HC Deb 22 May 1953 vol 515 cc2441-52

1.12 p.m.

Brigadier Christopher Peto (Devon, North)

I wish to bring the House back from the far distant climes of Bechuanaland and the other places which we have been discussing, to something much more homely—the problems resultant from the flood which took place on the memorable night of 15th August, 1952, in North Devon and West Somerset.

It is now over eight months since that disaster occurred, but I have not ventured to bring this problem before the House earlier because I felt, first, that plans for reconstruction of the magnitude involved in this case, and incurring an expenditure of about £1 million, must, of necessity, take time to mature and to be considered; and, secondly, that since that occasion there has been a much more disastrous flood on the East Coast, which has taken up the attention of the House on several occasions. But I now feel that the time has come to ask what the situation is, at any rate, as far as the neighbouring towns of Lynton and Lynmouth, in my constituency, are concerned, because they were badly ravaged. When I say that, I must not mislead the House, because I refer only to Lynmouth as being badly ravaged, because Lynton was completely untouched except for the loss of trade.

The problem falls under two headings. The first is the question of physical reconstruction and the re-development of Lynmouth, and the second is the problem of financial relief. To deal with one at a time, I should like to say that, as a result of two Questions which I put down last Monday and Tuesday to the Ministers of Transport and of Housing and Local Government respectively, both of which were couched in terms of criticism of the two Departments concerned for failing to get on with the job quickly enough, as a result of the very full reply which I received from the Minister of Housing and Local Government, I am quite convinced myself that, on the part of these two Ministries, there has been no undue delay, considering the magnitude of this problem.

The plans were received by the Ministry only on 2nd March, which was not very long ago. It took six months before the plans actually arrived there, and that, of course, is another matter. There may have been some delay during that period of six months, but that is not the responsibility of the Ministry. In my opinion, the Ministry have dealt with it with speed and efficiency since 2nd March, and that brings me to the first question which I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary.

How far has that plan now progressed in regard to its being approved? Has it been approved by all Departments concerned, or not, and is it, in fact, only awaiting Treasury approval of the amount of money to be spent? The second point arising from that is on what date shall we hear that the plan has been approved? Will it be one month from now, more than that, or may we even hear today that it has been approved? It follows that, when the plan is approved—and this, in my opinion, is perhaps the most important point for the local authorities concerned—the Devon County Council, which is the planning authority, and the Lynton Urban District Council, which is the coast protection authority, will want to know, at the same time, what are their financial responsibilities.

Will there be a 100 per cent. grant in payment for these works, or will some portion—and, if so, what portion—fall on the ratepayers respectively of the county or of Lynton? There will be further delay until the local authorities know their commitments in their respect, and it is quite reasonable to expect that they cannot embark on huge works involving an expenditure of £1 million until and unless they know how far they are financially committed.

As far as the Lynton Urban District Council, which is the coast protection authority, is concerned, they are assuming that they will get a 100 per cent. grant. The reason for that assumption is that certain remarks were made on the memorable occasion when the Minister of Housing and Local Government came down on 20th August, only a few days after the disastrous flood, and personally looked at the damage, spoke to the people and addressed the local council in the Council Room. The impression derived from these remarks was that they would get a grant of 100 per cent., which would place none of the cost on the rates. The visit of the Minister, and the subsequent visit of the Minister of Transport, had a very large psychological effect, because it restored morale and gave fresh hope that, eventually all would be well again. I do not believe that that hope was misplaced.

As far as physical reconstruction is concerned, I should like to remind the House that, in the Minister's reply to my Question last Tuesday, he said: In the meantime, so that urgent work may proceed quickly, I have already agreed that tenders may be obtained for the reconstruction of the harbour arm and the Rhenish Tower, and detailed proposals for a section of the river works have also been prepared and submitted by the Devon River Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 1871.] That answer was true so far as it went, but at that time the tenders referred to were at the Ministry. The plans for the dredging of the Lyn Estuary and the rebuilding of the causeway were at that time—and so far as I know, still are— at the Ministry. When will these tenders and plans be approved and when is it hoped to return them to the Lynton Urban District Council?

A further slight cause of delay with the urgent work which the Minister hoped might proceed quickly is that in the main plan of reconstruction of Lynmouth there is contemplated a new road which will run between the existing houses on the left bank of the River Lyn and the river itself. That will entail the demolition of some houses on the right bank of the river, and will also considerably influence the plans of the coast protection authority, because when that new road is constructed it will run along the river and into the area which is to be replanned and rebuilt by the coast protection authority.

The two things dovetail together. As soon as the main plan is decided and approved, financial approval is given and the proportion of assistance is agreed, the coast protection authority and the planning authority can get on with the job. Since I started writing these notes I understand that a tender for £29,500 for rebuilding the harbour arm has been approved over the telephone. I am most grateful for that and for the speed-up which it indicates.

Turning to the second part of the problem, with regard to the financial relief of those who have suffered in this disaster—which is perhaps the more important of the two and will certainly be of more interest to the public—I ventured to raise this matter on the Adjournment because some of the people who have subscribed to the fund will receive a shock. On 18th August the Press, throughout the country, were good enough to publish an appeal over the signatures of the Lords Lieutenant of Somerset and Devon. That appeal was elastically worded. I have it here and I may quote from it later. It is probably true to say that never in the history of this country has an appeal of this kind been answered by so overwhelmingly generous a response.

I was on the spot for days and days and I saw money and goods in relief of distress literally pouring in, not only from all over this country but from the Empire, the Commonwealth and even from foreign countries. In cash alone the figure raised amounted to £1,341,160 9s. 8d. What has happened to that money? Where is it, what has been done with it? By 14th May last— which is the last date about which I have details—I am given to understand that the amount paid out was £434,669. That leaves very nearly £1 million still to be paid out, and at the rate of interest at which it is invested I am told it increases by about £20 a day, and probably more.

The payments out cover 1,291 payments in full settlement and 89 interim payments. All those payments have been made for what is known as direct physical losses. If one's house was swept away one put in a claim and one received payment, but payment is not made in respect of indirect losses. I was informed by the chairman of the committee dealing with the payment out that no less than £715,136 had been applied for.

The public are very disquieted about this. I have seen hundreds of letters on this subject. In the office of the Lynton Town Clerk, for example, there is a pile of letters a yard high. I want to quote just one letter which I saw in the "Western Morning News" a few days ago, which is typical of the feeling of the people. It is signed by a person I have never met or heard of—Mr. S. W. Sanders, of Sidmouth—and it is dated 16th May. It says: The information published in your columns about the position at Lynmouth discloses a situation which defies belief. In common with a large number of others, I sent a personal donation to the disaster fund. I was not concerned with the method of distribution as much as with the desire that everybody who suffered hardship in any way should be helped. It seems to me that only a matter of degree separates the cottager who lost his all and the hotelier who, through causes beyond his control, is being driven into bankruptcy, but that a fund which now stands at nearly £1 million and is still growing daily can be permitted to stagnate … while such a state of affairs exists, indicates a sad lack of perspective and of the necessary ability on the part of those who are charged with the administration. The final sentence is: The money was raised for the relief of the distressed in the flooded areas. It was a free gift by free people and it should be devoted to the needs of those for whom it was subscribed. That letter puts in a nutshell what is thought by the people who know about it and what others will think when they read about this debate. Why is it that the hotels are facing ruin?—because that is absolutely true; I am not exaggerating. I went there last Saturday and I compared the bookings with the bookings at this time last year. They are infinitesimal. The people who are running the hotels and boarding houses of Lynton and Lynmouth are facing ruin.

I know a small hotel where a young couple started in business and they are now trying to sell it because they are young enough to get jobs elsewhere, which is what they have done. They face on their investment of £10,000 a capital loss of 50 per cent. or more, even if they accept the highest offer made. I have a letter from an elderly couple whom I have known for years. They are a most honourable, honest couple. They run a bigger hotel. The lady writes: I as a committee member of the Lynton and Lynmouth Hotel and Guest House Association (in conjunction with other members) am experiencing the utmost difficulty in meeting financial obligations, and if admittance of the claims is not recognised it will ultimately result in the closure of this hotel and of other local establishments. She goes on: I am contemplating this drastic step after 27 years in the hotel business… Finally, she says: Hopes that the Easter week-end would produce signs of recovery were not realised … last year I accommodated 65 guests compared with only five this year. Advance reservations to date amount to £340, and for corresponding period last year £3,000 approximately. Many of the people are too old to go off and start a new life. Why should they? They want something to tide them over this desperate time of waiting, and they cannot get it. They have spent as much as they can afford on advertising and they can now afford no more. The Association applied to the huge fund for £6,000 for an advertising campaign throughout the country. The application was turned down on the grounds that the loss was an indirect one.

That is the situation. Why has it arisen? Is it due to the present state of the law? There is a legal quibble as to whether indirect losses, as opposed to physical losses, may or may not be paid from the fund. I and others who subscribed hold that it never entered people's heads whether the loss was a physical or an indirect one. All the people thought of was the human suffering of one kind or another. I believe the money was given for all the purposes and not for only one purpose.

The problem is to be solved shortly in the High Court so I must not say any more on that aspect, but I would point out that the result of the situation is that the plight of the unfortunate people is simply desperate. They do not know whether they should sell out, borrow more money if they can do so, in the hopes of being able to pay it back one day, or live on the money which they already owe and cannot pay back. The sooner the case conies before the High Court the better.

I maintain that indirect losses were allowed for in the wording of the appeal. It says: …for the relief of all who have suffered. Then it says The material damage will run into a figure far beyond the resources of the inhabitants of these stricken valleys. In human suffering it can perhaps never be computed. It specifically mentions the holiday makers who do not live there, including the Boy Scouts who lost their lives, and says: These need help every bit as much as our own people, and for that reason we do ask the whole country to support this fund. Would it surprise the House to know that the small sum of £500 was requested for the parents of the children who lost their lives, and that was also turned down because it was considered that no direct financial loss had been incurred as the children were not wage earners? I believe that to be contrary to the spirit of the appeal as well as to its wording.

One is inclined to inquire whether it is the trustees who are at fault or whether it is the committee. I am absolutely certain that the two trustees, both of whom I know, are men of the highest possible repute, and that their one inclination would be to pay the money out if they were allowed to do so. Exactly the same goes for the chairman and members of the committee. I know the chairman intimately and many of the members of the committe every well. They would pay out at once if they thought they could, but when they are dealing with a vast sum of publicly subscribed money which is not their own, they naturally take great care that they do not infringe the law.

That is the essence of the matter. What is the law on the subject? The public do not know it. I certainly do not know it. I wonder whether it would not be a useful investigation after the High Court case has been decided to find out exactly what the law is and to ascertain if it needs simplifying and clarifying. We should like to know how the law stands with regard to charities, whether the Charity Commissioners must be consulted, and what latitude the committee has.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I do not know how far this comes within the power of the Minister.

Brigadier Peto

Perhaps it does not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it comes within the terms of the debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I rather think that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about would require legislation.

Brigadier Peto

I was suggesting that an investigation might take place, but in view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will leave that.

We do not know what the High Court case will cost, but I am absolutely certain that the money was not subscribed for expensive law suits and expensive administration. Cannot the Government sanction some form of interim payment from one source or another—I do not mind where it comes from—for the time being until the case is heard in the High Court?

Even if the debate does nothing else, I hope it will draw attention to the fact that the situation in Lynton and Lynmouth is serious. There is no doubt that the physical reconstruction can be concluded in Lynmouth probably at the end of a year or a little longer. Lynmouth was hit very hard. Lynton suffered no physical damage at all; but the people there are ostracised and bankrupt although the town is as beautiful as ever it was. It is exactly the same as it was before. That goes for other towns in North Devon which cater for the tourists, little towns like Woollacombe and bigger towns like Ilfracombe, Combe Martin and even Barnstaple. They could do with a little assistance from holidaymakers. I do ask the public to consider going down there to meet the very people to whom they subscribed so generously in the hour of their greatest need.

1.40 p.m.

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

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto) has put his case persuasively and skilfully, especially skilfully in managing to speak of legislation within the rules of order. He managed to compress within his speech a number of points about Lynmouth and the disaster. I should like to say how grateful I am to him for giving me notice of some of the questions he intended to raise, for that enables my answer to be more comprehensive than otherwise I could have made it.

I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend sufficiently distinguished in his speech between emergency work and permanent work. From what he said the public might think that the remedial measures necessary for clearance and temporary restoration had not been carried out, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the emergency works were set in hand immediately after the flood, as distinct from the permanent rehabilitation of the area. I think that ought to be made quite clear.

My hon. and gallant Friend asked about the permission to carry out major works. He was very generous to the Ministry in saying that there was no delay on the part of the Ministry. This scheme of permanent reconstruction was received from the Devon County Council on 2nd March. It involves pretty major works, river work, roads, bridges, coast protection, sewerage, and the demolition of buildings. As I think my hon. and gallant Friend knows, before taking up my present highly paid post I was a modest civil engineering contractor, and so it is from personal knowledge that I would assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the time when thought ought to be spent on such works is at the planning stage, not afterwards. One of the reasons for the very high costs of some civil engineering works is that soil tests were not taken or bore holes sunk to begin with, for the knowledge that a consulting engineer needs in the preparation of his plans is very great. I have not gone into these particular plans personally, but I know of cases where hundreds of thousands of pounds have been wasted because there was inadequate preparation at the planning stage.

This scheme was carefully examined by the different Departments concerned, and we want to deal with it speedily. My hon. and gallant Friend asked when a decision is to be announced, and whether it would be in more than a month or in more than two months. We hope to be able to announce a decision on the scheme in the next two or three weeks, certainly within five weeks. I hope that that speed will not unduly distress my hon. and gallant Friend.

He asked how far the plan had gone, and what will happen about the money and what are the grants in aid going to be, and what were the Lynton Urban District Council going to get. I gather that they thought they were going to get a 100 per cent. grant. I should not like to comment upon that because it is under discussion now, but I would observe, after neary two years' experience in this Ministry, that every local authority expect a 100 per cent. grant on every and any occasion.

I should not like to belittle in any way the difficulties which the Lynton Urban District Council will have to face. At the same time I make no comment at all upon what the sum will be, but the decision will be taken and the Devon County Council, the Devon River Board and the Lynton Uban District Council wil all get to know their respective shares of the expenditure. We hope to deal with it reasonably quickly. The Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, my Department and the Treasury, all the Departments concerned, have a meeting at the end of this month when they hope a decision will be taken. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it will be dealt with as sympathetically as possible.

Brigadier Peto

Would my hon. Friend answer the first question? How far has the plan gone? Is it with the Treasury or has it not got as far?

Mr. Marples

That is really an internal Government matter. It is not a question of one Department's holding the matter up. It will be joint Government action. The Government stand or fall by collective responsibility, and it would be wrong for any one of us to attribute blame to a particular Department, although the Treasury does come in for its share of abuse from hon. Members in all parts of the House. The decision will be a joint one.

As to the interim work, a fair amount has already been approved. A tender submitted by Lynton Urban District Council for the reconstruction of the harbour arm and the Rhenish Tower has been approved. This work will be put in hand at once. My hon. and gallant Friend asked when, and the answer is absolutely at once. We have also told them that they can go to tender for the reconstruction of part of the sewerage system, and the Lynmouth Council and the River Board have been getting on with the preparation of detailed proposals for the most urgent parts of the river works. They have submitted a detailed plan for that section of the work which is on the Somerset side of the river.

My hon. and gallant Friend says that approval has been given to a tender on the telephone. My capacity for astonishment, I thought, was exhausted, but I now find it is not. I hope whoever got that permission on the telephone will hasten to get it confirmed in writing. We had troubles caused by this sort of thing over the requisitioning of houses during the other flood disasters. I would hear two different accounts of one and the same telephone conversation and they would bear no relation to each other. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will communicate with his constituents and urge them for goodness sake to get confirmation in writing.

The only matter outstanding on the actual work itself, apart from the main scheme, is the tender for dredging the channel into the harbour. We are doubtful whether it would be wise to do this now, since there is a danger of the dredged channel being filled up again by debris which may be brought down the river while the main river works are going on upstream. It may be better to leave this until the main river works are finished. It is a technical matter, but I am sure that that is common sense, and that my hon. and gallant Friend will see that it is.

I come to the point now about the summer visitors. I sympathise with the people at Lynton and Lynmouth, but I observe that Devon and Cornwall are finding slight difficulty in regard to summer visitors at the present because of the high cost of the railway fares. However, whatever we in the Ministry may do, whatever the local authorities may do, whatever the civil engineering contractors may do, it will not be possible to do very much for those two towns this summer.

Brigadier Peto

One town.

Mr. Marples

I am sorry. I mean for Lynton this summer. It will take some time to carry out the works even when the plans have been approved. Heavy works of this nature do take some time to get going, because they are tricky, technical jobs.

Brigadier Peto

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering how to carry out those heavy works, taking as much as possible by sea rather than by road?

Mr. Marples

I do not quite know what particular point my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I do not know what sort of stuff he wants carried by sea, but, normally, for river works the difficulty is not so much the weight of materials but the technical nature of the job. Such heavy works proceed slowly by stages because the civil engineer's job is a highly technical one, rather than because it involves weighty materials. As I was saying, whatever we may do, we shall not do a great deal this summer.

The last point my hon. and gallant Friend made was with regard to the appeal fund. He asked what the Government could do. First, we cannot discuss what will happen in the High Court because the matter is sub judice, and there is therefore very little I can say. The second reason I cannot say very much—and I am reluctant to say this—is that the responsibility is not that of my right hon. Friend or the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Whilst one hates to avoid difficult questions in that way, I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will see the force of the argument. For those two reasons, I hope he will forgive me from commenting on it.

May I say in conclusion that we have, and always ought to have, great sympathy for Lynton and for the Lynmouth disaster. When a place which is not very wealthy has a disaster of this nature suddenly overtaking it, when its financial resources are strained in carrying out the work involved, things are made awfully difficult. It is in that spirit that these discussions will be taking place with Government Departments, when the Government will announce its decision on the financial considerations involved.