UNDERGROUND WORKS (LONDON) BILL (Hansard, 5 July 1956)

§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)
My Lords, the purpose of this Hybrid Bill is to vest in the Minister of Works seven deep tube shelters, with their entrances and ancillary works. During the war seven air raid shelters, together with an eighth, now occupied by the Post Office and excluded from this Bill but to be acquired under other arrangements, were constructed by the London Passenger Transport Board for Her Majesty's Government at a cost of £2½ million. These shelters, each of which could accommodate 8,000 people, were built in the same way as tunnels of the underground railway and were so situated that, if ever required, they could form part of a new underground line. Under the construction agreement, the Board were given an option to purchase them for this purpose if they wished to do so. The Board have now surrendered the option for the three shelters north of the river but still hold an option for the four shelters south or the river.
542 As your Lordships are aware, whoever owns the surface normally owns the subsoil. The shelters are therefore the property of the many hundreds of owners of the surface. So far as can be ascertained, there are about a thousand owners involved, and to buy them out would require endless negotiations and substantial costs in time and money. As it is these shelters, built for the public good, have caused up till now no embarrassment to the owners of the surface, and in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it was far easier and simpler to vest the shelters in the Minister of Works. Where surface land has been acquired the owner will receive compensation, and when my right honourable friend becomes the owner of the shelters he will have to keep them in proper order or pay compensation to the surface owner or the underground railway if they should fall in and cause damage.
The use of these shelters, except in an emergency, is limited, but in view of the recent fire at Goodge Street Transit Centre my right honourable friend has decided that in future he will not permit any shelter to be used for human habitation. All that need add now is that the time limit for Petitions against the Bill has expired and none has been received in this House. If your Lordships agree to give the measure a Second Reading, it will go to a Select Committee. I do not think that there is any need for me to refer to the clauses in the Bill, which are self-explanatory. With those few words, I beg to move the Bill be now read a second time.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
My Lords, I do not think that anyone in any quarter will question the purpose of this Bill. It is obviously desirable that the Government should take over these underground shelters and keep them in reasonable condition for so long a time as they might be required in the event of another war. However, I should like assurances from the noble Earl about three matters that are mentioned in the recommendations of the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred during its passage to another place. The first of these recommendations was that the Minister should 543 "frequently review the need for retaining the shelter" and should take the views of other local authorities in London into consideration when doing so. For my part, I devoutly hope that these hideous structures will not continue to disfigure London for ever. If deep shelters are worth having in a nuclear war, of course, we must keep them so long as that risk continues, but we all know that there are alternative policies, such as the policy of dispersal of the civilian population. The Government's Civil Defence policy, on which this whole matter depends, will obviously lag behind the technical requirements of modern warfare unless it is kept frequently under review. I must confess that I am ignorant in these matters, and I am not quite sure whether deep shelters are a legacy from the old Civil Defence policy or part of a new and up-to-date Civil Defence policy.
The second matter about which the Select Committee were concerned was this. They asked the Minister to do his best to make up for the loss of open space resulting from the superstructure of these deep shelters. The worst encroachment of a superstructure of a deep shelter is on an open space in Whitfield Gardens, near Tottenham Court Road. This is a small open space of about one-third of an acre, and half of this area is completely covered by the entrance and ventilation shaft to the shelter. This might not matter in a London borough with plenty of parks and playgrounds, but St. Pancras, where this shelter is situated, is particularly short of open spaces, with about one-half an acre per thousand of the population, as compared with the minimum London standard of 2½ acres per thousand persons. As your Lordships are aware, local authorities, when they take open space for housing or other purposes, are obliged to compensate for this loss by providing other open space elsewhere. Of course, the Minister is under no such obligation. I hope, nevertheless, that he will do his utmost to find another piece of land for use as open space in the St. Pancras area. It will, of course, be very small and it might be added to an existing open space.
The third and last recommendation to which I wish to refer will, I feel, appeal particularly to your Lordships, as the appearance of London is a matter which many noble Lords have shown in recent 544 debates that they have greatly at heart. The Select Committee asked the Minister—and here again I quote from the recommendations in the Report— To take steps to improve the outward appearance of the shelters. That the superstructure of these shelters is hideous and depressing to a degree is one of those rather æsthetic judgments about which—fortunately, I think, in this case—everyone appears to agree. It should be remembered that they were built in a great hurry, at a time when any materials that came to hand were used, regardless of their quality or of their appearance. A witness before the Select Committee, speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Works, admitted that nothing whatever had been done to improve the appearance of these shelters since they were put up to make them look less repulsive to the ordinary passerby. If these shelters are to become a permanent feature of the London landscape, surely the Government should at least see to it that they give as little offence to the eye as possible. I have no doubt at all that a substantial improvement could be made, at no great cost, by repairing, doing painting work and possibly training a few plants, creepers, to cover blank spaces on walls.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, when he replies, will be able to say that the Minister will give at least as much thought to the appearance of these shelters above ground, which are seen daily by thousands of Londoners, as he does—as I think your Lordships will agree with so much success—to the appearance of the Royal Parks. I support the Bill, but I should like assurances on the three matters that I have raised.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
My Lords, I think I can readily give the noble Earl some assurances in reply to the questions he has addressed to me. But let me say at the beginning that in the course of my Second Reading speech I mentioned to your Lordships that this Bill would go to a Select Committee; in point of fact, in this House it will go to the Committee on Unopposed Bills. The noble Lord has raised three questions. As regards public land, I am afraid that I cannot give him an assurance that my right honourable friend will be in a position to give land to the Borough of St. Pancras in place of that which has been taken for the purpose 545 of these underground shelters. On the other hand, my right honourable friend has agreed that he will keep the necessity for retaining these shelters under constant review, and that if they are no longer required he will, at the expense of his Vote, and as soon as may be, remove the offending entrances on the common land (for which, as I mentioned, compensation will become payable), and will resell the place back to the former owners at a price to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be settled by arbitration.
My right honourable friend hats also undertaken to do all that is possible to improve the appearances of these entrances which, as the noble Earl rightly said, were constructed at a time when public safety was paramount and not much thought was given to the outlook, beauty or appearance of the buildings. Except in the case of the land, I fed that I can give the noble Earl the assurances for which he has asked.