RICHMOND PARK CAMP (USE) (Hansard, 6 November 1947)

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
I want to raise a question which, while it is wholly local in its origin, at the same time raises matters of some general importance in regard to the policy of the Government. It relates to the future use of a camp located in Richmond Park, which affects both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works. I have taken the precaution of notifying both Departments, and I am glad to see the Minister of Works now in his place.
The facts which are necessary to a proper comprehension of the matter are brief. There is located in that corner of Richmond Park which immediately adjoins the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames a camp which is at present in process of evacuation by No. 102 military convalescent depot. That camp not only immediately adjoins that Royal Borough, but it is a camp of unusual amenity. It has been used for some considerable time by a military convalescent depot. I would say in parenthesis that it has done magnificent work for rehabilitation of wounded and sick military personnel. Being a camp of that sort, it is particularly well fitted up in all matters relating to such things as plumbing. So far as any military camp can be suitable for housing purposes, that camp certainly is. I would not like it to go on record that it is nothing better than an ordinary camp. It is, in fact, very much better than the camp in Bushey Park which is being used for housing at this very moment.
Kingston-upon-Thames is one of the places where the housing problem is rather more serious than in most areas. The 2125 waiting list bears the impressive total of 2,200 applicants. As the great majority of them are family men, and applications have been made upon family grounds, the figure means that there are, at a low estimate, some 7,000 people seeking accommodation. The town suffered not inconsiderably from bombardment, particularly during the V-I and V-2 periods, and the accommodation available was thereby substantially reduced. The density of population per acre has always been high, and I believe that Professor Abercrombie reported that the density was higher than in any other part of the metropolitan area.
As a consequence, the housing problem, which in every part of the country is serious, is more than usually serious in Kingston-upon-Thames. I do not wish to weary the House with examples, but it would be right to put it on record that there is an immense amount of human suffering and misery caused by the lack of room in which to live a decent life. I think all Members appreciate, without any emphasis from me, that lack of living accommodation probably contributes more at this moment to human misery in this country than any other single factor.
In those circumstances, the borough council as long ago as 1943, got into touch with the Minister of Health at that time in connection with their desire that when this camp was evacuated by the Army it might be made available to the council for housing purposes. As long ago as 1944, at a conference between representatives of the Ministry of Health and the local council, a considerable amount of agreement on this point was reached, subject only to the camp being evacuated by the Army. Doubt arose only in the earlier part of this year when it became known that the military convalescent depot was to close down at the end of this year and that the camp would then revert to the Ministry of Works. Application was made on behalf of the council to the Ministry of Works who were asked that the camp, as soon as the Army had finished with it, might be handed over to the council to help in dealing with the heavy housing problem.
I want to make it clear that there is no party political issue in this matter. I think it is right to say that the attitude of the council in pressing for the use of 2126 this camp has been persisted in through several changes in the political majority in control of that council. So far as I know throughout four years the attitude of the council has been, "We want this camp as soon as it is free; we can use it." It was only during the summer of 1947 that it became known that the original idea of handing over the camp to the council when the Army left it was being abandoned. To get the matter quite clear, perhaps I might refer to a Parliamentary Question which I put upon the day on which the House rose for the summer Recess. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, in reply to my Question, said this: When the convalescent depot is vacated, which will probably be about the end of the year, it is proposed to use the buildings to house competitors in the 1948 Olympic Games."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 2425.] That matter was carried somewhat further by the Ministry of Health. Perhaps I might read the relevant extracts from a letter dated 8th October which I received from that Department. It is over the signature of an official of the Department, and it reads as follows:— You will remember that Mr. Bevan wrote to you on 1st October regarding his inability to meet a deputation from Kingston about their housing problems. You may be interested to know that officers of the Department saw a delegation"— on such and such a date. It went on: A reference was also made in the discussion to the position at Richmond Park Camp. It was explained that the camp was to be used for the accommodation of competitors at the Olympic Games next year, and after that the huts would probably be converted into office accommodation for Government Departments, which would enable the Government to release a number of flats under requisition in central London now in use as offices. This would ease the housing position in London generally. That puts a perfectly straight issue of principle, and that is why I said that this matter raised a general question as well as a particular one. The general question is this. We have here certain accommodation which, whatever its limitations for housing purposes—and I am not pretending that any camp makes ideal housing accommodation, although I might say, indeed, it is a platitude, that it offers far better accommodation than a good many thousands of my constituents and the constituents of many hon. Members are living in at this 2127 moment—offers a possibility of amelioration of living conditions for an overcrowded population, and we have the local authority for four years seeking the use of this camp in order to solve that problem. We then have a decision by the Government Departments concerned that, notwithstanding the admitted grave hardship which many people are suffering from lack of accommodation, this camp, when it becomes empty, as it will—it is emptying already and will be empty altogether in a week or two—is to be kept empty for some months and then used for a comparatively limited period to house athletes coming to this country to take part in the Olympic Games.
I will not go into the subsequent use whether as office accommodation or otherwise, because I am more concerned with the immediate issue which raises the question of principle. It is not for me on this occasion to express any opinion as to whether the Government were wise or unwise in their decision to hold the Olympic Games in this country next year. That is a matter on which opinions may legitimately differ. But if the Government do think that while we are faced with all our problems it is right to indulge in the diversion of manpower, energy and finance which these Games involve, that surely is no reason whatever for giving the needs of these Olympic competitors priority over the housing needs of our own population? If the Government decide that they want these Games here, and if a number of athletes are to come here, is it asking too much to suggest that those athletes should take second place to the rehousing of our own people? I do not know whether it is suggesting too much hardship that these, presumably, perfectly fit individuals be accommodated during the summer in tents. A great many million men have had to live in tents during the past few years and few of them are the worse for it.
At any rate, it is a different thing from asking old people, women, sick people and children to live in the appalling conditions in which they are living at the moment, and it seems to me wrong in principle for the Ministers concerned to say that first priority must be found for these foreign athletes, and that a step which would provide a great improvement in living conditions for some hundreds of our own people must be put aside to 2128 meet the needs of these others. I am perfectly certain that our foreign guests would be profoundly uncomfortable if they knew that their accommodation had been provided at the cost of continuing overcrowding of our families. I am certain that every one of them would be embarassed by that knowledge, and I do not think the Government are doing them any good service by preferring them in this highly embarrassing way. There is no need to labour the point. The plain and simple issue is: should this camp be used for housing, or should it be kept empty for months and then used for a comparatively limited period to house the competitors for the Olympic Games? I am sorry not to see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health in his place, though I am sure he is very well represented, because I desired that those directly concerned with the handling of this housing problem should see him and argue this matter with him face to face. I do not think that was an excessive demand to make, and I regret very much that he found it impossible to fit in with his engagements any possibility of seeing a deputation on this subject. I think that was a sign of regrettable weakness, or lack of a sense of proportion on his part.
However, the issue is now, at the end of long and tangled negotiations and prolonged discussion, before this House and I would say with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works that it is the mark of a weak Minister to persist in a wrong decision merely because that decision has been taken and because a reversal of it may seem to involve a loss of dignity. It is the mark of a strong Minister, one whom this House respects, to say, "Having reconsidered this matter, I have come to the conclusion that my, and my colleagues', initial decision was wrong. Regarding it now with a proper sense of proportion, a change should be made, and I will make it." No one would seek to exploit a reversal of the previous decision if the Minister were strong enough to make it; on the contrary, as a political opponent, one would respect him for it. I hope he will not allow the fact that there has been a long history in this matter, and that this decision has been persisted in for many months, to prevent him from doing right today and saying, "Let us, as a first step, house 2129 overcrowded people; let first priority be given to that."
There is a tendency at the moment to accept with undue complacency the conditions under which many of our fellow subjects are living. Their prospects of improving them are much worse than they were, with the proposed restrictions on building and the proposed restrictions on most building operations to certain areas of this country. Obviously, to the thousands on this waiting list the prospect of getting accommodation in a normal way is not only distant, but receding even further. Here is an immediate and practical way of giving them not only hope, but many of them accommodation. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to allow Ministerial pride, not to allow the natural amour propre of a Department or of an administration, to prevent him from tackling this matter as if it were a new matter, and of saying, as I think an impartial person cannot but say faced with these two alternatives, "The housing of overcrowded people must, and shall, come first."

§ The Minister of Works (Mr. Key)
I think the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has given the history of this matter in sufficient detail to excuse me going into that history; but while it is true that the Minister would show strength if, having changed his mind, he were to say so, quite definitely it is also not a sign of weakness if, being of the same opinion, the Minister says he is of that opinion. The first reason for saying that this camp shall be used for competitors in the Olympic Games is that, having looked around for all available accommodation in the London area, other accommodation than this cannot be found to satisfy the need. I think it is generally accepted that it is a wise and good thing to hold the Olympic Games, which will add a good deal to the friendly relations of the peoples of the world and bring to this country a number of welcome visitors, welcome particularly in our present circumstances.
We have to accommodate some 5,000 athletes, and when the decision to hold the Games was made, it fell to my Ministry and to the Service Departments to find that accommodation. We were able to find accommodation for something like 2,500 in Uxbridge and West Drayton.
2130 That was provided by the Air Ministry, but we failed to find accommodation for the rest, other than that in Richmond Park. None of those who protested against the use of this camp for this purpose has been able to suggest any suitable alternative.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the alternative which I suggested tonight, and which I believe was suggested originally, that tent accommodation could be provided, perhaps in Richmond Park?

§ Mr. Key
Yes, I considered that that was totally unsuitable for accommodating these visitors to this country at the time when the Games are to be held, and that it is not the sort of accommodation which should be provided for them. I have inspected this camp, and spent a considerable time going over it. The canteen accommodation, and everything else which is provided makes it ideally suitable for the purpose of temporary accommodation of visitors to this country. Also, after a very careful inspection, I am very definitely convinced that the camp is not suitable for adaptation for ordinary housing purposes. I have had a great deal of experience in adaptation for workingclass homes and a large number of the huts there are not of the kind which could be readily converted into homes.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
While I agree that there is great force in what the right hon. Gentleman says, is not this accommodation very much better adapted for housing than the camp in Bushey Park, which is in occupation at present?

§ Mr. Key
No, Sir, I do not agree with that either. A large part of the camp could not be used for housing at all. The very large canteens and the kitchen accommodation would be useless from the point of view of housing, and they could not be converted into adequate and proper homes. They would, however, be very suitable—and this I am convinced would be the right policy for my Ministry to follow—with slight adaptations which will go forward in order to give accommodation for competitors in the Olympic Games, and with other adaptations made a few weeks after the Games are over, for conversion into very much needed office accomodation where the 2131 canteen arrangements would still remain. This would provide accommodation for anything between 1,500 and 2,000 employees in the offices.
It would also be quite the right thing to say that the camp should be converted and used in order that I as Minister of Works, may be able to set free what is alas, a large number of houses and flats which my Ministry has had to requisition in order to provide office accommodation in the London area. I am convinced that so far as the provision of housing accommodation is concerned, I shall be able to provide more by using this camp ultimately as office accommodation than if I attempted to convert parts of it into housing accommodation at the present time. While it may be that, as a result of that the people in Kingston may not get as great a proportion of the houses that are set free as they might have done had this camp been converted into housing accommodation, I have a responsibility to the people of the country as a whole. I am certain that the line to be taken is the provision of the greater amount of accommodation which can be obtained.
I very much regret that this camp has to continue in Richmond Park at all. I believe it my duty, as I am responsible for the parks, that we should, as soon as possible, free these spaces from the camps and other encumbrances that have been put up in them during the war. I am looking forward to the time when, having used them temporarily for offices, we shall be able to get rid of them altogether and put the parks back again into the condition in which they should be for the enjoyment of the people of the country 2132 generally. I repeat that after a careful inspection—and I spent a considerable time going round this camp—I am convinced that it is not really suitable for adaptation for housing and that I should be doing the greatest public service by using it, after the Olympic Games, for office accommodation, in order to set free the greatest number of requisitioned houses I can for habitation by the people in the London area. That is the line I have determined to follow.

§ Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)
I had not intended to take part in this Debate, but after the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister I should like to say a few words. First, he says that he wants to give up some premises in London which are now occupied by his officials. I suggest that the best method of doing that would be to reduce the number of officials who are in need of accommodation. Further, his desire to clear this camp out of the park and still leave people living in the conditions to which my hon. Friend has referred does not seem to me to be a wise decision. I should have thought that the first consideration would have been those numerous people who want to get out of the wretched conditions in which they are living into this temporary camp, even if it gives a little discomfort to people who may be able to enjoy the amenities of that park. The Minister gave a very weak answer to my hon. Friend's case.