HC Deb 18 March 1953 vol 513 cc32-47
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a statement about the recent flood disaster.

First I should like to say a word about the high tides which reached their peak during the past two days. We have been blessed with calm seas and the defences that have been restored since 1st February have held. A small number of breaches in different parts of the coast are still open, but second lines of defence built behind them have withstood the tides and the area flooded is small. In particular, the temporary bank protecting the village of Wells-next-the-Sea was not penetrated. The front line will be closed as soon as possible.

As the Government announced, Lord Waverley has accepted the Chairmanship of the Departmental Committee which is being set up to review the lessons of the recent disaster and to make recommendations for the future. I hope to be able to announce the names of the other members of the Committee in the very near future.

I now turn to the question of compensation for damage and losses caused by the recent floods. Perhaps I may briefly recapitulate the steps already taken. The first task was the immediate repair of the breaches in our sea defences. This was tackled straight away by the river boards, who were given an assurance from the start that they would be reimbursed the full cost of their operations. Total expenditure on these first-aid repairs is likely to be about £2½ million.

It was also necessary to look after those who had been rendered homeless. Rest centres were set up, emergency feeding arrangements were put in hand, lodging payments were authorised for householders who were willing to accommodate victims of the floods, and the National Assistance Board made payments in cash to those in need. All this expenditure, which will be of the order of £250,000-£500,000 will be borne on the Votes of the Departments concerned. The Government will also pay for first-aid repairs to damaged private houses, including the removal of mud and sand.

Certain longer-term measures are also required.

We have to restore and strengthen our sea defences, and to finish the task so far as possible before the next winter. The river boards mainly concerned have been told that the cost of rebuilding the defences to provide the same standard of protection as before will be borne entirely by the Government for all works carried out by the end of September next; and that where an improved standard of protection is necessary the rate of grant will be a matter for negotiation. In some cases, for example, where special protection is provided for an important installation it would be reasonable to expect the undertaking concerned to make a contribution.

A Bill will shortly be introduced strengthening the powers of river boards to enter on lands and do works to restore our sea defences. Such works will relate not only to the repair of existing sea walls and the building of new ones, but also to the quarrying of material required for that work and the construction of access roads. The Bill will provide for the compulsory acquisition of land on which work is done should this prove desirable. Between now and the end of September work costing between £8 and £10 million may be done and further work will be necessary thereafter.

The Government recognise that the floods have created some difficult problems connected with the rehabilitation of agricultural land, for which special provision will have to be made, particularly in view of their long-term nature. As a nation, we cannot afford to lose for many years and possibly for ever the productivity of thousands of acres of farm land.

The free supply of gypsum, where it is needed, and the removal at the Government's expense of flood-borne debris from drains and ditches, have already been announced. In addition to these measures, the Government propose to make acreage payments to farmers whose land was so badly affected by sea water flooding as to require special treatment before normal cropping or grazing can be undertaken without serious risk of making the damage worse. The farmers will be expected to conform to an approved programme of restoration. These payments will vary according to the kind of treatment required and to the risk of reduced yields and may extend if necessary over a period of five years. Expenditure on crops sown prior to the floods will be taken into account in fixing the rates of payment The necessary statutory powers will be included in the Bill to which I have referred.

Orchards that have been destroyed will be dealt with on rather different lines, but with the same general object in view. The existing arrangements for Exchequer grants towards the cost of cleaning out drains and ditches in the flooded areas will in principle be extended at a higher rate to work not directly arising out of the floods in order to assist the free flow of water and so get rid of the salt more quickly. The reasonable cost of fences to replace destroyed hedges and of repairs to fences will be borne by the Government. Finally, where it is practicable, the Government will assume responsibility for removing large accumulations of sand and debris from farm land. The total cost of all these measures for the rehabilitation of the land is roughly estimated at between £5-£7 million.

Woodlands in the North-East of Scotland suffered very heavily as a result of the recent gale. Altogether about 35 million cubic feet of timber—most of it privately owned—was blown down. To pre-vent the loss or deterioration of this timber, it is essential that it should be cleared up within a period of not more than two years, and the Government are considering what arrangements can be made to facilitate the transport of the timber which cannot be handled locally to sawmills in the South of Scotland for sawing and marketing.

Many local authorities have suffered damage and losses and are incurring expenditure on a substantial scale. It will not be possible to deal with each claim individually, and at a later date there will have to be a general settlement between the Government and the local authorities which are in a position of special difficulty through having to incur expenditure on repairing flood damage. In that settlement the Government will be prepared to assist those authorities which have unavoidably incurred burdens which are unreasonably heavy in relation to their resources.

Meanwhile, in view of the magnitude of the disaster, the Government will reimburse in full to any local authority the cost of restoring coast protection works to the condition they were in before the floods. If new works have to be undertaken, as in some areas they will, they will rank for grant under the Coast Protection Act in the usual way. Where the expenditure on new works is heavy and the authority's resources are small, the Government will be prepared to consider a higher rate of grant than is normal. The question when it will be possible to authorise works will have to be considered on each scheme in relation to the resources available.

Hon. Members will have seen in the Press a statement giving further information as to the uses to which the Lord Mayor proposes to put his Fund, and I have received a letter from the Lord Mayor giving full particulars of these arrangements. With his agreement, I propose to circulate this letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The guiding principle is the relief of personal distress.

It will be seen from the Lord Mayor's letter that grants will be made to the dependants of those who lost their lives, and to those whose houses were damaged beyond repair; grants will be made for the repair of other damaged homes, and for the replacement of furniture, clothing and other personal property in the home; and assistance will also be given to the farmer that will cover buildings, dead stock, and the full value of livestock killed. There will also be help for personal businesses and I should like to say a few words about the arrangements under this head. Grants will be made in respect of damage to, or loss of, the stock in trade or premises of a personal business or small partnership within a normal limit of £5,000. The Lord Mayor has stated that he will authorise a grant above this figure on evidence that unusual and immediate hardship and distress would result if the grant were limited to £5,000, although he has said that his present information is that "such cases can be numbered on the fingers of both hands."

I should like to make clear where the Government stand in this matter of compensation to business concerns. In our view public limited liability companies fall into a different category both from individuals and personal businesses, and should not be compensated for losses which are capable of being covered by insurance. If they did not insure, they were taking a calculated commercial risk and they must bear responsibility for their decision. I am sure that the House will agree that it would not be right to expect the taxpayer or the ratepayer to subsidise "big business" which is well able to look after itself.

There may, however, be cases which fall between the personal business which can look to the Lord Mayor's Fund for assistance and the large public company which cannot. For example, there might be a business, in form a public company, which carried on operations on a small scale and might be in a position of difficulty as the result of the floods. If there is a case of a small business where hardship is involved, the Government undertake to look at it to see whether any assistance can be given.

The House will wish me to express on its behalf our great appreciation of the generosity of the public here and of our friends overseas in having contributed on such a scale to the Lord Mayor's Fund, and also to express our thanks to the Lord Mayor himself and his staff for the energy, skill and speed with which the Fund was set up and is now being administered.

The Government recognise that the loss and suffering caused by a disaster of this kind cannot be completely recompensed by financial payments, but the decisions which I have outlined today for the provision of assistance from public funds, and the arrangements by the Lord Mayor's Fund, to which incidentally the Exchequer is making a contribution on the basis of £ for £, will go a very long way towards mitigating the losses which so many of our fellow citizens have had to endure.

Mr. Ede

I am sure that the whole House will join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in expressing our thanks to the public for their generous response to the Lord Mayor's appeal, and to the many people overseas who have also shown a feeling of comradeship for us in the disaster which so many of our fellow citizens suffered.

I must say, however, that I cannot regard the statement that has been made as a satisfactory redemption of the pledge that was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the first day that the House sat after the disaster. I am sure that a very large number of people in the country will hear with feelings of anxiety and dismay the closing words of the statement that it is only expected "to go a very long way towards mitigating the losses." That is by no means a redemption of the pledge that was given, and I have no doubt that more will be heard of that in the future.

I must apologise to the House. It was a very long statement, and even if I make some small demand on the time of the House I must not be regarded as completely covering all the points that have arisen.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that the losses expected to have been incurred totalled from £40 million to £50 million, but did not say how these are spread among private persons, limited liability companies and public authorities. Could he give us some indication of the extent to which those losses are being met by the measures which he announced today? I add the figures which were definitely announced today up to a total of between £16 million at the minimum and £20 million at the maximum with, of course, ill-defined figures where the right hon. and learned Gentleman submitted no estimate to us at all.

I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say, also, why this House was not informed of the appointment of the committee under Lord Waverley and his acceptance of the chairmanship, and why it was left to an Under-Secretary in another place to make this important announcement?

There is just one other matter on which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us some information. He said that he thinks that where there is a substantial installation which will be protected by the new works they should make some contribution towards the cost of the work. He does not indicate that the authority concerned with the erection of installations will be given power to levy on such installations. Will it be left to private negotiations between some river board or small authority and the installation, or will there be something in the Bill that will enable that matter to be dealt with?

I have asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he can tell us the number of people in each of the categories affected. He said that those whose claim was likely to be more than £5,000 could be numbered on the fingers of both hands. Does that include farmers, whose losses of livestock, as well as of buildings, may have been particularly heavy?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Perhaps I might deal with that last point, as I know how difficult it is to pick up every detail from a statement. I should like to make the point clear about farmers. I did say that buildings and dead stock—which means things other than crops in the ground and hedges—and all the livestock, will all be paid for by the Lord Mayor's Fund at the market valuation. Crops in the ground and hedges and ditches, are dealt with under the acreage payment, which also covers the rehabilitation of the land. As far as I can see, that leaves no gap in the agricultural sphere. If there is one, I cannot see it.

With regard to the announcement of the chairmanship of the committee, there was a debate in another place and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary took the opportunity of adding that in the course of his answer to the debate. I hope that in those circumstances the House will not think that any discourtesy was intended—I meant to make a statement, I have repeated it today, and I shall announce the committee as soon as I have all the acceptances.

On the question of installations, these might be simply private enterprise companies. In that case, they would probably desire, as they have in the past— and, in any case, they will be asked— to make a contribution to the protection work around their places. With regard to those that are owned by the public boards, in the sense of being publicly owned, that will be a matter for the board or for the local authority involved.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to try to correlate the sum I gave to the House of £40 million to £50 million and the arrangements that have been made. He will appreciate that such an attempt must involve a number of estimates because it is a protracted matter to collect all the claims. They have not yet been collected and therefore, the element in this matter of personal and small business claims is one on which I cannot give a definite figure. However, I would like to make an attempt at correlation, because it might be helpful to the House and I hope that the House will bear with me if I try to do so.

On 19th February I gave the figure of £40 million to £50 million as my estimate of the total loss. That is now believed to be on the high side but, again, the figure cannot yet be definitely ascertained. May I now give the other side of the account, as that may be helpful?

First of all, there are the losses on Government stocks and Government establishments as mentioned in my speech on 19th February. They amount to £3,500,000. Then there are the first-aid repairs which I mentioned today: £2,500,000. Personal payments mentioned today: £250,000 to £500,000. Sea defences: £8 million to £10 million. Rehabilitation of land: £5 million to £7 million. Local authorities—this can be only a guess because there has to be a final settlement; but I gave the estimated figure of loss as £4,500,000 to £5 million and I think the House will agree that, in view of what I have said about arrangements as to grant, the minimum figure must be £3,500,000 to £4 million. Then, of course, there is the Lord Mayor's Fund which to date has approximately £6 million. That gives us in all a figure of between £28,750,000 and £33,500,000.

There are three items which I cannot evaluate. The first consists of losses covered by insurance. I am not in possession of that figure. Hon. Members will have seen very large estimates, in certain papers as high as £20 million. I cannot say whether that is right. I think it is probably on the high side, but there is a considerable figure there which cannot yet be ascertained and which one cannot yet collect from the companies. The second consists of losses to large public companies who bear their own risk. Again, I cannot give a figure, but it must be a considerable one from the damage that is known to all of us who have been studying that point. Thirdly, there is the much smaller figure for the removal of the timber in Scotland.

As I have said, the comparison is between £28,750,000 and £33,500,000 plus the three unknown amounts that I have just mentioned—which must be very considerable on any view—and the first rough estimate of £40 million to £50 million which I believe to be on the high side. I hope the House will agree—it is a matter on which everyone must reach his own opinion in considering the problem—that, after taking into account the certain figures I have given, the estimate as to local authorities and these three substantial figures which I cannot evaluate, the totals should correspond reasonably closely. One cannot say further than that because it is an estimate at the time, but that is the best answer on the available information I can give to the question of the right hon. Gentleman.

I hope that the House will be with me in this. I should not like it to be inferred from anything I have said in the course of this statement that the need for contributions to the Lord Mayor's Fund has now ceased, because everyone must wish to put the relief of personal distress beyond any peradventure.

Mr. Hare

Is the Home Secretary aware that his statement will go a long way towards reassuring the many anxieties felt on both sides of the House about the treatment of flood victims? May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he would consider giving greater publicity to what he has just said? Would he consider a broadcast? Would he consider asking his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to take special action to see that the farming community are fully aware of the details of the complicated but full statement that he has given us this afternoon?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I shall be pleased to consider that. It is difficult to get across to the person concerned all the proposals that have been put out and I hope that everyone will try to contribute to that end. I will certainly consider doing anything I can.

Mr. Edward Evans

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that the statement he has made has given the impression to some of us on this side of the House of a very considerable recession from the general statement that the Prime Minister made on 2nd February? I want to ask him one or two questions, particularly in regard to the local authorities. The local authorities concerned with the seaside resort industry, largely on the East Coast, will be very anxious about what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the amount of compensation they are to get to restore their amenities and to restore their considerable sea fronts which are used for resort purposes.

I understood that there were to be negotiations between them and the appropriate Minister at the time and that they would be expected to make the contribution themselves, but most of those authorities are extremely hard pressed by the incidence of coast protection at the moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned river boards, but in a great many instances it is the coast protection authority that will have to restore the sea defences. I hope sincerely that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not ask them to pay a contribution on the basis on which they had to pay in the old days when there was no State grant for sea defences by coast protection authorities.

One more point about the statement of the Prime Minister. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland on 10th February mentioned trawlers that were lost and that it was promised that the crews of the trawlers would be compensated.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I really do not think the hon. Gentleman can have listened to my statement. I mentioned quite clearly that the loss of life was to be covered and I say it again—it covers all loss of life. The question of gear is a matter of the assets of the trade, which are also covered.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned local authorities. Again, every point that he asked is covered in my statement. I said that the question of protection would be dealt with and that the question of authorities that were in a difficult financial position owing to the damage would receive special consideration and be the matter of negotiation, as would the amount of the grant. For the hon. Member to get up and make these statements just after I have said exactly the contrary is really irresponsible.

Mr. Evans rose

—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

No, I cannot give way. The hon. Member must take the answer. He must be fair.

The hon. Member says that this is a recession from the original statement. I have just told the House that our original estimate was between £40 million and £50 million. I challenge the hon. Member to give any fair evaluation of these three items which I have mentioned that does not bring the figure that I have given—

Mr. Evans rose

—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Evans

On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a specific question and challenged me to give the answer. I will tell him. The Prime Minister said that this was to be a national charge, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about negotiations. We do not want any huckstering over this thing.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said was that it was a national matter, to be dealt with broadly in a national way. I challenge the hon. Member, and will give way to him if he can do it, to make any evaluation of these three items—insurance, public companies carrying their own risks, and the Scottish timber—that does not close the gap that I have mentioned between £33,500,000, which is the top figure, or even £28,750,000, which is the bottom figure, and the figure of £40 million plus. What is the hon. Gentleman complaining of?

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are to have a debate on this matter at an early date. While it is quite in order to ask questions for the elucidation of a statement, these arguments and counter-challenges are not regular at this time.

Mr. H. Morrison

There is one short point of information about which I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not gather from his statement what specifically was to be done in respect of houses or bungalows which have been destroyed or severely damaged. What will be the position of these folk? Many of them are in the position that they simply cannot replace their house or bungalow.

Mr. Bowles

Now let the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer in the same tone of voice.

Several Hon. Members: Behave yourself.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's remark.

Mr. Bowles

I said I hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reply to the Front Bench as strongly as he replied to my hon. Friend on the back benches.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Touché, if I may put it that way. One is rather inclined to answer in proportion to the question that is put. I felt rather strongly about the answer and I replied accordingly. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is a point of information, and I will give it as calmly as I can.

There are two categories which the right hon. Gentleman should consider. The first is the damage. First-aid repairs will, of course, be paid for by the Government. What happens after first-aid repairs, as appears in the Lord Mayor's letter, is a matter for the Lord Mayor's Fund. The residences and houses that have been damaged beyond repair are matters for the Lord Mayor's Fund, and the Lords Mayor's letter says that he has made provision for it.

Mr. Braine

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a few families—not a large number— who will be unable to return to their homes because these have been rendered uninhabitable? I do not expect a snap answer now, but I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would bear very much in mind the need for the early provision of alternative housing for such families.

Sir D. Maxwel Fyfe

That matter is being considered, and I hope that we shall be able to help.

Mr. Hoy

Would it be permissible for me to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make on compensation for timber and, secondly, what claims he has had from the Scottish fishing industry?

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

My right hon. and learned Friend dealt in his statement with the timber loss. We are at present negotiating and are hoping to arrange satisfactory freight terms in order to get to the mills in the South the timber which cannot be sawn and handled locally. With regard to fishing losses, some of the boats were insured and in the case of other boats negotiations are at present taking place with the insurance companies. The total of the damage and loss of boats amounts to about £46,000.

Commander Maitland

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question concerning agriculture? Will he say specifically that a farmer who has to fallow his land owing to flood damage will be eligible for acreage payment, and how the acreage payment is to be decided? Secondly, in the case of a local authority whose roads have been very badly damaged by heavy vehicles going over them, will such an authority have special relief in their rating problems?

Sir D. Maxwel Fyfe

In reply to the first point, the answer is, "Yes." In reply to the second, the acreage payment will be included in a scheme which will be submitted to the House. On the third point, I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will discover what he wants to know in the section of my statement which deals with local authorities.

Mr. Pannell

I understood the Home Secretary to speak in terms of a Departmental Committee to be set up under the chairmanship of Lord Waverley. Then he used the. word "acceptances." I understood that a Departmental Committee was a committee of civil servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg pardon. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make the composition of this Committee a little clearer? It seems to me, and we made the point in the recent floods debate, that what we will have to consider against another such contingency is the power of local authorities. Consequently, there should be a degree of the elected element on such a Committee.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am sorry if I did not make it clear. It is a Departmental Committee and I shall be able to announce its composition in a few days. The point that the hon. Member has in mind will be a matter which the Committee can consider under its terms of reference.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Further elucidation must await the debate. We are very much behind time.

Mr. Osborne

On a point of order. Is it possible to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, when the statement will be debated? Great anxiety is being caused to many of our constituents whom we have to see at the week-end.

Mr. Speaker

I do not know. It is not actually a point of order, but yesterday I heard the business statement and the announcement that arrangements are being made through the usual channels for an early debate on this subject. I do not know any more than that.

Following is the letter mentioned in the Home Secretary's statement:

THE LORD MAYOR'S NATIONAL FLOOD AND TEMPEST DISTRESS FUND

The Mansion House,

London, E.C.4.

17th March, 1953.

DEAR HOME SECRETARY,

I launched the appeal for my National Flood and Tempest Distress Fund on 4th February, 1953, I see you are making a statement in the House of Commons on Wednesday and I thought you would like to know how receipts and distribution are progressing.

The response to the appeal has been remarkable and heartening. The latest figure is £2,749,000 taking no account of the Government's generous decision to contribute £ for £. Large as is the sum collected so far, more is needed if we are to deal with all pressing cases of distress in the way they deserve. I myself shall not relax and I am confident that the public will not fail.

On the spending side, my main policy is formed and arrangements for carrying it into effect are well advanced. The Fund must be spent on the relief of personal distress and hardship; my aim is to deal adequately with the proper cases rather than reach out to a wider, less deserving field and give inadequate help—for that is what it would mean—to all.

A few days after the disaster I sent cheques to Lords Lieutenant for immediate needs. My Distribution Committee was formed on 18th February and I immediately authorised grants of up to £25 per family as an interim measure to relieve urgent hardship. By 27th February I had decided on the general lines of distribution.

  1. 1. Dependants. A part of my Fund will be reserved for the dependants of those drowned in the floods, in the lost trawlers, and in the M.V. "Princess Victoria."
  2. 2. Homes beyond repair. A part will be reserved for those whose homes were lost or damaged beyond repair.
  3. 3. Repair of homes. My Fund will pay to make all repairable homes, which are privately owned, as decent as they were before the flood. None of this cost will fall on the individual. The Government are paying for first-aid repairs.
  4. 4. Furniture, clothing and other persona! property in the home. Grants will be made up to £150 in every case. This is in no sense a hard and fast maximum—I will authorise larger grants in cases of unusual distress, and to these cases priority will be given for the new household goods so generously sent from abroad. I have given instructions that where possible the grants shall be in the form of vouchers or payments of shop bills. All gifts will be additional to cash payments.
  5. 5. Personal businesses. Grants will be made up to £5,000 for stock-in-trade and buildings. This applies to personal and private businesses and partnerships, and private companies of this character. I will authorise an additional grant on evidence that unusual and immediate hardship and distress would result if the grant were limited to £5,000, although my present information is that such cases can be numbered on the fingers of both hands.
  6. 6. Agriculture. The farmer's buildings, and his deadstock (everything that was not affixed to or growing in the ground) are dealt with in the same way as personal businesses. In addition my Fund will pay the full market value of livestock killed.

I do not intend to vary these plans in principle, although in degree they will be dictated by resources. For instance the help under 4, 5 and 6 is from today greater than previously authorised. The grants under 1 and 2 will be related to individual hardship, and we are busy collecting the facts.

The test to be applied in deciding whether help should be given in any particular case is a simple one: "Did those who subscribed to the Fund intend that their money should be spent in this way? "With this test to guide them, local relief committees are now active throughout the affected areas, sponsored by the local authorities and supported by the voluntary organisations. I want my Fund to be administered locally with central guidance, and these are the people who know local needs.

There is another form of loss I should like to make good if possible. Damaged churches where the hardship is not so much personal as spiritual, and halls used for religious and social purposes would, I know, commend themselves to subscribers to my Fund. From now on I shall therefore feel free to devote some new money to this purpose.

My team of assessors are in the field. I have urged local committees to make speedy payments on account where they can safely do so. I am confident that with good will on all sides the Fund can be distributed fairly and uniformly in accordance with the wishes of the subscribers.

Please make any use of this letter you wish.

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) RUPERT DE LA BERE, Lord Mayor.