connection with this matter, but I conclude merely by asking the House whether it feels that it is not too much to ask that the Amendment should be agreed to. It asks for three things—first, that all the necessary assistance should be given to individuals and local authorities affected by these tragic happenings; secondly, that we should safeguard the future by the establishment of a national fund for the relief of distress caused by floods or similar disasters and, thirdly, that we should devise adequate means of preventing floods or flood damage in future.

The House owes it to those people who have been affected by these problems, to those who have sacrificed so much to assist them, to local authorities who have borne the burden, and last but not least to itself, to accept the Amendment and to see that its terms are carried out forthwith.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

In rising for the first time in this House, I should like to ask for its indulgence. I want to take a few minutes to mention some subjects which have not yet received attention but which are appropriate to the recent floods. One form of damage which might well receive alleviation is really an indirect one. Businesses which necessarily use imported machinery have to pay import duty on spare parts. I am informed that the object of that duty is not to raise revenue but to protect home industry, and it is therefore reasonable to ask that when as a result of flood devastation emergency imports are necessary in order to get the factories back to work, a concession should be granted so that the Exchequer does not raise extra funds, even if inadvertently, through the misfortune of flood damage. This might well also apply to emergency imports of raw materials to replace those destroyed by flooding.

In both cases I am thinking not merely of the firms concerned but of those employed in the firms. In many cases the employers are doing their best to get the works running, even if the equilibrium of production is upset. It is in the interests of local communities that normality should be restored as quickly as possible, even if it is necessary to bring in additional imports as an emergency measure.

Secondly, I want to draw attention to the considerable period of time which can elapse before the full damage to the agricultural community can be assessed. Owing to the very bad weather this year there was a shortage of hay and other feedingstuffs in the West Country; and the loss of this hay owing to the disastrous flooding involves more than the value of the hay itself. A further loss will result from farmers being unable to keep the same number of animals through the winter to sell in the spring.

There are other considerations. Owing to the flooding it has been necessary for many farms to sell off a large proportion of their cattle in a short period because they were unable to accommodate them. The result was a significantly greater drop in the market price than would normally have been expected at this time. That is yet another form of damage, although I should be the first to agree that it is an extremely difficult form to assess.

I want to deal with the problem of insurance, from two aspects. Some insurance is misleading. I do not necessarily imply that it is sold with the intention of misleading, but I should like to know how many of us look at the fine print in our own insurance policies. I know it to be true that in a number of cases people have paid premiums on insurance policies bearing the word "comprehensive" only to find when the risk falls due that among the fine print is the statement that as the house is cob built—that is, the binding is of earth instead of cement—the structure is not covered by the policy. In future we ought to give some attention to the need to ensure, if possible, that insurance which is misleading in effect if not in intent is made more comprehensible to people who avail themselves of it and believe that they are taking all reasonable steps to provide against misfortune.

Then there is the problem of uninsurable property. I expect that this will become more serious rather than less serious as a result of the recent flooding. Property which lies in frequently flooded districts may be literally impossible to insure at any figure. We should consider what means we can take to enable the owners of such property to insure it. I fear that as a result of the catastrophic floods the classes of property and the areas in which they are situated and which are, in effect, commercially uninsurable, may be extended, in which case this problem will become very much more urgent.

It is surely particularly so when the Government extend themselves to assist people, that this should not be taken as a disincentive to people to safeguard their own interests as much as is reasonably possible in the future. Certain it is, to my mind, that where there are many cases known locally of people who imagined that they had insured themselves, only to find that in fact they were Mot covered, or, alternatively, people who endeavoured to insure themselves but were unable to do so, there may be an increased rather than a reduced tendency for people to insure against the risk which has been brought home to them in such a disastrous fashion.

I wish to pay a personal tribute to the many voluntary organisations which I saw operating, not only in Tiverton, on that disastrous Sunday. In particular, the cadet force and the boys of Blundells School, who operated a radio network which, as the telephone system was to some extent disrupted by the floods, proved extremely useful. The next day they performed the not very pleasant task of taking round large quantities of coal to houses which had been flooded and assisted in sweeping the mud and slime out of those houses. Both these actions have not passed unnoticed by the people who had the misfortune to suffer.

I wish to say a word of appreciation to the members of the Civil Defence, because very often it is considered that they exist only for one purpose, to guard—we hope—against the advent of a major catastrophe connected with war rather than with the natural elements. I hope that some people who have some spare time which they can usefully employ might feel that they could give service in this direction, as it would be of such demonstrated value to their fellow citizens. Many of us consider that the police force exists solely either to deter people from crime or apprehend them when they have transgressed. But I think any of us who have seen members of the police forces working at times of disaster such as this must realise that they have other functions as well, which they perform very cheerfully and humanely and with very great effort and consideration for the people among whom they live.

5.44 p.m.

Sir John Maitland (Horncastle)

It is always a great pleasure and privilege on behalf of the House to congratulate an hon. Member on his maiden speech and to welcome him to our work when he has passed that difficult fence which we all have to negotiate. It is particularly pleasant for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), as I am one of the many friends of his distinguished predecessor. It was perhaps an augury of the future that the first words which the hon. Gentleman uttered in this House were about the reduction of taxation, something about which his predecessor knew quite a lot. It is very easy to congratulate my hon. Friend on an extremely thoughtful and helpful speech. The problem of uninsurability is one that all of us who have come in contact with flooded areas have encountered. I think there is no doubt that my hon. Friend may rest well assured that the House will listen to him very carefully indeed when he speaks again and often, as we hope he will.

The Minister mentioned a place which had had seven inches of rain in three days. In my constituency we had seven inches of rain in six hours. I will not go into the whole story of what happened there. We had one of the few fatal casualties, and the tragedy would have been much greater had it not been—so many hon. Members have said this—for the magnificent work of the local authority, the Civil Defence, the police and all concerned. It was a magnificent team job, and I am proud to represent people of that sort in this House.

The Civil Defence people were quite magnificent. They were on the spot in under two hours after the floods had occurred, with the rest of the team, although there was, of course, no warning. Horncastle is quite a small town, with a population of about 4,000 people, yet the whole of our Civil Defence services were engaged in coping with this disaster. They were able to cope with it and to do their job well, but it is not something to be too pleased about when we think that Horncastle is only one small town in the very large area which those services have to cover. It indicates both the value of the Civil Defence services and the need to strengthen and improve them.

I wish to quote from two letters, and I do so with great pleasure, because it is not often I have the opportunity of so congratulating Her Majesty's Government. The letter is from the deputy clerk to one of the local authorities concerned, who, incidentally, is also the secretary of the disaster fund. In this letter, written shortly after the floods, he states: The Government appear to have tackled this problem with speed and there is no doubt that this has enabled us here in Horncastle to now proceed to deal with the claims with the utmost speed. The next sentence which I am going to read may perhaps he out of order. It is not usual—it is not proper—to criticise civil servants in this House. I am not sure whether it is proper to praise them, but I am going to do so—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

I think the hon. Gentleman had better not read it and I am obliged to him for his warning.

Sir J. Maitland

I thank you for the Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will see that the letter reaches the Minister so that he may read what is in it for himself.

The second extract I wish to read is front a letter which was written on 7th December: I would like to stress the assistance we have received from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government officials and from the War Damage Commission assessors. With regard to financial help from the Ministry, I telephoned them on Monday to ask for £20,000 to be deposited to our Flood Fund account, and this was done immediately. So I think the Government have a good record for their actions during this difficult and deplorable time.

I wish to say something about the question of the establishment of a national fund. I am one who has pressed for that, but I realise that it is a very difficult thing to do. Someone has to decide what is a disaster and how many people must it affect before a national fund would begin to work. Who would decide that? There is the question of how the fund would be financed, which is probably the easiest question to answer. Would it be financed directly from public sources, or would it absorb the "tails" of all the private funds which were used before and which cannot now be used owing to the conditions under which they were subscribed?

All these are difficult problems. It is no good trying to pretend that they can be answered easily. I think it possible to have a national disaster fund. New Zealand has one, which apparently works very well and gives considerable confidence to people in a country where there are many national disasters caused by flooding, from volcanic action, and so on. What I should like the Government to do would be to have the matter considered by outside experts and prepare a report giving the pros and cons for a fund of this kind. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of pressure for a national fund before people have really thought the problem through to the end. I think we could have one, but before we do so we ought to have the matter fully considered.

We ought to have the opportunity of considering in detail proposals put before us in order that we in the House of Commons, and through us the Government, may do the right thing. There is no doubt that that is what the country at the moment wants. It will not be satisfied if the suggestion is turned down flat in the House this evening. It would be satisfied if the matter could be carefully considered and the pros and cons fully debated and thought out. So I hope the Government will not turn the idea down flat. On the other hand, I think it would be unwise for them to say they will agree to having a national fund at once. The matter should be fully considered so that we can fully understand it.

I would like now to turn to another matter. There is a mechanical difficulty about helping ratepayers, particularly in regard to river boards, which have incurred considerable additional expense when banks of rivers have broken and so on. It is extremely difficult to help because a river board raises money through precepts, not necessarily made on one local authority, but sometimes on several local authorities. My river board raises precepts on three county councils. In one county there have been floods, but not in the other two. It is difficult to make that additional precept the subject of individual Government assistance.

I want the Government to look at this problem of helping these cases and to realise that it is a difficult problem. They must not say that because it is difficult they will try to fit it into what might be called a reasonable expense. I do not think they will do that, but I emphasise that there are mechanical difficulties in helping river boards to raise money because they are financed in a rather curious way. We are spending a lot of time upstairs in Committee discussing this question. Some precepts come from internal drainage boards, and they may be increased awing to flood damage. It is difficult to see haw ratepayers paying those rates could be relieved of an excess which would be out of all proportion to what they might normally expect.

Mr. George Jeger (Goole)

The hon. Member is aware that in Committee upstairs we have been told repeatedly by the Minister of Agriculture that the Land Drainage Bill has nothing whatever to do with the floods which we are discussing today.

Sir J. Maitland

I am a member of that Committee, and I should not have thought that the report by the hon. Member in that particular sense was correct. It would be quite out of order to go into the question more, but there we are discussing how to pay for these matters. I am discussing now how the rates for these particular payments should be raised. I am pointing out that it is a very complicated matter. I know the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) will agree with me in that. It will have added particular complications and difficulties when the Government—as they have pledged themselves to do—relieve ratepayers of excessive costs which these floods have made inevitable. I quite agree that if the burden can be spread reasonably and it can be shown that they can take the costs in their stride, that is all right. I do not think we should argue about that, but there are many cases in which river boards have a problem. I hope the Minister and the Government will still further examine that problem.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I wish to join the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Sir J. Maitland) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whom we heard for the first time tonight. I am glad that the hon. Member follows a not undistinguished right hon. Member of this House in representing that constituency and that he has so soon made his maiden speech. It is remarkable that we should have a maiden speech on a topic like this, and I congratulate the hon. Member for choosing this subject which affects the life and wellbeing of his constituents. Like other hon. Members, I hope we shall hear from him often and to our advantage.

This has been a constructive debate, a debate in which generally both sides of the House have been reaching out to find ways of helping our people and of avoiding further suffering. I welcomed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and much of what the Minister of Housing and Local Government said tonight. All of us have been deeply moved by the suddenness of the trouble and sorrow which came to our people. I have been impressed by the fibre of those in trouble—by the way in which old people, living by themselves, have responded with remarkable courage and fortitude, and the way in which young people, who sometimes are denigrated in these days, have rallied to help total strangers to get over their difficulties.

We in the City of Cardiff suffered the greatest disaster that city has known in living memory. I entirely agree that our first aim must be to relieve suffering. That was the immediate reaction of the right hon. Gentleman when he announced that the first aim would be to relieve the suffering of the people. Like other hon. Members, I have been visiting homes in my constituency where people are trying to dry out furniture, to clean walls and get back to normal. It is a sheer impossibility for most ordinary people to assess accurately the damage they have suffered. When folk have asked me if I would help them to assess damage in their homes I have been willing so to do, but I am not an expert.

The demand upon the local authority is tremendous. Thousands of homes in the City of Cardiff were flooded very seriously on that Sunday a fortnight ago. Local government officers will not be able to cope for a long time with all the problems of the people involved and to guide them on what claims they should make in respect of damage. I am grateful for the speed with which the various departments of the local authority have gone into action to try to help. I believe that what has happened before can happen again and that our main task is to see that we are prepared to prevent a catastrophe of these proportions. Although we can do nothing to prevent the rainfall, we can do a great deal to our rivers and watercourses to avoid the terrible danger to which we have been subject.

Did I follow the Minister correctly when he said that river boards are undertaking a comprehensive survey of all the rivers in their districts? If they embark on a vast capital expenditure programme which clearly arises because of the increased danger, will there be a 100 per cent. grant to cover such works in the future? I believe that where local authorities have to embark on unusual work and special expenditure caused by the floodim, it all ought to rate at once for 100 per cent. grant from the Exchequer. We must realise that the fortunate have an obligation to help the unfortunate, and the fairest way of all, that I can see, is for it to be done through the Exchequer. We all pay our taxes according to our ability, and it is much fairer for the Exchequer to say to local authorities that the rates, which are never as fairly assessed as taxes, because they are assessed not upon one's income but upon where one is living and other extraneous factors, should not have to bear any burden as a result of the flooding but that the Exchequer will bear the burden in all cases.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

This Government believe in local option.

Mr. Thomas

I am not speaking on behalf of the Government.

I want, next, to refer to the question of the warning system. Although people are rightly extremely grateful for all the help and the assistance which they received when the floods occurred, there is much feeling that the warning system was not as good as it ought to have been. For instance, in Cardiff, where the floods reached Gabalfa in Cardiff, North soon after 5 a.m., there was a warning to the tenants just before the floods broke and there was admirable liaison, but in West Cardiff, my division, which the Minister knows well, the floods reached Cathedral Road, I understand, about 7 a.m. and they reached other parts of Riverside about 9 a.m. Because it was a Sunday morning people were lying in bed without realising the danger which was lapping along the streets. If there had been a loudspeaker warning, these people might have been able to lift up some of the furniture. I do not wish to blame anyone, because I realise that all the resources of Civil Defence, the police and others were concentrated on the disaster at Gabalfa, but I hope that in future we shall give priority in our considerations to the provision of a warning system which can arouse people.

We had the warning of the West Country staring us in the face. Our hearts have gone out to the people of the West Country, particularly Exeter, where they have been flooded four times. We thanked God that in our own city we were more fortunately placed. But those who are responsible for the wellbeing of the community must not be content with thanking God. We must in future be prepared with some system of warning. We could use the siren or some other national system when we are confronted with dangers of this sort in districts near the hills.

As is increasingly the custom in Wales, the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Cardiff assumes the responsibility for national appeals in the Principality, and I think that this meets with the support and the good wishes of our people as a whole. But a disaster of this sort cannot possibly be left there. The Minister acknowledges that by explaining that the public generosity and even the amounts which he has sent are tiny fragments of what will need to be supplied. The generous contribution of £100,000 to the Lord Mayor's Fund could, I am sure, be swallowed up in my division without looking to Cardiff, North and the devastation of the poor Rhondda Valley. I believe that the Minister will be obliged to think in terms of many millions of £s.

Mr. Brooke

I may not have made it clear but the payments which I detailed were all payments on account. They were not intended to assess our view of what that fund might eventually require. We have been asked for certain moneys in order to keep the fund solvent, and we have responded instantly.

Mr. Thomas

I do not want to sound ungrateful. We are grateful that there has been recognition that at the end of the day it is the Government who must stand behind all these things, and the Minister has generously said that they will. I wish that he had gone the other step forward and had accepted the idea of a national disaster fund. The British are generous people; their instincts are sound enough. A national disaster fund could not only make provision for the Government to do their duty but could give an opportunity for people with high motives and warm hearts to make their contribution in the event of such disasters.

I am not put off by the question of what is a disaster. We know a disaster when we meet it. It may be difficult to define, whether in the coal mines, at sea, on land, or by flooding—but when there is a disaster, hon. Members know. It should not be beyond the wit of the House to devise a national scheme which can cater for folk who meet these terrible troubles.

My last point concerns insurance and compensation. I believe that it will be extraordinarily difficult to do the right thing by all the people who have suffered. I was in a home last week-end when I saw a widow, with a settee tipped on one side, trying pitifully to dry it out in front of the fire. It was useless because the silt was inside. Her furniture will never be the same. She said that she had a comprehensive insurance policy but the insurance company said that it was for storm and pestilence but not for flood. I ask the Minister to make an appeal to the great insurance companies of this land to be generous in their interpretation in dealing with the claims of flood victims. He told us that 20,000 applications had already been received and that 10,000 had been dealt with. I hope that it will not be necessary for any hon. Member to have to write to insurance companies to ask them to meet generously claims from people who thought that they had an honourable understanding with the various insurance firms; because I believe that big business, as small business, depends at the end of the day on mutual trust and integrity.

I am sure that insurance companies will be aware that the whole nation is watching how they will deal with these flood victims who are insured with them. There is the example which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) was bringing to my attention of people in Bridgend, which was also badly flooded, who insured the contents of their homes years ago and had not increased their value. These people have been caught out on a limb. Despite the manifold human problems of this sort which arise, I earnestly hope that if insurance companies err at all it will be on the side of generosity.

Pounds, shillings and pence can never properly compensate these people for the terror they have known and the misery they have endured, but at least it can help to restore their homes to something like normality. I am glad the Government are willing to make their contribution. I hope they will look again at the question of a national distress fund.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

I intend to make a very short speech and would like to begin it by adding to the tribute already paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). His constituency and mine are contiguous, and there has always been a healthy rivalry and healthy friendship between our two constituencies. I was interested in my hon. Friend's reference to the boys of Blundells, because the pupils, particularly the boys, did so much good work at the time of the flood disaster. Perhaps when they have cleaned themselves from carting coal they will look forward to being beaten again at rugger and cricket by the boys of Taunton, as they always are.

Flooding is of great concern to the House as a whole, and particularly to those Members who have constituency interests. I would like to say at once that, although I am very pleased there is to be no Division on this Amendment, I support it and support it wholeheartedly. It seems to follow the lines of the Motion which my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the other side tabled a little while ago.

This is the third occasion on which we have had a debate on flooding in the House this Session. I made a long speech on the subject on 11th November and I do not intend to repeat the points I made then. However, I am sure that everybody who heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government this afternoon was tremendously impressed, as I was, net only by his obvious command of the situation as a whole, but also by his demonstrable good faith.

I trust him, and I am sure that the House and country as a whole trust him, and are grateful to him for what he is already doing. He was good enough to say that he feels there are lessons which can be learned. Government policy, as I understand it, consists at present of bringing aid to various localities which have suffered by making up the difference in the amount raised publicly by appeal funds, and the like, and the total need.

My right hon. Friend recognised that in some cases those differences will be very great. Some help has already been given in particular areas which have asked for help. The Minister has pointed out that a £ for £ scheme, as I suggested on 11th November, and as other people have suggested would not be enough. That is particularly true of the Dulverton rural area, where the need is estimated to be £4,000 and where, so far, the local relief fund has only contributed £400. That is not because the people in the far West Country are not generous people, but because they are too poor to give any more money and because there are the conflicting claims of the Dulverton Relief Fund, in my friend's constituency, the Taunton Relief Fund, and so on.

What about places where there are no local relief funds at all? They will have to be dealt with. It is not easy to start new relief funds at this time. There are too many. Wales has been very sensible in this matter in having only a single fund. That will make it much easier to deal with all the difficulties.

Then there are the wider difficulties which emerge. I was interested in my right hon. Friend's speech when he said, in effect, "How are we to find the money to clear the tributaries?" It is the tributaries and culverts in my constituency, particularly the western end of it, which are the trouble, because they are silted up. That has brought flooding in small local areas, the names of which do not get into the newspapers. In the Dulverton area alone I am told that at least £4,000 will be required to do the necessary work of clearing. I am glad that the money will be available through the good offices of my right hon. Friend.

If that is true of the smaller schemes, what about the larger schemes? We know that in and around Taunton £3 million has to be spent. That is a lot of money. We cannot begin to find it ourselves. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give an assurance tonight that that money will be forthcoming. There is the difficulty that although we have my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government here, and although the debate is to be wound up by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, this is, in part, a matter for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Some confusion arises in that regard in the minds of some people and makes dealing with the problem so much more difficult.

The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in a speech which he delivered with his customary clarity—I always enjoy listening to him—made a reference to me. He was good enough to give me notice that he might refer to me and I appreciate that notice. If I may "pull his leg" in return, may I say that I thought he spoiled a jolly good speech with a jolly bad point. However good the speech was, it still remains a poor point, a point the importance of which is easy to exaggerate. He said that I had met some criticism in my constituency because I had said publicly, and I am ready to repeat it now, that, on the whole, I was satisfied with what the Government are doing.

I would point out to the House that Taunton is not the whole of my constituency. The county town of Taunton is a very important part of it, but it reaches from Sedgmoor, on the one hand, almost as far as Athelney, where Alfred is reputed to have burned the cakes, and covers almost 75 per cent. of Exmoor, on the other. What local councillors say in Taunton is not typical of what is said in the whole of my constituency. I know, because I have been there and I have talked to my constituents.

Furthermore, my right hon. Friend, I thought, answered the point very well when he said, by inference—I certainly say it—that the councillors who said that I did not know what I was talking about when I said the Government had done well enough had not done their homework, because I know, and everybody else knows, what they apparently did not know, and that is that as soon as Taunton puts in a request for money it can have it. So there is no reason for anybody to get excited or alarmed, or to suggest that the Government are not doing their stuff. The truth is that the two councillors concerned, who are most admirable fellows normally, are political opponents of mine.

I would like to turn to the question of the national relief fund, to which reference has already been made, and which many hon. Members, and many people outside the House, have advocated. My right hon. Friend has made a case against a national relief fund at this time, and I accept what he has to say. But I hope that that does not mean that the idea is shelved, because it should not be.

There was a reluctance on the part of the Government, rightly or wrongly, to agree to the establishment of a national relief fund in the early days of the flooding, when Exeter first caught it. They felt that it was only a local matter. They did not realise the possibility that flooding would become as widespread as it has become.

It may be said that perhaps there was no need for a national relief fund at that time and that it was not reasonable to expect the Government to realise that the situation would deteriorate as much as it has. They are not prophets, certainly not weather prophets. They cannot be, whatever may be thought about the Prime Minister's responsibility for the weather.

Perhaps that is the explanation, but it is not an argument for not establishing a national relief fund to cope with future emergencies. I feel very strongly that it is quite likely that we shall have further flood disasters. We have had them in my constituency over the years. There was the Lynmouth flood disaster, which affected us. We have the current flood disaster.

As my right hon. Friend said, the hills and the ground in general are saturated. I am terrified lest further flooding should occur in the west of England, both this year and in future years. As the hon. Member for Fulham rightly said, times change in matters of land drainage. Almost before one realises it, the drainage situation has changed completely, due to the differences in modern techniques—land drainage, building, use of water, etc. I hope that the Government do not rule out the idea of a flood relief fund to deal with future emergencies. We all hope that they will not happen, but we must be prepared.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said on 11th November that he thought that such a fund might discourage private charities. I have thought about that a great deal since my hon. Friend said it. I do not accept it and I do not believe it. It might encourage private charity rather than leave it in the somewhat confused state it is in at the moment with a multiplicity of individual relief funds.

The administrative aspect must be thought of. I should like to see a permanent secretariat and organisation, ready all the time to go anywhere and do anything. Legislation would be required for that, but if legislation were introduced I am certain that the House would pass it virtually on the nod. We could discuss some of the finer points, but legislation of that type would have the broadest possible all-party support.

I do not see why we should not have a scheme analogous to the war damage scheme which existed during the war. During the course of the debate on 11th November my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary asked me, by inference, if I would agree to additional taxation for this purpose. I would. Any householder, house occupier or premises-occupier would be perfectly willing to pay an extra 10s. or £1 a year to set up a central fund to be available for this purpose. Just as the community accepted responsibility for the affairs of the country as a whole through the war damage scheme, so it would be ready to accept responsibility for a national flood disaster fund today.

It has also been suggested that local control might be difficult. I do not believe it. Though there should be a permanent central administration and secretariat, I do not suggest that that need in any way take responsibility away from local authorities. A local authority could easily make its case and present it and then administer the money which was made available for local purposes thereafter. The argument based on local control is not a valid argument against the establishment of the fund.

It has also been suggested that a local fund might discourage local insurances. I do not believe it. I said in the debate on 11th November that the fact that I am to receive a generous pension from a benevolent Government at the end of my days does not discourage me, if and while I can afford it, from making my own private insurance arrangement. I do not think that a national fund would discourage people from making their own private insurance arrangements. Why should it?

Turning to the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), in my experience insurance companies have been very generous in dealing with claims, particularly in and around Exeter. It is right that we should pay tribute to them on that account and say to them that the idea of a national relief fund in no way cuts across their business or interferes with it. It supplements it. Bearing in mind some of the points made in the debate about the difficulty of insurance, it is obvious that it needs to be done urgently.

I hope that the Government will not dismiss this suggestion completely, but will accept a suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland), in his excellent speech, and hold an inquiry. Let us have a debate upon the subject later, by all means.

Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for what he is doing. I repeat that we accept his pledges, which, we know, are made in good faith and will be implemented.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger (Goole)

This is the third occasion on which we have debated floods recently. The debate today has ranged over this very vital problem in the same pattern as it did previously. The problem is still the same. The suffering remains the same. The distress amongst the flooded out homes and families remains the same.

This is not a new problem by any means. It occurs regularly year after year. I can recall that in July, 1956, and again in October, 1958, we discussed the excessive flooding in the West, the South-West, and in the northern regions of Britain after visits had been made to those areas by the then Ministers of Agriculture to see the flooded scenes for themselves.

As a result of floods there are always public alarm, generous Press coverage of the various picturesque, but tragic scenes, public outcry, and a relief fund. Shortly afterwards everything is forgotten and there is public indifference.

There are always emergency operations. Glowing and deserved tributes have been paid today from both sides, especially by the Minister, who is in a position to know more about it than any of the rest of us, to the voluntary work which has been done by private individuals as well as by organisations of one kind or another, helping to alleviate distress and bring help to those in need.

Many families have been in repeated distress during recent floodings. Some families have been flooded out from their homes five or six times. No sooner have they got their walls dry and their furniture clean than they have to start all over again because of a new flood.

If we are to depend to a large extent upon local funds, local administration and local help, without very much help from the central Government, it means, in effect, that we are asking those who suffer from floods to contribute generously towards the relief of their own suffering. Many speakers have emphasised that this is a national problem, and I agree with them. It is a national calamity and should be treated as such to a much greater extent than the Minister has announced today.

The right hon. Gentleman did not announce one thing which has been admitted in all previous debates and discussions on the problems created by floods. He did not announce any permanent preventive action for the future. This is one of the items mentioned in the Amendment. We call for three things. We call on the Government, first, to give all necessary help to those individuals and local authorities particularly affected … We call on them, secondly, to establish a national fund for the relief of distress caused by floods or similar disasters … Thirdly, but by no means last in importance, we call on them to devise adequate measures to prevent flood damage in future. That is one thing about which nothing has been said. Is that because it would cost too much? I remember the historic words of a Minister of Agriculture immediately before the war, when urged to get more cultivation and growth of food in this country because of the threat of a war and the possible restriction of imports. He said, "It is all very well to ask for more food to be grown and for the cultivation of all our agricultural produce, but what fools we should look if we did that and there was no war".

That Minister, like many other Conservative Ministers of Agriculture, could neither look ahead nor plan ahead and, as a result, was faced with difficulties that he had not the imagination to foresee. Can we not have the imagination to foresee that the floods from which we are suffering now are not isolated phenomena? We have had them before, though perhaps not so badly. We know that we shall have floods again. We know, roughly, what are their causes, and we know, roughly, what can be done to prevent floods of this magnitude occurring in the future—

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

Surely, the expenditure of £6 million a year by the river boards cannot be written off as nothing.

Mr. Jeger

That is mainly for maintenance.

Mr. Wells

No, it is on capital works.

Mr. Jeger

But there is a very great deal of work waiting to be done that will cost far more than £6 million. That amount is a very small item, indeed, when one bears in mind how much work is waiting to be done.

The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) spoke of culverts and tributaries that needed clearing, but which would cost £4,000 to clear. Obviously, a small internal drainage board will find it very difficult to raise as much money as that. That is only one instance, but we can all think of others in our rural constituencies where the work would require the expenditure of very large sums of money.

The River Went Drainage Board needs a new pump that would cost £50,000. How many items of that kind are there throughout the country? Without a comprehensive survey it would be very difficult to assess the total value, but I do not think that the £6 million per annum now being spent is anywhere near sufficient to cater for the difficulties we have to meet. If it was, we should not now have the difficulties; the amount being spent on flood prevention would have proved adequate. The mere fact that we have these floods, and have them repeatedly, shows that we are not spending enough on flood prevention.

I want to dwell for a moment on the cost, not to individual householders in villages and scattered hamlets but to the farming community. I do not know how much is being lost to the country in food and in feedingstuffs—in peas, potatoes, barley and clover—but my farmers tell me that they have lost thousands of acres of them by the floods. They also tell me that we shall probably have to import more food to make good these deficiencies, and that that will affect our balance-of-payments position and our dollar expenditure.

In South Yorkshire, where my constituency lies, they tell me a lot about the loss of foodstuffs, and the waste of farmers' labour in first cultivating their fields and then seeing all their work go to waste. The Yorkshire Post has for quite a time now carried some very fine photographs and descriptions of these occurrences. I congratulate that newspaper's photographers on their enterprise in venturing into such horrible areas to take such good photographs that they have brought home to all of us the effect of these floods on the lives of the people in the rural areas.

Some of these farmers, when they have applied for assistance, have been told that their land is always liable to flooding. It is low-lying land. In the beginning, it was drained marshland. The Dutchmen who came over 300 years ago to drain the marshes in the Dutch fashion did a very good job, but the land is always liable to flooding. At the same time, those farmers were told to grow more food, and more feeding stuffs for their cattle. They responded to that appeal, and now are suffering for their patriotism in responding to it.

Local authorities in the area have built new housing estates on land which, according to official information, might be liable to flooding. Nevertheless, they have had to settle their communities and pull down their rural slums. They have had to provide better housing accommodation.

It is an irony that in some of those areas where they have an excess of water at this time of year they need water carts during the summer months to bring water to their farms and their cattle. That is one of the reasons why we press for a water conservation scheme that will not only help to prevent floods and alleviate the damage caused, but will make use of the excess of water, which could be collected at times like this, properly stored in reservoirs, and be available during the dry summer months particularly in those scattered rural areas.

In my area, we are subjected to subsidence. There are several coal mines in the district and they play havoc with the drainage system. When it comes to negotiating with authorities on drainage and about letting off flood water by some means, we have to deal with the National Coal Board, and in regard to canals, we have to deal with the British Transport Commission.

Most of the internal drainage boards are so small that they are not able adequately to deal with the volume of water flowing from their drainage because they cannot afford the necessary large items of capital equipment. We also have a large mass of water, not only from industrial sources but from the moorlands. From those moorlands, it drains through the villages, overflowing the steams and flooding agricultural land and villages as well.

My local farmers tell me that they have been flooded out in ten of the last twelve years. This points to 1960 not being an isolated year, although it may vary in intensity. Flooding happens almost regularly, and we should be thinking seriously about preventative expenditure to stop recurrences.

A little while ago I was approached by some people in a small village just outside Goole who told me that their village was flooded regularly every year, and had been for the last fifty years. When I asked why they had not done anything about it, they said that they had got used to it. I might add that those who approached me were the younger members of the community, who thought that they might depart from their parent's attitude of strict toleration and that I might be persuaded to do something about it.

I discovered that the floods occurred as a result of the water overflowing the embankment. When I inquired why the embankment could not be raised, I was told that that issue had been fought over for many years between the Yorkshire Ouse River Board, the British Transport Commission and the Minister of Agriculture, and that it had been impossible to come to any settlement as each of the three parties blamed the other two for their inactivity.

I finally got the matter settled by threatening to take it up with the Prime Minister and asking him to decide which of the authorities was ultimately responsible. I called a conference of the various organisations, and managed to get them to agree to raise the embankment at a cost of £123,000. There has since been no flooding in that little village.

That shows that if there is money available the job can be done. Indeed, I have here an extract from a statement on the floods made by the engineer of the River Went Drainage Board, who said, quite wisely: It is all a question of economics; you can do anything with money. That is the real solution—one can do anything with money. But, with due respect to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) one cannot do very much with £6 million a year. We cannot do much with that; it requires very much more expenditure than that to do the work which is necessary to prevent the floods occurring so regularly.

There is also the question of the renewal of pumps, which are overstrained through excessive work. Many of them were put in many years ago, when the small drainage boards were first brought into action, and they are now worn out. They need replacement, and the replacement cost is much heavier than the original cost. They are very expensive, and beyond the resources of these small boards. That all points to the fact that this is a national matter and should not be regarded as a local one. It needs a centralised plan, whereby the central Government would use as their agents the local boards and local authorities, but under which the bulk of the finance should be raised and distributed from national resources and not local resources. Very often, it is the local areas that need most help, and they are the most impoverished ones, incapable of raising the resources they need for their own assistance.

Therefore, I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us how his mind is working in the direction of a national plan for disposal of surplus water due to floods, a national plan for the erection of such dams, embankments, walls and other devices, including pumps, as can alleviate floods and prevent them from doing so much damage, a national plan for the conservation of surplus water, so that we do not have to go along into the summer dreading the fact that we are going from flood to drought.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Clive Bossom (Leominster)

I welcome very much the opportunity to say one or two things before the debate comes to an end. Herefordshire was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his speech. Fortunately, we have been spared the ordeal of a bad flood since 1947. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the placid River Wye did rise by 19 ft. the other week, and that was the worst we have had since 1795.

I should also like to say how heartened we were by the very prompt assurance by the Government that they would supplement local appeals, which, happily, have gone extremely well, and would give advice and assistance wherever it was required. This was greatly appreciated by our local authorities. Like all other speakers in the debate, I should also like to associate myself with the praise for the services of the police and firemen, Civil Defence, W.V.S. and all the anonymous "Good Samaritans" for having done such magnificent work.

There are two suggestions that I should like to put forward, and I hope that the Government will look further into them. First, there is the need for a better flood warning system. In my part of the country, the Wye River Board and the police between them have done a good job, especially to threatened houses in the villages and towns. In many cases, they were able to give 24 hours' notice, but the real problem lies in the rural areas, where not everyone was warned. Fortunately, this time, no human lives were lost, but a tremendous lot of livestock was lost. In one area alone, Whitney-on-Wye, Eardisley and Preston-on-Wye, which is only a small area, we lost nearly 600 sheep and 50 cattle, which were drowned.

Today, with the electrification of nearly 85 per cent. of our rural areas, most people have a television set and nearly everyone has a wireless set. The B.B.C. and I.T.A. cover the news of the flooding, and I feel that they could be asked to do much more, because half the battle is to have early warning, so as to be able to move livestock and even household goods.

I should like to see special news flashes on the floods, with some new warning device, such as "Flood, force 1, 2 or 3", and also the measurements of the actual rise of the rivers in different areas. That warning would be very useful to farmers, and also for motorists. I am quite confident that in a real emergency, most of our fortunate and dry viewers would be long-suffering during interruptions of their favourite programmes. Another quick and effective method of warning which has been touched on, would be to have installed a series of sirens in special areas, because they are easy to operate and easy to hear.

The other point I should like to make concerns Civil Defence. How I wish that we could change that name to "Civil Aid", because the word "defence" does not apply in war or in peace. If we changed the name, I think that it would help recruiting; and I should like to see the entire r###le of this highly trained and skilled personnel reviewed. I have always maintained that they have a real, peace-time value, which could be considerably expanded. Local councils call on them to set up rest centres, to take round fuel, and to do heavy salvage work. I feel that with a good early warning system they could be called upon to help much earlier on, and especially in helping old people, who usually live in the older parts of the towns and villages, which are the areas which become flooded.

In these areas liable to flooding, Civil Defence should move in early to help the old people to move their furniture, take up their rugs, sandbag their doors, and, in general, prepare their homes for the onslaught that is coming. Their work could be much more valuable, if after this early warning, they could help in the prevention of flood damage. I hope that while there is a lull the Government will look into these two suggestions—the better warning system, and the better use of Civil Defence, which I should prefer to call "Civil Aid".

6.46 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)

We have had a most useful and constructive debate, and I will endeavour to reply to some of the points raised by hon. Members, although my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government dealt so inclusively with the whole question in his speech that my task will be very much easier than it would otherwise have been.

I should like to turn at once to the very pleasant duty of extending my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for his extremely thoughtful, helpful and constructive speech this afternoon. Those of us particularly, like myself, who have actually worked with his predecessor, will know how much we expect from hon. Members who represent Tiverton. Rarely have I heard so much meat in a maiden speech delivered in ten minutes, and I hope that I shall not be offending against the conventions of the House if I take up one or two practical points which my hon. Friend raised.

First, I can assure him that we will certainly look at the question of businesses using imported machinery, but I am equally sure that he will realise that one of the difficulties here, which arises in so many contexts, is that it is particularly difficult to trace a particular item of imported machinery or raw materials to an area affected by flooding. Another point which my hon. Friend raised, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) also raised, is the question whether the insurance companies are doing all that they might be doing at the present time. I hope that there will be wide publicity given to my hon. Friends' remarks, because it is important that policies should be comprehensible and that their exact import is understood by those who take them out.

I can tell both hon. Members that companies within the British Insurance Association have already received over 20,000 claims, totalling over £1 million, of which about half has so far been paid, for floods prior to 1st December. In addition, there will be the Lloyd's claims, because Lloyd's are outside the British Insurance Association. There are also additional claims for floods subsequent to 1st December.

I am also told, and the House will be glad to hear, that quite a number of businessmen, and also private householders, near the River Exe requested and were granted flood insurance since the October floods, and their claims will swell the total bill to be met. In the case of one large business, which had no floodcover in October and sustained many thousands of pounds worth of damage, insurance cover was subsequently granted in November, only a few days before new floods arrived even deeper on its premises. Therefore, I think that it can be said that the insurance companies have been playing their proper part in helping to combat the effects of these disasters.

The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Elfed Davies) both raised a very practical point—whether the public authorities are all aware of their responsibilities, what they can do and what they cannot do. The hon. Member for Rhondda, East specifically mentioned the National Assistance Board. I am informed that the Board officers started giving cash assistance in Wales immediately, that is to say, as from Monday, 5th December. Payments for coal, for food or for other immediate needs were made to anyone who was in financial difficulty. Of course, the Board can give help only to those who are in financial need and, if a few applications were turned down, that was because the persons concerned were understood to be in a position to provide for themselves.

The Assistance Board's officers have standing instructions on these matters, but, of course, a great deal must be left to the discretion of local officials. I fully realise that here, as is bound to happen, there are a great many borderline cases. If the hon. Member wants to take up any individual case, I think that his right course would be to take it up with the Chairman of the Board. The Board has difficult duties to fulfil, and I think that there are bound to be some borderline cases.

Several hon. Members asked whether our warning systems are working properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Bossom) and several others referred to this. I am told that, on the whole, our warning systems work very well and that most towns have had their warnings in reasonable time. The difficulty is apt to come on the edges of catchment areas, and this is one of the many lessons which we must learn. Of course, the best warning systems in the world cannot work unless people take notice of them and, inevitably, it is a matter of observing the warning as well as giving it.

It has been made absolutely clear by this debate that, on the whole, everyone concerned has done all that could be expected in combating the effects of this very great disaster. It is very easy for those of us who have not been affected by the floods to talk in this objective way. We are all apt to think of the effect of houses and property being completely destroyed, but in some ways it is very nearly as bad to live in a house which has been thoroughly spoiled. I recall my father, who did a good deal of work in France after the First World War, saying that in his view the most shocking sight he saw in France was not Rheims, where the cathedral had been partly destroyed, but at Soissons, where every single thing in a large town of many thousands of people had been completely spoiled. In large measure, I think, that is the worst type of problem we have here.

There has been an enormous amount of voluntary effort in connection with the flood disasters. I am told that the total of voluntary contributions to date to the earlier flood funds, that is to say, funds opened before the new floods on 3rd December, stands at £108,000. On 3rd November, my right hon. Friend gave the undertaking, which has been mentioned several times today, that the Government would be prepared to supplement locally raised funds wherever it became clear that these would not be sufficient to meet needs and, so far as expenditure on public services was concerned, the Government would be prepared to consider sympathetically requests for special assistance once it was clear that without such assistance there would be an unreasonable burden on the rates.

This afternoon, my right hon. Friend gave details of all the Exchequer payments on account. I will remind the House of the total. The total to date, up to 15th December, amounts to about £209,000. This will be met in the short-term out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, but, of course, there will have to be a Supplementary Estimate which, I am sure, the House will grant without question. The figure that I have given is the total so far.

I feel that the decision in Wales and Monmouthshire to have a general fund is very wise, and to that general fund the Government have contributed £100,000.

Mr. Jeger

Does the amount the hon. Gentleman has given include payments by the National Assistance Board?

Sir E. Boyle

No, that does not include individual payments by the Board. The figures I have given relate simply to payments made in accordance with the statement of my right hon. Friend on 2nd November.

Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), and several hon. Members opposite have asked about the establishment of a national disaster fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said that he hoped that we would not shelve or forget the possibility of a national relief fund. The Government certainly have not closed their minds for all time to such a proposal. I am bound to say, however, that I think that hon. Members overrate a little the likelihood of large subscriptions to a national disaster fund at a time when floods are completely out of our minds.

I think that some of the arguments used in earlier debates are worth considering carefully. All I would say this evening is that we are now considering the present emergency, but, of course, all Government Departments concerned, and the Government as a whole, will, naturally, take into account the lessons to be learned from these disasters in all their aspects and consider what we ought to do to meet any situation which may arise in the future.

This leads me to say a word in answer to the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). It is worth remembering that the total capital expenditure on land drainage, although it may not be as high as it should be, is nearly half as much again as it was a few years ago. As I told the House in another debate a few nights ago, in the financial year 1956–57, when I was previously at the Treasury, the total capital investment for this purpose was only just a little over £4 million. It is now 150 per cent. of that figure.

I do not see how it could possibly be wise to invest for this purpose in such a way as to insure against the consequences of the sort of floods which occur once every 200 years. One has to keep a balance. But, of course, as I said the other night—I repeat it now—when we are planning the future public capital expenditure programme, we shall take into account the flood disaster of this year. I assure hon. Members that, even if we do not have an opportunity to debate this subject again in the near future, as we may possibly not have, the Government not only congratulate all those who have played such a fine part in combating the effects of the flood disasters so far, but will consider fully what should be done for the future and will take into account the lessons to be learned in both central and local administration should similar disasters occur again.

Mr. G. Thomas

Will any exceptional work undertaken by local authorities as a result of the floods be the subject of compensation by the Government?

Sir E. Boyle

We should have to look at all aspects of local government expenditure on their merits.

Mr. M. Stewart

For the procedural reason that I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.