HC Deb 02 December 1949 vol 470 cc1462-7

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 1. —(PROVISION OF MONEY FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR MARRIED PERSONS SERVING IN, OR EMPLOYED IN CONNECTION WITH, THE ARMED FORCES OF THE CROWN.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.20 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I am not opposed to this Clause but there is some obscurity which might be cleared up, for instance, the amount that is to be borrowed from the Consolidated Fund. Line 19 refers to an aggregate of £40 million. There was some demand in the House on Second Reading that this Bill should apply to Forces overseas.

The Deputy-Chairman

It was in Order in a broad way on Second Reading, but it is not in Order on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Emrys Hughes

If you will allow me to proceed, Mr. Bowles, I will not digress from the substance of this Clause, only there is a certain amount of obscurity about this £40 million which should be cleared up.

The Deputy-Chairman

The amount has to be spent in this country. It can- not be altered. The Bill is based on the Ways and Means Resolution introduced about two weeks ago.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Yes, Mr. Bowles, but I want to ask your Ruling on this because the "Scotsman" on Wednesday gave a statement made by the Secretary of State for War in referring to the conditions of this Bill, as follows:— Referring to a recent announcement of £40 million for married quarters the Secretary of State for War said that should leave a margin for overseas.

The Deputy-Chairman

It does not really matter what the "Scotsman" says or how the Secretary of State is reported as having made a speech. This £40 million cannot be spent abroad.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I welcome your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, although you and I differ about the "Scotsman." I think it matters very much what the "Scotsman" says. It was merely reporting a speech by the Secretary of State for War and it is obvious from your Ruling that my right hon. Friend was under some misapprehension, and I am sure we are all relieved to know that it has now been cleared up.

Can the spokesman for the Government now give us some information about the expenditure of this £40 million? Ever since the Bill was brought before the House I have been trying in all sorts of ways to find out how much of this sum is to be allocated to the building of married quarters in Scotland. For instance, I put a Question on the Order Paper asking the Minister of Defence to clarify this so that we might know how much is to be spent in Scotland. My right hon. Friend asked me to withdraw the Question because he was to make a speech explaining the provisions of the Bill. I withdrew the Question in response to that request, I listened patiently for an answer to what I thought was a reasonable question, namely, how this expenditure will affect Scotland, where we shall get increased married quarters, will it be in the naval bases, the airfields or the barracks of Scotland?

Receiving no reply in the course of the Debate I put down a written Question asking the Minister of Defence how much of the £40 million to be spent in building married quarters for His Majesty's Forces is to be spent in Scotland. I received the following reply: The extent to which the Services' housing requirements in Scotland can be financed from the proposed housing loans will depend on decisions still to be taken about eligibility for such loans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 96.] I do not know how many hon. Members understand that, but I know that the Under-Secretary of State for War has a precise mind and we are often indebted to him for clearing up some of the mysteries left by other Members of the Government. Would he translate into ordinary English the meaning of the words will depend on decisions still to be taken about eligibility for such loans? Are we to get 1,000 houses, 2,000 houses, or how many? The argument adduced so that we would support this Bill was that it would help to provide houses. We were asked to approve it on the ground that when the Services have finished with these houses, they will form part of the housing for the civil population. I hope we shall not be told that we cannot have this information in the interests of defence. Far too many attempts are made to hide behind the iron curtain of national security when we ask pertinent questions.

I am asking for a categorical statement as to how many houses we shall get in Scotland under this Bill, and I do not think an answer can be avoided. If we are told that the Minister does not know, it will be a serious reflection on the Minister of Defence that he should ask us to agree to this expenditure of £40 million. I am entitled to have this information because there are men from Scottish regiments now serving overseas who are intensely interested in the housing accommodation to be provided for them. We have now Scottish soldiers serving in the Cameronians, the Seaforth Highlanders, the Argyll and Sutherland Regiment in Malaya and Hong Kong. They want to know what married quarters will be provided for them when they return from that service. I live on the verge of a camp in which there are ex-soldiers who are anxious that the housing problem shall be solved. When I go home this weekend they will say to me, "In the House of Commons you have been discussing married quarters for the soldiers; exactly what does it mean to us?"

I ask the Under-Secretary of State for War to tell us how many houses will be offered to those soldiers now overseas? What hope have they, when they come back, that decent housing accommodation will be available for them in the married quarters that are to be built? Shall we really get more married quarters as the result of this Bill or is it just a financial provision for £40 million, capital and interest, to be expended over 60 years? The soldiers want to know what housing accommodation will be given to them. It will not interest them in the slightest to be told, "We are borrowing money from the Consolidated Fund and it will be spread over 60 years." What does this mean in housing accommodation?

11.30 a.m.

I gave up the Minister of Defence as a bad job. He did not give me any information and, by a circuitous route, I had to try to find out from the Minister of Works. There I was a little more successful. I asked the Minister of Works how many building workers were engaged on 31st October on married quarters for His Majesty's Forces in Scotland, England and Wales, respectively. Then the iron curtain lifted and I received the following reply: The numbers of building and civil engineering workers employed at the end of October on the erection of married quarters for the Service Departments in Scotland, England and Wales were 500, 4,500 and 300 respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 101–2.]

So, apparently, the only houses likely to go to Scotland are the 500 which are being built by the Ministry of Works and I submit that that is "chicken feed." If we are spending £40 million, we are entitled to have more than 500 houses in Scotland.

This applies to the three Services, and if we divide that number, we find that Scotland is to get less than 200 houses each as the result of the expenditure of £40 million. We are entitled to know how this is to be worked out and how many houses we shall get. If the argument is that when the Services have finished with these houses they will be used to solve the civilian problem, it is an illusion. It is time we had definite information and I look confidently to the Under-Secretary of State for War to explain. He does a lot of batting for the Service Departments and I think the Service chiefs are indebted to him. Hitherto we have received very precise information from him and he succeeded, at least to the satisfaction of Government supporters, in answering my arguments. I ask him to deal with this point and to tell us exactly what it means in hard cash and housing.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart)

It is a fearful and wonderful thing to be congratulated, or complimented, by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He has asked about the term "eligibility" used by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. May I put the matter like this? After the Bill has become law, married quarters will be provided for the Service Departments partly by the ordinary Estimates procedure and partly by loan under this Bill, but the latter procedure can only be used for married quarters which are in such a situation that they might at some future time be usable by civilian local authorities, if and when the Services no longer require them.

That means that if we are asked now where the quarters which will arise from this Bill are to be built, we are obliged to reply, as my right hon. Friend has replied, that in order to build quarters under this Bill we have to have the approval of the Treasury, who will consult with the Ministry of Health on the question of whether this, that, or the other is in a situation which could be used by a local authority.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I am sure the Minister of Health is not going to be consulted about Scotland.

Mr. Stewart

I stand corrected and should also have said the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do keep in mind the other parts of the United Kingdom and, perhaps, that influenced the language I have used. It is clearly impossible at this stage to say where all the schemes approved under the terms of this Bill will be located. I do not think my hop. Friend will really press that question.

To take the further point of what it means in hard cash and houses—in hard cash it means what it says, £40 million, which will be divided roughly between the Army, £18 million; the Royal Air Force, £16 million; and the Navy, £6 million. As to what it will mean in houses, we have to take a rather different figure. The figure of married quarters we expect to build in the next live years under this Bill and under ordinary Estimates procedure will total 30,000. The point which the soldiers to whom my hon. Friend referred will be interested in is that those 30,000 houses, with the help of this Bill, will be provided in the next five years, instead of in the next 10 years.

Whereas we cannot say to a particular soldier in a particular regiment that as a result of this Bill so many married quarters will appear at such and such a place on the map—that is obviously a matter to be settled by a siting board in consultation with other Ministries—what we can say is that, as a result of Parliament having passed this Measure—despite the fact that its wording appears tangled and obscure to a layman—we can tell every Regular soldier concerned about married quarters that the rate at which married quarters will be provided will be doubled. The Army may expect to have its requirements in married quarters met within the next five years, and I think that will be a very satisfying message to them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.