HC Deb 06 December 1960 vol 631 cc1226-36

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

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

Originally I gave notice that I would seek an early opportunity to raise the question of national responsibility for flood damage because I was very disturbed at the failure of the Government adequately to deal with the problem and, in view of the time they have had to consider the matter, to come to any decisions. Several weeks ago when I raised this matter disastrous inundation of land and buildings in many parts of the land had already taken place, and today my worst fears have been all too abundantly justified by recent events.

What possible excuse can there be for a delay of some eight to ten years in coming to grips with a question of such significance? At least 40 counties have been affected by the catastrophic floods of the last few days. Many millions of pounds worth of damage has been done to property and chattels. Lives have been endangered, and in some cases—fortunately only a few—lives have been lost. I agree that some steps were taken to deal with emergencies which might arise, but their ineffectiveness adequately to cope with contingencies that were foreseeable has been now clearly demonstrated.

In some districts in South Wales which I know so well the accounts and photographs of the havoc done depict a heartbreaking situation. I am referring only to South Wales which I know very well. I know, of course, that the same thing prevails in many other parts of the country. We are told, for example, that thousands of homes in Cardiff were swamped and that flood damage in the Treforest Trading Estate runs into many millions of pounds. This follows the pattern in so many other places nearby. The homes of more than a thousand people in the Rhondda had to be evacuated. These homes in some cases have been the tragic scenes of lives stricken by injury or disease resulting from service given to the nation in extracting coal from the bowels of the earth. For long periods this valley, in common with other places in Wales, was visited by near-starvation When unemployment was rife, and now they have to suffer this new plague.

The important question which arises is whether the consequences of the heavy storms and flooding were avoidable. Surely they could have been anticipated and proper national plans made after eight or ten years to cope with the situation. Indeed, the Government themselves say that after eight years of delay they consider that the recommendations of the Heneage Committee should be partly implemented. They have brought in a Bill to that effect. In other words, what they are saying by that Bill is that there is a possibility of dealing with this position if it can be tackled in accordance with certain ideas which they are now bringing into force.

Am I right in saying that a grave responsibility rests on the Government for their failure to act before this new catastrophe overtook us? The House knows that if a private individual had been guilty of such negligence, knowing the possibility of danger, and had not fulfilled his duty by taking steps to prevent the consequences which might ensue to his fellow men, he would certainly be held to be guilty of an act of negligence. That act would have given rise to the right of action for damages. If, as often happens, he takes steps to remove the danger after the injury has been sustained, having known the possibility of damage beforehand, surely that is regarded as evidence against him. I see some learned Members present. [Interruption.] Well, some are learned in the general sense and some are learned in the particular sense.

I submit that the Government are in a similar position and should acknowledge their responsibility and pay damages accordingly. It is a matter of national concern and should not be allowed to rest mainly on the charitable disposition of individuals or on local government.

As I have already said, the introduction of the Bill to which I have referred indicates that the Government themselves believe that they have been negligent because they are now saying that they will be in a position to cope with this matter if the Bill is passed into law.

I have only time to refer briefly to several matters which, in my view, underline my contention. The Government knew or should have known of the dangers, and I should like to show that that is the position. On 23rd November, 1954, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the periodic disasters which through the vagaries of the weather are causing distress and loss to country and town dwellers alike; and whether he is now prepared"— this was in 1954— to consider an insurance scheme to provide for immediate relief and ultimate compensation for victims of such calamities and not leave them to rely on the uncertain and unequal responses to public appeal; or if he will consider accepting Government responsibility. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Home Secretary, said: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I am satisfied that a Government insurance scheme would not be appropriate. The attitude of the House to the grave disasters— they were not new, grave disasters; they were grave disasters in 1953— which have from time to time afflicted the country is well known— I ask the House to accept that it is negligence, because even at that time, the right hon. Gentleman said, it was well known— but it would be a different matter to recognise in advance that a responsibility would rest on Her Majesty's Government whatever the scale or nature of the troubles might be. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire then said: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that circumstances have changed, and that these days he himself collects about two-thirds of the profits of industry, so that many of the sources from which charity came are not so full as they used to be? If the Chancellor is going to collect large proportions of the profits of industry, should he not be prepared to accept some of the responsibilities that used to be accepted by people who gave money to charity? Is he not aware that damage to people's houses by some of these floods is just as serious as was war damage, and that the tragedy is just as serious for the people concerned, although it does not always arouse equal public sympathy? The right hon. Gentleman's reply was: In the end the State comes along and does its duty. Hon. Members say "Hear, hear." I must be presenting my case badly if I have not already convinced hon. Members opposite that there is a serious case here after eight or ten years against people who have not provided for the contingencies which have arisen. I will complete the then Chancellor's reply: The difficulty of carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that we have to see so far ahead and over so very wide a realm, some of which is that of private insurance, whereas war damage lay in the realm of what I might call national insurance. That is why I cannot adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, though I see its value."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23rd November, 1954; Vol. 533, c. 1030–31.] That was many years ago. I could give many instances of where attention has been drawn to the serious consequences from that time onwards of this kind of flooding; but for want of time I shall deal with the position of the area in and around my constituency. I do not for one moment suggest that it is by any means the most serious.

I ask the House to consider this. On 25th January, widespread flooding throughout Leicestershire took place. The buildings flooded included a part of Loughborough College and a number of houses in south-west Leicester. Water up to two feet deep was reported on the Melton Road city boundary on 29th January, the Syston area being particularly hard hit. Floods at Quorn closed the main Loughborough-Leicester Road to all but the heaviest vehicles. In June and October emergency calls for firemen's pumping services were received from various parts of the county and consequent damage to property accrued, principally in the Syston area. Water was five feet deep at Rearsby. Last month, roads were also under water in Leicestershire through storms.

I could give further instances, but I do not want to detain the House longer than is necessary. I know that several other hon. Members wish to speak, but I have so much to say that it may not be possible for me to leave them sufficient time to do so.

Today, I quote from the Leicester Mercury of Monday, 5th December: The worst floods for over thirty years"— this is the kind of argument that the Government will use, because they happened to be the worst floods— hit Leicester at the week-end. In many spots the fast-rising waters made it impossible for road organisations to arrange traffic diversions. The River Eye at Melton rose by five feet and overflowed its banks in many places. So serious were the floods which rose after two inches of rain within 24 hours that Leicestershire police asked the B.B.C. to broadcast warning motorists to avoid the county. At one time all roads north of Leicester were blocked. Scores of houses in villages were flooded and their occupants stranded in their bedrooms. The torrential rain also turned roads and gardens into lakes in Leicester itself. For the third time within a few weeks houses at the Melton Road city boundary were hit. All this happens at times of heavy rain. In the dry season many parts of the country suffer from drought to such an extent that there is a dangerous shortage of water. In my view, the answers given in the House yesterday by the Minister indicate that even now he has not realised the seriousness of the position, and the country is gravely disturbed.

First of all, I think that there should be a national scheme covering the question of flooding as well as that of the conservation of water. In my view, there should be a much more authoritative body set up than the one dealing with the problem of water conservation at the present time. I am glad to see that a representative of the Treasury is present, because I think that funds should be made available by the Government from the national Exchequer with which to compensate those who sustain losses as a consequence of floods. These funds should be made available to cover all losses, and the Government should make it abundantly clear what losses they are prepared to cover.

The Government should come forward speedily and should not delay. I am not in any sense deprecating the goodness of heart of those who contribute towards relief funds, but, as I have tried to point out, the fact of the matter is that if we had a nationally planned method for dealing with the position those who are suffering today would not have been placed in the situation in which they find themselves.

What is that position? Let me take the example of the small shopkeeper. Many small shopkeepers in Leicester and throughout the country have suffered flood damage. Does the small shopkeeper know at the present time that his stick will be replaced?

Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)

Yes.

Mr. Janner

I should like to hear the Minister say that, because it is important that we should know and that it should be made known throughout the country so as to relieve the anxiety of those who have suffered in this way. Help should be given promptly. Those affected should not have to rely on the charity of others. The Government should make it clear tonight—I hope that they will—that they are prepared to pay for the damage caused so that a man can reinstate himself in business and that they are prepared to replace furniture in flooded homes.

Many houses which were redecorated after recent floods are in need of being redecorated once more after the latest floods. The occupants of such houses want to know whether they will be given sufficient money with which to carry out those redecorations. Will there be provision for those houses which suffer damage which cannot be ascertained at present, in the same way as there was in the case of war damage?

These are matters I put to the Minister which I hope will be answered this evening. I know that I cannot deal with any question of legislation, but I hope the Government will say categorically that we shall have this fund. If certain individuals like to contribute to it, well and good, but we should not have to wait to see what others do. I hope the Government will create the fund and pay for all the damage sustained by those who have been victims of what I hope hon. Members will agree, has been an act of negligence on their part. It may be that in a year or two we will have satisfactory provisions under new Acts, but it is obvious that we have not got them now and that the Government know that we have not got them; otherwise they would not be bringing in new legislation. It is obvious that they will be able to do in future what they have not done in the past.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

I am very glad to have this extremely short opportunity to speak, as we have not much time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate.

This is not a party matter, and I do not think it should be treated as such. All of us are most anxious to do what we can for those who have suffered, especially those of us who have constituency interests. I know the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has spoken, but for my part I think we have had some first-class statements from the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary. I can say on behalf of my constituents who have suffered so much in the flooding in my constituency that they are satisfied with the assurance the Government have given. I have talked with them and I know that to be true.

Between 9 o'clock on Saturday morning and 9 o'clock on Sunday morning 4½ inches of rain fell on Exmoor. That is not something the Government can cope with; it was an act of God.

Mr. Janner

rose—

Mr. du Cann

I am sorry, I cannot give way, as there is not much time. I agree with the hon. Member that this is something for which the community as a whole should accept responsibility, but I wish to refute the idea that the flooding was caused by the Government being lax. The Government have to accept responsibility for doing two things, first helping immediately our fellow citizens in distress. In the Dulverton area our general relief fund amounts to about £400 and I think that about £4,000 should be spent. I hope this help in the terms of the promise made by the Parliamentary Secretary will be given immediately.

Secondly, the Government have responsibility to make money available to mitigate, so to speak, the possibility of further floods. Exmoor is like a sponge and is saturated with four or five inches of snow on the hills. We are desperately anxious that money should be spent in clearing the culverts to prevent further flooding. This is something to be done immediately and I hope my hon. Friend, who is well known in Taunton as a man of wise judgment and humanity, will be able to help us.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I am also grateful to the Financial Secretary for allowing me to make a brief intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) for initiating this debate.

Those of us who come from South Wales also during the week-end have been hit by the disaster of the floods which caused chaos among our people. My hon. Friends for the Rhondda, the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) and the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. W. Box) are disturbed and want to know what steps the Government are taking to give immediate help to local authorities to try to prevent any further occurrence of flooding by high tides which are due later this month. If we have heavy rain it is almost bound to bring further disaster. We know that towards the end of December there will be exceptionally high tides again. If this wet weather continues it is an appalling thought that our people will have to spend night after night in anxiety.

We in the House must provide local authorities with the means to do the job. Possibly the Minister can give me an assurance on this question. We must give them the all-clear and let them know that any backing which they require will be forthcoming.

I am also concerned about the fact that so many people have to go to the Assistance Board for help. I know that that is the normal channel for people in need, but I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate what means of compensation or help will be available for those who have been afflicted in this way.

11.41 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)

I have not much to add tonight to the comprehensive statement made on this subject on 11th November by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but I will answer one or two points made in the debate.

I must first supplement one point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) who spoke as though the Land Drainage Bill now going through the House were the first instance of the Government taking notice of this problem. One statistic which it is important to remember concerns capital expenditure on land drainage, both by river and catchment boards and by internal drainage boards; for this has been rising substantially during the last few years. I have looked at the figures for the financial year 1956–57, when I was last in the Treasury, and the total capital investment for this purpose was then about £4,300,000. In the forthcoming financial year—the figures were given in the recent White Paper on Capital Investment—the total capital expenditure on land drainage will be over 150 per cent. of that figure, and grant payments have risen in proportion.

I assure the hon. Member that in recent years we have devoted considerably increased resources to land drainage generally and that when we are planning the future public capital investment programme we shall take into account the flood disasters of this year. It is not fair to suggest that only now are we taking note of this problem.

Mr. Janner

I did not suggest that nothing had been done. My concern is that we are now devoting capital expenditure which should have been devoted before and which might have prevented what is now happening.

Sir E. Boyle

The trend of increased capital expenditure has bean steady throughout the last four or five years.

It is fair to say that following the flood disasters the combined resources of the Department and local authorities have produced a quick response in most cases—nearly all cases of need. I am told that in virtually all badly affected areas relief funds have been set up, subscriptions have been received and payments are already being made The funds have received a guarantee of support from the Government. The process of assessing the full extent of the damage is bound to take some time, but it is well under way.

In reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), I must make it clear that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will make contributions to local funds set up for the purpose of collecting voluntary contributions for the relief of distress in all those cases where the extent of loss is greater than the total voluntary contributions. The money will be accounted for on the main Vote of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, where it will be shown as a grant-in-aid. Parliament will be asked to sanction this expenditure by means of a supplementary Estimate, to be presented in due course. In the meantime, the money will be advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas (Rhondda, West)

Will the Financial Secretary state what will be the position in the Rhondda Valley, where it has been decided not to set up an appeal fund? Our dilemma is that there will be several appeal funds; for example, Cardiff and Welshpool will have appeal funds. It is difficult to know where to stop. In the Rhondda Valley it has been decided to levy a rate of 2s. 6d. in the £. What contribution will the Ministry make towards that fund?

Sir E. Boyle

I cannot answer that question straight away, but I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising the point and I will discuss it as soon as I can with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs and write to the hon. Member. The point I wanted to make is that to those who talk about the Government subscribing £ for £ the simplest objection, I think, is that in many cases that would not be sufficiently generous. I hope that the guarantee that I have announced tonight will be regarded by the House as satisfactory.

The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West referred to the possibility of some kind of insurance scheme. We have looked into this again and again. One thing which bothers me about it is that, if people are compelled to contribute via some kind of levy to an insurance scheme against national disasters, that may very well have some effect on the scale of voluntary contributions. We shall look at it again, but my own belief is that the way we have been tackling the matter is the right one.

In the last minute or two, I want to say only this. We in the Treasury and in all the Departments concerned will, of course, learn all possible lessons from these flood disasters for the future. Although the weather has been quite freak, none the less we want to make sure that our arrangements are right. I can assure the House about one thing I have looked into. Whenever the planning authorities consider questions of where houses should be built, the attitude of the river board is always taken into account. I therefore hope that we shall not often again have cases of houses being sited in places where flooding is particularly likely.

We shall, of course, consider all aspects for the future. All I ask the House to accept tonight is that we have in recent years, I believe, done more than is always realised in the way of providing increased capital expenditure for drainage, and I believe that we are dealing with this matter of relief along the right lines.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies (Rhondda, East)

Will the Minister reply to a question which gives me great concern? There are areas where the problem of flooding will disappear ultimately when the water goes down, but in my constituency there are areas where the problem will still remain. The houses have been evacuated, but the danger still exists. What are the Government prepared to do to assist those people?

Sir E. Boyle

I can only repeat what I said just now, although I see the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. In the future, the river boards view about building in an area of potential flood danger will always be taken seriously by the planning authority. As regards any existing problem, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me or to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We will certainly look into it.

Mr. Janner

Will the Minister answer another of the points I raised, which has been raised many times in the House? What plans have the Government in mind with regard to combining efforts in tackling the two problems here, one of flooding and the other of water conservation against drought? What is happening about that? It is a very serious matter.

Sir E. Boyle

I think that this is really something which—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes to Twelve o'clock.