HC Deb 20 November 1968 vol 773 cc1490-502

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

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Tom McMillan (Glasgow, Central)

I welcome this opportunity to bring to the notice of the House the dreadful conditions in which hundreds of my constituents are living. If I do less than that, I feel that I shall be failing in my duty. I should like to tell the House of the conditions which are prevailing nearly a year after the storm in Glasgow occurred, and I feel that the best way to do this is to give a typical example of the hundreds of cases which have come to my notice since the storm.

Two or three weeks ago a constituent came to my home and pleaded with me to go and see the conditions under which he and his family had to live. I suggested that the first thing to do was to get in touch with the Storm Damage Centre to see whether we could get the machinery going to help him immediately. On contacting the centre, I was informed that there was no one available to be sent to the house.

It was early on the Sunday morning that my constituent had come to my home, so I then went with him to his house, and I found what can be found in hundreds of houses in Glasgow now when it rains. Rain was coming into every part of the house, and no food could be cooked on the cooker because of the danger of using it. I said to my constituent, "I have seen so many cases like this that I shall contact the fire service and try to get them in to help".

I contacted the fire service, and was informed that the people there had been acting on this type of problem, but were no longer doing so. I then resorted to the police, and was told that they would try every agency open to them to see whether someone could fix the tarpaulin on the roof so that there was some shelter for the family.

About half an hour later the telephone rang, and the sergeant said, "I am sorry, but I have been to the agencies that you have been to, and to agencies over and above those, but I have failed to get anyone to give succour to this family". He then said, "I shall send a policeman to explain to the family that we have failed to get anyone to help, but we shall keep trying".

Later in the day I was able to contact the Civil Defence officer and tell him the plight of this family. Indeed, I was able to tell him that I had knowledge of many cases of a similar kind. This couple had not long been married. The house had been recently decorated, but it was in ruins, and the young couple were almost at the end of their tether. After explaining everything, and saying that in my judgment this case was worse than some of the others, we eventually managed to get someone from the Storm Damage Centre to square off the tarpaulin, which had been there for a long time.

The case to which I have referred is one in which some temporary measures were taken, and some comfort was given, albeit at a late stage. But lack of skilled labour is causing a delay in many hundreds of cases. Deterioration sometimes goes right through from the top to the basement. There was recently an electrical explosion in one building to which no one has yet attended.

I should explain the problems. The condition of old buildings in Glasgow, neglected for years by landlords, is adding greatly to the burden. Two things are clear. First, the job is not proceeding as fast as it should. One reason is that every wet week workmen have to go over work already done. Each wet week adds between £20,000 and £30,000 to the storm damage bill, and this should not go on.

The other point is the tremendously serious fire hazard represented by these tarpaulins, polythene sheeting and non-slated material on the roofs. From the high part of Glasgow where I live I can see right across the city and can see sparks flying on to this material. The Firemaster has appealed to people to have chimneys swept and take precautions, since he has already answered many calls about fire caused in this way. Only a quick repair of the storm damage can solve this fire problem.

If it is argued that my constituents were a little optimistic to expect to be free of wind and water hazards by 30th September, then we must hear an explanation of the fact that firms in a central pool have large stocks of material for a continuity of work. That means that Glasgow people will be suffering from storm damage not only this winter, but probably next as well. This is my great fear.

Since the storm, 30 people have died, 11 by falling from roofs. I see the workmen, on cold windy days, trying to bring comfort to their fellow citizens and I admire and respect them. They have lost life in doing jobs beyond the call of duty, and we can help them in many ways. For instance, in one house in my constituency, a girl was taken to hospital with rheumatic fever, and another also had a fever, complicated by a heart condition. The fever was due to the storm damage. They had no roof, and the corporation would not house them. Workmen on the spot, who were working seven days a week were reported in the Scottish Daily Express as saying that they would work an extra shift because they could not let that family live in those conditions. This is the condition of many in my constituency.

But this group of workmen also told me that they were not supplied with safety harnesses, and that they were under terrific economic pressures to do a full seven-day week. The workmen have told me that they get a bonus of 1s. 6d. an hour for roof work, but that if, for any reason, even through illness, they take a day off, they lose a whole week's bonus. One man said that he lost £10 one week because he took a day off. It is dangerous to put pressure like this on men doing such hazardous work. It is forcing them to work seven days a week, and they deserve better treatment in view of the wonderful job that they are doing.

What can we do to solve the problem in Glasgow and elsewhere this winter? Realising that all the spare capacity of skilled labour in this and surrounding areas has been absorbed, there is only one other source of workers skilled in this type of work, and that is from new building. I appreciate the Minister's desire to show record house building figures, but I have never believed that it is a grown-up attitude for politicians to say, "We have built more houses than you did". More important are the types of houses and the places in which they are built. That is being proved to be the case south of the Border.

In view of the abject misery in which many of my constituents are living because their storm damaged homes have not been repaired—and this applies to the constituents of many other hon. Members—the people of Scotland would understand if the Government forgot about housebuilding targets until this ailing situation is cured. I assure the Minister that my constituents—there are still 3,500 houses under repair in the area—would be only too delighted if all possible steps were taken to tackle this problem now. I am sure that the people of Greenock and elsewhere feel the same.

If we cannot bring in more skilled labour, what should we do? In Glasgow, we have a good damage repair centre. There are excellent means of communication among the various sections of it and the staff know what they are doing. However, this efficiency at the top does not necessarily reach the lower levels of the set-up. There is not enough supervisory staff able to take decisions on the spot, give directions for urgent work to be done or even make a telephone call to find out if something can be done.

In one case workmen erected all the paraphernalia for repairing a chimney head and discovered, as they were about to begin work, that they did not have the necessary green form to do the job. All the paraphernalia had to be removed, only to be put in position again a few weeks later when the green form had been issued. I was told by a resident living in that property, "The workmen had been repairing the roof next door and we asked them to make our building weatherproof. They wanted to, but they did not have permission to proceed."

We need 40 or 50 supervisors to make decisions and work as a team. By using the existing set-up more efficiently, a great deal more could be done. Unless help is provided, this problem will be with us next winter, let alone this one.

While I have been critical and have urged urgent action to be taken, it must be accepted that those who were responsible for ensuring that Glasgow's tenemental property was watertight failed to do their job. The neglect of many years has created a dreadful problem for Glasgow Corporation and the Government. Now the first priority must be given to ensuring that my constituents and people like them are helped so that they need not live a miserable existence.

1.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

I am grate-fault to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Tom McMillan) for saying that there are constituencies as badly hit as his own, indeed worse hit. Mine is among them. The reasons for that are complex and, alas, too lightly skated over by critics.

This problem of repairing the storm damage in the very old parts and tenements in multiple ownership in two large burghs and in the centre of Glasgow and other parts is very much underestimated. It is an extremely complex task, to say the least. Many of these properties are privately owned and we do not have rights of requisitioning; we do not have absolute rights of taking over private property. It may be argued that we should have. No doubt we can debate that on the housing Bill we shall introduce later in the Session as promised in the Queen's Speech, but at the moment we have to abide by the law as it is.

Although my hon. Friend referred to Green Papers, I presume that he was referring to procedures under Section 11 of the Housing Act, 1956. That Section was never designed for dealing with storm damage. The last great storm occurred when I was 2 years of age and the Government then made no record of their means of repairing storm damage. We have to learn to deal with it the hard way. I sympathise very much not only with those in the centre of Glasgow, but in other parts of the city, in Govan and Partick, which were hit even harder since they were in the middle of the storms' path.

I accept another well-known fact. Although for many years we have had large numbers of complaints about leaky roofs and derelict properties and badly looked after properties, it is strange but true that today the number of complaints such as those my hon. Friend has mentioned are actually fewer than in preceding years. The source for that statement is not just the records of the sanitary department, but the President of the Property Owners and Factors' Association.

Mr. Michael Noble (Argyll)

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has given way, because he is using the same point that was made by the Secretary of State the other night. I was given the same figures by the same people. They said that although the total number of complaints was less the severity was infinitely greater. In the old days, it was a matter of a slate being off a roof, but now the complaint is of a torrent coming through the roof. Unless that is accepted, a totally false impression is given.

Dr. Mabon

I do not accept that at all. We are told that today the cause of every leaky roof is storm damage, but we know that that is patently untrue. My hon. Friend would be the first to admit that he has had complaints about leaky roofs before the storm.

The Storm Damage Centre has to treat these complaints as if they are the direct result of the storm, but many of these roofs which have been damaged have been nail sick for years. To repair the damaged part and leave the other parts alone would be asking for trouble in years to come. To put this matter into proper perspective I will give the latest figures. It was not only the centre of Glasgow which was affected, but a large part of Scotland. In all, 272,743 roofs were damaged and now 256,672 have been repaired.

Many people in other parts of Scotland believe that only an odd slate or a window was damaged in some of these cases but many of these houses were seriously damaged, as is shown by inspection of parts of Fife, Edinburgh, Sterling, Greenock, Clydebank and Helens-burgh, a district stretching across the west of Scotland and also to the east. Of course, it is true that the roofs which remain to be repaired are concentrated in Glasgow, Stirling and Greenock. Outside these three burghs there are fewer than 4,000 roofs to be repaired. Our aim has been to get these roofs wind and watertight, and, if not permanently repaired thereafter, at least repaired on a semi-permanent basis.

Coming back to the question of private property, some owners are not prepared to have anything other than full and proper repairs to their property. They can go to law on this and in the courts they can succeed because it is their property. If they can prove that they are trying to get their property repaired, and if a contractor has accepted the obligation to do it, we can hardly contest that. It may be that we shall have to look at this afresh.

However, my hon. Friend knows, having visited the Storm Damage Centre—he said so—that the organisation is very good. He gave an illustration of what happened on one Sunday morning, when finally he got the Civil Defence officer to arrange for some kind of adjustment, as he called it, of the tarpaulin. We recognised at the beginning that we could not have men repairing roofs and then going off to do emergency repairs, because it would be squandering the labour. So we nave organised two emergency squads of 40 men, one north of the river and one south of it, which are permanently employed on the job of looking after the houses that are not being permanently repaired at this moment. They are doing up to 40 jobs a day. This is an efficient and imaginative piece of organisation for which the Glasgow Corporation and the S.S.H.A. should be given full credit.

As the repairs have been completed in other towns we have gathered in the skilled men. We cannot force men to go on roofs. This should be remembered. No one has yet told us that we should compel men to go on roofs. Also, men are not compelled to work seven days a week. From my hon. Friend's speech, one can appreciate the great pressure on them. They have had a feeling of social conscience, something beyond the call of duty. They have wanted to carry out the work. But there are dangers in men working seven days a week. Proof of that is in the number who have been injured and the number who have given their lives as a consequence of their effort to repair the houses.

We promised Glasgow Corporation that we would try as hard as possible to get an additional central force organised. We brought in many men from England. We combed the Services and the Ministry of Public Building and Works. We tried to reach a target figure of 1,000 men in the central pool. The labour force now is 1,700, and 500 of them have been provided directly by us. They are spread over 60 separate firms working at any one time on 500 different properties.

The right hon Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) once argued that we should divide the city in four and move over it in that way. That would be all right if it were acceptable. But the property owners would not see it that way, and they could by local pressure frustrate our efforts in that direction. So we have used the Section 11 powers and obtained the full co-operation of the property owners and factors, with three or four ignoble exceptions, to get ahead with the repair work as best we can.

I have dealt with the organisation for temporary repairs. I hope that it will be more successful than in the past, when we had a greater volume of work to do. Supervision is at two levels—by the firms being employed to do the work and by the corporation. The payments to firms include an element for supervision. It is their responsibility to ensure that work is properly carried out. My hon. Friend suggested that supervision might be necessary because some workmen are not doing their job. That is, as he recognised, in very exceptional cases.

Most of the men have worked extremely hard. It is very difficult to have detailed supervision of every man on a roof, as the right hon. Member for Argyll would confirm. Most of the men working on the repairs are doing a magnificent job in Glasgow. Seven men have given their lives and 37 have been injured.

To control the standard of workmanship and to check on costs, the corporation has six district offices covering the city and manned by surveyors, clerks of works and inspectors. Where bad workmanship is found, the firm concerned, under the terms of its contract, must put it right, and this is being enforced vigorously. One difficulty is that inspectors qualified and able to go on roofs to check this kind of work are not plentiful, and where good slaters are available they are often better employed in doing work themselves rather than inspecting. I think that my hon. Friend would agree with that.

A balance has to be kept and the corporation is doing this quite well. The work is taking longer than we had all hoped, but this is primarily due to the factor my hon. Friend mentioned—50 years of neglect. The corporation rightly decided that having started to exercise its powers under section 11 it must ensure that the roofs were properly repaired, and not merely put back into the condition in which they were before the storm. The corporation's success in doing this is shown by the steady decline in complaints of rain penetration. The Secretary of the Property Owners and Factors' Association has said in references to the Secretary of State, to Under-Secretaries and to me, not only in January, but recently, that he appreciates all the work we have tried to do.

I should like to pay tribute to the Lord Provost of Glasgow. Ever since the morning of 15th January all the activities of the Glasgow Corporation have shown a sense of urgency. Throughout the whole period I have been in close touch with the Lord Provost and have attended almost weekly meetings of his special Storm Damage Committee. In the fight to repair the roofs, the Lord Provost and his officials have never ceased to treat the matter as one of urgency.

This has been shown by the long hours they have worked and by their constant search for more effective ways of bringing relief to those affected. I have already mentioned the mobile squads maintaining the temporary repairs and their continuing search for new technical solutions. Only last week, a new method of repair, using aluminium sheets, was being tested, but many of these methods, using bitumen on top of slates, mean that roofs cannot be reslated in future and these are restricted to short-life property.

On the question of fire risks, and particularly after what happened calamitously on Monday, all the non-traditional methods of repair that we are using have been cleared by the Firemaster. The felt and bituminous repairs are finished with non-flammable materials and I would like to assure the citizens of Glasgow that they need not be worried about the effectiveness of the semi-permanent repairs made in place of permanent repairs which will take longer.

The responsibility for private property rests with owners, but the Government and local authorities accept that, because of the magnitude of the damage, particularly in Glasgow, and because of the inadequate arrangements in many cases—not always the fault of owners—for insurance cover, we have had to give additional help.

The Government have had to give additional support by helping to build up the labour force and by supplying finance. We have lent to Glasgow Corporation a number of officials from the Ministry of Public Building and Works, from the Scottish Office and from the S.S.H.A. and have augmented by one-third the labour force under the corporation's control.

Because of the particular difficulties there we have advanced to Glasgow alone about £666,000 solely for working capital for repairs in the private sector. This is in addition to the 75 per cent. grant which we will give to the Corporation on repair costs not recovered from owners because to do so would cause hardship. This, again, is in addition to the grants to local authorities to ensure that the cost of repairing their own property does not lead to an undue burden on the rates.

This is the only practical help which the Government are giving. My hon. Friend spoke about getting more men. When we get the repairs done in Greenock, we send men to Glasgow, if they are willing to go. We will try hard to bring as many men as we can from elsewhere to work in the central pool. If we can push hard, there is no reason to believe that it will be next winter before we can get through the ravages of this storm, which was the most calamitous in Scotland's history. It was without precedent and meant that we have had to improvise with new methods. The lessons are there to learn, but I hope that no other Government will ever be faced with the same difficult problem as we have had since January.

I will look into what my hon. Friend has said. I would like him to give me the references he made at the beginning of his speech to the lady and the young man and also to the other case he mentioned, so that I can investigate them. In addition to dealing with my own constituency, I have had to write many hundreds of letters—it must now be nearly 1,000—about storm damage. I accept it as part of our responsibility as Ministers to try to help wherever we can in clearing up this immensely difficult problem.

It is all very easy for some people to criticise, but the men on these roofs, working as they are working, are doing a job comparable with anything done during the war to save our nation.

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

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past One o'clock.