| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 542
just 19 couples living in bed-and-breakfast hostels, while it has placed 110 families in private rented property, which it has rented for a set lease from the landlords. It has another 147 families living in temporary accommodation in empty council stock, and about 50 families living in housing association property.Unfortunately, some local authorities display a certain laxity and lack of care about the condition of homeless families. I congratulate my local authority on putting so much effort into caring for the homeless--it is supported in that by the Conservative Government--and for ensuring that families are housed in flats rather than bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
We should make the arrangements governing rented accommodation more flexible, so that better use can be made of it. Part of the problem is that, in the past, landlords were afraid that they would be unable to get tenants out. It is important to remember that there are now 600,000 empty housing units--often flats above shops. I welcome the fact that the Government are now providing a grant to bring those flats back into the rented sector. I also welcome the fact that the Government are making it easier for young homeless people to rent a single room from householders. The householder can now let out a room, tax-free, for £65 a week. Such a system benefits both parties. Sometimes, a family or a single person who may want to rent a flat cannot afford to pay the deposit in the first place. I was interested to learn that Colchester council helps those who have become homeless either through repossession or who have been discharged from the Army, who have the prospect of a real income but who cannot put the money up front for a deposit. That council has found that it is worth its while to pay the deposit in advance, and it is rare for people to default on their payments. The Government should consider such a scheme.
Thurrock council operates a scheme for those on income support. Sometimes there is a delay before someone receives housing benefit, and that means that that person is often refused rented property because the landlord is concerned about the delay in getting his money. The council has come up with a damage-limitation scheme, which guarantees the money to the landlord right away. It also operates a system for people who agree to have their housing benefit paid directly to the landlord.
I also agree with the call for greater flexibility in the housing market. Concern has already been expressed about the constraints on housing association tenants, who do not currently have the right to buy their homes from those associations. I would welcome a re-examination of that arrangement so that such purchases are possible in the future. That would make a tremendous difference to the housing market.
The important thing is to keep people moving and to get them into homes. Above all, we must ensure that people continue to live in the dignity that they deserve.
8.19 pm
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West) : I am not sure how to follow that rich mixture of prosperous, suburban, middle-class bigotry, fantasy and insensitivity, so I shall get on with the points that I had intended to make, for time is pressing and many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
Column 543
It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate in national housing week, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on the good fortune and persistence which has led to our considering the whole issue. To native Londoners, homelessness is not just an indication of the decline of this once grand city. Perhaps the finest metaphor for the London of the 1990s is the image of young people sleeping in cardboard boxes in the west end and along some of London's major thoroughfares.An elderly resident of Sydenham, in my constituency, told me recently, as she recalled life during the war, that the situation was never like it is today. "Why is it like this now?" she asked. The Government have never adequately answered that question.
Homelessness can be defined in a number of ways. We can count the number of people who literally do not have a roof over their heads, but if we include in the definition of homelessness those who are in need of a decent home-- of somewhere adequately to meet the needs of themselves and their families- -the numbers rocket alarmingly. I shall not this evening trade figures, because my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich did that more than adequately. Nor shall I attempt a detailed analysis of the position. I shall concentrate on one theme--the inadequacy of Conservative policy for the homeless. The winter weather initiative was part of the rough sleepers initiative. It was a totally inadequate response to a problem that had grown to epidemic proportions. If more care had been taken earlier, the scheme would not have been necessary. The fact that it was necessary was a condemnation of the inactivity of the Conservatives over the years.
I shall tonight draw attention to one scheme--I call it a project--in Lawrie Park road in Sydenham, in my constituency. It is not just a hostel. I call it a project because that is what it has become. It was set up with winter weather initiative money, but it has done far more than simply provide people with a place to keep them off the streets. The project has expanded into counselling and giving advice, and Conservative Members will be interested to hear that it is located in a leafy street close to the boundary with Bromley. A great advantage of that is that it is a long way from the west end and the temptations and influences--in particular for the youngsters for whom the hostel was created--there. It is also a long way from the royal opera house, so Conservative Members are not at risk of tripping over them.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Shame.
Mr. Dowd : It is a damn shame that Government insensitivity is forcing the scheme to close, throwing the youngsters back on to the streets. Perhaps it is suffering that fate because it is in a desirable location. I suspect that if it were located in a draughty church hall and was open for just a few months, with people being taken in to get them out of the weather, it might be treated with more sensitivity.
The project of which I speak was a purpose-built hostel constructed by the NatWest bank for its management trainees while in London, so the standard of accommodation is not just adequate but exemplary for most of the young people who are there. It is designed for youngsters aged 16 to 25, the most vulnerable group among the
Column 544
homeless in London. There is an equal number of young men and young women, and in terms of those most at risk, young women on the streets of London must be at the top of the list.There are 40 places there, with a capacity for 80. It has never been fully funded to enable it to be used to its full capacity, so the scope for improvement is enormous. Of the 250 young people who have been through the project since 1991, nearly 50 have gone on to obtain permanent or semi- permanent accommodation. In other words, they have found homes and are now permanently removed from the streets of London and have been given a chance to make something of their lives.
The project was funded until the end of March, when the winter weather initiative money ran out. Surprise, surprise--more money was found to enable it to be run until the end of May. I leave hon. Members to conjecture what happened between the end of March and the end of May. Department of the Environment funding ceased, and unless arrangements could be made to enable the project to continue, 40 young people would have been thrown back on to the streets of London.
People need homes in all weathers, not just between December and March. They need permanent, decent homes just as much as we all need them, and Conservative Members have acknowledged that. We approached the Minister informally on a couple of occasions to see whether anything could be done to help the project, but the answer was negative. That is why I have felt compelled to raise the matter this evening, because if the project closes, neither I nor those connected with it will allow it to go with a whimper.
Various organisations are involved, notably the South London family housing association, the Tudor trust, the London housing trust and the London borough of Lewisham. Few of the residents came from Lewisham originally. The local council is trying to find money to keep it open, for it recognises that it has a role to play in providing homes for Londoners and people who come to London. Those connected with the project have even approached Telethon to see whether money can be obtained from that source to keep the project going. That of itself represents a condemnation of Government policy, with money-raising game shows on television having to be devised to give young people a decent home and a reasonable start in life.
The youngsters came to the House of Commons a few weeks ago with a petition. It was, for many of them, their first visit to this place, and they were confused. I would not say that they were overawed ; they simply found the place incomprehensible. As a result of the attitude of the Government over the project, I am forced to share their conclusion. I sent the Minister their petition and received a wholly inadequate response. Not once has the Department offered any assistance or advice on how the project might be kept open. The Government have adopted a Pontius Pilate-like approach and have said, in effect, "That is the end of the matter. You knew when the money was dished out how far it would go. It has now gone and you are on your own."
That happens in many areas of Government spending. Money is provided up front and, its having been provided on a one-off basis, it is left to others, notably local authorities, to go on dealing with recurring problems which are not amenable to one-off solutions. The idiocy
Column 545
and futility of that approach is demonstrated by the fact that come next December, if the winter weather initiative is introduced--there is doubt about whether it will be--it is admitted that the Lawrie Park road hostel will qualify under the scheme. That shows the bankruptcy of Government policy.I implore the Minister to reconsider the matter, to provide some hope to the project and its residents and, by so doing, to give some hope to every homeless person in this city and throughout the country.
8.26 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) : In view of the pressure on time, I shall not make the measured, well-balanced and reasoned speech that I intended to make. Instead, I shall concentrate on one issue that must be aired as a result of the comments of Opposition Members, who do not come to the debate with clean hands. They come here with hypocrisy and humbug. Why, when we discuss homelessness, will they not tell us about Southwark borough council, which is Labour controlled and which is owed £30 million in uncollected rents? Why will they not tell us of the 8,000 empty properties owned by that borough council? Imagine what it could do, if it collected those rents, to bring those unfit and dilapidated units back into occupation. Labour inefficiency is depriving the people of that borough of decent homes in which to live.
Instead of trying to beat the Government with a big stick, Opposition Members should describe the position in the borough of Newham, which has rent arrears of £11 million-- [Interruption.] --and more than 5,500 units unfit for human occupation. If Newham collected those rents, it could renovate those houses and flats and people could move into them.
I speak with some knowledge of the area, for not only have I been to Newham but I worked for Southwark district council. I know what I am talking about. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) might refer to the rent arrears of £13 million in his borough. He should castigate his borough council for not collecting that money and using it to bring unfit units back into public use.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in the middle of his litany of extremely worrying cases which, as he says, should be brought to the public's attention. Has he considered the fact that it has been reported in Southwark that three of the people with severe rent arrears are Labour councillors?
Mr. Streeter : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has reinforced my opening remarks that Opposition Members do not come to the debate with clean hands.
If we are to tackle the problem of homelessness, we must take a radical approach to local authority housing management. We must make local authority landlords far more efficient. To that extent, I welcome the excellent consultation paper "Competing for Quality in Housing". I welcome the Government's radical approach in making local authority landlords contract out and buy in the services that they need, when they need them, at the best prices, to give their tenants the best service. That is the way forward if some of the unfit, unlet, empty units are to be brought back into public service.
Column 546
When my hon. Friend the Minister considers his response to the consultation paper, will he bear in mind that I do not believe that it goes far enough? The consultation document states that the client will remain the local authority housing committee, still steeped in the local authority culture that we so desperately need to get rid of.Will my hon. Friend consider converting housing committees and departments into semi-detached housing boards or companies, as the Institute of Housing suggested? We should do that, not so that they can build new properties but so that they can better manage the ones that they have. Unless we do that, many Labour-controlled local authorities will seek ways of getting round compulsory competitive tendering by making life impossible for contractors who win tenders or by ensuring that in-house people win them, thus gaining only minimal savings.
If we introduce those radical changes, we shall make great savings in housing management. Local authority landlords will become much more effective and one of the factors causing homelessness will have been diminished.
8.33 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) says that he knows Newham--I must test him on that some time, but not tonight. I shall tell him something about Newham and the voids that exist there. A large number of them are in the Taylor Woodrow Anglian tower blocks. The hon. Gentleman is probably too young to remember Ronan Point, but people had to be moved out of those tower blocks because they were unsafe. The Minister for Housing and Planning knows about those tower blocks as we went on an inspection together and saw how badly they had been built. They were jerry-built flats. We cannot place people in some of the accommodation units in Newham because the structures are too dangerous.
The hon. Member for Sutton might think it is a good thing for Labour party people to be placed in dangerous structures, but I do not think so. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why there is a housing crisis in London, he does not have to look around to blame local authorities. It is a cheap and easy shot for Conservative Members to say that the housing crisis is caused by Labour local authorities. It is the crass, narrow-minded, narrow- sighted, stupid, ignorant attitude that I expect from Conservative Members as they know nothing about the subject.
What do Conservative Members know about living in rotten accommodation? How many Conservative Members are homeless? Most of them probably have two or three homes. We do not want lectures from a bunch of well-heeled Tory layabouts telling us what is endured by our constituents. If the hon. Member for Sutton wants to know why there is a housing crisis, I shall tell him.
In 1987-88, the London boroughs started building more than 13,000 new homes. In 1990, London boroughs started to build only 302 homes. The reason for the housing crisis is that the Government have ensured that the boroughs cannot provide accommodation for those who need it. It is absolutely disgraceful that in 1990 only 302 new homes were built--2 per cent. of the 1978 total. Between 1981-82 and 1989-90, the available permanent lettings to new tenants were reduced--a loss of 20,000 units.
Column 547
One does not need a PhD in housing administration to know why there is a housing crisis in London. Some £8 billion is sitting in bank accounts, but no local authorities are allowed to use it to build new homes. The Government conned the House and the rest of the country by saying that if local authorities sold houses, the money would be available to build new homes--lies. The authorities have not been allowed to use their own money to build homes for their own people.The reason for the housing crisis sits on the Benches opposite--the nasty, ugly face of Toryism. Until we get rid of that, I am afraid there will be more and more people sleeping on the streets and in the doorways of London. That is a damned disgrace and so is the Minister.
8.36 pm
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : We have heard the usual emotional speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The real reason for the housing crisis in London is socialism. We have suffered from decades of socialist legislation stating that it was immoral to make money out of renting properties or offices. The reason for the surplus in office accommodation in London today is that office rents have never been controlled. Why is there a shortage of accommodation to rent? The answer is that for years and years there were rent controls, and today many potential landlords fear that a future Labour Government would reintroduce rent controls. Investing in property is a long-term activity, and no one will invest in property while there is a threat of a future Labour Government reintroducing rent controls. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West would do his constituents' cause much good if he said that a future Labour Government would never reintroduce rent controls, as that is the fear.
The second fear of those who are considering renting out their property is that of long delays if the tenant refuses to leave at the end of the lease. Some constituents told me that they had let out their property to a tenant for a specific period. At the end of the lease, the tenant said that he would not go. It took my constituents five months to get the tenant out and regain control of their home. Such legal delays prevent some people from renting out their property.
The final reason for the shortage of property in London today and why a few hundred people are sleeping rough is that five Labour councils have 8,163 empty houses. Why is it that vacancies in the London borough of Barnet constitute 1.1 per cent. of its housing stock, but in the London borough of Brent, which is Labour controlled, the figure is 5 per cent. and in Hackney the figure is 4.8 per cent.--excluding the illegal tenancies that Hackney council has decided to allow? In Tower Hamlets the figure is 4.5 per cent., in Newham it is 3.8 per cent., in Southwark it is 3.6 per cent. and in Islington it is 2.6 per cent. Those councils are the cause of homelessness in London today.
The Labour party, Labour legislation and Labour threats are the cause of homelessness in London. It is not for the Labour party to talk about homelessness. Labour Members should come to the debate and admit that they are the cause of homelessness. Mr. Cryer : Homelessness was lower under a Labour Government.
Column 548
Mr. Marshall : As the hon. Gentleman who speaks from a sedentary position should know, the long-term effect of Labour policies has caused homelessness. There is no shortage of any other commodity in London. If we did not face the threat of rent controls from a future Labour Government, there would be no housing shortage in London tonight.
8.38 pm
Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on initiating the debate, may I say that he has left me with the difficult task of trying to tell some Conservative Members in about seven minutes why there is such a housing crisis in this country. Two of the Conservative Members have less excuse for not knowing than the other two as they are older. I think that one of them was elected in 1987, and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) was elected before that. Both have had the advantage of gaining a knowledge of the subject from documents placed before the House, whether by the Environment Select Committee or the Audit Commission, or by reading the Duke of Edinburgh report or questions that I and other hon. Members have tabled.
The two new Members do not have that advantage and can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing all the facts. I reiterate some of the facts that I put to the hon. Member for Colne Valley who tried to avoid them. In percentage terms the Government are the worst owners of empty properties in the country and it is not just the Ministry of Defence which is at fault. But even it has no excuse for keeping properties empty.
I asked a question just before Christmas and was told that 24 good, well- appointed, centrally heated houses in the middle of Swindon were to be sold after remaining empty for two years. I tabled the same question last week and was told that they are still empty. One in five police houses in London was empty just a few years ago but, marvel of marvels, it is now down to about one in eight. It is disgraceful that houses are being sold when the market is flat. There are 36,000 Government-owned houses and if they are put on the market prices will be depressed. The ownership or management of the houses could be transferred to a local authority or a housing association. That would get people out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and save taxpayers' money.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to say that local authorities could not continue the lease- back scheme because the Government and, sadly, the Minister restricted the extent to which that could be done. When councils such as Haringey and others reached the limit, they were stopped from continuing such schemes unless they were prepared to lose subsidy. It is costing a fortune to keep people in bed and breakfast so as to conform to that bizarre rule. We pay more to keep people in bed and breakfast than it would cost to keep them in the flat or house from which they have been evicted. That is because the Government will not introduce a mortgage rescue scheme of the type that I have been suggesting for more than two years.
We saw the repossession crisis coming. The Duke of Edinburgh report, the second Rowntree report, which is not a Labour party document by any stretch of the imagination, showed that since 1979 we have lost more
Column 549
than 2 million rented sector homes. It was 1.9 million at the time the report was written. One million have been lost from the council sector and about 1 million from the private sector. When Labour left office, the private sector accounted for 14 per cent. of the rented market but it is now down to 7 per cent. That is the extent of the Government's failure.The hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Colne Valley seem to blame the decline in the rented sector on the rent Acts. They should know, because they have heard me say it often enough, that the rented sector has suffered a straight line decline since the turn of the century, about 14 years before the introduction of any rent Act. When the rent Acts were abolished in 1957 the decline became faster, and speeded up when they were abolished again in 1980. When they were removed in Northern Ireland in 1957--and no party ever advocated putting them back--25 per cent. of the rented market there was private. It is now 5 per cent.
The rented sector has collapsed because in this country, almost uniquely, there is an enormous subsidy for home ownership and no equivalent subsidy for renting. For landlords and tenants alike, it is not worth being in the rented sector. The Government's stance is hideously stupid. They should not worry too much about ownership. I am not too worried about who owns the rented sector, but I am worried about quality of management, affordability and tenants' rights. If the Government can get those three factors right, the local authority sector, the housing associations and the private sector can deliver good housing. The Government concentrate on attacking local authorities, and so ignore the problem that relates to the 2 million properties that I mentioned.
Another component of the problem is the cut in benefits for 16 and 18-year- olds. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam thinks that the problem is caused by the break up of families, but it is not because the rate of homelessness has accelerated faster than family break-ups which have slowed in recent years. The problem has everything to do with social security changes by the Prime Minister when he was a Social Security Minister and by the lack of rented housing. It is a damning indictment of the Government that they do not have a housing policy. For the first time in 75 years homeless British children are begging on British streets. That is disgraceful and I never thought that I would live to see it in my country. There is no point in the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam saying that it is not the Government's fault. Is nothing the Government's fault--the slump, the health service, education, housing? The Government must be the most ineffectual of all time because apparently they have no effect on anything. They are so worried about winning a propaganda argument that they walk by the homeless thinking, "It is a great pity but we cannot do anything about it." The Government put those people there, it is their fault, and they could do something about it if they took on board the policies that we set out at the last general election. They must concentrate on quality, affordability and tenants' rights, and not take them away, as compulsory competitive tendering does. I am in favour of compulsory competitive tendering if the tenants can make it compulsory, but I do not want the sort that the Government are introducing
Column 550
because it is imposed by landlords on tenants and takes away their right to vote on it. Tenants' rights, quality of management, affordability and the building of houses could enable us to live in a civilised society again.8.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on introducing this debate, which takes place in national housing week. I always welcome an opportunity to expound the Government's policies on housing. Our clear housing strategy is to ensure that every family has a decent home. Of course, many people wish to make their own provision through owner-occupation. Many people aspire to owner-occupation and we have ensured that the number of people enjoying that has substantially increased. Of course, we are concerned when some people get into difficulties with their mortgage, but that must be kept in perspective.
The latest figures show that of the 10 million home owners with a mortgage, less than 0.4 per cent. were subject to repossession in the second half of last year. We are keen to ensure that mortgage lenders talk to people who may be in difficulty. The message that we need to get across is that people should not simply walk away from the problem but should get in touch with the mortgage lender. As a result of the difficulties that some borrowers have experienced, mortgage lenders are now beginning to appreciate that they will have to take arrears counselling much more seriously and introduce help schemes. They are doing that.
The initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor seem to have been judged by some people simply on the basis of mortgage-to-rent schemes. That is not the test. The test is how successful they have been in keeping people in their own homes. The mortgage lenders have committed £75 million to mortgage rescue. Only a small proportion of borrowers are in difficulty and a tiny minority face repossession. We must judge the initiatives on the fact that mortgage lenders are determined to do everything possible to ensure that people can stay in their own homes.
Of course, the Government recognise that, for some people, home ownership is not the way forward. There will always be a need for affordable social housing and we are committed to making sure of investment in such housing. We have a clear commitment to invest £2 billion in the Housing Corporation each year for the next three years. That money will go from the corporation to housing associations. I barely heard Opposition Members mention housing associations. They clearly do not appreciate our intention that new affordable social housing should, by and large, be provided by the housing associations, which are increasing the number of housing units. They are able to do that because they are increasingly successful in attracting private investment to add to that made available by the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Greenwich waved the Audit Commission report in support of his estimate of the number of houses that will be needed. In the second paragraph of its report, the Audit Commission stated : "Considerable uncertainty surrounds projections in this area."
Column 551
We are determined to ensure that local authorities, as enablers, work in partnership with housing associations to provide the number of units which is needed.Of course, the Audit Commission's report was aimed at developing local authority housing strategies. The report set out initiatives that local authorities can take in working in partnership with housing associations to provide more units. Indeed, if local authorities let their properties faster, reducing the length of time that properties are left empty between tenancies to six weeks in London and three weeks in the rest of the country, which is perfectly possible, the result would be an extra 26,000 lettings in England in a year.
Mr. Raynsford rose --
Mr. Baldry : No, I shall not give way because I have only one minute to respond to the debate. What we are
In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling --[ Official Report, 31 January 1983 ; Vol. 36, c. 19]-- the debate was concluded.
Column 552
Merchant Fleet
8.50 pm
Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks) : I am very glad to have the opportunity to open the debate on the defence implications of the reduction --and I immediately emphasise, the continuing reduction--in Britain's merchant fleet. The issue is not new : it has been raised in questions and debates in the Chamber and in Committee many times in the past decade, and also before that. Many right hon. and hon. Members and many Members of another place have, so to speak, hoisted the red ensign to express their worry and to warn the nation and to alert the Government to an increasing weakness in our defence system. Until now, those warnings appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Until 1966, Britain's merchant fleet was the largest in the world, but since the mid-1970s there has been a dramatic and, some of us would say, catastrophic reduction in the size of the United Kingdom fleet and in the number of United Kingdom seafarers. The United Kingdom- owned British islands fleet--vessels owned and registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles--has declined from almost 9 per cent. of the world total in 1957 to just 1 per cent. in 1991. By 1990, British seafarers employed on United Kingdom ships numbered little more than a third of those in 1975. Early this year, the Chamber of Shipping reported that, unless urgent action was taken by the Government to arrest the decline, the merchant fleet could well cease to exist in three years' time. Even in recent months, major British shipping companies such as Blue Star and Shell among others have re-flagged some 40 ships to tax havens and hired foreign crews in order to remain competitive.
A simple projection of the decline shows that the United Kingdom-registered fleet, currently some 3.7 million tonnes, will disappear by 1995. It is already one tenth of the size it was 10 years ago, on the eve of the Falklands war. That figure is very little appreciated by the nation at large. A further 11 million tonnes is British-owned but foreign-flagged, yet, on present trends, that could also go within the next 20 years. The experience of the Gulf war, when foreign ships were chartered to transport British forces, makes it crystal clear why shipowners and naval officers at the very highest levels argue that the British fleet is already dangerously small.
In their responses to the repeated reports of the Select Committee on Defence on this matter, the Government have said that they do not share the concern about foreign shipowners and crews being unwilling to sail into a war zone, and that insurance arrangements could encourage neutrals to trade. Is that a sound view, and on what information is it based?
Britain's defence strategy now emphasises the necessity to be able to deploy our land, sea and air forces in distant places. The Falklands and Gulf conflicts demonstrated that need, and the requirements for transportation by sea. The number of British seafarers is already inadequate to fulfil the likely sea transport requirement in the event of a future conflict without mobilisation and direction of labour but--more important, because I am looking forward--unless measures are taken now to stop the decline of the merchant fleet, even that very inadequate pool of personnel could disappear.
Column 553
There are no longer sufficient numbers of militarily useful merchant ships on British registers to fulfil the national requirement for sealift in an emergency. Again, that already inadequate fleet is coming to the end of its life. They are the major problems--vessels and men--and the solution is to re-establish a healthy national shipping industry.For years, the industry has suffered from unfair competition. The Government admit that, but argue that the way forward is to persuade our competitors to stop their tax subsidies and other benefits to their shipping industries, which will achieve a level playing field. Worryingly for the British shipping industry--and, I argue, worryingly for all of us and for our defence forces--there is no evidence that progress is being made in achieving a level playing field. I believe that the reverse is the case. Other countries continue to improve their Government's help for their shipping industries. If that is not the case, perhaps the House will hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement give examples to prove me wrong. I now examine in more detail some of the points that I have already highlighted in support of my arguments. A clear trend can now be seen in British strategic orientation since the end of the cold war. The United Kingdom has redefined her defence policy away from a major commitment to land and air forces for the now non-existent central front towards flexible forces available for global contingencies in a range of conflicts, be they lateral or multilateral. Our leading role in the NATO Rapid Reaction Force clearly demonstrates that, as does the new orientation of the Royal Navy away from submarines towards carrier and amphibious task forces, which are capable of projecting our power on a global scale.
Britain has chosen to play its part in the maintenance of stability in Europe and beyond by having a real ability to employ and maintain mobile and flexible ground forces. The arguments for that were used all the time in debates and questions in the Chamber when justifying the changes being made in the armed services. We have an amphibious brigade that is based in the United Kingdom, an airborne brigade and two mechanised brigades. Based in mainland Europe, we have an armoured division and an air mobile brigade. Added to that, the Royal Air Force is in a position to provide a powerful striking force. What we have not done is define the shipping that is necessary to deploy these forces. I argue that without that shipping being available immediately as required, those forces--they are purchased at great expense--may well not be able to operate where and when we immediately require them.
We must learn from recent experience. The Falklands war demonstrated what was needed to deploy two lightly equipped brigades to the other side of the world, far beyond the reach of an airlift. We still have a continuing commitment to defend the Falklands, and that cannot in the longer term be fulfilled without sea vessels. The fact that we decided to procure a strengthened amphibious squadron for the Royal Navy implies that maritime flexibilty is still a national priority. Unless we have the sealift to back it up, there is little point in building expensive and specialised amphibious shipping.
Column 554
The Gulf deployment demonstrated another sort of United Kingdom global operation--the distant deployment of a reinforced armoured division and an RAF striking force. That involved 144 voyages--70 roll on/roll off, 67 general cargo and seven container. All but eight of the voyages involved foreign-flagged ships, of which 105 were chartered, along with five British vessels. Although we were able to charter ships, there were particular features of the Gulf war that enabled that to be done. It might not have been possible to do that in other circumstances.What were the special features? There was a truly remarkable international consensus behind the operation. No Government had to exert pressure on their seamen to co-operate. Some countries saw involvement with merchant ships as one way of making their participation real. There was only a limited threat to the coalition shipping that was involved in the sealift. That might well not be the position next time, especially as submarines are proliferating in other defence forces.
Ships were readily available, because it was the time of a seasonal downturn in the shipping market. Even more important, there was time to look for suitable shipping on the international market. In addition, total shipping demand in 1990 was probably the minimum required for such a deployment. There was the availability of the Suez canal, good fuel supplies locally, an excellent port infrastructure that enabled us rapidly to unload, and over-flying rights and landing facilities for the Air Force. Without those factors, the number of ships needed and the tonnage required could have been very much higher.
Personnel is the other vital consideration. There are not enough ships available flying the red ensign, in its various forms, to be available to service future military deployments. Whether there would be sufficient reliable personnel to man those ships is also dubious. Since 1979--for 12 years--the number of British nationals employed in the United Kingdom shipping industry has dropped by 60 per cent. Some of the tonnage that was chartered by the Americans for the Gulf war had crew difficulties. That demonstrates that there is no certain substitute for a country's own nationals in a crisis or a war. In the Falkland crisis, British seamen had to replace personnel who were forbidden by their Governments or their unions to take part. Unless the disappearance of the mercantile marine is prevented, the current stock of seafarers will rapidly waste away. The average age of a merchant seaman officer is now more than 40. Indeed, the Department of Transport has said that it expects a serious shortfall of United Kingdom seafarers by the year 2000.
According to some authorities, we have about 166 ships that could be reliably used as a militarily useful fleet. Those figures are frighteningly small for a country that only 20 years ago had well over 2,000 ships on its registers. I contend that the assumptions of 20 years ago still hang around. There have been many warnings in this House and elsewhere about the problems that could be caused by the decline of the British merchant fleet- -yet many people, for one reason or another, still assume that the ships are there. They are not. What about any future crisis? Each war is unique. Modern defence policy, even more so than the defence policy of the cold war, is about preparing for the unexpected. Again, those were the arguments used for "Options for Change". If we assume that a deployment
Column 555
were needed in future, comparable to that which went to the Gulf but in a less favourable geographical position, the demand for shipping could be very much higher. If an airlift were impossible, up to eight cruise liners or large ferries could be required to move personnel ; some 60 ro-ro vessels, mostly cargo ships, would be needed to move the equipment ; and about 125 general cargo ships would be needed to provide stores and ammunition. Perhaps 10 small and 30 medium-sized tankers would be required to supply fuel and water to the forces ashore and to the fleet. About three large container ships would be needed to transport aircraft.Overall, that possible demand is far above the capacity of the current British registers--and it takes no account of attrition or action damage. We have no guarantee that repair facilities could act swiftly enough to make those ships available again during the crisis.
Then there is the age problem. The existing fleet is coming to the end of its active life. The average age of the United Kingdom-owned and registered fleet is now something over 18 years. If we take 20 years as an average for the normal life of a merchant ship, 1994 will see all five United Kingdom- owned and registered large break bulk cargo liners over age, along with 14 of the 24 large container ships and five of the seven passenger liners. Those are disturbing statistics. I come back to my earlier point : the only way to overcome that problem is to rebuild a healthy merchant fleet on the basis of the present British shipping industry.
It is not just members of the Select Committee on Defence or Back Benchers who have been concerned about the issue. The Select Committee on Transport, in its report on the decline of the United Kingdom-registered fleet as long ago as 1987, identified various arguments for maintaining a United Kingdom- registered merchant fleet. Among those arguments was the danger in defence and economic terms of being totally dependent on others to move the United Kingdom's imports and exports and the further loss of international influence. Surely it is not unrealistic to suggest that the defence dimension needs to be taken into account in Government policy towards our shipping industry. The French used that argument in the report on their contribution to the Gulf war. They said that the rapid and effective deployment of their merchant fleet and its ability to make a significant contribution to their forces in the Gulf war justified in their view the support that it was given on commercial grounds, but that in that case there was a justification for that support on defence grounds as well.
We know very well that the British shipping industry is asking for a beneficial tax regime of capital allowances for its ships and specific personal taxation benefits for British-based seamen. Those arguments have been deployed many times in the House, but they have not been acted upon by the Government. I believe that they should be, not only because of the commercial importance of the British merchant fleet, on which I have not focused tonight, but, most importantly with regard to this debate and my hon. Friend's response tonight, in defence terms.
We want to hear the justification of the Ministry of Defence for its apparent complacency that all is well and that, if a future crisis arose, we would have the capability--not surely with British flagged vessels but by chartering foreign vessels--to meet our needs. I doubt that, and I look for reassurance tonight.
Column 556
9.14 pmMr. Peter Luff (Worcester) : It is a great privilege to follow such a comprehensive account of the problems caused by the decline in Britain's merchant fleet. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) for his introduction to the debate. Let me declare an interest. For nearly three years, I have had the privilege of advising the Chamber of Shipping--formerly the General Council of British Shipping--on matters relating to the debate. Some hon. Members expressed surprise at my intention to speak, feeling that a landlocked constituency such as Worcester hardly qualified for serious concern in connection with the future of the Merchant Navy. Let me give them a brief history lesson.
Not so long ago, Worcester was one of Britain's biggest ports. In the early days of the industrial revolution, it sent coal to Coalbrookdale and Ironbridge. I am reliably informed that the county of Hereford and Worcester also enjoys the highest per capita recruitment to the Royal Navy. Distinguished retired and serving Merchant Navy and Royal Navy officers and ratings live in my constituency. Moreover, as many people are in danger of forgetting, 95 per cent. of the country's trade goes by sea. The future of the Merchant Navy is therefore crucial to every hon. Member.
As I said, I have advised the Chamber of Shipping for some time, and during that period I have become convinced of the urgency of its case. There is a tragic irony in the decline so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. Although it is easy to paint the picture of an industry in a terminal condition, many sectors of that industry are still the best in the world. Its ferries, cruise ships and container ships are the envy of the world, as are its officers and ratings and its management skills. If we throw away the shipping industry, we shall bear a heavy burden of guilt. The debate is primarily about the defence implications of the decline in the merchant fleet. I find it extraordinary that we can be so complacent about the decline. The Merchant Navy provides a fourth arm of defence, at no cost to the country. Indeed, if the Government introduced the modest measures suggested by the shipping industry, they would probably find that a profit would be made as the fleet revived. That cannot be said of many elements of the defence budget. I do not pretend to be a military analyst ; I must look to others for advice on defence matters. In June 1991, Lord Fieldhouse observed :
"The number of British-manned ships, sailing under the British flag and available for defence purposes, is now at a crucial level and may already be too few. We ignore this situation at our peril." I believe that we are inoring precisely that. How many of our constituents really understand the impossibility of mounting another Falklands operation in 1992? My brother- in-law served in that operation, in a ship taken up from trade, and I know the crucial role played by such ships in its successful completion.
The Ministry of Defence often argues that the Gulf war proves that we no longer need a British flag fleet. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks explained eloquently how untrue that is. No serious risks were posed to ships that participated in that operation. As Lord Sterling--a
Column 557
past president of the General Council of British Shipping--observed, as soon as a shot was fired, those chartered ships would have disappeared"like snowflakes on a summer day."
I do not want the debate to focus entirely on the defence implications of the decline. I fear that, if we allow it to do so, my hon. Friend the Minister will give an eloquent account of why he does not share our sense of urgency, and the whole case for the shipping industry will go by default. We must remember that the industry brings at least four more clear and distinct benefits to our country. First, it contributes some £4 billion gross--£2.4 billion net--to our balance of payments. The loss of that contribution--a loss that must be very much on the cards if the rate of decline that we have seen during the past three or four years continues--would mean a halving of the country's invisible surplus, and I do not think that that could be tolerated.
Secondly, it is not widely appreciated by those who do not study such matters deeply that the maritime skills and expertise created by those who work in the industry bring enormous benefits to other aspects of the economy. The shipbuilding industry, the marine equipment industry and the ports and harbours cannot function without an adequate supply of retired officers returning to serve on shore and bringing their skills to bear in vital economic activities. The City of London's earnings depend more than is widely recognised on the continuing strength of our merchant fleet. Maritime banking and insurance, shipbroking, ship classification and legal services all depend on the credible position of this country in the world as a significant maritime nation.
As the chairman of one of the country's leading P and I clubs said to me recently, the red ensign fleet provides the ballast to all this country's activities. It is also appropriate, at a time of increasing environmental concern, to recognise the fuel efficiency of the merchant fleet. We hear a great deal from our right hon. and hon. Friends in government about the need to shift goods from road to rail, which I welcome, but we could make an even more significant contribution towards saving our valuable fossil fuels if we shifted more goods to seaborne transport, especially the coastal trade, which is by far the most fuel-efficient system of delivering goods in this country.
Almost exactly a year ago in the Chamber, in an attempt to still the vocal criticisms from hon. Members on both sides of the House--my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was one of them--the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the then Financial Secretary both promised that a statement would be made to the House on the defence needs of the shipping industry. A year later that statement has still not been forthcoming. I regard that as a significant breach of trust by the Government.
The British industry is lean and fit. It can take on the world, but only if the unfair barriers in other countries are met by similar action in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said, it is simply not credible to expect other countries to dismantle the protection which they give to their domestic industries when they are doing so well from it.
In the last Session of Parliament, before I had the privilege of joining the House, early-day motion 500 attracted what was almost a record number of 353
| Next Section
| Home Page |