HC Deb 30 July 1949 vol 467 cc2995-3005

2.34 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris (Carmarthen)

I regret that circumstances and the official attitude of the Minister of Works compel me to bring to the notice of the House a special case in the County of Carmarthen. In the heart of Carmarthenshire there is a rural parish called Llandefeilog, which has a number of enterprising and energetic young people who have formed a welfare association they call the Llandefeilog Welfare Association. In January, 1947, they decided to buy two huts for the purpose of setting up two welfare centres in the parish. They approached the Office of Works in order to buy the huts in the possession of the Ministry. These huts stood upon land which at that time was requisitioned and occupied by the War Office.

A contract was entered into in January, 1947, and on 30th January the sum of £95—the sum asked for in respect of the two huts—was paid by the Association to the Ministry of Works. It was part of the contract that the purchase price should be paid, that when it had been paid the authority for releasing the huts would be issued, and that the huts were to be removed from the land within a month of that date—that is, some time at the end of February or the beginning of March. The contract having been signed and the money paid, the Association were then faced with difficulties, some of which were expected and some of which were not. They had to obtain the necessary permits and licences to build, and, what was much more difficult, they had to find the labour.

They were unable to move the huts within the stipulated time of one month, and an application was made to the Office of Works to extend the period. This is important. The period was extended with the consent of the Ministry from time to time until September, the Association not having been able during that time to find the labour to set up the huts. However, if they had found the labour, they had not the necessary permits and licences, and all they could have done was to store the huts, but this being a rural area there was no place available in which they could store them. On 4th September, 1947, the War Office, who were in possession of the land, derequisitioned it. Normally, when land is derequisitioned huts standing upon the land become the property of the landowner. The Ministry of Works say, and they say it after the event, that they informed the landowner on 4th September that access must be kept for the Association to go on the land and take away the huts. I see that the Minister shakes his head. I am not surprised, because I rather believe that that was not so; but it is in his own letter. The fact was that it was derequisitioned.

The Ministry of Works wrote to the Association on 14th October and again on 10th Novemebr, urging them to remove the huts, but gave the Association no information of any kind that the land had been derequisitioned. They gave no information of any kind that notice had been given to the landlord that access must be retained for the Association to go on the land to remove the huts. Shortly after the letter of 10th November, the Association went to remove the huts, but they found to their great surprise and disappointment that the huts had been sold.

The first time the Association learnt that the land had been derequisitioned on 4th September, was on 5th February, 1948, three months after the huts had been sold and very nearly six months after the land had been derequisitioned. One would have thought that the Ministry, having consented to extend the time from the end of February to September, and in view of the fact that the derequisitioning of the land involved a possible change of ownership of the huts, would at least have informed the Association that the land had been derequisitioned by the War Office. The Minister was acting as the agent of the War Office, but whether he knew, I cannot say. However, the letter he addressed to me in April of this year was to the effect that the Ministry made special arrangements with the landowner for access to be granted for a reasonable period so that the huts could be removed, and that the welfare association were reminded on 16th October and 10th November that the huts must be cleared from the site. They were reminded that the huts should be cleared from the site, but that had been done from the end of February. There was no suggestion, as the Minister claimed in this letter, that at any time the Association was informed that the derequisitioning had taken place.

It is clear upon those facts that the Ministry should have returned the money to the Association. In a legal sense, there is no manner of right by which the Ministry are entitled to keep that money. The contract on which the Ministry rely, the original contract of January—which he says was broken by the Association—was broken by the Ministry themselves on 4th September. Even if they had a legal right to retain this money, no one in this House would say that they have any moral right, or that this Association of young people, who have worked hard to collect the £95 and who are responsible to the subscribers of the money for what they have done with it, should be penalised, or that their energy and enterprise should be penalised by what can only be called a sharp practice. No private person would dare to deal with the Association in the way which a Government Department have done.

Before bringing the matter to the attention of the House, I exhausted every resource open to me in an effort to persuade the Minister to change his mind and take the correct course. I have failed to persuade the Minister to do so, and, therefore, he leaves no other course open to me than to raise this issue in the House in the hope that the Minister will do the right thing and refund the money to the Association. That body has paid the £95 and without notice, has been deprived of it by the action of the Ministry. It is to be hoped that the Minister will now, even at this late hour, repay the money to the Association.

2.42 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key)

It would be well if I went over the history of this case, because there have been certain very important omissions and mis-statements in the recital of the facts. As has been said, it is the duty of my Department to dispose of surplus Government huts. The practice is for the Department with surplus huts on requisitioned land to report the matter to the Ministry of Works so that the huts can be disposed of, after which my Ministry report back to the Department that that has been done when the Department concerned deals with the derequisitioning. It has not been the practice of the Ministry of Works to dismantle the huts themselves, but to sell them as they are standing, the purchaser to undertake to remove them within a specified period.

In this particular case there were two huts involved, which were sold to this Welfare Association for £95. They were standing on land under requisition by the War Office. The terms of the contract with the Association include this paragraph—I have the actual document here—immediately over the signature of the secretary: The Purchaser shall make payment for the goods to the authority within seven days of the acceptance of his tender, and shall commence the dismantling and the removal of the goods from the date of issue to him of instructions for release. Thereafter the works shall be carried out by the Purchaser with all due diligence and in regular progression or as may be directed, and shall be completed, all goods removed, the site cleared of rubbish, and delivered up in a clean and tidy state to the satisfaction of the Authority within four weeks from the date of the instructions for release. The secretary of the Association, before actually paying over his money, signed the contract containing those conditions. When the money was paid two days later a letter was sent to the secretary, and in it there was—

Sir Henry Morris-Jones (Denbigh)

In order to make it clear, because I have not got the point, could the Minister say whether the money was paid within the stipulated period?

Mr. Key

Yes, Sir. The money was paid, and two days later a letter was sent to the honorary secretary, in which there was this paragraph: This acceptance is issued subject to your ability to provide the necessary labour to remove the property purchased and clear the site within one month from the date of the authority for release. That again he accepted, and by acceptance really said to the Ministry of Works, "We have the labour and we are able to remove the property within one month."

Mr. Hopkin Morris

He never said that.

Mr. Key

The condition under which his tender was accepted was: This acceptance is issued subject to your ability to provide the necessary labour. The Association accepted that condition. That was in January, 1947. Months passed and the huts were still left standing. There was no communication between my Department and the Association in those months.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

That is a positive challenge. There was a communication and notification to the Ministry of Works between the end of February and September asking for the extension of the time.

Mr. Key

There is no record in my Ministry of any such communication, and no alteration of the conditions.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

Why was there no communication from the Ministry after the four weeks had gone by when these young men had failed to carry out their contract?

Mr. Hopkin Morris

I would draw the attention of the Minister to his own letter of 23rd February. If there was no communication at all and no extension of the time clearly there had been a breach of contract as the Minister now states it, but in paragraph 3 of his letter of 23rd February—

Mr. Marples (Wallasey)

A letter from the Ministry?

Mr. Hopkin Morris

From the Minister to me. It says: In this case, however, my Ministry made special arrangements with the site-owner for access to be granted for a reasonable period. … Why should the Minister make that special arrangement if we were in breach?

Mr. Key

It was not a special arrangement for the Association, but I will deal with that point when I reach it.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

It is an important point.

Mr. Key

It is, and I will deal with it when I reach it. These huts were not removed, the site was still under requisition and the huts were being disposed of. It was necessary that the site should be derequisitioned, and the War Office, therefore, in September took steps for the derequisitioning of the site. When that was done an arrangement was made for a right of re-entry after derequisitioning, the first for a period of a month, which was extended later by another month.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

Who made it?

Mr. Key

The War Office made that for us for the purpose of the removal of Government property still remaining on the site. That being the case, it extended therefore by another two months the period in which it was possible for this welfare association to obtain entrance on the site for the removal of their huts.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

Was that a general power which was reserved to the Office of Works to enter upon the land?

Mr. Key

Yes, it was a general power.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

That is not consistent with this letter which I have here, and which says that the reservation was in order that an entry should be made upon the land to remove these huts.

Mr. Key

I have not that letter, unfortunately, in front of me. The purpose of the reservation was in order that entry might be made by the Ministry for the removal of Government huts. It is not stated definitely in the letter to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was for Government property, but it was for that purpose that it was extended. That extension would give the same extension to the association for the purpose of removing the huts. Because of that, a communication was sent to the Association regarding the removals. On 16th October—the huts were purchased in January—a letter was sent to the honorary secretary in these words: With reference to your purchase of the above huts, I understand that no action has been taken by you for their removal. I must refer you to the terms of contract that clearance must be effected in one month, as it is now nine months since the release was issued. I am compelled, therefore, to ask you for immediate removal, otherwise action as laid down in the contract documents will be taken.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

I agree.

Mr. Key

The action laid down in the contract document is stated in the part which reads as follows: Where the purchaser … fails to remove the goods within the time specified in the schedule, the authority may … re-sell … the goods and retain out of the proceeds the costs of such re-sale … and any charges for room space, removal and warehousing, and all other expenses incurred by him in connection with the goods. Those were the terms of contract under which the huts were originally sold. In that letter, which was sent in October, attention was drawn to them.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

I am not disputing one word of the facts which the Minister has stated. He has not in his mind anything that I am complaining about. He is right even about the letter of 16th October. There is not one word, however, in that, of the derequisitioning. Although it refers back to the contract in the end of January, it says nothing about the extension of time and the variations made.

Mr. Key

It has nothing to do with the contract which was entered into. The question of the removal of the huts within one month had nothing to do with the extension of the derequisitioning period. A return letter came from the association asking for an extension of another six months after this period. Mind you, the land was already in process of derequisitioning, so we wrote back to the Association in November and said: With reference to your letter of the 25th ultimo, I cannot agree for the huts to remain on the site any longer. Please arrange for immediate removal otherwise, action as laid down in the contract documents will be taken. Still no steps were taken to remove the huts. Derequisitioning came into operation. On 2nd December one of my officers went specially to see the secretary of this association and to inform him—

Mr. Hopkin Morris

I saw him—

Mr. Key

No, the date which the hon. and learned Member gave was in the following year.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

No.

Mr. Key

It is on record. I am stating that so soon as derequisitioning had taken place my officer went to the secretary of the Association and informed him that the land had been derequisitioned. This is the note which my officer made: He"— that is the secretary— informed me that he could make arrangements with the owners and their agent for the removal of their two huts and he was not at all worried over it. That was the statement made by this gentleman. The huts had not been removed.

Later, the Association discovered that the huts had been sold by the owner of the land, as he was fully entitled to do under the terms of derequisitioning. They were sold originally on the condition that they were removed within one month, and they were not so removed. As a result of this situation, a deputation to represent the Association asked to be received by my officers. The deputation was received on 5th February, 1948. The case was fully discussed. When the deputation left it was apparent that they had accepted the position and agreed that their only approach was to the landowner who had resold the huts.

To ask that I should pay back out of public money £95 to an association, because of the neglect of the Association to carry out the terms of the contract into which it had entered and which had been extended, not for one month but for pretty well a twelvemonth, is to ask me to do something with public funds which I certainly am not prepared to do.

Mr. Baxter

Does that mean that the Minister can sell the huts twice and confiscate the £95?

Mr. Key

No, it does not mean that we sold the huts twice. We sold the huts to the Association, and no other sale was made by my Ministry. We got £95 for the huts which were sold and that was the only money we got for them, and having sold huts of this kind under normal terms of contract, I am not justified in paying back the money, leaving the Government with no return whatever for the huts which were sold.

Mr. Baxter

Not a private enterprise in the country would do this. There is nothing to justify confiscating the entire sum so that in the end the purchaser has nothing left. This is unheard of. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite realises what he is putting before the House.

Mr. Key

But the terms of the contract were that the huts would be removed within one month.

Mr. Marples

"Or as may be directed."

Mr. Key

Yes, and we went to them at the end of the period in October and did what I stated in the letters which were read out. We did not dispose of the huts. The huts were left standing on the land when it was derequisitioned, and it was the landowner and not the Ministry of Works who disposed of the huts.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

The Association was not told about the derequisitioning.

Mr. Key

The derequisitioning had nothing to do with the Association.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

Yes it had.

Mr. Key

We went to the Association and told them that they had still two months in which to remove the huts and said that they must obey the conditions of the contract into which they had entered. It was they who failed to do this, and because of their failure, it is they who must suffer the consequences.

Mr. E. P. Smith (Ashford)

Is it not a fact that what really happened was that the Ministry took the huts which really belonged to the Association and gave them to the landlord?

Mr. Key

That is not the case at all. My Ministry had nothing further to do with it. What happened was that the War Office derequisitioned the land on which the huts were still standing because the Association had not removed them. For two months after the derequisitioning we had made arrangements for right of entry on to the site. On two occasions we took the step of telling the Association to remove their huts, but they still failed to deal with them, and at the end of two months, with the huts still standing there, it was the landlord who got rid of them.

3.3 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

What has happened in this case is clear. Nobody is saying for a moment that the Association carried through their share of the contract. The fact is that the huts have been sold twice, I agree once by the Minister and once, through derequisitioning, by the owner. There is, therefore, to begin with the fact that the huts have been sold twice. The price has been paid twice. The welfare association paid one amount of £95 and have nothing to show for it.

Those with some experience know that if things have been sold in good faith on an instalment plan and have to be recovered, no one would ever think of doing what the Minister has advocated today. There is always a system of refund. What the Minister must tell us is how his Department's conscience can be reconciled with the confiscation of £95 because the contract was not carried out. What harm has been done to the Ministry? What cost is there to the State? By what twisting of conscience can this confiscation of money take place. There ought to be a refund. There must be an estimate of how much the Ministry is out of pocket, but as for confiscating the whole amount, not a court of law in the country would sustain it. In these difficult times people, especially a welfare association which is not an ordinary concern, will enter into such a contract containing some provisions about labour and so on in good faith. These things must be recognised. I think the Ministry is acting with extraordinary and unreasonable hardness.

Mr. Key

I take the line, to which I adhere, that it is my duty to dispose of Government property when it has to be disposed of, and get a return for its disposal. I am being asked to get rid of two huts without a halfpenny in return. I am being asked to give back £95 paid for the huts by the Association and have nothing to show for the huts of which I have disposed. Because of the failure of an association to carry out its duties, should the national funds be depleted by £95?

Mr. Hopkin Morris

The reason is quite clear, and the right hon. Gentleman has not touched upon it in all the explanations he has given. We could not have left the huts there if he had not agreed from time to time that they should be left there. It would not have been necessary for him on 4th September to make the arrangement with the landowner if that agreement were not in being. He wrote two letters with not a word about derequisitioning in either of them.

Mr. Key

What I am saying is that that right of entry which was given by the landlord was given to the Government Department for the removal of Government property. It was not given to the Association specifically. They were informed that they still had the period in which to remove their huts. They still failed to do it. It was for them to remove the huts and store them until such time as they had the power to re-erect them. They had as long as 11 months within which to do that, and they failed to do it. I do not see that I should be justified in giving £95 to an Association merely because within 11 months they failed to carry out the undertaking into which they had entered.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he not agree that it was a term of the contract that he should sell the huts if the contract was not carried out, recoup his own expenses and Then hand over the balance to the owners of the huts? Instead of that, he gave the huts away. Does he think that was behaving in good conscience?

Mr. Key

The huts were not given away by me. I had not control over the land—

Mr. Hopkin Morris

Not over the land.

Mr. Key

—and I had no control over the huts, because the huts were already the property of the Association and the land was under requisition by the War Office. So I had no control over this at all in that sense and, as I say, it was for the Association to carry out their conditions. That I did not impose the penalties within the contract was because I was giving every opportunity to the Association to remove their huts and it was their failure, right to the very end, after our endeavours to get them to do it, that was the cause of their losing the huts, and for that they were responsible.