FLOODING, WEST COUNTRY

HC Deb 11 November 1960 vol 629 cc1406-38

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

12.49 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of flooding in the West Country. It has been, and continues to be, one of very deep anxiety and concern throughout the West Country. Understandably, perhaps, I am principally interested in the affairs of my own constituency in particular and of the West of England in general. Nevertheless, I feel that the subject of the debate is probably of similar interest to other parts of the United Kingdom which have suffered in the same way, notably in Lincolnshire and in the South-East. I do not doubt that the flooding is viewed with equal concern in those parts.

My object in initiating this debate can be stated shortly. Those of us who have the honour to represent the affected constituencies in the House of Commons know very well that the problems associated with flooding are receiving the urgent and careful attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But, if I may paraphrase a well-known saying, it is not enough that consideration should be given to these affairs; it should be seen, and seen publicly, that consideration is being given to them. I believe that the public can, on occasion, be reassured by the very fact of debate and discussion in the House. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to have an opportunity to say something about this whole anxious and difficult matter.

A debate of this kind gives us also an opportunity to say certain things which should be said. I pay a very great tribute to all those who have contributed in their own very many ways to the relief of distress. Those of us who have seen the relief work in progress have admired very greatly all that has been done. The local authorities in general have done a conscientious and devoted job. So, I believe, have the river boards whose representatives have, at the time of this emergency, worked very often long hours in most difficult conditions. So have the police. So have the military, whose help in Taunton we particularly appreciated. So have the Civil Defence, the Red Cross, the Women's Voluntary Service and similar voluntary bodies. So have many other public servants, railwaymen, for instance, who have driven the trains through the floods and who have often had to work hours much longer than they should reasonably do in ordinary circumstances. I could mention many other categories of people in a very long list.

It is right, also, for us as a House to pay tribute to the members of the public themselves for the fortitude, patience and courage with which they have met ordeals which in many individual cases have been distressing to the utmost. I recall the experience of a constituent of mine in the tiny village of Bury, near Dulverton, of which, I imagine, the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom have never heard. Realising, as one does, the feelings of people who, in the early part of the evening when it is dark, suddenly find their houses flooded with five feet of water, and there are invalids in the house who cannot be moved, one can well imagine the terror and distress which these circumstances cause. Afterwards, when the flood waters have subsided, there is the dreadful problem of cleaning up and clearing away the muck and the silt.

One can face one experience of this sort, perhaps, with traditional British good humour. When, as has happened in many parts of the country, flooding is repeated twice or even three times, even British patience is taxed. All over the country, people have met these circumstances, I suggest, with tremendous courage and fortitude, and I am sure that the House of Commons would wish to congratulate them very warmly and assure them of our support.

This debate gives me an opportunity, also, which I was unable to have the other day when the right hon. Friend made his statement, to pay a tribute to him and the spirit in which that statement was made. I assure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that his visit to Devon during the early part of the floods in October was very much appreciated. Similarly, we greatly appreciated the visit of my noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who, at very short notice, a short time ago visited the area at the time of, so to speak, the second phase of the floods in Somerset and Devon.

I pay tribute to some of the officials of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I have heard at first hand of the contacts which they have been having with local authorities in the West of England. One particular instance impressed me very much. After my right hon. Friend's statement in the House, I received a query from the clerk of the Dulverton Rural District Council which I passed on to my right hon. Friend with an accompanying letter. That query was answered on the telephone within 24 hours. It is sometimes suggested that civil servants take a very long time to work. I thought that the speed with which that particular query was answered was most impressive and typical of the work which officials of the Ministry have been doing in recent weeks. I am sure that it must be generally recognised and appreciated that the concern which we in this House feel and which the country feels about this matter is reflected both by Ministers and by Ministries.

The debate, then, turns on the question: what should be done, and how? Everyone is aware of the facts. During the past three months, the newspapers have been full of headlines which have made gloomy reading. Indeed, as so often happens on these occasions, I think that we may, perhaps, have become inured to the troubles and horrors of the situation. Flooding has been widespread and violent. Lives have been lost. People's houses have been damaged and, in some cases, totally destroyed. Little businesses have been wrecked. The affairs of large businesses have been interrupted and dislocated. Also, as I have said, there have been many personal horrors and tragedies—the sort of things which do not necessarily rate mention in the newspaper headlines, but which, collectively, make an appalling total.

Furthermore, we in the West Country feel that, although we have been fortunate in having better weather lately, the danger has not yet passed. We are tremendously concerned about the effect of a bad winter. It may well be, for instance, that Exmoor, as usual, will receive very heavy snowfalls. The ground is already saturated; it has as much water as it can possible contain. We are concerned about what may happen in the future. I emphasise this point to my hon. Friend because I regard it as very important and it is exercising our minds greatly at this time.

It has been suggested that the weather has been exceptional. That is true of many low-lying parts of the country. For instance, in the Taunton area in July, August and September, we had 12 inches of rain. In October, we had a further 12 inches, making a total of 24 inches during those four months of the year. That is to be compared with an ordinary annual average of about 29.3 inches of rain. It is true to say, therefore, that there has been exceptional rainfall there. Nevertheless, the Somerset River Board writes to me as follows: Flooding of this magnitude has now occurred three times in the present century. Consequently, we can expect it to happen again. Therefore, although a great part of the flooding may be said to be caused by exceptional circumstances, the danger remains, and it is very serious.

In a letter to me, a constituent of mine who lives in Exmoor, and who is generally acknowledged to be an authority on matters in that part of the country, writes as follows: As I have known Exmoor for over 50 years and have lived at Winsford"— in my constituency— since 1930, keeping a rain gauge all the time, … I think that it may be helpful if I give you my views. I have checked through all my rainfall records and I can find no significant change in the last 30 years. We have on several previous occasions had rain as heavy as or heavier than we have experienced in the last four months. I wish, therefore, to make very firmly to my hon. Friend the point that, although it may be true that in many low-lying parts of the country the rainfall was exceptional, in Exmoor, at any rate, this is not so. It is true to say, and this is a point to which I shall refer later, that the effect of this rainfall has been very much aggravated by modern conditions.

The question, then, is what action should be taken to mitigate hardship and to prevent a recurrence of disasters. One of the difficulties in which we find ourselves in this House in discussing this subject is that it is the concern of more than one Ministry. It is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but when we come to land drainage, that is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

When roads have been damaged and flooded, that is the general responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and over them all, when we are considering whether or not the Government are able to assist us in various ways with grants from central funds to remedy the defects or to provide improvements for the future, the Treasury has to be consulted. In that connection, I should like to say how very much indeed we all appreciate the presence here today of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. It is very good of him to come, and we take his presence here, as if we needed it, as being evidence of his own concern with the whole matter.

When we have so many Ministries concerned, this automatically of itself makes difficulties. Government policy, as I understand it from the statement made the other day by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, is to encourage, firstly—and here I am talking about the alleviation of hardship—the voluntary raising of money locally. When as much money as can be raised locally has been raised, when the local community has contributed as much as it can afford, then, and only then, will the Treasury, so to speak, foot the bill.

I entirely agree that it is right to encourage the voluntary spirit. Nobody is more keen on that than I am. I also agree that we ought to do nothing which will put an unfair and unreasonable financial burden upon the Government. The Government have quite enough things upon which they are constantly being exhorted by pressure groups of one sort or another to spend money. On the other hand, I cannot help feeling that there are certain difficulties with regard to the establishment of local funds which have become clear as fund-raising efforts have been made.

First, a very great deal of most splendid work has been done by those raising these local funds, and I should particularly like to pay a tribute to the Mayor of Taunton in this connection, for although he is a political opponent of mine, he is a man with a great sense of public duty. I admire very much all he does for the people of Taunton. Although there has been all this devoted effort, there is no doubt that the fund-raising activities have been too diffuse in Exeter, Winsford and Taunton, and there is a good deal of evidence that local people there have been in very much doubt to which fund they should contribute. I am not sure that we might not have got a better result if we had had one single fund, but I do not know.

I find that these good people are also unhappy—and there is a good deal of evidence on this subject—on the question of the disposal of the surpluses of these relief funds in the past. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there has been a great deal of debate about the surplus, for instance, from the Lynmouth Fund. At one time it was suggested that the surplus of that fund should be used to provide playing fields and the like, and this caused a great deal of unhappiness and, I believe, stopped many people from subscribing to our local funds who otherwise would have done so. They felt that if there was going to be too much money raised it might be used for some other purpose to which they did not wish to subscribe. I realise that the surplus of the Lynmouth Fund will be used now and not as it might otherwise have been for a purpose for which it was not originally subscribed, although I am aware of evidence which seems to indicate that the area within which the surplus of the fund can be used is not altogether satisfactorily defined. Perhaps that is another subject. I want to make the point in general that current experience indicates that there are special difficulties in the way of raising as much money locally as we might like to raise.

While the public are not quite certain about the details of the Government's intentions, it might have been happier if the Government had said that they would very carefully consider in due time the subscription of £ for £, in the sense that the Government would contribute £1 of their own for every £1 subscribed locally. This was a method used most successfully some years ago at the time of the East Coast flood disaster. Miss Symons wrote a most interesting letter in The Times a few days ago, which I am sure my hon. Friend has seen, which pointed out that, at that time £5 million was subscribed from the public and the Government in fact subscribed only just over £2 million, because more money was not necessary. What mattered was the guarantee. We are always in a difficulty in discussing a subject of this kind, because if the Government promise too much help it may be that public subscriptions will be inhibited, and that would be a pity and would be quite wrong.

I should like to make an estimate of what voluntary funds have to do. I can only speak with authority about my own constituency, and there the position is fairly clear. In the borough of Taunton, approximately 300 houses were affected, and in the rural area over 170. I have some very exact information from the local chamber of commerce, from which I understand that the estimate of the total damage in respect of local businesses exceeds £78,000. About 50 local businesses have been affected by the floods, and these figures are additional to the housing figures which I have already given.

It will clearly take some time to calculate the farm losses accurately and exactly, but I believe it to be true that at least thirty—and I would put the figure a good deal higher, but I am trying to be fairly conservative, as I hope may be thought appropriate—farmers in west Somerset have suffered to some extent and about 70 or more in the North Curry, Stoke St. Gregory and Athelney areas.

There are two categories of losses which the farmers have suffered: the immediate losses of stock that certainly occurred—and nothing is more tragic than animals being drowned in floods; and losses of crops, with all the consequential losses that flow from the interruption of their business activities and the set-hack to their programmes.

I could speak about these figures for quite some time, but I do not intend to do that. I merely wish to make the point to the Parliamentary Secretary that I hope he realises that any financial judgment I make has been most carefully arrived at. I aim convinced that private charity will be no means meet the bill here, however devoted the effort for raising funds locally. I have made my own estimate of the damage, and I am sure that over the West Country the final figure will be not less than £1 million. I do not see how that can be raised by the people in the West country. We have done a good deal; and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) will no doubt be able to tell us about the efforts made in his part of Devon which has suffered so very badly. In Taunton, we have already raised £8,500, which is a pretty fair achievement. We have not only raised it but we have already spent £3,500. The old proverb says: He who gives quickly, gives twice". Speed is one of the most important factors in an operation of this sort to bring immediate relief to these people. I hope my hon. Friend thinks that we have done, are doing and will continue to do our best to raise money privately, but I repeat that I think that the job is very much too big for us.

It is appropriate to say a word or two about insurance. There are some people who decide that they will bear their own risks and who do not bother to insure. If they suffer, that is a matter for them, and I cannot say that I am so sympathetic towards them, but the question arises to what extent will commercial insurance meet the bill where people have insured; and there are certain special difficulties here. For instance, in general, householders' comprehensive policies cover storm and tempest damage but do not cover flood damage. Ordinarily one is obliged to pay a small extra premium for risk cover of that sort.

Further, I am aware of cases in my constituency—and I am sure that this applies to other places, too—in which it is quite impossible to obtain cover of any sort against flooding. I know very well, and there is much evidence of it, that the insurance companies in general are being extremely generous and very reasonable in dealing with claims made upon them, and I should like to pay tribute to them about that. There appears to be no repetition of the rather unhappy situation which arose after the Lynmouth disaster, when there were arguments between private people who had insured and insurance companies as to exactly the extent of their liability.

But if we take into account the fact that many people are covered by insurance, we must also take into account the fact that very many people are not. Indeed, one can hardly blame them for that. While the gap between what can be provided privately and the total bill may be narrowed by insurance payments which can be added to the money raised by private charity, the gap is still very large indeed.

I should like to turn to the question of what the Government intend to do to help. I have already paid tribute to my right hon. Friend for the spirit of his statement, and I want to be helpful rather than to be critical, but I think that it would be appropriate if I made certain comments. The present arrangements, which, as I have said, are very well-intentioned, do not altogether satisfy local anxieties. It is reported to me, and I have observed for myself, that people feel that they may or may not get help at some future date. I have come most strongly to the opinion that arrangements should be made in any national disaster of any sort to give help at once, and to give it as of right without the taint of charity which might possibly be said to apply to the present situation. Those are the views of a number of my constituents, and I express them for what they are worth.

If that is thought right, and if it is also thought right to try to do something to satisfy those feelings, the question is, what could be done? By correspondence and in other ways I have suggested to my right hon. Friend that we might start a national disaster fund. A very old friend, an old boy of Huish's Grammar School, Taunton, and a former Member of the House, held in affection by everybody, Sir Frank Medlicott, wrote to The Times on the subject a short time ago pointing out that it should be easy to start such a fund and that the money is available for it. Precedents exist, as for instance when about £1 million was used for the building of the Law Courts. I ought perhaps to have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about that a few moments ago.

A further valuable precedent is the fact that during the war a most successful war damage scheme was operated by which, as a matter of principle, it was thought appropriate that the community should accept responsibility for coping with local disasters. If we established a similar scheme here, the conditions which I have suggested might well be appropriate—namely, that money should be given quickly and as of right—could most assuredly obtain.

Such an arrangement, which could deal with disasters of any sort, whether flooding, landslides, pit disasters or anything else, could include the local authorities, because it is possible that the grant of money from such a fund would be made on their recommendation. It is in many ways analogous to the situation which exists today in which, for example, the community accepts responsibility in general to look after any citizen who falls on evil times or who is injured industrially or in any other way. I suggest that this is an idea which merits examination.

It might be suggested that such a scheme would adversely affect the operations of the commercial insurance companies, but I do not think so. If I were married, which unfortunately I am not, and my widow were assured of a Government pension if I were run over by a bus, and if she knew that a contribution would be made by the Government to my funeral expenses—although I hope that they would not spend much money on that—it would not stop me from taking out a commercial insurance policy to insure my life in order to look after my dependants when I died. I do not think that a scheme of this sort need dissuade anybody from engaging in ordinary commercial insurance arrangements.

I also feel that it is a common-sense idea to have a pool of money available to help in times of disaster. I have spoken of the operations of the Red Cross, which I have already said have been so helpful to us in the West Country at this time. The Red Cross has a pool of emergency clothing and supplies always available and draws upon this pool to help in times of emergency. In principle, there is no difference between a pool of clothing and a pool of money. Moreover, private charity need not be affected. The fact that people wish privately to give is one of the finest aspects of a civilised people—the desire to help others; and this need not be affected either, because there is no reason why private people should not contribute in their various ways to such a national disaster fund in order to create a large fund.

When he was in Devon early in October, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said: It is the business of the local authority —and I assume that he includes in that such statutory bodies as river boards and others— to find the cure for the flooding. I quite agree with him. He went on to say—and I assume that he meant the Government as a whole— We will see that they have the necessary powers to find the cure". I hope that he implied that they will also see that they have the necessary wherewithal to put the cure into effect. I am sure that he implied that.

I said that I would speak about the way in which times have changed. They have changed very much. I do not think that we fully recognise how the development of new agricultural techniques and the rise in living standards, for instance, have aggravated this problem. I will give two examples very quickly from constituents' letters. One constituent writes: In my opinion the reason for the repeated serious floods other than the one in 1952"— —that was the Lynmouth disaster— which have occurred in the last ten to fifteen years is the fact that the streams and rivers rise and fall far more rapidly than they did twenty or thirty years ago. This constituent has had long experience of Winsford Weir. Writing of this weir, he says: It will now rise 4 ft. or so in a couple of hours after heavy rain; in the past after similar rain it used to take 24 hours to rise 4 ft. or so. I am sure, too, that the reason for the rapid rise is the vast amount of drainage work that has been done on Exmoor and the Brendon Hill area during the last thirty years—drainage of two kinds, road drainage and land drainage. It is perfectly true that because of the improvement in techniques, we have a bigger problem to deal with than we had to deal with in the past.

Another constituent writes about runoff water. He says: Many other factors combine to increase this run-off. Every modern road is totally impervious, and today these account for hundreds of acres. In the old days they were muddy tracks on Exmoor, and there was no water runoff problem. The writer goes on: A 50 ft. road from Taunton to Wiveliscombe covers over 60 acres. Every house, every concrete drive, every asphalt or paved path increases the run-off. That is perfectly true. As more houses are built in areas like Taunton, the worse the problem becomes. There is the further point that as these new houses are built and as our civilisation improves and the standard of living rises, so more water is used. People become accustomed to using more water.

The writer says that yet another increase comes from the rapid extension of piped water supplies to country districts. Many villages are now using as much water in a day as they formerly used in a week, and much of this extra water must eventually find its way into local rivers. That, again, is perfectly true. Times have changed and we have a bigger problem to deal with today than we had formerly.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of remedial works which have to be considered. First, the larger type of remedial work. Consider Taunton as an example, if I might once more quote from the views given to me by the local river board. The board says that to give any guarantee of preventing a recurrence of the floods such as we had in Taunton a few weeks ago would need a very costly scheme, and the cost of such a scheme is estimated at £1 million. That is one type of situation.

There is a second type of situation, the smaller schemes, and, again, I will quote from what the Somerset River Board said to me: In addition to Taunton, many small towns and villages have suffered severe damage. Some of this might have been avoided if the River Board had taken over control of all the small streams of the area and had maintained them in a satisfactory condition. This has been impossible because we have had insufficient funds to maintain even the lengths of river which are already under our control. From personal observation and experience I think that we all know how many of these smaller streams have become badly silted up and clogged and are not doing their job.

It is true that a good deal of this flooding could have been avoided in some of these smaller places if more money had been spent on the tributaries of the larger rivers like the Ex and the Barle. There is no doubt about that.

The Land Drainage Bill comes before the House for debate on Monday. In a way it is unfortunate that we have this Bill at this time, because many people look to the Bill for a complete remedy of all land drainage problems. It was never designed for that purpose, but it is, nevertheless, a useful, though small, step forward. I cannot help feeling that the Bill may require amendment in Committee. I think that it should be regarded as being only a part of the practical work which may be required in future to deal with this whole situation.

Wellington is the town from which the great Duke of Wellington took his name, although I have never been able to establish why. Incidentally, the Duke of Wellington was a great British Prime Minister and is one of the 25 people unrepresented in this building by a statue. But that is perhaps by the way. The Wellington Rural District Council summed up the situation very well when it said: … the long term policy must surely be to provide money and grants for a comprehensive series of works (starting from the mouth of each river concerned in the recent catastrophe and working back to the first major tributary after the source), according to an agreed timetable or priority and designed to ensure that flood water is conducted out to sea without endangering any buildings whether used for human habitation or storage of any kind. If one adds to that the clearance and maintenance of becks and brooks which are tributaries of these larger rivers, I think that one will go a long way towards answering the whole difficult problem.

It is within the memory of the House that the fens were badly flooded in 1947, and a drainage scheme is being put into effect there which is likely to cost about £5 million by the time it is finished. We must get used to figures of that sort when thinking about the West Country. For example, a meeting concluded just over an hour ago between representatives of the Somerset County Council and the Somerset River Board to discuss this whole question. I was told over the telephone that the representatives were of the opinion that work must be begun immediately in Somerset which would probably cost up to £3 million.

Quite clearly, we shall need to discuss where this money will come from. I hope that the Government will feel that, in general, it would be right to allow river boards and local authorities to do whatever work they believe to be necessary to prevent recurrences of the magnitude that we have experienced in the last few months. I hope, too, that as time goes on the Government will be able to say how far they will be able to go in this context and what they will allow river boards to do.

In conclusion, I would like to make two more general recommendations and suggestions. First, I have already said that perhaps one of the advantages of debating a matter of this sort—and I am pleased to have the opportunity of developing this subject at rather more length than one ordinarily expects to be able to do in an Adjournment debate—is that not only does consideration take place in the Ministries and between hon. Members and Ministers, but the discussion is public.

I cannot help feeling that there are strong arguments in favour of a public inquiry into this whole subject to discuss remedies, and the cost of those remedies. I have been impressed with the number of suggestions which I have received from my constituents. I think that it would be very helpful if people felt that they had an opportunity to put their views directly to such an inquiry.

I am sure that such an inquiry would be helpful. For example, one of my constituents wrote to me in the following terms: Have you observed that there are very few rain water butts in Taunton? That is extraordinary, but if there were more rainwater butts they would take a great volume of water and save it going immediately into the river. There is an interesting and helpful suggestion. It is a small point, but it is something to which we could pay attention and recommend to our local authorities.

When one hears of small but useful ideas like that, I am sure that it would be appropriate to establish a committee to hear both small and large ideas, like that suggested by one of my constituents who wants to drive a new river channel right the way from Athenley to Bridgwater and dam up the mouth of the Panret. An inquiry of that sort would, I think, fulfil a most useful purpose, because, as I have said, it is clear that some of this flooding could have been avoided and if, unhappily, there should be a recurrence of flooding in the future, we do not want anybody to be able to say that that, too, could have been avoided. We do not want anybody to ask why we did not set up such an inquiry to hear the difficulties and dangers and to discuss remedial works.

Secondly, I think it is urgent and necessary that there should be a clearly understood and specific policy about water as a whole. When I say clearly understood, I mean clearly understood by men and women in the street. There seems to be increasing support for the view of the National Association of Parish Councils that water should be treated as a single problem, and that it should be controlled comprehensively by a single system of authorities, financed by a uniform method.

I would not agree with the idea of taking power or responsibility from the local authorities and the local statutory bodies. That would be wrong. I suggest that there should be more central and unified control and direction. It may well be that the unification of matters such as drainage, protection, storage and supply would make for more efficient planning, and possibly for cheaper operation. Since we all use water, and take it so much for granted, a national water charge would be both intelligible and acceptable. We are likely to be made aware of dissatisfaction among some farmers at the charges proposed in the Land Drainage Bill which we shall debate on Monday, and if there is anything we can do to make people realise that the whole country must pay for water, and for the things we have to do with water, so much the better.

Water is a national asset, and it seems ludicrously paradoxical that at one moment we should be suffering from floods and the next from drought. These floods have been a disaster, but I believe that we can turn them to advantage if we learn the lessons of past droughts and floods, and take action to remedy the defects and prepare for the future. That is what people want, and I believe that they have every right to expect it.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

At the outset, I want to wish the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), a speedy recovery from the cold which he has obviously contracted in the course of his public duties as a Member for one of the areas so adversely affected by the recent flooding in the West Country.

It is lamentable that, after the disastrous occurrences that have taken place there, it should be necessary for hon. Members representing the affected areas to have to beg the Government to take action in the matter. I find it impossible to reconcile the very strong case made out by the hon. Member with what the Minister of Housing and Local Government said in the House on 8th November. In reply to a Question of mine, he said: Extremely effective Government action has already been taken."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 8th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 813.] I am puzzled to know how the Minister can make a statement of that kind in the light of what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Taunton.

The hon. Member paid tribute to the fact that two Government Departments are represented on the Government Front Bench today—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I would point out that there is one significant absentee—a representative from the Treasury. It would have been even more helpful and practical if one of the junior Treasury Ministers were also here today.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph)

The pledge given on behalf of the Government by my right hon. Friend was a Government pledge, given by the Government as a whole, including the Treasury.

Mr. Lipton

The pledge which the Government gave does not seem to have satisfied those hon. Members who have rightly complained of the ineffectiveness of the steps already taken and whatever steps are contemplated by the Government in this connection. I repeat the words of the Minister, because I believe that they are historic: Extremely effective Government action has already been taken. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some details to establish this very remarkable claim.

I was very interested in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Taunton that this problem should be regarded as a national responsibility. I did not know what he intended to say today. I have already put down a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for answer next week in which I suggest that a national relief fund or national disaster fund should be established to deal with this kind of emergency. In 1953, at the time of the East Coast floods, the then Prime Minister said that the catastrophe would be treated on a national basis, and broadly as a national responsibility. What has happened since 1953? Seven years have elapsed and, from time to time, unhappily, we have had recurrences of these disastrous events.

Hon. Members have asked the Government to take action in the matter. The time has come when a national relief fund should be established to deal with events of such a magnitude as to cause either serious loss of life, or widespread damage to property, so that everybody would know that there is one immediate source of help available for the people who have been stricken in this way. For what it is worth, I merely add my support to the suggestion made that a national relief fund should be established for this purpose. That would be the best way of proving that the Government mean business.

1.36 p.m.

Sir Henry Studholme (Tavistock)

I shall not keep the House for more than a few minutes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on having initiated this debate so quickly after these disasters, and on the very clear and constructive speech which he made. My constituency suffered only to a limited extent, although the unfortunate people who had their homes flooded had to undergo all the hardship and distress, and suffer all the loss, entailed by flooding of that sort.

I must repudiate the unfair strictures of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) upon my right hon. Friends. I echo the tribute which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what they have done and are doing to help in this matter. I am sure that when my hon. Friend replies he will give a very good account of what is being done.

I want to express agreement with one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. One of his constituents said that the flooding was largely aggravated by improved land drainage and by the better road surfaces which we now have. That is true. With improved land drainage we have far fewer swamps in which the water can sink as if into a sponge. That has had an effect not only on flooding, but on snipe. With better road surfaces the water rushes away, fills up the ditches, and floods into the houses. There is a great deal to be done in practical ways to counteract that, by clearing and widening channels and enlarging culverts and drains. The work must be done locally, and it will cost much money, but it must be done if we are to do everything practicable to minimise these troubles in future—although whatever we do I do not believe that it is possible for human beings entirely to counteract the excesses of nature.

I want to refer to the question of flood warnings. I am told that they are not always adequate. When a flood starts in the upper waters of a river I am told that it is possible to calculate fairly accurately when the water will reach a certain place and create a danger of flooding, but that warnings have not always been given in time.

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the question of the inadequacy of voluntary funds, excellent though they are, to provide the necessary compensation. I am also glad that my hon. Friend ventilated the question of a national disaster fund. Once again, I congratulate him. This debate will do a lot of good, and I look forward very much to hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)

I should like to add my congratulations to those tendered by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for initiating this debate. His speech covered a very wide field, and I entirely agree with most of the points he made.

I find it regrettable that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) found it necessary to speak in the way that he did. From my own experience in a city which has suffered very severely as a result of this disaster, there is nothing but praise for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government and particularly my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the generous way in which they have acted and the rapidity with which they have authorised expenditure. It is most unfortunate if an hon. Member of this House, in an attempt to gain some political advantage, causes people who are suffering to think that they are not being adequately helped.

Mr. Lipton

rose—

Mr. Williams

The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity. Perhaps he will let me get on with my speech.

I should like, first, to say how glad I am that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Local Government is to reply to this debate. It was just over a fortnight ago that I noticed on the tape in the Members' Corridor of the House of Commons that my constituency had been inundated. I immediately rang up my hon. Friend, before leaving for the West Country, and I was most touched by the sympathy he expressed and by the way in which he arranged for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, who happened to be visiting Exeter the next day, to inspect the city and give a report on the damage.

The damage in my constituency, as, indeed, all over the West Country, could have been very much worse than it was. We were very lucky indeed that this catastrophe struck us in daylight. Had it happened at night there is no doubt that there would have been very serious loss of life. When I got to my constituency at 10.30 p.m. one of the streets had water running down it at about 9 knots and it was impossible for the Army D.U.K.W.s to combat the current to get the people out of the houses. I was terrified lest the rush of water would undermine the brickwork of the houses and bring them down.

A number of people were in those houses—one was a woman who was in an advanced state of pregnancy—and it might have led to a very serious loss of life. Railway sleepers, which had been torn away further up the town, were coming down the street and it was almost impossible to get to those in distress.

Very considerable gallantry was shown in Exeter on that night. I should like to pay a very sincere tribute to all those who helped: to the local authority, which played its part well, the police, the firemen and the Army, which readily gave help, both the Western Brigade and the Royal Army Service Corps, and also the Royal Marines. Undergraduates of Exeter University did extremely well and performed many feats of gallantry. Many young people, particularly those whom we sometimes call teddy boys, came to the aid of people in trouble and showed extreme gallantry. The Salvation Army was there, of course, in the early hours with comforts for those who had suffered so much.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton referred to the people not being insured against floods. Of course, it can be argued that people who do not insure against such a catastrophe should not therefore be fully compensated. That is not a valid argument. I am informed that in the section of Exeter where this disaster took place—and I am sure the same applies to Taunton and Exmouth—it is not possible to take out insurance. The insurance companies look upon the flood risk as so grave that they will not issue cover. I find it difficult to understand this attitude on the part of the insurance companies.

Many of us have comprehensive insurance which covers us against floods. I have one for my flat in London and also for my house in the West Country. I do not think there is the slightest possibility of either of those dwellings being flooded. It is a standard policy issued by a well-known company, the name of which I shall not mention because I do not think it would be fair to do so. I accepted it without question, and it covers me against flood damage.

I should have thought that if it is possible to insure premises like my flat in London, which I think is perfectly safe against flooding—I do not think that the Thames will reach that high in Horse-ferry Road—then when there is a doubtful case it ought to be insurable. After all, the extensive flooding in my constituency has never been as bad as this for something like 64 years. I should have thought it reasonable to expect insurance companies to treat a house in that part of the city in the same way as those that are on higher ground. I hope that after this disaster, insurance companies, if they are asked to cover people who live in Exeter or Taunton in the near future, will not use the excuse that it is a bad risk.

The important thing is, of course, not only to compensate the people who have suffered—and I am satisfied that they will be compensated by the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government—but to take the necessary preventive measures in order to ensure that flooding will not take place again. This, I am informed—and I am somewhat inhibited in referring to it—will take some time to complete.

I should, therefore, like to emphasise the importance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock when he said that there must be a satisfactory alert system. I realise that there will be many false alarms, but if we had had an alert in Exeter yesterday fortnight when this inundation took place, it would have been possible to get men home from their work to join their wives and to get much of their furniture up to the upper level of their houses. Many of them had no chance whatever to remove their goods and chattels.

One lady I visited lived in a downstairs flat and was shut off from getting upstairs. She was doing her housework. She is not young but a woman who, I imagine, is over 60, and she was in the most distressed condition when I got there. Her front door had burst open, the water had come in and was well above her waist by the time it stopped rising. If that woman had been given a little notice she could have possibly saved some of her furniture and, what is much more important, she would have been out of the flat. As it was she was shut in the flat for a considerable time. She was shouting, but no one could get near her. Eventually, two policemen or two Royal Marines waded through the water to get her out. That is the sort of instance to which I referred earlier when I said that if this disaster had taken place at night there would have been a considerable number of casualties.

I plead that there should be an adequate alert system in the period that must elapse before effective preventive measures can be found. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will see that that is done. I understand that some steps have already been taken, but I do not know how adequate they are.

In a supplementary question a day or two ago, I mentioned that there was some confusion among some local authorities as to the method by which they could apply for financial assistance in order to rectify the damage. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say whether such information has been given to local authorities, because I believe it is vital that that information should be available quickly.

I conclude by repeating how grateful my constituents are for the rapidity with which Government aid has been offered. I hope that we shall never have another tragedy like this in the West Country which will necessitate us having an Adjournment debate of this nature.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

I am sorry that I was unable to be present at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), but I listened with much interest to the greater part of his speech and to what has been said since. There are two points in the hon. Gentleman's speech which I would particularly like to underline. One is with regard to the formation of a national disaster fund. We have the Minister's—assurance—I have been looking at the Answers which we had earlier in the week—that everyone's immediate needs are being met. I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say that that is still so and is universally true.

However, there are, of course, people whose immediate needs are met but who know that they have suffered possibly quite heavy losses during the flood but do not know whether those losses will be made good. I hope that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) will not accuse me of making panty capital when I say that, because I understand that the hon. Member for Taunton touched upon it. People who have suffered losses and who have not been covered by insurance, and could not be covered by insurance, have doubts whether those losses will be made good. It is on their behalf that we want the Government to be rather more forthcoming than they have been so far. That was the purpose of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), and that was the purpose of a good many Questions asked earlier this week.

I was sorry to notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government, when replying to some of those Questions, poured cold water on the idea of a national disaster fund. He suggested that if it were known that there was such a fund people would be unwilling to subscribe through private charity and good will. I must say that I am very doubtful about that. There are a great many instances in this country where private good will and private funds combine to meet a need.

It has been brought home to us by hon. Members with local knowledge that one of the reasons for flooding is the change in our way of life. We improve our roads and our drainage, and, as a result, some areas are exposed to risks greater than they knew before. In the long run, everyone in the community benefits from better roads and better land drainage. Therefore, we all have in the most real and material sense some responsibility to help.

To my mind, one of the objections to leaving relief entirely to private good will is that the ungenerous would get off scot-free every time. We all have some responsibility in the matter, and that ought to be expressed by some kind of contribution from public funds to a national disaster fund. While we are about it we might make a good job of it and bring in not only flooding but those other disasters, which I believe the lawyers call "acts of God", against which ordinary human prudence cannot reasonably be expected to prevail.

The other point in the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton which I should like to emphasise is the desirability of an inquiry that would bring together, possibly, expert scientific knowledge and local knowledge on the question of flood prevention. I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about water butts. We see in one part of the Old Testament that the King of Moab ordered all his subjects to see that their houses were provided with cisterns, although I think he was more concerned with water conservation than with flooding, though both purposes are served.

To digress for a moment, may I console the hon. Member for Taunton for the absence of a statue of the Duke of Wellington in this building? There is a handsome portrait of him outside Her Majesty's Robing Room. He is depicted there as a soldier. As he was more successful as a soldier than as a Prime Minister, perhaps it is as well that he is commemorated in that fashion. But that is a digression, and we are on an important and serious subject.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have something to say on the two paints, that of inquiry into methods of prevention, and, most particularly, that of the formation of a national disaster fund in which public funds and voluntary good will could combine.

1.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph)

I should like to start by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for what, I think the House will agree, was a most sensitive, wide-ranging and constructive speech. I know that his activity on behalf of his constituents must have given them some comfort in the time of trouble through which they have passed and I am sure that the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department will appreciate the courteous way in which my hon. Friend has acknowledged the help which they have tried to give.

At the risk of repetition, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish me to repeat, also, the tribute which hon. Members have already paid to all those who have both suffered and worked during these floods. At the risk of being invidious, it is perhaps possible to pick out the townsmen and the countrymen who have suffered, particularly their womenfolk, the local authority service and public officials who have done so much to help, the voluntary bodies with all their wonderful spontaneous resources that spring into life on these occasions, and the neighbours as a whole who have done so much to help.

Today, of course, we are debating the West Country, but the Government have had to concern themselves not only with the floods in the West Country, but with those in all the other counties of the land which we must not forget. Floods have struck at Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Sussex, Essex, Kent and Sussex. It is a long toll, mercifully with extremely small loss of life.

I will not particularise individual places, but the plight of two places, Exeter and Taunton, has been vividly described by hon. Members in their speeches today. I am sure that they give an impression of what has been suffered in all these other places. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) said that in nearly every case the trouble, when it came, was unexpected and, in many cases, was almost unprecedented in living memory.

It is not for me to go now into the causes of these floods. That will perhaps be dealt with during the debate on Monday. The presence today of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is responsible for river boards, shows the deep interest of the Government in the suggestions about causes which have been made. The river boards have a continuing responsibility in this but I have been particularly interested in the references, by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and by other hon. Members who have spoken, to the apparent absurdity that in this country we have alternate droughts and floods, always remembering, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) did, that we cannot guard ourselves perfectly against the excesses of nature.

But we can do something to iron out the extremes. It has been suggested that the time is ripe for consideration of the problem of flood control not as a separate problem, but in the general question of the conservation and use of water. My right hon. Friend has a duty under the Water Act, 1945, to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources in England and Wales, and before the recent floods he had begun a study of this matter. In June of this year my right hon. Friend said: We are approaching the point at which we may very possibly have to take a new look at water conservation.… It may be that the time is not far distant when we have to look at all the water resources of a river basin as a whole in the widest possible way, to make sure that all the various and sometimes conflicting interests are properly served; that the river is kept clean and the interests of fishing, navigation, and so on, are safeguarded while, at the same time, the maximum amount of water is made available to all kinds of users as economically as possible. My right hon. Friend asked the Central Advisory Water Committee, representative of all the bodies with an interest in rivers and water, to make a special inquiry into these subjects. This is being done by the Sub-committee on the Growing Demand for Water, which is already well advanced with comprehensive and detailed investigation on the complex problems which arise. The committee is aware of the urgency of this question and it is hoped that it will be able to report by the early summer of next year.

Having said that, I hope that all hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, will send on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, any suggestions that reach them from the public to help with this big problem. The whole complex problem of water, both conservation and flood control, is suitable for study by this committee, and we should welcome suggestions which have already reached hon. Members.

Apart from the study of the larger question, the river boards have had a great deal of work to do and have done a great deal, but they still have much to do. The work which the river boards have done and still have to do is heavily grant-aided by the taxpayer through the Exchequer. It would not be proper for me to say more about that today. It is not a subject for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. However, it will be debated on Monday.

If I may come to the people who have suffered, I would say that there has been the greatest anxiety in all the areas subject to flooding. There has been widespread damage, wretchedness, misery and hard work—especially, if I may say so, for the women, and those elderly women who combine, with perhaps less activity than they would wish, a house-proud character that goes so much with those who reach old age.

It has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Tavistock and Exeter that flood warnings might have helped a great deal in this predicament. Flood warnings are, I think, very much a local co-operative matter. I am sure that all those concerned are studying whether they can improve the alert system already existing in some places. I will certainly pass on what has been said to my right hon. Friend and he will see whether there is anything he can do by way of advice to local authorities; always bearing in mind that the East Coast local authorities have, I believe, improved their own alert scheme since the disaster seven years ago.

As for what has been done to meet needs, there are two separate strands. The first strand affects local authority responsibility and all public services, and the second is for the meeting of individual, household, industrial and agricultural need caused by the damage. I will deal, first, with the local authorities' responsibility. Their first responsibility was manifold, to deal, at the same time, with first-aid help for those in need, with emergency repairs where they were suitable, and for setting in hand medium-term or short-term repairs for new work as required. In all those activities, I wish to repeat my right hon. Friend's pledge that, of course, any residual burden that would put undue weight on the rates, after the normal grant aid for each specific service has been paid and after the rate deficiency grant, if applicable, has been paid, will be helped by the taxpayers through the Government.

Let me repeat that in another way. The work to be undertaken by local authorities will affect many Government Departments and they will be entitled in some cases to the specific grants normally appropriate to that work. When the bill has been totted up, if it is seen that the residual burden on that local authority—after taking into account those specific grants and a rate deficiency grant if applicable—is such as to burden unreasonably the rates, my right hon. Friend has pledged Government help. But if this may appear to prolong the decision-making process of the local authorities, my right hon. Friend is also pressing local authorities to get on with the necessary work, with the comfort of that pledge, to make sure that the rates locally will not be unnecessarily burdened.

I turn now to the second strand, that of private losses which affect individuals, households, industrial establishments, commercial establishments and farmers. I must first, refer to the insurance protection which many individuals, households and establishments have already taken out. I am not denying for a moment that some people may not have been able to take out insurance. Some, perhaps, could not have been expected, for some reason or other, to take out insurance. But this must always be counted as the first line of defence and I understand that the insurance companies have behaved in a prompt and, I am told, in a generous manner in many cases.

After saying that, the next line of defence is the first-aid help from the local authorities or from local appeals, administered and distributed by the voluntary bodies in the areas. I should stress here that no instances of delay in supplying this first-aid or emergency relief to meet need has been reported to my right hon. Friend. If any hon. Member has an instance of this, I hope that he will report it to us so that we may see whether anything can be done. But no such instance has yet been reported.

We now come to the second phase of meeting need, that is the claims for damage and loss which have been caused by the floods. In every case I think that local authorities have already invited such claims to be submitted and claims are coming in. I will go on to what is to happen about them now after making one general comment. If any local authority, either on account of its local authority responsibilities or on account of its duty towards individual inhabitants and households, has any query, I hope that hon. Members will press the authorities either to write to my right hon. Friend's Department or to telephone. We are anxious that there shall be the absolute minimum of delay in giving the information that we have to make available to anyone who is in any doubt whatsoever.

Now I come on to the question of dealing with the claims submitted by those who have suffered damage. In some areas appeals have been opened and in some areas they have not. I should like to pay a tribute to those people who have set about raising appeals and, of course, particularly to all those who have given donations, large and small, to the appeals which have been raised. But all the local authorities affected by floods have had a pledge from the Government that, where funds raised by local appeal do not suffice to meet reasonable needs, the Government—the taxpayers through the Government—will provide the balance. The Government will supplement local appeals as is necessary to meet the reasonable needs of those who have suffered damage through the floods.

This guarantee has been given. It is the fulfilment of the pledge given by the then Government to Sir Rupert de la Bere, then Lord Mayor of London, who was responsible for the magnificent appeal raised in response to the 1953 floods, that any future trouble of this sort would be the more readily met by public funds because of the unused £3 million of the pledge given at that time for those floods.

I cannot possibly give the House any estimate of what, in fact, will be necessary in this case. The House will readily appreciate that as the claim forms are only now being filled in, and flowing into local authority offices, it is absolutely impossible even to make a guess at what the final cost of meeting reasonable need will be. The payments as necessary to supplement local appeal funds will be made as grants in aid and a Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House in the New Year.

These local appeals are autonomous and they may well have different rules about eligibility in each particular case. We have, however, sent round an experienced financial official to help and advise local authorities and he will continue to tour those areas where his guidance and advice might be needed. Now we are going further and suggesting to local authorities some common principles which might guide their treatment of claims as they come in. These common principles are called "the Lord Mayor's rules", because they stem from the work of the committee set up by Sir Rupert de la Bere to handle the money that poured in after the East Coast floods in 1953. They are rules which give guidance about the checking and meeting of claims.

The Government have offered to all local authorities the services of War Damage Commission assessors to help any local authorities which may wish for reinforcements of their local staff in handling the claims. A letter to the counties in which flooding has occurred went out yesterday from my right hon. Friend confirming all these arrangements and offering the services of the War Damage Commission's assessors.

Some local authorities have their own distinctive ways of checking the claims. They were particularly referred to by my hon. Friend. The Taunton Chamber of Commerce, I believe, is advising Taunton on the claims put in by industry representing damage not covered by insurance. I hope that the guidance given by my right hon. Friend will be of value to local authorities concerned.

My right hon. Friend has not only had the first report of the senior financial official who has been touring the West Country, but also the first report from the senior engineering inspector who went as well. Both these officials, with much experience, confirmed what my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, that local funds will not anything like suffice to meet the need in this case. I do not have to repeat the pledge that has been given that reasonable needs will be met through Government help.

My hon. Friend raised the question of Charity Commission funds and suggested that where surplus funds arise from old charities they might be steered into this sort of relief. There has been much talk of the Lynton and Lynmouth so-called, or alleged, surplus. Alas, events have overtaken any surplus that might have remained in that fund. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) that claims in the Lynton and Lynmouth area will almost certainly exceed any residue which remains from the fund for the original disaster.

I am told, however, that the Charity Commissioners will always welcome any proposals to widen the beneficial area of any surplus funds of any existing funds, but I am advised that there are very few surplus funds of any magnitude, bearing in mind the obligations to the families and dependants of those who have suffered in past disasters.

Perhaps a question that some of us ask ourselves is, why it is that local appeals have not on this occasion had quite the remarkable success that occurred in the case of the East Coast floods and the Lynton and Lynmouth disaster? It would need a psychologist to sort this out, but perhaps one dramatic blow on a limited and defined area such as occurred on the East Coast, on the one hand, and on Lynton and Lynmouth, on the other, will evoke a more dramatic response than what occurred this time—a rolling, widespread, continuous damage ranging from mere mishap in some areas to a tragedy in another area. People, perhaps, did not know whether the worst had happened and what they should do.

That brings me to the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and backed by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Fulham, of a national disaster fund. Strong pleas have been made in favour of this idea and I must admit that it has some attractions at first sight. Nothing that I intend to say means that the idea is not still being studied, but, since the argument for it has been put and not some of the points which have to be taken into account against it, it would be only fair to mention one or two of the difficulties.

I think that hon. Members have disparaged local funds too much. Local funds mean local control. The Government can assist and supplement those funds as the Government are doing on this occasion, but the control of those funds is much more in local hands to deal with need as is locally considered right than would be true of any nationally administered disaster fund. A local fund can get off to a very quick start, but a national disaster fund dealing with claims, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, as of right would find that much more difficult. There would be the question of national audit and rules and regulations which inevitably arise when dealing substantially with public money. The definition of what deserves help and how much help should be given might be far less easy than in the case of local funds which can receive, and in this case have received, the pledge of Government supplementation in order to reach the right size.

I must ask hon. Members to define their ideas of where the money for a national disaster should come from. If it is to come mainly from private donations it would be bound as a national fund to be ridden by far more rules and regulations than would a local fund. If it has to be from the taxpayer, as it will be in this situation, surely there is no need to put it in a separate stocking and call it a national disaster fund. Those who are in distress have a call on the money without making it a national disaster fund. The very existence of such a fund might discourage some people from insuring against damage which is the best way any individual or household or business has of obtaining protection.

I am only stating the other side of the argument put by my hon. Friend. A national disaster fund might bring comfort and security to all who felt themselves menaced in any way by the forces of nature, but, if my hon. Friend persists in asking for a pool of money, I must remind him that the Government have made available from the general tax revenue of the country the money needed in this particular instance. The consideration of a national disaster fund is not, therefore, relevant to this particular problem with which we are dealing now. It is a very interesting question which must be considered in the future. The immediate purpose has been met by the Government's pledge of all help necessary to meet reasonable needs of those who have suffered damage.

My right hon. Friend's Department and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture are in touch through their officials both to assess the work that has to be done and to advise and guide local authorities about the help which is going to be available from Government funds. We are honouring the pledge which has been given to enable claims of reasonable need to be met and the pledge that necessary local authority work can be done without any undue burden on the rates.

This story of floods has been the story of the greatest disturbance, ranging over the whole country, and ranging from serious inconvenience in some areas right through to tragedy in other areas. No one can erase by mere speech the wretchedness, the hard work, the distress and the misery that has been caused, but, so far as help is concerned, either immediate, emergency help, or middle-term or long-term help, no case has been quoted of a failure by the Government, or by the local authorities backed by the Government, to do what is necessary.

I finish by repeating that, as for the losses, the reasonable needs, once checked, will be met, and that we will put the local appeals in funds for this purpose.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Two o'clock.