HOUSING, ASHFORD (ARMY HUTMENTS) (Hansard, 16 February 1953)

§ Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)
I am sorry that it has become necessary for me to raise again tonight one aspect of our housing problem, not, I think, peculiar to my division, but of which my division, near Ashford, has a particularly grievous example. I refer to hutted camps formerly built by and occupied by the Army, and which are still being used as dwelling houses.
I say "again" because, as the Minister will be aware, I have already brought this topic before the House, and 22 months ago I raised it in the lifetime of the last Administration. The Minister will also be aware that this is one of the legacies of World War II. Hutted Army camps which embarrass parts of the country were used to ease the chronic housing conditions of the post-war years, and were used in very bad circumstances.
At first, the movement was stealthy, almost an unauthorised one, and later, I think I am right in saying, by Circular No. 20, 1946, issued by the then Minister of Health, it was accepted as a palliative to the grave housing problem that then existed. I do not quarrel with the fact that it was then accepted as a solution. The needs were desperate and desperate measures had to be taken to overcome it, and there is no doubt that as transit camps these hutted camps served the purpose.
Most of these huts were built in 1940 or 1941 for the Army which was then being trained at home. An essential condition of their use as dwelling houses was always that their elimination in the last few years should keep pace with their deterioration. That has not occurred in many places, and it has certainly not happened at Hothfield, which is the particular case I wish to raise tonight.
We began in October, 1946, with 231 huts. I think it is possible that up to 50 local authorities anyway were given the impression by the Ministry of Health that the huts would last some time, and there was no hurry to find a solution of 1026 the problem. In April, 1951, when I first raised this matter in the House, we still had 200 huts with about 700 people living in them. I then foresaw, as many of us did, a sudden deterioration outstripping the clearance of these camps. In May, 1951, a year later, we still had 193 huts—only seven fewer—with 500 people living in them. When I went there a month ago there were 150 huts and 450 persons living in them. So in two years we have got rid of about 50 huts, and it is now apparent that deterioration has galloped up and has got right ahead of the clearance.
I am not going to treat the Parliamentary Secretary to a recital of my impressions of the camp. He has had a report from me, and I do not want to repeat any of it. I will only say that I have never seen, in a fairly extensive acquaintance with slums, conditions more damaging to health, particularly the health of young children, than I saw a month ago. This is not only my view. I should like to quote to the hon. Gentleman—since he may suspect me of enlarging upon the conditions—a report sent by the Medical Officer of Health for Kent over a month ago to the West Ashford R.D.C. She wrote: Gentlemen: I have suspected for some time that the health of the dwellers in the huts at the Hothfield Camp has not compared favourably with that for the rest of the district, and the spell of hard weather preceding Christmas gave confirmation of this. I made a thorough inspection on Monday, 22nd December, and found that the structure of the huts had deteriorated rapidly in the last twelve months and this is likely to continue. The materials used in the construction of the huts are decaying, and reasonable repair would appear to be impossible. In my opinion it is essential and urgent that the camps should cease to be used for human habitation at the earliest possible moment and if at all possible before another winter sets in. My second point is that it is wholly wrong and quite unfair to give the impression that this is due to the occupants themselves. Most of them are excellent tenants whose only failing is their homelessness, and most of them have succeeded in making the best of very bad circumstances. Their enemy, as hon. Gentlemen who may have seen these camps know, is dampness. In the winter months these areas are saturated. There is no real water drainage from Army Nissen huts. The warmth of the huts 1027 draws the moisture, and when the temperature falls at night a kind of vicious dew forms inside the huts soaking carpets, cupboards and furniture and, worst of all, beds and bedding, which is testing for the best of housewives, and it says much for their morale that it is not lower than it is.
As such camps go on deteriorating they do not improve socially, and there are parts of the camps where I certainly would not choose to leave my family alone. We shall be left with more of these social misfits when these camps have been cleared. That is another question, but I should be interested in any observations of the Parliamentary Secretary on the subject of utility bungalows for which the East Ashford R.D.C. has submitted specifications.
My third point is that tenants here, as elsewhere, complain about maintenance. To be fair to the West Ashford R.D.C., these huts have gone far beyond any question of maintenance. Expensive improvements formerly undertaken would now only tend to perpetuate the huts, and that is the last thing we want to do. It is hopeless to patch the rotten fabrics they are now.
So much for the conditions. What I have seen in my own camp has convinced me that the inhabitants should not be asked to live there during another winter. As things are going, I know it is going to be difficult to achieve this run-down before Christmas, but from what I have seen I have a strong feeling that it must, somehow, be achieved. The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to say—as he may, but I hope he will not—that this is entirely a local problem, that it is partly the fault of the council and they must produce their own solution.
Whitehall is not entirely exempt from being concerned in the difficulties which now arise. There have been cumulative delays in the problem of local rehousing. Above all, there has been a lack of appreciation, at all levels, of the menace that the last stages of these huts would create for their occupiers and those responsible for them. I do not want to indulge in recriminations about it; I think it is a waste of time. When I saw the camp I was angry enough to use some harsh words towards the local council, and they have been good enough 1028 to accept those words in the spirit in which I offered them. I know the Minister probably has the same feeling. Recriminations get us nowhere. The object is to get rid of these camps.
I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what I think needs to be done. First, I think the time is ripe for straight words from him on the question of the perpetuation of these camps. I urge him to stress that the clearance of these camps should now be made a priority. Secondly, I regret to have to report that people are still being allowed into my own camp—and possibly other camps. If the hon. Gentleman has the authority to say it, he should say, "No more people should enter these camps from now on. "It may be thought that the council are weak to allow the people to enter in these circumstances. I would mention that Ashford is being used as a centre of development. It draws a great many people; inevitably that leads to emergencies and inevitably people go there who cannot be put elsewhere. I would sooner see one or two houses requisitioned—although I know that that goes against the grain—than see the camp continue to be used for the accommodation of urgent cases.
My third point is this: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are three local housing projects designed to deal with this problem. Three village schemes are now under way. We hope they will hive off 50 of the 150 families now in the camp by the end of this year. A major scheme, in connection with Hothfield Common, and which will take 192 houses, is now in rather a difficult stage. Preliminaries have taken a very long time, and I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman's Department in the least. The next hurdle, which will be a stiff one, is in connection with the scheme for a sewage disposal works. That scheme, in outline, will reach the hon. Gentleman's Ministry during the course of this week. It will need an inquiry and the result of the inquiry, in the ordinary run of these things, will not be known for perhaps another six weeks—which will mean a total of 12 weeks from now.
That would mean it would be three months before we could get ahead with work on the drainage scheme. That, again, must be approved and may take another three months altogether, and only then would the tender for the houses be rendered. The main rehousing plan 1029 for this camp could not, therefore, begin until September, and that would mean that there would be 100 families in this camp all the winter.
I ask the hon. Gentleman how he would react were I to ask him, first, to speed up approval of the outline plan of the sewage works and, secondly, permit the council to go ahead with asking for tenders once approval has been given to the outline plan instead of awaiting, as his Ministry normally does, the working drawings. In other words, can we, by this means, save six months or three months and so have a chance of starting building in July, giving us the best summer months of the year for building, instead of only the autumn?
I appreciate that the Minister is under no obligation in this matter at all. I am casting myself upon his generosity. If he will say to the West Ashford Council, "Anything you will do, I will do quicker," I shall be content at that. The rest is entirely up to them. Ashford is scheduled for a very big development. We have an agreement with the London County Council, which will involve 5,000 houses and the reception of something like 15,000 Londoners in the next 10 years. Subject to certain reservations, we all accept that and know it has to come We ought, therefore, to make a success of it, but I put the clearing of a camp, like this, before the reception of Londoners.
I should not hesitate to press for amendments to the London County Council plan if I thought Londoners were going to get these houses before the people of Hothfield. It is a very delicate matter. Many of these Londoners, who are going into this country district, will get new houses, while the present inhabitants continue to occupy older and, in some cases, very bad houses. It is a difficult point, but a problem we must work out as best we can.
These Army camps, and especially as far as Hothfield is concerned, started with Whitehall approval. They have turned out to be nothing less than human traps. I feel a much stiffer line should have been taken in Whitehall before the regime of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and at a high level. I am entitled to say that, because I pressed for it on such an occasion as 1030 this two years ago. Very little was done then. I ask the Minister to say firmly that these camps must be shut now, at least at the entrance end, and that their elimination must henceforth be the first goal of housing policy.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has spoken openly, with that candid and sincere way we all associate with him. He is one of the hon. Members of this House who rarely overstates his case. He has shown a deep and sustained interest in housing all the time I have known him, and I am grateful to him for some prior notice of the questions he has raised. He is correct when he says it is an old problem and a legacy of World War II, and that it is damaging to health. He is wrong when he says that I would suspect him of enlarging on the story. This is a sad story, and I am certain my hon. Friend has not enlarged on the human problems involved.
I should like to make a constructive proposal under two heads. Firstly, in my right hon. Friend's Ministry we have a regional system whereby the country is divided into a number of regions. In each region, there is a principal regional officer and a principal regional architect. Having received notice of this Adjournment debate and knowing my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, I would normally have arranged for the principal regional officer or the principal regional architect to meet the local authority concerned on the spot and discuss the matter. The reason one was reluctant to take those steps is because of the recent flood disaster. One is very reluctant to take the regional architect, officers, and engineers, away from the first-aid, remedial measures they have undertaken in the flood areas.
My first suggestion therefore is that we have a conference on the spot with the principal regional officer, and/or the principal regional architect and the local authority. They must make an estimate of the time to be taken to rehouse the people, the number of families to be left. what action is to be taken, and what repairs are necessary to those huts which may he required to house some of the people next winter.
1031 The second suggestion is that after that meeting my hon. Friend and myself should meet to consider the result. If we are dissatisfied we can decide what action to take. If we are satisfied, then we shall have settled the problem in a constructive manner.
I wanted to make those two broad suggestions, and I made them now because I have only a few minutes in which to reply to the detailed questions of my hon. Friend. In general the policy of the Government is as follows. The structure of these temporary huts is such that their fabric is flimsy. They are not able to keep out the weather. Their fabric has little or no thermal quality. The huts are quite unsuitable for permanent habitation. Most people forget that housing is not like the manufacture of a motor car or other product. Houses have to withstand the elements on 365 days a year for 24 hours a day. The sun, frost and rain often permeate any normal material. Building material is much more difficuIt to produce. It is much heavier than any normal material used in the manufacture of machinery. A house weighs over 100 tons. These huts are not technically suitable for repair.
The normal policy of the Government is to demolish huts as the families leave. If they are not demolished it usually means that another family moves in. The information I have from the West Ashford Rural District Council is that they are only rehousing eviction cases where the existing circumstances of the evicted family would be worse than a bad hut. That may or may not be so. We can find out at the conference. My right hon. Friend has set up a working party to consider the question of requisitioned houses and huts. On the question of rehousing the people at Hothfield—

§ Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)
This is a matter of general policy which is important in my area. There are some camps now occupied by civilians which are on airfields which are kept in reserve in the event of emergency and which may be used again as airfield camps. Is that general ruling also to apply to them?

§ Mr. Marples
I assume that military considerations would be predominant in case of war. I have not received notice of that question and I should not like to 1032 answer now. Broadly speaking, where the huts are not required for other purposes, such as military purposes, the policy of the Government is to see that as they are emptied they are not filled by other people, because that would merely perpetuate the evil conditions to which my hon. Friend drew attention.
At present at Hothfield camp there are about 150 families. In April, 1951, there were 200 families and in November, 1946, there were 231 huts. There has not been a swift or drastic reduction in the number of families. The point is that the West Ashford Rural District Council have said to my right hon. Friend that they are only rehousing people who have been evicted from worse circumstances than those which apply to these huts.
My hon. Friend asked me whether my right hon. Friend could issue orders to the local authority not to allow further families to enter the camp. The answer is that my right hon. Friend has no statutory power to direct a local authority not to allow further families to enter a camp. The reason is that the statutory responsibility for housing rests upon the local authority.
My hon. Friend asked a question about what he called sub-normal types, which will be the hard core of people left in the camp. There is no general policy with regard to special types of accommodation for the sub-normal family. There have been instances in which local authorities have made proposal in respect of sub-standard accommodation for these families, but none have been approved up to date. The proposals for sub-standard accommodation to meet these difficult cases would be considered on an ad hoc basis, but my right hon. Friend would need to be satisfied that the requirements though minimum are reasonable and fair.
My hon. Friend asked if my right hon. Friend would requisition houses to solve this problem. The answer to that must be a definite "No." One would requisition houses of course to look after people who had lost their homes through floods which was an emergency. But this camp has been in existence since 1946 and can scarcely be said to be something which has happened at a second's notice. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that Ashford is proposing to take population from London. The present population 1033 is to be increased from 23,000 to 48,000 and a considerable measure of agreement has been reached between the London County Council and the Ashford Urban District Council on a scheme of development under the Town Development Act, 1952. I am informed that it is unlikely that any diversion of effort here would materially affect the clearing of Hothfield Camp. I propose to go further into that point, but that is the information I have at the moment.
My hon. Friend referred to the sewerage arrangements on Hothfield Common. West Ashford Rural District Council submitted sewerage proposals on 18th August, 1952, which were not very satisfactory, but they were told on 2nd October that the Ministry was ready to consider detailed plans. Since then nothing has been heard. There have been difficulties about the actual site for the sewage disposal works partly due to the death of Lord Hothfield, the owner of the land, and partly due to obtaining planning permission. This has now been obtained and it is expected that the land can be bought by agreement. There 1034 should in any case be no delay on account of sewerage facilities not being available. That is a point to which I will direct the attention of the principal regional architect when he meets the local authority on the spot.
I have dealt with the detailed points which were raised to the best of my ability on an adjournment debate. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is up to the local authority to go with my hon. Friend and the principal regional architect to investigate the conditions of this camp and take speedy action to see that it is eliminated. I propose, after the conference has been held, to invite my hon. Friend to see me personally, and if he is not satisfied in any respect we will take all the action we agree upon to speed up the elimination of this camp. I am sure that the House and his constituency will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter.