HC Deb 03 February 1953 vol 510 cc1659-71
Mr. Dodds

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why plans to requisition 20 empty houses for flood victims in the area of the Erith Borough Council have been cancelled on the orders of his Department, and in view of the urgent need for these houses to accommodate some of the 350 people who are homeless in Erith if he will reconsider his decision.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)

My right hon. Friend, who is touring the flood areas, has asked me to reply. As my right hon. Friend has informed the hon. Member, he does not agree that there was any cancellation. In any case, in the first stage of such an emergency the immediate problem was a welfare one, for which other action was thought more appropriate.

Mr. Dodds

If the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend knew the town clerk of Erith he would not doubt the statement that between 10 o'clock and 10.30 yesterday morning, from the Minister's regional officers at Caxton House, the town clerk was given approval to go ahead with requisitioning, and that it was not until 3.30 that a telephone call was received from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to state that a meeting had been held at the highest level and a decision taken that none of these empty houses had to be requisitioned for people who were homeless because of the floods. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are hundreds of people—men, women and children—in church halls and that this type of accommodation is not suitable for more than 24 or 48 hours? Is he aware that in the last hour I have had information that more and more people are being taken from houses that are now untenable and that the position is getting desperate? We ask that without any further delay these 20 houses, which are now empty, will be used.

Mr. Marples

I am aware of the tragic circumstances all through the flood areas. I spent yesterday afternoon at Canvey Island, and it was quite clear from my visit that two problems are involved: the first is short-term, and the second is long-term. The short-term problem is to get these unfortunate people into furnished accommodation, because when a person is wet through and has lost his possessions he does not want an unfurnished house. He wants a kitchen, with pots and pans, furniture, sheets and blankets, and warmth. The long-term problem is after the people have been given temporary accommodation in furnished homes, and in some cases in schools which are furnished but which may not always be comfortable—but we hope that there will be furnished homes for them—to assess the housing need on a permanent basis. When that is done, my right hon. Friend will not exclude requisitioning and many other items from his consideration.

Hon. Members

Answer the question.

Mr. Pannell

Is the Minister aware that I not only reside in the area of this local authority, but am still a member of that authority? As the one who had full responsibility for all civil distress in that borough during the war, I telephoned the town clerk yesterday morning and asked whether there was any way in which I could assist. The town clerk assured me that he had received categorical consent from the Minister's Department to requisition 20 properties, and he named to me the civil servant who had given that consent, and who is known to me as a result of my negotiations with his Department. It cannot, therefore, be in doubt that this consent was given.

What the Minister has to answer is why, in the light of this tragedy, he cancelled that consent. He also has to answer whether this sort of thing is being done up and down the country. Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is quite impossible to keep people in rest centres, in which over 400 people are now housed, for more than 48 hours?

Mr. Dalton

Surely, in view of what has been said by my two hon. Friends, the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this matter again very urgently. Is it not clear that a mistake has been made somewhere and that homeless people—[HON MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that a mistake has been made—[HON. MEMBER: "No."]—and will the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to take the matter up with his right hon. Friend and get it rectified?

Mr. Marples

There are two points. First, my right hon. Friend has denied that there was a cancellation. [An HON. MEMBER: "He made it himself."] The second is that he has written to the hon. Gentleman explaining that there was no cancellation of these requisitioning notices, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has a letter to that effect.

In any case, the requisitioning of property is not the answer to the problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] No. Generous householders from all over the country have made many offers to take in these homeless people, and it would be unhelpful and unwise to overburden the existing organisation, which is already hard pressed, by asking them to take other unfurnished accommodation when they have all the furnished accommodation that they can cope with.

Mr. Bevan

Do not the two statements of the Parliamentary Secretary contradict each other? If the requisitioning of empty houses is not at present taking place, in order that there might be a sifting out of the applicants so as to give the most urgent cases the empty accommodation, how does it come about that the hon. Gentleman denies that the requisitioning has been cancelled? He cannot have it both ways.

Either the requisitioning has been cancelled in the meantime in order to carry out the principle which the Parliamentary Secretary has announced, or the requisitioning is still alive and, therefore, the houses are available immediately. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the truth? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it a fact—this is what we want to know—that permission to requisition was given and has been withdrawn? That is the first point that we want to know, and the hon. Gentleman has dodged it three times.

Mr. Marples

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I have dodged that question three times, I will read the first sentence of the answer I have written here to his Question: As my right hon. Friend has informed the hon. Member, he does not agree that there was any cancellation.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Quite apart from the question as to the nature of the instructions given, surely the important thing is that the people should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. Surely in that the Minister has stated that requisitioning of empty property is by no means excluded from the ultimate step—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that seems to me the important thing at the moment. We are told that the Minister is reviewing the matter and, if that is the case, surely the House could agree that the Minister should be given time to work out plans, no methods being excluded, including that of requisitioning which is being asked for.

Mr. Marples

At the right time the requisitioning of unfurnished premises and the difficulty of furnishing them might be a solution or help towards that solution. At the present moment it would be unsuitable and unnecessary.

Mr. Bevan

This is a serious matter because it affects a very large number of people and there are very many empty properties in various parts of the country. May I ask if there is any real difficulty in finding furniture and everything for these houses? In that Department we had plenty of experience of floods before and we found no difficulty. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the question?"] Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, despite the fact that it might put an additional charge on the Treasury—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—requisitioning of property does —there will be no reluctance to requisition property wherever required and to put furniture in at once?

Mr. Dodds

The Parliamentary Secretary has read the first sentence of my letter from the Minister, but there are two more sentences, and it goes on: I have ascertained from the Ministry of Health that everybody in Erith has been found temporary accommodation by the Kent County Council as welfare authority. I am sure you will not think that I am unwilling to do what is needed, but it is far better if we possibly can to avoid all the complications which will result from the requisitioning of individual houses for individual families. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the town clerk has said that the people are coming in faster than the rate at which furnished accommodation can be found? These houses are required and there is furniture and other things to be put in. What we want is to do that before others put in furniture in order to stop the houses being requisitioned.

Mr. Marples

The limiting factor at the moment is the powers of emergency organisation to cope with the offers of accommodation. The first sentence I read out was the first sentence of my answer and not the first sentence of my right hon. Friend's letter.

Mr. Shinwell

May I ask a simple question of the Parliamentary Secretary? He agrees apparently that all the officers in his Department agreed to the requisitioning and he said subsequently that that consent was not cancelled. Will he state what is the actual position? Was there any agreement for requisitioning and, if so, has it been cancelled? He has said there was no cancellation, what does he actually mean?

Mr. Marples

Again I will read the first sentence—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member and said there was no cancellation. If there was no cancellation it automatically follows that no permission was given in the first place.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

There seems to be a complete conflict of evidence here and we cannot carry it any further. The Home Secretary.

Mr. Dodds

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—

Mr. Speaker

There are two statements to come before that; I will give the hon. Member an opportunity of doing that at the proper time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I shall make the following brief statement in regard to the position of the areas affected by storm and floods.

A meeting of Ministers under my chairmanship was held this afternoon to consider reports from the damaged areas. The most up-to-date information is that there are 220 reported dead but there is no exact information as to the number of missing, though several hundred are believed to be missing. Some 30,000 people are believed to have left their homes, of whom some 6,000 are in rest centres, the remainder having found accommodation of their own. It is reported this morning that the floods are slowly subsiding except in the case of Lincolnshire.

The police report that no persons are now in danger in Canvey and Foulness Islands.

The local measures for relieving distress are proceeding satisfactorily. The Government are concentrating their attention primarily on co-ordinating measures for repairing the breaches in the sea and river defences as quickly as possible and according to a system of priorities. The important thing is to get the emergency repairs carried out as quickly as possible and the cost of work which can properly be regarded as emergency work will be met by the Exchequer. Financial control appropriate to these serious circumstances will be instituted as soon as possible.

The greatest use is being made of members of the Armed Forces, who are being deployed as and when use can be made of their services. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the help which has been given by the United States Service authorities in this country and of putting on record our sympathy with the relatives of the United States airmen who lost their lives.

The various civilian services of this country to whom tribute was paid yesterday are continuing to give most efficient help. So far as can at present be foreseen, there is no shortage of the necessary labour. Many offers of help have been received from Commonwealth countries and from France, for which Her Majesty's Government are very grateful.

Except in a few cases the essential services, such as gas, electricity, water and fuel, are working and all possible steps are being taken to make good any deficiencies. Food supplies are adequate. The Government have decided to make no charge in respect of parcels of clothing sent through the post to the depots named in the public announcement and similar arrangements have been made in respect of bedding sent by rail to such depots. The Government recognise the importance of repairing the damaged houses so as to enable people to return to their homes, and the matter will be tackled as soon as the flood conditions permit and as soon as the necessary repairs to the sea defences are in a more advanced state.

Mr. H. Morrison

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the statement he has made. I presume that he may be regarded as the co-ordinating Minister in this matter. May I put two points to him in regard to the Private Notice Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds)? Will he undertake to look into the matter urgently with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, particularly taking into account the points raised by my hon. Friend and my right hon. colleagues on this Bench, because it is a matter of importance on which obviously there is feeling?

The other point is whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that on 27th June last the Minister of Housing and Local Government issued a circular, "Coast Protection," in which this occurred: Coast Protection Works in general are costly in money, labour and materials, particularly steel, and only work of exceptional urgency can be allowed to proceed at the present time. Those local authorities who now have major schemes under way or about to start will already know from correspondence with the Department that it has not been possible to release more than a very limited amount of steel for this purpose during the last few months. The Minister hopes to be able to set aside a small quantity of steel for coast protection in future periods, but while the current shortage persists, and more urgent demands have to be met, it is inevitable that many schemes using substantial amounts of steel will have to be deferred or slowed down. May I ask the Home Secretary whether, in the light of these very tragic events, about which we are most unhappy and about which we sympathise with the people concerned, it was not unfortunate that such a circular should have been issued a few months ago, and will he take steps to see that the circular is withdrawn in this respect?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

With regard to the first point put by the right hon. Gentleman, as my right hon. Friend endeavoured to make clear, the matter that has been raised is one which has received and is receiving the most careful consideration. With regard to the second matter, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that circular was issued at a time of acute steel shortage, when there was a particularly large number of competing claims, supported from all quarters of the House, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will remember. The importance of the point is, of course, clear in our minds, and the importance of sea defences is, as I have said, the most urgent matter in our present consideration.

Mr. Bevan

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that one of the disadvantages of not proceeding to deal with coast erosion is that the damage is so progressive that the ultimate cost becomes very heavy indeed, and that a small amount of expenditure at the beginning might save a large amount of expenditure at the end. In point of fact, is it not also correct that the party opposite failed to bring in any coast protection Measures during the whole of their experience, and that the first coast protection Measure was introduced into the House of Commons by the Labour Government, and is now being sabotaged by the present Government? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that this circular will be withdrawn and work immediately proceed? Will he also inform the House of the expenditure which has been saved under the circular, and will he set it off against the expenditure now incurred by reason of the floods?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

With regard to the first of the number of statements of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not accept his premises, but I shall be glad to look into the facts. With regard to the second series of statements, I should like to say that coast protection must be regarded as a serious matter, but in the perspective of the circumstances of the time; and I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman himself will deprecate using exceptional, terrible and tragic circumstances of storm and flood as a stick with which to beat his political opponents. As I said in my statement—and I do wish the House to appreciate this, because, to my mind, it is the most urgent matter—the primary things we have to deal with are the present gaps in our defences, and to deal with those urgently within the next few days.

Mr. Bevan

Is it not within the recollection of hon. Members on all sides of the House, that when we were faced with natural visitations in 1946–47, the party opposite took every possible advantage of every one of them? Is it not therefore obnoxious humbug to try to run away from the administrative obligations of the Government in these circumstances? What we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is this: the machinery for co-operation between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the local authorities under the Coast Protection Act involves the preparation of schemes some time ahead; and will he now give the House an assurance that the circular which my right hon. Friend has mentioned will be withdrawn and the local authorities in these areas encouraged to proceed with coast protection in order to prevent a recurrence, if we can, of the misfortunes which these people have suffered?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

With regard to the first point of the right hon. Gentleman's question, such a recollection will not be within the memory of those who look back with clear and unbiased minds. As to the second point put by the right hon. Gentleman, a new situation has arisen, and I have given the fullest undertaking that it will be dealt with as a matter of urgency. I say to the right hon. Gentleman—I wish to answer his point—that the long-term connotation of that situation will of course be borne in mind.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

We have carried this matter as far as we can.

Mr. G. M. Thomson

On a point of order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether we are to have a statement from Her Majesty's Government about the effect of the storm damage on the East Coast of Scotland and about the action which the Government propose to take to repair it?

Mr. Speaker

I have received no notice of such a statement.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to assist the hon. Member. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I are in close touch on the matter. My right hon. Friend is collecting the information but I do not think there is anything in our hands today which would have been of assistance to the hon. Member. I hope very much that it will be dealt with tomorrow.

Mr. H. Morrison

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state whether the Secretary of State for Scotland is a Member of the Cabinet Committee?

Sir T. Moore

On a point of order. We on this side of the House are very deeply concerned about this tragic disaster. Without casting any reflection on you, Mr. Speaker, or on anyone else, may I say that we have not been allowed to put one supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry about that. I was anxious, so far as I could achieve it, to prevent what is a great national disaster from becoming a party matter.

Sir T. Moore

Further to that point of order. It was not our desire to make this a political issue. The political issue was raised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).

Mr. Woodburn

Is the Secretary of State for Scotland likely to make a statement in the near future about the disasters in the Moray Firth and on the East Coast of Scotland, which have been almost as tragic as those in the South?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart)

Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. The Secretary of State has said that he is charged with dealing with this disaster, and I certainly do not want anything I say to raise party feelings on the subject. I will merely state that I am glad that the damage in Scotland is not, so far as the reports which I have received up to date go to show, so concentrated as it has been in this terrible occurrence in England. There has been widespread damage, but I am not yet in possession of sufficient details to make a considered statement to the House. The House will, however, be informed as soon as we are in a position to do so.

Mr. Fell

The Home Secretary may be assured that the whole country will be very much behind him in his resistance to any attempt on the part of anybody to turn this tragedy into a political issue. I want to ask a specific question regarding requisitioning. I know for a fact that certain areas have already been given permission to requisition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am only asking for the assurance that where permission has been given in a specific area, that permission is not going to be withdrawn.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Wigg

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the House is going to be given an opportunity of hearing an answer to that question?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I have not, of course, got the details of what has been done in every place. I do not think the House can expect me to have them. but—

Mr. Shinwell

rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

If the right hon. Gentleman will just possess himself for one moment, I think he will be quite satisfied—but I have given this answer, and I repeat it, that requisitioning is one of the methods of dealing with this matter and it will, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman, receive the most urgent and careful consideration in every case.

Mr. Shinwell

We have just been informed—

Mr. Pannell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, you have thought fit to admonish the whole House for making this great national disaster a matter of party controversy. We accept that. Will you also indicate—[Interruption.]—of course we accept it. It has happened in towns in which we live. There is no controversy among the people on the spot, but only in this place. May I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government shall so behave in this matter that they appear to put public and not private interests first?

Mr. Fell

Further to my Question, may I put this small point? This is a matter on which a decision has been given, and therefore all the assurance for which I am asking is that where permission has been given it shall not be withdrawn.

Mr. Shinwell

Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who previously answered questions on the subject, whether it is true that con- sent has been given to certain local authorities to requisition houses?

Mr. Marples

In this particular case, which is one I had notice of—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman must remember that since this emergency started, my right hon. Friend has been out in the flooded areas, and so have I, and it has not been easy to find out what has been happening in every area. In the particular case of which I was given private notice, that is, Erith, the information we have is that permission was not given and therefore no cancellation took place —[Interruption.] I hope hon. Gentlemen will not think I am deliberately trying to mislead the House. I would say to my hon. Friend that if he has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will give me the particulars and I will look into the matter.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. In answer to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), I should like to say this: the Government indeed have responsibilities in this matter, but we all have responsibilities in this House, every one of us, no matter where we sit, and I hope we shall try to discharge them here.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Dodds

rose—

Mr. Fenner Brockway

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice that I intended to raise a point of order at the end of Questions. If related—

Mr. Speaker

Order. In order to preserve the rights of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), I must take his Motion at the moment. The hon. Member was rising, I think, to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to deal with the matter on which he asked a Private Notice Question. Perhaps I might shorten the proceedings by saying that the Motion would be out of order today because the business of the House is to be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment and we cannot have an Adjournment upon an Adjournment.

Mr. Dodds

I thank you for that Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I also think it is unnecessary, because the Government have already been exposed in this matter.

Mr. Benn

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I ask for guidance on your Ruling in relation to Adjournments under Standing Order No. 9? It seems to me that it would be a very grave thing if the House were prevented, on a day when it is agreed through the usual channels that there should be a debate on the Adjournment, from discussing a matter of great urgency should one arise. If you would give further enlightenment on the matter, I am sure it would be very much welcomed by hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker

The House would not be precluded from discussing any matter of that sort. On the Motion for the Adjournment any subject proper for the Adjournment can be raised. It is merely for the convenience of the House that an agreement is made to take one subject or another, but if some emergency occurred justifying recourse to Standing Order No. 9, it could equally easily be arranged for that matter to be taken. It would be in order if the subject were in order under the Standing Order. It would be in order on the ordinary debate on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Bowles

Would it be in order for the Adjournment to be continued for three hours?

Mr. Speaker

No.

Mr. Pannell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to take it that you do not think the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) comes within the definition of a definite matter of urgent public importance, so that consideration might be given to it?

Mr. Speaker

I did not proceed to consider that. I merely ruled against it because, if I accepted it, when 7 o'clock came the Adjournment would be sought to be moved and we should already be speaking on the Motion for the Adjournment, so that it would be impossible.