| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North): Over seven years.
Dr. Clark: I stand corrected. On the basis of seven years, the Government's case is even worse.
Under the Government's proposals, the MOD will still have to pick up bills for repairs and maintenance. Last year alone, the MOD spent £126 million on repairs, and £40 million on upgrading the estate.
In a recent parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), we learned that, in the past five years for which figures are available, about £198 million was gained from the sale of surplus properties. That is almost twice the amount that will be spent on reinvesting in the estate. It is fair for us to ask the Secretary of State why the moneys from sales were not used to improve the quality of housing of our service men and women. Where has the money gone? If the houses are in such a poor state of repair, what have the Secretary of State and the Government generally been doing for the past 18 years?
For 25 years, the speculators will have a guaranteed income and receipt from sales. There will be a guaranteed cash flow. The principal attraction, however, is that, after 25 years, they will gain control of the married quarters estate. The memorandum to which I have referred gives the MOD the right to retain possession of the remaining houses after 25 years unless the landlord wishes to redevelop the properties.
Late in the day, the MOD realised the shortcomings of the scheme, and introduced what it thought was a cunning scheme, in the form of a ministerial certificate related to the future operational effectiveness of the relevant establishment. Tragically, the so-called ministerial veto is virtually worthless. The legal experts retained by the would-be purchasers believe that the MOD would have the utmost difficulty in making its case in the courts. The ministerial veto is useless. After 25 years, it will be necessary to go cap in hand to the purchasers to retain the married quarters estate for military purposes.
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside):
As for intervention by Ministers, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind that, during times of hostility, the Government take special powers and can do almost anything.
Dr. Clark:
There are much easier ways of trying to safeguard and protect our service men and women, and maintain their morale, than starting to wage a war so that
Given the facts that I have laid before the House, it is no wonder that our forces' families are so deeply concerned by the Secretary of State's proposals. Put simply, they feel betrayed and deserted by the Government. The House may not want to take my word for it, but, in a press statement on 30 May, the Royal British Legion declared that Ministers
Dr. Clark:
The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course they have," but the Royal British Legion knows a little bit about this. I suspect that, over the years, it has accumulated information, and this is its opinion. It said:
Some of the most critical public statements against the proposals have come from the Army Families Federation, which declared that it was speaking out
In evidence before the Select Committee, the Army Families Federation said:
I believe that today the whole House should put our armed forces and their families first. It is easy to praise them from these Benches for their dedication and the sacrifice they make for this country. We all do it. But words are cheap. Words are not enough. The armed forces must know that they are valued and treated fairly by the House.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo):
I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
I take this opportunity to pay a whole-hearted tribute to service families and wives. They do not often receive the public recognition that is their due. In times of turbulence and great activity, still today they keep the home fires burning.
It is vital for the soldier, sailor or airman on active service to know that the family is decently housed and properly looked after. Given Britain's present high levels of military activity, I thank the service wives and families for their patience, courage and stoicism. They are an absolutely integral part of service life.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
rose--
Mr. Portillo:
I want to get a little further.
A number of my hon Friends have expressed concern about our proposal to find a new owner for the married quarters. I am not surprised that it has been Conservatives who have raised the matter as it is the Conservative party that cares about defence and knows the issues that are of interest to service families.
I welcome the attention that the subject has received. It has helped me to improve the scheme that I am proposing. I welcome the representations that we have had from the organisations of service wives and I also welcome the report from the Select Committee on Defence. The matter has aroused anxieties among service families who have had to cope with change and who fear that the proposal might bring more changes. I am pleased to set out today why the policy is a good one and why people should not be anxious.
It is clearly good for morale and for peace of mind if service men and women who are posted are accompanied by their families. Our duty to provide married quarters for their families will continue indefinitely and we will meet the demand for them, where they are needed and when they are needed. But, in future, I propose that the Ministry should do so by renting, not by owning.
The Ministry has not been good at owning houses. In too many cases, their quality has fallen below the standard that service families have a right to expect and, legitimately, service families--like the rest of our community--have rising expectations. We now need to refurbish more homes more quickly. The sale of married quarters will provide the Ministry with an extra £100 million, which it would not otherwise have had, to spend on extra refurbishment. Over five years or so, we shall raise the quality of the houses we occupy to grade one condition.
"have not thought through the long term consequences of the sell-off . . . in short"--
Mr. Winston Churchill (Davyhulme):
Of course they have.
"in short the proposals pose a threat to the ethos of Service life and demonstrate ignorance of Service people's real needs."
What an indictment. It is small wonder that the Legion went on to demand that the sell-off should be postponed, pending a thorough review.
"to make the public aware of what irretrievable damage will be done to Service life if the Government sells off Service homes."
The Defence Select Committee's report came out today. It is an excellent report. It analysed the problems, in the brief time that it had at its disposal, and concluded that, until such time as detailed proposals from the prospective purchasers have been communicated to it and assessed, it will not be in a position to reach a firm conclusion on the merits of the sale. As far as the Committee was concerned, the case was "not proven".
"We know the Government was well aware of the concerns not only of the families but of if the three Services themselves, yet it appears to have ignored our warnings of the effect the sale will have on the morale of the Services, on recruitment, on retention and subsequently on the operational effectiveness of our Defence Force."
That strength of feeling cannot be ignored. My office has been inundated--as, I am sure, have the offices of many right hon. and hon. Members--with calls from concerned service families. Such feelings have been widespread. Indeed, they were expressed in a full-page open letter in the Evening Standard under the headline, "Mr. Portillo, you are betraying us", written by the wife of one of the our service men.
'supports the Government in its determination to improve the quality and management of service housing; notes that the proposed sale of the married quarters estate in England and Wales will release £100 million of new funding to upgrade married quarters throughout the United Kingdom, and enable the Ministry of Defence to dispose more efficiently of surplus properties; notes that the sale will have no bearing on the charges service personnel pay for their quarters; recognises that the interests of the services and service families have been properly protected; and accepts the judgment of the Government and the Chiefs of Staff that the sale offers the right basis for real improvements in service housing which are long overdue.'.
Nothing is more important to me than the welfare of our armed forces and their families. The Government must provide proper homes in which our service families can live, and take care of their families. That is not just a matter of bricks and mortar. Families provide each other with support and understanding, and it matters to service families to be secure and to be surrounded by friends.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |