SERGEANT CLARK (ROYAL PARKS POLICE) (Hansard, 13 May 1980)

§ Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of Sergeant Clark, of the Royal Parks Police, for two reasons. Sgt. Clark is a constituent of mine and has been one since March 1968, when he was first transferred, at his request, from Victoria Lodge to the Royal park in Greenwich, where he was provided with a tied cottage, Chesterfield Lodge, which is within the precincts of the park.

I want the Minister to consider carefully the story I have to tell, as it has affected Sgt. Clark and his family, because I find that aspect of the affair disturbing enough in itself. This affair, it seems to me, has wider implications for the efficiency of the running of the hon. Gentleman's Department. It was because of my concern in this respect that I was minded to ask for this Adjournment debate.

Let me say at once that, in general, I have nothing but praise for the way in which Greenwich park is administered and cared for. In my opinion, it is the most beautiful park to be found in London. This reflects enormous credit upon the Department of the Environment and upon the superintendent and the staff of the park. We in South London are 1323 eternally grateful for all that they do and the way in which they do it.

The story, briefly, is as follows. Sgt. Clark had no serious complaints about the maintenance of his home during his first eight years in Greenwich park. Some decoration was done and some dampness in his sitting room was cured. In 1976, he first complained about wet near the door of the main bedroom at Chesterfield Lodge. He mentioned that he was worried about whether the electric switch and wiring were likely to be rendered unsafe thereby. An electrician called and pronounced the switch and wiring properly insulated against humidity. At that stage, no inspection took place and no action was undertaken to deal with the basic trouble.

Two years later, in 1978, fungus began to appear on the landing, on the stair carpet and around the skirting. Sgt. Clark reported this and a Property Services Agency official inspected it and called in a commercial firm which specialises in these matters. It may have been Rentokil. This firm took out all the woodwork that was found to be completely rotten, took down part of the ceiling to find that dry rot had spread extensively to the timbers above, and cut back wall plaster. The whole operation made a fearful mess of Sgt. and Mrs. Clark's bedroom, and they had to sleep in a small entrance hall at the bottom of the stairs. Presumably Rentokil, or whatever the firm was, submitted a report on its investigation and possibly also an estimate of the cost of curing the trouble. Nothing has been done for two years. The walls and ceiling remain in the same state as in 1978. Can the Under-Secretary provide an explanation?

Sgt. Clark experienced considerable inconvenience and suffering. The Clarks suffered sore throats, and there is a strong suggestion that this was due to fungal material in the air. At any rate, it ceased when the staircase was boxed in. Their upstairs furniture had to be stored, though Sgt. Clark freely acknowledges his debt to the superintendent for arranging this. In the meantime, it was discovered that Mrs. Clark was suffering a terminal illness. She died on 5 May 1979. Sgt. Clark was grateful for the consideration shown him by the superintendent while 1324 his wife was ill.

A number of unsuccessful attempts were made to rehouse the Clarks. Eventually, in April last year, a Portakabin temporary home was delivered and erected in the garden of Chesterfield Lodge. No inspection seems to have been made to see that it had been properly erected. It seems that there was a wide gap in the floorboards from end to end of the building and no circulation of air in the area underneath. The result was that carpet tiles began to come up in the sitting room. Damp and mildew has been persistent in both bedrooms, affecting clothes and personal possessions. Sgt. Clark reported this when it became apparent in February this year on two occasions, but no action was taken other than an inspection until Sgt. Clark reported that, in desperation, he had been to see his Member of Parliament.

There are two aspects that should concern the Under-Secretary. Sgt. Clark has been through two years of inconvenience and positive suffering, for which he is surely entitled to some compensation. Personal effects, including clothes, curtains, carpeting and linoleum, have deteriorated or been rendered useless. He put in a claim for these losses, but it was turned down flat on 3 March this year. His treatment compared with that given by a reasonably well-run local authority housing department in the shape of disturbance payments and the like seems to be less than fair. Sgt. Clark has been given formal notice of redundancy from 25 July this year.

As regards the wider implications, I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree that the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency ought to set the highest standards of property and estate management. It is my concern in this respect that I want to put to him. I have a number of questions. Why has nothing been done to restore Chesterfield Lodge since an inspection by an outside firm in 1978? Was it really so difficult to accommodate the Clark family elsewhere? They were allowed to view only one flat, which they declined for personal reasons.

The only person, so far as I am aware, who approached the local authority housing department was Sgt. Clark himself. A Portakabin was ordered. The cost, I am told, was £10,000. Is this the correct 1325 figure? What is the Under-Secretary's comment on that level of expenditure? The Portakabin came with a complete set of furniture, even though Sgt. Clark had plenty of his own. Was this because the firm insisted on supplying it as part of a package deal, or did it constitute a mistake in ordering? Is it true that this furniture is now stored in a Department of the Environment store in Wembley? If so, what is to be done with it?

What was the total expenditure involved in providing Sgt. Clark with a temporary home, storing some of his furniture in Catford, supplying free Calor gas to the Portakabin and boxing in the staircase at Chesterfield Lodge? How does that compare with attending to the matter that Sgt. Clark first complained of in 1976 and getting it thoroughly rectified before it became serious?

Accepting the failure to take proper action in 1976, would it not have been more sensible to have accommodated the Clark family in a hotel as soon as reports from Rentokil, or whatever firm was involved, had been received and to have attended to the job of restoring Chesterfield Lodge there and then?

I am sorry to burden the Under-Secretary with so many questions, but I am sure that they are questions which he will want to ask if he does not know the answers. I do not expect him to provide all the answers, and I shall be content with an assurance that this whole matter will be investigated to ensure that nothing like it occurs again and that everything is done to ensure that my constituent, Sgt. Clark, leaves the employment of the Department with a sense of having been fairly and justly treated.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro)

An Adjournment debate at 7.30 a.m. is never a particularly attractive proposition, but I am grateful that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) has raised this matter, because it has caused me concern in the 48 hours since the story was related to me.

The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department of the Environment from April 1976 to May 1979 and, therefore, will have known what was happening at that time, even though it may not have 1326 been his responsibility. I should outline the facts of the case as I see them.

Sgt. Clark joined the service in 1952. He was promoted from park-keeper, as Royal parks constables were formerly known, to sergeant in 1967. The following year he was transferred from Kensington Gardens to Greenwich park and, because of his key staff status, he was offered official rent-free accommodation at Chesterfield Lodge. He moved in, accompanied by his wife and daughter.

Chesterfield Lodge lies in the southwest corner of Greenwich park. The park wall forms the lower part of the south wall of the building. The park wall is listed, although the house is not. The accommodation consists of two bedrooms on the upper floor and living room, dining room, kitchen, bathrom and we on the ground floor. The house was probably built in the late nineteenth century.

In 1974 a survey of the lodges in the Royal parks was carried out. Occupants were asked to complete forms listing defects. In the form completed by Sgt. Clark for Chesterfield Lodge, he listed dampness in the lower rooms, missing tiles and several other defects. The property was inspected in September 1975 by professional officers from the Property Services Agency, who did not entirely agree with Sgt. Clark's survey. Some repairs were subsequently carried out and completed in November 1975.

Various complaints were made by Sgt. Clark from January 1976 until December 1978. These included dampness in several rooms and the top of the staircase, swollen window and door frames, broken slates and fungus on landing walls. Steps were taken through normal Property Services Agency maintenance arrangements to seek to rectify these problems as they arose.

A severe outbreak of dry rot was found in Chesterfield Lodge in the autumn of 1978, and Rentokil—the hon. Gentleman was right about that—was asked to carry out a survey. It estimated the cost of remedial work at £7,000 to £8,000. That is a good reason why we thought carefully after 1978 about what steps should be taken. Work would have taken four months to complete and the Clark family would be required to vacate the lodge. In view of the considerable sums that had been spent in the past in attempting to eradicate the faults in this property, 1327 it was felt that serious consideration would have to be given before embarking on an outlay of such magnitude.

Between late 1978 and early 1979 the Department explored several avenues in an attempt to find alternative housing for the Clark family. Mrs. Clark, who at the time was being treated for cancer, from which, sadly, she has since died, had made it clear that she did not wish to move away from the area, so the possibility of rehousing in another Royal park was not pursued. The Department sought to find accommodation for them in a Ministry of Defence married quarter. That was unsuccessful, though I should add that it had, in any case, been indicated to the Department that Mrs. Clark would not be willing to move to a married quarter.

Some years previously, Sgt. Clark had applied to be registered on the housing list of the local authority in preparation for his retirement in July 1980, so a request was made by the Department to Greenwich borough council to give urgent consideration to rehousing the family in view of Mrs. Clark's health. The local authority did not reply to this request, although I believe that there are some grounds for thinking—I am sure the local authority can confirm it—that a flat was offered to the Clarks but was refused.

At that time, too—late in 1978—consideration was also given to the possibility of offering the family hotel accommodation, but there were a number of arguments against that. The cost would have been very great for the period of time likely to be involved, Mrs. Clark's poor health would not have been helped and the family pets could not have been accommodated. The housing need was pressing as Chesterfield Lodge was hardly habitable, but it was by no means straightforward to decide on the most cost-effective solution to the problems of the building, and no quick decision could have been taken. I accept that the personal problems were substantial.

In view of the strongly expressed preference of the Clarks that they should continue to live in the same neighbourhood and the desirability of not making changes that would affect the medical treatment that Mrs. Clark was undergoing, it was decided to offer the family accommodation in a temporary prefabricated 1328 building adjacent to Chesterfield Lodge. The Clarks agreed to that. A purpose-built two-bedroom housing unit, complete with carpets and furniture and designed to make the best use of the limited space available, was bought and erected in the garden of Chesterfield Lodge at a cost of £9,698. The operation took much longer than anticipated, due to the industrial troubles of the winter of 1978–79. Sgt. Clark moved into the new accommodation in April 1979, and he confirmed that he and his family were satisfied with the accommodation. It is, of course, tragic that Mrs. Clark died on 5 May. The Government's responsibility had begun at the beginning of May.

I should like to point out that the Department did not ignore the problems that Sgt. Clark and his family were experiencing in Chesterfield Lodge while the new building was being installed. The Department's welfare officer had been in touch with the family since October 1978. In the December he drew attention to the difficulty of keeping the lodge warm enough for Mrs. Clark and suggested that the Department might pay the cost of the Calor gas supply for the additional heater that was being used. It was agreed that that should be done, and Sgt. Clark received a total of £25 covering the period up to the family's move into the new building.

When Sgt. Clark moved into his new residence he took with him some of his own furniture, leaving the remainder in Chesterfield Lodge. Later in 1979 he complained that the furniture in the lodge was being damaged by damp, and we agreed to its being placed in store at the Department's expense. The cost of the removal was £44 and storage charges to date have amounted to £85.

Sgt. Clark has lodged a claim for £300 for damage to the furniture, which was turned down in March. This was because he claimed for "loss" but no loss had occurred, and the claim gave no details of any damage. The view was taken at the time that a claim expressed in these terms could not be allowed; but I have instructed officials to review this claim sympathetically. I suggest that the best first step would be for Sgt. Clark to resubmit it with full particulars of the damage that has been caused to his furniture, carpets and other property.

1329 Sgt. Clark also claimed £500 from the Department for "inconvenience and suffering". I have instructed the officials concerned to review this aspect of the matter as well and to look at it sympathetically.

The temporary building has proved to have minor defects, which have been rectified as they came to light: a porch has been constructed to prevent rain penetrating the door, at an approximate cost of £200; defective flooring has been replaced at a cost of £250 to £300; and translucent sheeting is to be fixed to the porch to prevent draughts.

I should add here that following Sgt. Clark's retirement this July the temporary building will no longer be needed in the park and will, therefore, be available for other Government use.

Chesterfield Lodge was inspected in November 1979 by a DOE architect and an inspector of ancient monuments and historic buildings. In their opinion, the house is of no real architectural or historic merit. The layout of the building is such that considerable alterations are needed to meet present-day requirements. We are urgently reviewing whether the accommodation provided by Chesterfield Lodge is needed. If it is not, demolition without replacement and a return of the land to the park would be a possibility. Since the park is in a conservation area—I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the quality of the park and its excellent reputation—it will be necessary to consult the local authority before the house can be demolished, and the park 1330 wall, which is listed, would need to be restored.

I hope that this account shows that the Department took a responsible attitude towards its staff, that it has shown reasonable sympathy and helpfulness towards Sgt. Clark in his very sad and difficult position, and that the expenditure incurred in providing housing for this family was not excessive.

A judgment of whether the right balance has been held between sympathy and economy must be subjective. I am sure that this has been a difficult case in which to judge both aspects, given the condition of the property concerned. I can assure the hon. Member that if the review that I have asked should be undertaken of this whole affair shows that the balance has gone wrong, I shall ask the Department to examine the application for help made by Sgt. Clark because of the condition of his property subsequent to the move, to see whether we can help with reimbursement.

The information that the hon. Gentleman has put before me has enabled me to look carefully at the administration, repair and maintenance of our property in that area, and from that will come a great deal of good.