HC Deb 11 April 1951 vol 486 cc1147-56

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Deedes (Ashford)

I would like to turn from theory to reality. My object tonight is to call attention to a particular aspect, I think a rather disquieting aspect, of our housing problem—that is, the camps of Service huts, mainly Nissen huts, still being used as dwelling houses in many parts of the country. I want to say a few words about the general problem of these camps, but my principal concern is about a camp at Hothfield, near Ashford, where some 200 of these huts are now occupied by 700 people. I have reason to think that the problem is regarded not unsympathetically by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning and by the Minister and I am most anxious to avoid over-stating or over-dramatising the case to a point of controversy. My object is to see these camps progressively eliminated as quickly as possible, and I hope that that is also the object of the Parliamentary Secretary.

The history of these camps is simply stated. They are relics of the camps created mainly during the years 1940 and 1941 through the immense and rapid expansion of Home Forces in this country. In passing, I would say that I have lived in a number of them and even had a hand in the erection of one or two so I know that they were built very rapidly as a military urgency and were not sited or constructed as suitable residences for very long.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

Mr. Deedes

It was only to be expected that local authorities, with their pressing housing needs immediately after the war, should turn to these camps. I think I am right in saying that it was with the full authority of the Ministry of Health, then responsible, that many of these camps were converted into dwelling-houses under the terms of Circular No. 20—I think the only circular issued—of 1946. The original object, I suppose, was that they should still be transit camps, that they should be camps for people on the local authorities' housing waiting lists who would, in a certain time, be given a proper house. I think it is well to bear in mind that in the first place these houses were occupied by people who were in desperation. They were not occupied by these people from choice.

Five years have elapsed since the plan was passed and many of the huts are now at least 10 years old. I was informed the other day by the Minister of Local Government and Planning, in answer to a Question, that there are still 37,000 huts in occupation; that is, all huts—Service huts and Nissen huts. I do not know what the rate of elimination has been. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say a few words about that, but what principally concerns me is whether the rate of elimination is keeping pace with the deterioration. On that I think there are some grounds for disquiet.

I want to refer more specifically to this camp at Hothfield, which I think is typical of many, but which I have had the opportunity to inspect fairly thoroughly. However good the tenants may be—and much depends upon the tenants—these huts and their surroundings do not improve with the passage of time. One of their main defects is that they suffer inevitably from the dividing lines between the local, the regional and the central authorities on one particularly important point—and that is, to spend enough money to keep them habitable but not to spend too much and not to do too much to divert supplies and labour from the main housing drive, in the first place, nor to make the huts a permanent feature. Paradoxically, therefore, the better the maintenance of these huts, the more it tends to perpetuate the problem of their existence.

In that kind of administrative twilight these people are now living. I want to give the example of this camp, although I think it is typical of many. On the one hand, in this camp there are no established roads and there is no street lighting of any kind. It was judged that the outlay on street lighting was not justified by the length of time the camp had to exist. On the other hand, the roofing of the huts, which had rusted, has been carried out at some expense—I think £30 a hut—and secondary walls have been built, also at some expense, with a view to eliminating damp. Tenants pay 10s. a week for three rooms or 12s. a week for four rooms.

None of this patchwork—and it is patchwork—can remove the real defects and discomforts which are inseparable from such flimsy dwellings. The sewerage as I saw it is admittedly adequate. The rainwater drainage is nil and, as a result, every hut is surrounded by the water which lands on and flows off the roof. This is drawn up through the extremely thin foundations of the hut by the warmth inside, causing condensation and damp of a most serious character—probably the worst feature of these huts and the worst feature of such huts generally. As a result bedding, clothing, perambulators, childrens' clothing and so on are soaking wet, particularly at this time of the year. Further, these huts suffer from appalling draughts, with which anyone who occupied them during the war will be familiar.

Remarkable efforts have been made by the tenants here—and, I have no doubt, elsewhere—aided by an admirable tenants association to do their best with the materials at their disposal. The worst conditions here are not due to individuals—as sometimes happens elsewhere—but to circumstances outside the control of anyone living in the camp. I have no idea what the life of one of these huts is supposed to be. They have stood now for 10 years, and I should think it possible that another five years would be an optimistic estimate of their future existence. It is clear that in this particular scheme, therefore, we have to envisage clearance at a rate of something like 50 huts a year, or one a week. I may say that the rate of elimination at the moment is nothing like on that scale, and, therefore, one is disquieted about whether deterioration is outpacing elimination.

Replacement of the huts with houses is a job for the local authorities, and I am not addressing the hon. Gentleman on that particular point, but at this stage, as I see it, at the half-way mark of this scheme, initiated in 1946, I think he ought to consider, and that his right hon. Friend ought to consider, the possibility of fresh directions, fresh guidance, to the local authorities as to the long-term objectives to be kept in mind in relation to these schemes. I would ask him to consider that, because I think at this moment a note of urgency would not come amiss. In a letter which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to write to me on the subject, he said: You may rest assured, moreover, that he needs of these districts"— that is, districts with huts— will be taken into account in considering the allocations of houses which are made from time to time to local authorities. I think that if the hon. Gentleman could repeat something on the lines of that assurance it might act as a spur, an incentive, to the local authorities concerned.

I have been addressing the hon. Gentleman particularly in his capacity under the first part of his Ministry's title, Local Government; and now I would address him on the subject of the second part of the title, namely, Planning. Ashford, only a mile from Hothfield, is one of the towns scheduled for local development—considerable development—which, we hope, will eventually nearly double the population of the town. Everybody, I think, welcomes that, and the advent of light industries, and so on, and the consequent prosperity. But one is entitled to add a word of warning, I think, with particular application to these hutted camps; no doubt, it is applicable elsewhere, too.

This investment ought not to be allowed to outstrip the progress made with housing, and I think that a town which has still on its outskirts 200 Nissen huts with 700 inhabitants, including 260 children, cannot afford socially very rapid industrial development until the huts have been eliminated. I think the two, housing and industrial development, should proceed pari passu as far as possible; and I hope that the Ministry will watch this particularly in Ashford, though no doubt the warning applies elsewhere as well.

In conclusion, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will indicate that the Ministry is alive to the considerable social problems involved—and there are social problems involved when people have lived for as long as some of these people have lived in huts of this kind. I hope that he will recognise the fact that we are dealing here with what, in fact, is a wasting asset—an asset which cannot, with the best will in the world, be maintained more than another few years, and that we are also dealing with a community which, I suggest, is the worst housed community anywhere in the country—none, I think, is in worse conditions than these—and so deserving, I think, of the most strenuous efforts which, between us, we can bring to bear upon this problem.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams (Tonbridge)

I should like to add a few words to what my hon. Friend has said, because from an experience I had only last week I believe the feeling against these Nissen huts to be very great. I was looking at some condemned houses in my constituency, which, I hasten to say, were not council houses, and their condition was worse than anything I had seen in the East End of London where I was for a considerable time before the war. In one house there was more cardboard in the windows than panes of glass; there were holes two or three inches deep and the ceiling was sagging by a couple of feet. When I took a local councillor along to look at these houses, the good lady who was the tenant, for whom we promised to do what we could, immediately said: "Oh, please sir, don't put us in a Nissen hut." That shows that a lot of people have a great horror of Nissen huts.

Those who live in Nissen huts are having, to say the least of it, a very tiresome time. No doubt it is better to have a roof over one's head than to have nothing, but many of these huts are a disgrace to the country. My hon. Friend referred to the drips of water from the roof. That is caused because many of the huts have corrugated iron roofs, and we know how there is condensation from corrugated iron. These drips of water very often fall on to the bed of the owner, and even on to the cot of his child. Living in those conditions must do great harm to family life.

Many of the huts have concrete floors, and if a tenant lays linoleum on a concrete floor it very soon perishes, which means not only that the tenant has lost the money he has spent on the linoleum, but also that the place immediately looks very ramshackle. Washing is extremely difficult in some that I have seen myself, because many have no interior washing facilities. People have to go out to a communal wash place, and in weather such as we are now experiencing tempers can well become frayed after walking through the rain to perform ablutions properly. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the roadways are very bad, and in the winter some of these people have to walk not on a proper track but on little pathways made of cinders only.

It may be that living in these huts is better than living with in-laws or sharing a cooker with a couple of other families, but morale must be breaking down in some of these Nissen huts. A man cannot go and do a real job of work if he leaves his home knowing that his wife and children are in these bad conditions. When at night he returns to these conditions he cannot be in the best of tempers, as he should be. I feel that, not only is the family being broken up but men and women who live in these huts are probably not doing a real day's work because their morale is so low.

Originally, £250 was allowed to be spent on a hut. That work has long since worn out, and many of these huts are now in a very bad state of repair. In fact, they are just like condemned property, and councils are unwilling to spend money on improving them because they know that these huts, like condemned property, are not meant to last for a long time. In any case, I think I am right in saying that £50 is the amount that can now be spent on a hut, and that does not go very far in keeping these huts up to the mark. Nissen huts are to be found only in the worst areas. In those areas the people have to be re-housed. That often means that they have to be re-housed at the expense of other people waiting for houses. The appeal which I make is that something should be done for these people.

In my own area, the local council has been successful in clearing away many of these huts, and there are now only a few left in the area. They were originally occupied by squatters who came from outside the area of the council, which made it very difficult for the council to deal with them. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he can grant special permits to allow councils which have this Nissen hut problem to build more houses to meet the needs of these people.

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of this problem, and that he is sympathetic, and I hope that he will do something to meet the case which has been put to him so forcibly by my hon. Friend.

10.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren)

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), not only for raising this matter in the very pleasant way in which he has done, but for extending to me the courtesy, which is not always extended on these Adjournment debates, of letting me know the general line of his approach to this matter. That, of course, enables one to be more competent in dealing with the points raised.

These camps fall into two groups. As the war came to an end, a number of redundant camps were given up by the Service Departments. Hostels were also given up by the Minister of Agriculture and other Departments. These camps and hostels were offered to local authorities to meet the demand for housing. That was done in January, 1946. It was left to the local authorities to decide whether these hutted camps were worth conversion and adaptation for housing, and whether the needs of their areas were such as to require this accommodation.

Limits were set on the conversion costs of these temporary buildings, and I think that everyone will agree that it was right that it should be so. Huts were divided into two categories for the purpose of setting these limits—those that had a life of 10 years and those that had a life of five years. The huts vary greatly in type. Some are built of brick, some of concrete blocks, some of asbestos sheeting, some are wooden, and there are also these Nissen huts. The Nissen huts form only a very small proportion.

I readily agree that they are the least satisfactory because corrugated iron rusts and deteriorates. The huts often require re-roofing and there is a tendency for condensation which is aggravated where there is not good ventilation. Apart from the huts which were offered to and accepted by the local authorities because of their siting and suitability, there followed in August, 1946, and the following months the vacation of camps by the Service Departments; and as the various Departments walked out, in walked the squatters, who have been referred to tonight by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams). Hundreds and perhaps thousands of families walked into Army camps as the Service Departments vacated them.

We were immediately faced with the problem of having people going into this accommodation which had not been prepared for them and which the local authorities had deemed to be unsuitable on grounds of siting, from a public health point of view and for other reasons. However, these people walked into these camps and, recognising their reasons, we had to do something about it. The then Ministry of Health approached the local authorities and asked them whether they would take over these camps and be responsible for public health, conversions and administration in addition to the other accommodation they had already taken over for their housing purposes.

The local authorities responded magnificently, and their officers, in particular, have done a wonderful job. The Government have accepted all along the full cost of the conversions, maintenance and administration of these camps. The local authorities bear the cost of the services they provide, and they, of course, receive rates for them. I am not suggesting that the rates they receive on these properties meet their costs. They are low-rated, but the same applies to quite a number of their properties; in fact, it applies to most working-class properties in any town.

I wish to refer to something which the hon. Member raised in a letter, although he did not refer to it in his speech. Under the heading "Emergency Housing Costs," the figure of £15 million is quoted in the Department's Vote as the cost of these services. The hon. Member says that this appears to be a very high figure. But this figure is a gross charge. It covers requisitioned buildings as well as these camps for the whole of England, and it does not take into account appropriations in aid—in other words, the rents received from the tenants. The cost to the taxpayer of these camps has been £1,197,000 for 1949, £936,000 for 1950 and £804,000 for 1951. There are in England and Wales 37,000 families concerned, and therefore £800,000 cannot be said by any means to be excessive.

To put it at its best, this accommodation is sub-standard, and it is pretty grim for these people to have to live under such conditions. It is a grim thought that people prefer even these low standard Nissen huts to the accommodation they have left, or have to live in them because they have no other accommodation. These camps will have to continue in existence for some considerable time—until we can get new houses built for these families. The object will be first of all to eliminate the worst of the huts as the people can be rehoused.

Mr. Deedes

It is rather important to establish how long these huts are to continue in use. Has the Ministry any idea of the time, because surely it affects any long-term aims of local authorities for their elimination?

Mr. Lindgren

One cannot give an estimate because the problem varies so much in various parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Ashford referred to housing allocations and whether such allocations would enable local authorities to make additional housing accommodation. As mere allocations they are not the slightest use at all. What really matters is, what houses can be built in the area by the local authority. My right hon. Friend has said in this House, and I repeat it here, that our policy is to encourage those local authorities who will show actual performance in building. If they build, we will give them further allocations. Our policy is to give to those who show good endeavour, and to take away from those who are not showing good endeavour.

Local authorities who get their present schemes well under way will be favourably considered for further allocations. The hon. Member for Ashford represents two rural districts who were behind in their allocations last year. One was over 100 down and the other well over 50 houses. It is not much good saying to an authority down by 50 houses on last year, "You can have another 200 houses" if it only proposes to build 50. That is only raising false hopes in the district among people who are looking for houses. If performance is good, we will see about further allocations.

We come now to the other point, the effect of the letting of houses in each area on the elimination of these camps. We do not want the Ministry to start interfering with the letting of local houses. Local government means local government, and the people in the locality, knowing the circumstances of the people and their needs, are qualified to do the letting.

These camps are a very great difficulty for local authorities. People who want a house will go to all sorts of lengths in order to jump the queue, and if it should ever get about that the people in these camps were getting preference over other people on housing lists, things would be very difficult for the local authorities. Local authorities must, in the light of their local needs and the circumstances of the families, let the houses in their areas, considering as well people from the camps where the need is great. We could not encourage—it would be wrong to do so—local authorities to give undue preference to people who sometimes create a problem for themselves by getting into these conditions.

The only satisfactory way of dealing with the problem is by the provision of additional housing, so that these camps can be closed and the huts taken out of service through the building of new houses. I can say quite definitely—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.