REQUISITIONED PREMISES (BIRMINGHAM) (Hansard, 10 May 1944)

§ Mr. Higgs (Birmingham, West)
On 4th April I addressed a Question to the President of the Board of Trade, asking him why pressure was put, by his Department, on Messrs. H. Incledon and Company, Limited, of 67–73, Constitution Hill, Birmingham, to vacate their premises, in May, 1943, for the purpose of housing a firm whose buildings were unsafe, as the firm in question never occupied the premises. The President of the Board of Trade replied: This request was made, in the interests of war production, to Messrs. Incledon, who sold the premises to the other firm mentioned by my hon. Friend. These premises are now being put to very good use in the war effort, though not for the purpose originally intended. I then asked him: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the activities of his Department, a business of 40 years' standing has been closed down; and is he further aware that the premises are now in the possession of a competitor of the original owner? The President of the Board of Trade replied: No, Sir. My duty in these matters is to assist the Service Departments and the Supply Departments to obtain space for war production and storage. I was requested by one of ' the Supply Departments to obtain these premises. I did so, and the premises are now being used for effective war purposes. I do not wish to go into detail, on grounds of security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1944; cols. 1800–1, Vol. 398.] I considered that it was rather a weak excuse for the President of the Board of Trade to say that he did not want to go into the matter in detail, on grounds of security. I think I can show that a case can be cited, and I have no doubt that you, Sir, will readily call me to Order if I transgress. In the first place, he said that the premises were sold. I should add that they were sold under pressure, and I have correspondence to prove that. The Minister said that it was his business to assist the Supply Departments. I would remind him that it is his duty also not to interfere unnecessarily with businesses. This firm established a branch in Birmingham in 1904. Their head office is in London, and their normal business is the distribution of plumbers' hardware. A 2048 profitable business was being carried on in war-time, to the benefit of the, community. The premises in question were erected in 1926, and in May, 1943, the Board of Trade informed Messrs. Incledon that it was necessary for the premises to be used by a Government Department. I would like to read extracts from three letters. The first is dated 14th May, 1943, and is addressed to Messrs. Incledon, from the Board of Trade: We were very pleased to hear from you in reference to your premises in Birmingham. As we explained to you, we have a very difficult task these day in trying to meet the many production and storage demands for space in this region, and, naturally, we are always anxious to see that all premises, whether factory or warehouse, are used to the best advantage in the war effort. In the case of your Birmingham branch, we consider the premises are ideally situated for production. The word "production" I emphasise— At present we have a very difficult demand to meet in connection with a firm whose premises have been badly damaged by enemy action and whose production is suffering considerably as a result. It is essential that this company are rehoused at a very early date, and it may be that your Birmingham premises will be required for this purpose. We should be very glad if you could arrange to discuss this matter at a joint conference in these offices at a mutually convenient date. I will read another letter, and an extract from a third. This letter is dated 15th May, and is from the Board of Trade, addressed to Messrs. Incledon: In reply to your letter dated 11th June, we have to confirm that the above premises owned by your company are required for a Ministry and for the use of their contractors, Messrs. X, at Birmingham. In the normal course, we should issue an authority to this Ministry to requisition, but we understand that the premises are required for conversion to war use and that you are negotiating with Messrs. X of Birmingham, with a view to the disposal of these premises. That is signed by the Deputy Regional Controller. There is a third paragraph from a later letter, dated 3oth December, and I am reading this extract now, rather out of sequence, but in order to show the inconsistent manner in which this matter has been dealt with: In fact, I told you on the telephone we were not aware that you were proposing to sell the premises to Messrs. X, but we were under the impression that you preferred to negotiate a private treaty agreement with them than for your premises to be requisitioned by a Department. We are only too pleased to meet your wishes in this regard. In the first letter, they suggested that the premises are being disposed of, and, 2049 in the second, sold. I would inform the Minister that the meaning of those two words is identical, and it he will refer to any dictionary he will find that the alternative meaning is given. Messrs. Incledon accepted the Board of Trade argument that these premises were necessary, and they did their best to find alternative accommodation, but, obviously, without success. They were reluctantly compelled to close down their Birmingham business. The Board of Trade informed Messrs. Incledon that Messrs. X were employed on the higest priority work, that Messrs. X's premises had been damaged by bombing, that Messrs. X's premises were condemned, that the premises were not safe, and that it was absolutely necessary that Messrs. X should have the premises at the earliest possible moment. I have read the correspondence which indicated that if Messrs. X could have the premises immediately the Board of Trade would not interfere. Messrs. X said it was necessary to instal heavy plant and machinery and make many other alterations and that it would, therefore, suit their convenience if they could retain the premises after the war.
Messrs. Incledon, realising that their business had been forcibly closed, sold their stock and fixtures, disposed of their staff in the best interests of all concerned and decided to sell the premises. They therefore sold the premises to Messrs. X, as they thought, in the national interest. They were given permission to instal plant and machinery in September, 1943, and given vacant possession in December, 1943. To Messrs. Incledon's great surprise no effort was made to instal the machinery and at the end of 1943 the premises were still vacant. Messrs. Incledon drew the attention of the Board of Trade to this fact and also referred to the unnecessary delay that had taken place. It soon transpired that Messrs. X were not going to move into the premises and by some means or other the original building had become safe. Messrs. Incledon again lodged a protest with the Board of Trade in January and the letters were certainly acknowledged, and it was stated that the official in charge was away and that the matter should have his attention on his return. But it came as a great surprise to Messrs. Incledon to hear that Messrs. X had sold the premises to another firm named Gittins, which was a competitor of Incledons. A business of 40 years' 2050 standing had been closed down for no purpose whatever. At that time there was no intention at all to use the premises.
In February of this year a further letter was addressed to the disposal officer and no reply was received. The office was telephoned on several occasions and the reply received was to the effect that they were always being put off and that the official was away, and so on. Since the last complaint on 18th February, stating that Messrs Incledon intended to claim compensation, the premises have been occupied for storage purposes, but they were originally requisitioned because they were considered suitable for production and manufacture. I have visited these premises, and what I have said is accurate. Business concerns are prepared to co-operate, and do co-operate, with the Government, and unless they do they know that we shall not win the war, and then there will be no premises at all. But there are too many cases of interference, and this is a glaring case in which the Board of Trade should not have acted as it did. Unfortunately, Government Departments will not admit their faults when they are in the wrong. The power of requisitioning has been used to enable a commercial firm to speculate in property on rising prices.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what price Gittins paid Messrs. X for these premises. Will the Department consider compensating Messrs. Incledon, and will the Minister arrange for the premises to be returned to Messrs. Incledon at their original purchase price, if they want them?

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse)
My hon. Friend has made out a very temperate case and I shall endeavour to persuade the House that this is not one of those instances in which the Board of Trade have been at fault. The hon. Member said that Government Departments are 10th to admit their faults. It would be quite impossible for Government Departments to interfere as widely as they have to do during this war without making many mistakes. I believe that, by and large, Government Departments are not 10th to admit a mistake when one has been made. In this case I am not prepared to admit any such mistake at all. I do not object to the way my hon. Friend has put his case. I do not object 2051 to the way he has marshalled his facts, but I propose to marshal the facts in a rather different way, without controverting his facts, to show, as I believe I can, that the action taken was not unreasonable and was, in fact in all the circumstances, reasonable and necessary,
As my hon. Friend has said, in the spring of 1943 the Ministry of Aircraft Production approached the Factory and Storage Control of the Board of Trade and asked for their assistance to get some premises in which to house the firm of X, X being a firm making a most important small part for aircraft. X's premises were not large enough. Further, they had sustained bomb damage, and the Ministry of Aircraft Production wanted better and larger premises in order to get increased production from Messrs. X. It was suggested, therefore, that Messrs. X should approach Messrs. Incledon, whose premises were considered by the Board of Trade to be generally suitable for the purposes needed. I am quite sure that I need not stress the difficulty in a city like Birmingham to find premises at this period of the war. My hon. Friends who know Birmingham will know that it is extremely hard to find any premises anywhere in that city, as indeed it is becoming increasingly hard to find premises in any of the great industrial cities of this country. Messrs. Incledon's premises were selected and the matter was explained to the firm's secretary. After that it was left to negotiation between the two firms. Messrs. X, so I am informed, would have preferred to take the premises on a lease for the duration of the war and for six months afterwards, but that was not agreeable to Messrs. Incledon, who preferred, apparently, to sell. In fact they offered the premises for £10,000 and Messrs. X paid £9,500 for them. Therefore, Messrs. X were in possession of these premises in, I think, July, 1943.
At that time there were at Messrs. X's a father, a crippled son, and a younger son, all actively engaged in the business. The younger son 'had been under deferment ever since 1939. The deferment ceased and he was called up in August, 1943. Unhappily, within a few weeks of his being called up, the father died and the crippled son, on the advice of his doctor, felt himself completely unable to move the whole of his works into these 2052 new premises and to expand his production, as he had been asked to do. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend correctly said, it had been found that by a comparatively small expenditure it was possible to make Messrs. X's original premises secure. This was done, and they remained where they were. They decided to carry on in their present premises. I do not know why they decided to sell the other premises. It may well be, as happens in so many families, that they had considerable Death Duties to pay, and that a sum of ready cash was vitally necessary to them. But, at any rate, they were perfectly entitled to sell these premises, which had not been requisitioned. My hon. Friend was wrong in saying that there was any question of requisitioning. They were sold at a voluntary commercial sale. It is true that Messrs. Incledon's would have lost the premises in any case—

§ Mr. Higgs
I read the letter just now. It stated: In normal circumstances we should issue an authority of this Ministry to requisition. Captain Waterhouse: That is precisely what I was about to say when my hon. Friend intervened. It is true that Messrs. Incledon would have lost their premises in any case, but had they lost them by requisitioning, or had they granted a lease, the premises would have been available to them at the end of the war. But they preferred to sell, and Messrs. X were perfectly within their rights in afterwards selling those premises on the open market, which they did for £12,000 to Messrs. Gittins & Sons, Limited, as my hon. Friend has said. I admit that that is an extremely galling circumstance for Messrs. Incledon, but I submit that there is no unfairness there at all. The first firm sold to the second at within £500 of the price that had been asked; the second firm sold, to the third firm, property which was theirs to sell. I want to make it perfectly clear that I realise the hardship in this case and in the thousands of other similar cases. These. cases of requisitioning are the hardest of all things that Government Departments have to do, but they are absolutely necessary for the conduct of the war. It was necessary that these premises should be taken over at that moment. A way for disposal was found which was thought to be the best and the most agreeable to both firms.
2053 I repeat, there was never any requisitioning in this case. There were clearly three possibilities—one, to lease; two, to sell and, three, to be requisitioned. Messrs. Incledon chose to sell their premises, and, having chosen to do so, the premises were resold. They are now angry, and justifiably so, because they have seen the Birmingham branch of their premises closed and, being human beings, they are aggrieved that somebody has made £2,500 profit in a short time. But that is neither the fault of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, nor of their agents, in this case the Board of Trade. Both Departments acted, at the time when they acted, reasonably and properly and I hope my hon. Friend will, agree with me that, hard as it seems on Messrs. Incledon, they should not now complain at what was then their own choice.

§ Sir John Mellor (Tamworth)
Surely there was some misrepresentation, even if a perfectly innocent one, inducing the sale by Messrs. lncledon to Messrs. X of these premises. There was a misrepresentation, I think—I only know the facts from this Debate: I knew nothing about them beforehand—as to the necessity for Messrs. X taking these premises. I suggest that, first of all, in regard to the importance of this firm's production for war purposes. It is rather curious that of the three directors there was one who was presumably elderly, another was a cripple and a third was called up soon afterwards. Surely, if the firm was of sufficient importance in the war effort to justify threatening a requisition of premises, it is a most astonishing thing that the one young and fit director should be called up and taken away on military service.
There is another point which sounds to me as though there was misrepresentation. We were told by my right hon. and gallant Friend that it was necessary that Messrs. X. should find other premises because of bomb damage to their original premises. As soon as it became incon- 2054 venient to move, they decided not to move, and in fact continued to carry on after repairing the damage to their original premises. In view of these facts I think my right hon. and gallant Friend's explanation sounds very thin. I hope he can deal a little more fully with those two points.

§ Captain Waterhouse
My hon. Friend has put his finger on two points which I noticed myself and made special inquiries into. As to the calling up of the younger son, at this time there were three, the father and two sons, in the business. As the war has proceeded the comb out has become more and more severe. Not in one or two firms but in scores of thousands has one of several partners had to be removed as the war has proceeded. When this boy was called up there were two left, the father and one son, and they could undoubtedly have carried on perfectly well. But the father died just after the boy had been called up, and that completely altered the circumstances of the firm.
On the other point I have to admit, on behalf of the Minister of Aircraft Production, that the assessment of the damage to Messrs. X's premises was, at first, exaggerated. This was a very important production. They could not run any risks at all. The first examination made them think that the premises would be unsuitable for further use and it was only subsequently that they found they could be patched up. There may have been some error there, and I am assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that since this case even greater care has been taken over the survey.