HC Deb 06 June 1956 vol 553 cc1237-46

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

11.12 p.m.

Sir David Robertson (Caithness and Sutherland)

I shall, I hope, facilitate the understanding by hon. Members of the deplorable situation which exists in Hillhead Quarry, Wick, if I tell the House the two main causes of it. Caithness missed the great upsurge of building in Scotland in the nineteenth century. Our population was not increasing, but decreasing. The flood tide of emigration to the Lowlands, to England and overseas was prevailing and there was not the need to build houses. For that reason the majority of the houses in the county of Caithness, including the two burghs, are probably over two centuries old.

The slum clearance scheme published in February by the Secretary of State for Scotland records the fact that there are 4,046 houses in rural Caithness, that is, in the county council area, of which 1,400 are deemed to be unfit for human habitation. That will give the House some idea of the state of housing in Caithness. When I tell the House that there are now more families awaiting rehousing in the principal Burgh of Wick than the total number of houses built since the end of the war, and that in the smaller Burgh of Thurso there are as many families still awaiting rehousing as there have been houses built since 1945 it will realise the difficulties of the housing situation which has brought about this Hillhead Quarry situation.

That is the first reason. The second reason is that the nomadic people who live in this quarry under such distressing conditions are tinkers. They are among the oldest of all the races which make up the Caithness population. They have been there for centuries longer than my own family, and no one quite knows who they are. They may be of gipsy origin or they may be an outcast clan, which is quite feasible. But the sad thing is that for centuries they have been regarded as an inferior people.

They look the same as other people and it would be difficult for anyone other than an expert to pick out a tinker family. They are dark. They have acquiline features. So do many others of the Celtic races. They have been regarded as an inferior people. In the early days they lived in caves on the shore. They earned a living as tinsmiths, going out into the country in caravans when the better weather came, mending pots and pans. During the war, with its demand for labour, they came into the towns and settled. They always go into the towns in winter. I think that was usual with the gipsies in England, and in other parts also. In the summer they took to the road again.

There is still a disposition among many people to regard them as inferior, and to deny them rights to which they are entitled. There is nothing in the Housing Acts of Scotland or England which says that a family, because it belongs to the tinker clan, should not be rehoused. The local authorities have shown, I think, in the Halkirk case, that they are prepared to face unpopularity among their constituents to do something which a majority of the public in Caithness does not want to come about, namely, to rehouse tinkers with other people. I hope that they will continue to demonstrate that attitude, irrespective of whether it is popular or not.

It is interesting to read, in the John o' Groats Journal, issued this week, comments by a columnist having the name, "Norseman," under the heading, "Colour Bar." He writes, At the meeting which granted the house to the Halkirk tinker family, one of the Councillors remarked that 'it would be a most unpopular decision'. He goes on to say, Much the same was said some time ago when tinkers were housed at Lybster. Such remarks are fully justified, for they represent the simple truth. No locality in Caithness wants a tinker family housed in their midst. That is a sad state of affairs. I believe it to be true.

The matter was first publicised when, on 5th March, the British Legion met in Wick and reported that there were six families, comprising twelve adults and fourteen children, living in conditions of squalor in huts which were six, seven, or eight feet long, a few feet wide, and which had low roofs. The British Legion is interested because four of the fathers are ex-Service men. The huts are composed of canvas sections supported on four posts, with an occasional crossmember. They are dilapidated. They have no ventilation, and are without sanitation. The nearest water is three-quarters of a mile away, according to one report, and 600 yards away according to another. The huts are round the edge of the quarry, in the centre of which is a large pond. That pond is a cesspool. For years all kinds of filth have been thrown into it, and the conditions are almost indescribable.

As soon as the House rose at Easter, I visited the site. That was on Good Friday. I found everything which the British Legion reported, which was widely publicised in the Scottish newspapers, and which brought me a flood of letters objecting to such conditions in this country. Every decent man must object. We had a priest of the Church of England in the House yesterday who has raised an outcry, may be a proper outcry, about conditions in Shanty Town in Johannesburg. I imagine that they are bad, but from pictures that I have seen I would not compare them with the conditions at Wick. I have been in the Cape Flats district of Cape Town where the coloured people live. The conditions there are bad, but not as bad as at Wick. That will give the House an impression of the seriousness of this matter.

I must pay tribute to the Joint Under-Secretary who is to reply tonight. When this matter first arose, I consulted him, and he has done his very best to bring about the change for which I have asked, namely, immediate temporary rehousing of these unfortunate families, and a longterm policy designed to meet their permanent housing needs. It is no fault of his that tonight we are no further forward with this matter than we were three months ago when it was first raised by the British Legion.

The families are still there, with the exception of one. A man, his wife and child have escaped, and have probably got into a corner somewhere. I will warrant it is not a very good corner, and it may be a very bad house, like the Halkirk house, where two different families, comprising eighteen people, were living in a two-apartment house. Those hon. Members who saw pictures of that house in the newspapers will have some conception of the kind of house to which that family has probably escaped.

No action has been taken. The town council, which is the local authority responsible, discussed it. It may have been diffident about antagonising general opinion, but it has talked and is now considering renovating old houses. Those houses could be two or three centuries old. They would take a long time to renovate, and I doubt whether it would be worth while. It would be much quicker and perhaps cheaper to build new homes.

The immediate need is to get these people out of this cesspool. It is wrong that this sort of thing should continue in the Welfare State for three months. Unless the protest which I am making tonight is successful, it will continue for another three months. These things are apt to be forgotten, unless pressed. I know that the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary have pressed it, but they are still talking about doing something to old buildings.

The moment that this matter came to my notice, I went to the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I asked him to release some of the newly-renovated hutments on the aerodrome at Wick, an aerodrome which accommodated 1,700 airmen during the war and where none is now living. However, in anticipation of a squadron which will come up for a short summer visit to carry out some exercises—and it will be most welcome—a great deal of money and effort has been spent renovating the huts. If three or four could be taken, the problem about getting these families into conditions where they are protected against wind and weather and where water and sanitation are available would immediately be solved.

I asked a question about infection. I saw lovely children covered with scabs. The medical officer of health says that in his opinion there is no risk of infection. I disagree. Conditions like those cannot be tolerated in our country. The people of Scotland are outraged about the position. I went to the Clerk of the Presbytery of the Church of Scotland at Lybster, and urged on him that the Church should take action. The Church has a part to play in this rehabilitation of the tinker families.

I called a meeting of the tinkers. Tinkers from this quarry and others attended. I told them of their rights to temporary housing and permanent housing, and the responsibilities which those rights carried with them of paying the rent promptly and being good citizens and neighbours. I answered their questions. I looked at them very carefully and thought that they were more sinned against than sinning.

I went to the National Assistance Board, because some of my supporters said that these men were getting £10 a week in National Assistance and doing nothing but live on the State. I found that that was wholly untrue, and that their record of employment is very good. They get only the roughest work. The women do rough field work and the men generally work in the docks. The National Assistance Board manager in Wick assured me that their record was equal to that of the rest of the people, and that there was no complaint on that score.

I have stated these things with regard to the quarry, and have given the background to it of lack of building. I could have added that it took two and a half to three years to complete a scheme of fifty houses in Caithness. When are we to get houses? At the rate which the county council is taking to replace 1,400 houses which are unfit for human habitation in the rural areas? They talk about demolishing 75 houses in the next three years. To deal with the 1,400 houses at the rate of 25 a year will take them thirty or forty years. That will not do. This job must be tackled as a matter of extreme urgency, and simultaneously a long-term plan of housing must be worked out.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

I confess to having the maximum sympathy with the case that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has raised. I have listened to him on other occasions when he has put Questions to the Secretary of State about this case.

We must assume that these six families, living in self-made hutments in a quarry, are in deplorable, indeed revolting, conditions. It is not for me to be critical of a local authority, and I do not want to be, more particularly when it is outwith the area that I represent; nor do I want to be critical of a medical officer of health or of a sanitary inspector. Nor—and it is unusual of me to say this—do I wish to be critical of the Scottish Office; but the conditions in this case are such that the Joint Under-Secretary of State must give me an assurance that every possible avenue has been explored to secure alternative accommodation for these families.

Is the Minister aware that under Section 61 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, the local authority has power with regard to acquisition, conversion and adaptation, and matters of that sort? Could he assure us that the local authority is exercising that power? Under Section 58 of the same Act the medical officer of health is in duty bound to submit to the Secretary of State information with regard to cases of this kind, after consultation with the local sanitary inspector.

As I listened to the hon. Member I gathered that there is contiguous to the quarry an airfield, and that on the airfield are Government buildings. Could the Joint Under-Secretary assure us that the local authority has exercised its powers under Section 92 of the 1950 Act to acquire one of the large Nissen huts that may exist on the airfield, if it is suitable for accommodation for these families, or, if it be necessary, two or three Nissen huts? I need not remind the hon. Gentleman that a local authority taking action of that kind would be given the necessary subsidies provided under the Housing Acts.

My participation in the debate is merely to seek some assurance that all the elements involved in this matter—including the Scottish Office, because no doubt it has the full facts of the case. apart from the statements of the hon. Member, from the medical officer of health and the local authority—are exploring every possible avenue in order that we may relieve these people from the distresing and revolting conditions in which they are living.

11.31 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne)

I have listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) have said about this case, which has already been the subject of correspondence and Questions in the House.

The facts are well established by inquiries which we have made from the town council of Wick and by inspections made by the officers of the Department of Health, who have visited the locality. The conditions are admittedly bad. No one would want to minimise the seriousness, from the public health point of view, of the conditions under which these families are living. No one would want to delay the solution of the problem for a single day longer than is necessary.

Although the accommodation occupied by the families at Hillhead Quarry is not Service property, as is the case with so many camps occupied by squatter families, and although the accommodation is not property for which either the Government or the town council of Wick have otherwise any responsibility as owners, there is a basic resemblance between conditions there and those at some of the squatter camps which for all practical purposes puts the cases into the same category. It may therefore lend perspective to the discussion if in the first place I tell the House briefly of the effects of the policy which we have been pursuing in trying to get rid of these hutted camps.

At the peak, there were 4,260 families in camps, on 5th January, 1950. By 5th May, 1954, the number had been reduced to 1,196 families and a year later, on 5th May, 1955, the problem had been nearly halved by the reduction of families to 723. In the year to 5th May. 1956, the number had been halved again, so that the number now remaining to be dealt with is only 345 families, against 4,260 in 1950.

I give those figures in order to show that energetic and effective action is being taken throughout the whole country to get rid of the unsatisfactory conditions which exist in properties of this kind. We shall continue to work for the complete elimination of the problem, although I am bound to say that as we get down to rock bottom the difficulties become greater and progress becomes slower.

The difficulties are no less at Wick than elsewhere. The situation at Hillhead Quarry, which has been the site of tinker camps for at least twenty years, is that five families occupy five small huts at the edge of the quarry, apparently without the authority of the owner of the land or of the town council, and without paying any rent. Only one man has been living in the quarry continuously for five years, in a hut supplied by the British Legion. The rest of the families are nomadic. They stay for a few weeks or months, and then other families take their places.

There are no sanitary facilities, which is the worst feature of the case, and water is carried in containers in an old pram from a standpipe about 600 yards away. I am told, however, that no cases of infectious disease have been notified from the camp in the last five years. I have little doubt, too, that these conditions in Wick can be paralleled in some of the camps still occupied in other parts of the country; but, as with these other camps, the families should be rehoused and the huts demolished as soon as possible.

My hon. Friend brought the conditions at Hillhead Quarry to the notice of the Scottish Office in March last, and the suggestion has been made that the Town Council of Wick and the City Council of Caithness should be directed, under Section 48 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, to submit forthwith proposals for the rehousing of the families in question. The powers of direction in that Section are, however, intended for use when a local authority is in default of its statutory duty to put an end to overcrowding in its district, and there is no question of default here. Both the town council and the county council have good housing records and the use of default powers against them could not possibly be justified. It is only fair to the local authorities that this should be said.

My hon. Friend mentioned the record of the Caithness County Council. The Caithness County Council, which is one of the more remote of our local authorities, has built a total of 360 houses since the war, an average of 33 houses a year. Now that there is a greater demand than before on the building resources of the district for other purposes—notably Dounreay—my right hon. Friend considered that the erection of 120 houses during the next three years, representing an increased average output of 40 houses a year, despite the competition of other works, was not unreasonable, and he approved the county council's proposals accordingly. If experience shows that the county council could do better, it will of course do so, but it cannot build beyond its building resources.

Apart from this, the inquiries which the Department has made show that neither of the authorities has any wish to discriminate against tinker families in housing. Tinker families have, in fact, been rehoused both in the county and in the town since the war under the local authorities' housing porgrammes. On the other hand, the local authorities are understandably unable to give to families in this class priority over others who have been on their waiting lists for a very long time and who have patiently waited for their turn for new accommodation. I understand that there are 500 applicants on the Wick waiting list and about 200 on the county list.

In contrast, only one of the families at the Hillhead Quarry has applied to the county council for accommodation, and one only, within the last three weeks, to the town council. The three remaining families have made no application at all. That is an essential step if they are to be considered for permanent housing accommodation. They have not even made an application. None of the families has complained to the local authorities about its conditions.

I can assure my hon. Friend that both the local authorities are most anxious to co-operate in the solution of this problem. Both are against any solution involving the erection of other huts. Although we have tried to do something about the aerodrome, I can assure my hon. Friend that it is quite impossible; every effort has been made. Having regard to planning and public health considerations, we feel that the only right policy is to demolish the camps and to put the people into proper permanent accommodation. The county council is looking in some of the villages in the county for existing properties which could be acquired and, by the exercise of the council's powers under the Act of 1954, made to provide more tolerable conditions for these families. Similarly, the town council is considering the acquisition of two houses in Wick which could be made available in the same way.

One point must be made crystal clear. If local government is to be a live force, as it should be, then it should be given more than nominal responsibilities. It should not be required to defer to the central Government on any issue, however important it may be, if it is essentially local in character. In the field of housing the central Government decided, and successive Governments of different political colour have maintained, that the local authority is the proper unit of administration.

They therefore provided that the building, letting and management of Stateaided houses should be in the hands of the local authorities.

Once authority is handed over to responsible bodies it is not right to complain to the central Government as to how they exercise that authority provided that they do so in a responsible way. Nor would it be proper or right for my right hon. Friend to intervene in the day-today conduct of their affairs. In an effort to be helpful my right hon. Friend has gone to great pains in discussing with the local authorities concerned how this difficult case can best be dealt with, but it would not be right for him, nor would it be right for my hon. Friend to ask him, to take from them any part of that authority which Parliament has clearly put in the hands of the local authorities concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.