| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Portillo: I was heading for home--but yes.
Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend will know that I am not a soft touch. Despite approaches and persuasions, I have not yet removed my name from the early-day
motion. But will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that, having been in close personal touch with him and with my hon. Friends the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and having had several meetings, I fully accept the new proposals and I am happy to support the Government?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend's happiness is as nothing compared with my own. I told my hon. Friends that I would listen carefully to what was proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a specific proposal, and I was happy to accommodate that; it was the second proposal that I announced today.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding): May I also thank my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, for having listened carefully to representations made by my hon. Friends and myself and, most importantly of all, to representations made by representatives of the service families.
There is no doubt that the three additional measures that my right hon. Friend has just announced change the balance of the whole package considerably. I think that there was an implicit assurance in what he has just said, but will he give an explicit assurance that when the Government consider proposals for site exchanges, they will interpret and take account of the results of the consultation exercise in accordance with the criteria that he set out at the beginning of his speech--that is, that the Government's first priority in the matter is to ensure that the reasonable interests of service families are defended, and that the Conservative party will always take its stand on that subject?
Mr. Portillo:
Yes, indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that every word of my speech has been considered, and that all the words should be taken together.
Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South):
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Army and the Royal Air Force have consultative bodies--the Army Families Federation and the Association of RAF Wives--to represent them when matters concerning families arise. Will he give sympathetic consideration to setting up a naval services families association, or something similar?
Mr. Portillo:
I have certainly benefited greatly from my contacts with the Army Families Federation and with the Association of RAF Wives. I have not come across any organisation representing Royal Navy wives. There is none, on a national basis, but if there were one I should happily meet its representatives. Whether such an organisation should be set up is not properly a question for me, but I should certainly be happy to recognise and deal with one if it came into existence.
Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon)
rose--
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)
rose--
Mr. Portillo:
No, I think I must finish now, because otherwise I shall have taken too long.
We have devised a scheme that brings benefit to--
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Portillo
indicated assent.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way.
Mr. McWilliam:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister not displaying grave discourtesy to the House by giving way only to his hon. Friends?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
That is not a point of order for me. The Minister is responsible for his own speech, and for choosing whom to give way to.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
May I ask my right hon. Friend to address himself to one important point before he finishes? I understand that several organisations have expressed an interest in the purchase of the estate. Will he make it plain to the House that he will give strong preference to a British purchaser?
Mr. Portillo:
I am pleased to say that, so far as I am aware, all the bidders have a British element to them. None of them is exclusively British.
Does the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who was so upset, want to intervene?
Mr. McWilliam:
Would the Minister care to enlighten the House on how large a British element there is in these bids?
Mr. Portillo:
No, because although details of the bidders have been published, it is not for me to say who they are.
We have devised a scheme that brings benefits to our armed forces and their families and, for that reason, I have received the support of the chiefs of staff, for which I am extremely grateful. The sale underlines some lessons that we have learnt in 17 years of Conservative Government. For the Government to provide a service, they do not have to own that service. Indeed, time and again we have seen that Government ownership has led to inefficiency and poor service.
I have no doubt that we can provide service families with the homes they need by renting them. Indeed, we can do it better than now. We will free our housing managers from the distractions of designing, building and trying to sell houses, and we will focus them on retaining and acquiring houses of good quality that are fit for service families.
The Government have a clear political philosophy. We look to a dynamic private sector to provide most of our needs. That is not a matter of dogma, but is because the private sector does most things better and can help us to improve the quality of services. We believe that the Government should not own things where it is unnecessary, and that we should reduce public sector borrowing where we can. It is worth remembering that
people pay taxes in order to pay the interest on the Government's debt. That money could be better spent on other things.
The policy that I have described today improves housing for the services, but it also cuts public sector borrowing and releases money. The fact that it does so is a point in its favour, not a point against.
Over the coming years, I expect housing standards in our country to go on rising, and service families will want to share in that general improvement. As they see civilian standards rise, service families too will want something better. If we are to recruit and retain enough good people, we will have to provide more high-quality housing than we have in the past, and keep it in better condition.
I am committed to improving the quality of life for service families, and this scheme gives me the chance to make rapid progress towards that goal. I believe in the values, ethos and traditions of service life. If I believed that this sale would undermine them in any way, I would be fighting it--not proposing it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I must remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on speeches for the rest of the debate.
Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South):
The Secretary of State's introduction was a syrupy eulogy of the service wives who had been browbeaten into surrender. Then we saw the ritualistically self-defensive party of defence yet again being holed below the water line. The bugles sounding surrender are amusing and deafening, and those who did not surrender two weeks ago have done so now. The family silver is gone--now the Government have got down to getting rid of the bricks and mortar.
I have been a member of the Defence Select Committee since it began in 1979. In the 200 or so reports that we have produced, the Committee has borne witness to endless foul-ups that have become routine. I have seen many stupidities--indeed, I have seen them in superabundance--and I have seen party advantage elevated above public interest. It is unusual for all three to coalesce into one measure, as they have in this measure.
The Government are proposing to transfer the ownership of the married quarters estate in England and Wales to the private sector in a series of long leases, and then rent back the accommodation by paying a guaranteed annual sum. Was that the only way to do it? Of course not. The Ministry of Defence has been the owner of housing for two centuries--not a very good owner, I might add. But the Government have been in charge for 17 years--long enough to put housing on a proper footing. It is an appalling indictment of the way in which they managed the housing estate that they must flog it off at the earliest opportunity available to the Secretary of State.
If the management were inadequate, surely the Government should have given the organisation that they have just set up--the Defence Housing Executive--time to do its job. It is qualified to do so, and the Government should have allowed it to manage the housing estate effectively. If the Government wanted reform, why did they not proceed with the announcement that they made a few years ago to set up a new non-profit organisation to
take care of the ownership and management of the married quarters? Why did they not follow their 1993 manifesto commitment to set up a
5.1 pm
"non profit-distributing housing trust"?
The Defence Select Committee said:
"We are dismayed that an apparently arcane disagreement between the Treasury and MoD on the classification for statistical purposes of the proposed new Housing Trust should have obstructed a course of action embarked on some time ago. There is no evidence to suggest that the private sector would have been less willing to invest in the originally proposed trust than it will be in the recently proposed private company: merely that the transaction would be reflected as an increased PSBR figure rather than as a privatisation".
The report continued by stating that there was
"no significant public or parliamentary opposition to what the MOD had tried to do"
after the 1993 manifesto commitment, and added:
"We are not convinced that the only way to reduce the number of empty quarters and fund required improvements is by selling the bulk of the estate."
The report noted that the MOD had already sold nearly 7,000 married quarters. If the Government want to get rid of the excess, they can carry on doing what they have done--selling the estates if it is necessary to do so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |