HOUSING (REGULAR EX-SERVICE MEN) (Hansard, 26 July 1955)

§ Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

I wish to discuss the question of the housing of Regular soldiers upon release. This matter was down for discussion yesterday week when, unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government could not be here, through a temporary illness. We are all pleased to see him here today ready to deal with the question and, I hope, to deal with it in a way in which certainly the Regular soldiers hope that it will be dealt with.

This is no new question. It is one which, to my knowledge, was raised almost exactly a year ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) in an Adjournment debate on the last day of sitting of this House before it rose for the Recess on 30th July, 1954. In that debate he said: It is not a good thing for Regular Army recruitment or for any of the Services that there should be publicity given to the series of eviction cases of people occupying married quarters, even though the Services have got to regain possession of these premises for those who need them more than those who are being evicted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 907.] He went on to say that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government had appointed a sub-committee which was still sitting, although the question was well and ably raised before the House at that time.

After the sub-committee had reported, the Minister of Housing and Local Government made this statement to the House: I have been considering the difficulties confronting Regular ex-Service men, who wish to apply for council houses in areas where a residential qualification is required by the local authority. Sailors, soldiers and airmen, returning to civil life after a period of years in the Forces, as often as not possess no fixed abode anywhere at all. To insist, in such circumstances, on a residential qualification is to make it quite impossible for many of them to get their names put onto the housing list, however great may be their need. That these men should be penalised in this way, solely by reason of the fact that they have been serving 1144 their country, is a most grievous injustice which should not be allowed to continue. I consider that an application for a council house, made within one year of his leaving the Forces, by a Regular ex-Service man, who has found employment in or near the district, or has family connections with it, should be considered exclusively on the basis of his housing needs, without any regard whatsoever for the length of his residence in the locality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1955; Vol 537, c. 1886–87.] The reception of that scheme can hardly be called an unqualified success, as the figures given in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East by the Minister of Housing and Local Government showed. It was: Out of 1,467 authorities in England and Wales to whom the circular was sent, 860 have so far replied. Of these, 612 assured me that they were already applying these principles; 154 stated that, whilst they had not done so hitherto, they would in future bring their practice into conformity with my recommendations; five authorities are reconsidering their practice and 63 gave replies which were partially satisfactory. The number of negative replies was 34."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 106.] Only about two-thirds of the councils brought themselves into line with the Minister's recommendation, but even if that recommendation had been carried out it would not have brought the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, because the local authorities merely placed the retired soldier upon the waiting list with very few points.

I should like to draw attention to a case about which I had occasion, after the Minister's statement, to write to a council. It concerned a distinguished soldier who had retired. Although I mentioned the Minister's statement and the circular, this is the reply that I received: I have your letter of the 21st March and regret to have to reply to you in the following strain. The circular pronouncement dated 8th March to which you refer has been received by the Council, together with a copy of the statement in the House made by the Minister on 1st March. These have been considered by the Housing Committee. The Committee were of opinion that the position of ex-Service men generally was not less favourable than that of many of the applicants on the Council's waiting list, being those who had little if any hope of being housed or rehoused by the Council for some considerable time, if at all. Full reference was made to the circumstances of the decision made on the 15th April, 1954, to close the waiting list, and to compile there-from a priority list comprised of applicants with an urgent housing need, and who fulfilled on the whole the necessary qualifications under the 'points' scheme. 1145 It would appear that even if the council did follow the Minister's advice, the position of the Regular soldier on release would not be very different in practice from what it was before the Minister made his statement.

The problem concerns a very large number of soldiers and, I presume, Navy and Air Force men. In 1953, over 50,000 Regular soldiers were released, in 1954 23,000, and this year from January to May over 24,000 Regular soldiers were released. At least one-third of those were married, and that very large number must be people who have great difficulty in finding houses. Are they, therefore, to be left completely homeless? Worse still, are they to do what so many have done —remain in Army married quarters, if that be their last residence when in the Army and not leave when they become civilians? Such a course is certainly not justified. If one cannot find a house, there may be no excuse for remaining in someone else's property, but I can quite understand their doing so.

So far as I have been able to ascertain, no fewer than 340 such married quarters are at present irregularly occupied by ex-soldiers and their families—people who are now, of course, civilians. So far as the Army is concerned, it is a vicious circle. Serving soldiers who should be occupying married quarters cannot do so. That makes for discontent in the Army and also makes recruiting more difficult, and it has an adverse effect upon the general standing of the Army.

To a large extent, what I have so far said has been criticism, and I appreciate that mere criticism is not of much use to anybody. What solution can there be to this problem? First, of course, in every housing problem—whether it relates to Regular soldiers on release or to people who are civilians—one should re-member that to own one's house is far better than to rent somebody else's, even though one's landlord is a council. In June, the Minister of War announced the Army Savings Scheme to help soldiers to have money for a deposit and for furniture on their release. That scheme does not start until 1st September, and it must be some time before sufficient money is accumulated for Regular soldiers to be able to follow that excellent course.

When we come to the question of how the problem is to be dealt with before 1146 the necessary time has elapsed, then certainly—though, perhaps, only as a temporary measure—I think something more effective can be done on the lines which I have indicated. Local councils could surely give more points for what is properly called housing need. There is nothing unfair in that. Those families to which I have referred as occupying Army married quarters have a very great housing need, and it is quite futile to say that those people and others must wait until a court has made an eviction order —with costs which someone has to pay—before extra points can be given on the ground of housing need.

It would not be in order for me now to suggest that legislation should he introduced to that end. Indeed, legislation is not required if the proper cooperation can be obtained on the lines which I have suggested; that is, that not only should the Regular soldiers on release be placed upon housing lists in the localities where they obtain employment or in which they have other grounds for being placed on the housing list, but, in addition to their residential qualifications which they are deemed to have, they should have further points on the ground of housing need. That would place them high enough on the list to have a reasonable prospect of being housed in the particular localities where they have cause, by reason of employment or of pre-Service residential qualifications, to require a house.

I know that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are sympathetic towards the problem. I would ask them to assist this very large number of Regular soldiers who have this very serious problem, and to devise some means of solving it.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has raised a matter of general concern and, as he says, not a new one. I welcome the opportunity to meet some of the points he has made about it, and I apologise for the fact that I was not available to meet them last week, when he first sought to raise this matter in debate.

I must first say one word about the background of this problem, of which, 1147 I am sure, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East is aware, but which he did not mention and which must not be overlooked. As he knows, under Section 83 (1) of the Housing Act, 1936, local authorities are responsible for the management and control of their houses, including the selection of tenants. It is their responsibility, and while my right hon. Friend and the Ministry can advise, guide, and persuade, there are clear limits beyond which we cannot go, and that applies to all aspects of housing. I should like to stress that point.

As my hon. and learned Friend has just said, the main criterion in selecting tenants should be housing need. But some local authorities give weight to residential claims. They either insist on residential qualification before accepting the application, or they take residence into account when they select tenants. It is, therefore, fair to say that the Regular Service man is handicapped in the circumstances. More often than not he has no residential claim in any area and his wife will have no claim, if she has been living with him in married quarters. In addition, he may not know where he will seek employment when discharged, and so not know to which local authority he should apply before he leaves the Service.

That very difficult situation was most fully investigated by the Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, whose Report appeared only a few months ago. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend has studied the Report. It has a great deal to say on the problem which he has raised tonight. It is the fruit of very careful and painstaking investigation. It concerns itself very largely with this question of residential qualification and the Regular Service men; and the two subjects are interrelated.

I want now to refer to the recommendation. Local authorities, except those obliged to "export" population and those with Service establishments in their areas, are urged to waive residential qualifications for Service applicants on discharge. The excepted authorities, and I think that my hon. and learned Friend is probably concerned with more than one of the excepted authorities, should waive their requirement when Service men obtain employment in their 1148 area, or have residential connections with them. Having admitted Service men to their lists, the authorities should see that their applications receive parallel treatment with those of civilians, and are not prejudiced by any weight given to residence in selecting tenants.

A great deal of guidance is also offered in this Report to Service men themselves. They are advised to make their application as early as possible and to keep in touch with local housing departments, and other possibilities in the Report are brought to their notice. It is not to be expected that Service men can or will wish to study a Report of this nature, but I want to say how the Report was followed up by my Department and by other Departments concerned.

My hon. and learned Friend has already referred to the statement which my right hon. Friend made in the House on 1st March in which he gave the Report a very fair wind. Moreover, in Circular 24 /55, which drew attention to the subject, my right hon. Friend recommended all housing authorities to adopt the principle enunciated in his words, which I will not repeat because my hon. and learned Friend has already quoted them, and to let him know their existing practice. My hon. and learned Friend said that the result was hardly an unqualified success. I can, however, bring a little more up-to-date the analysis of the replies which he mentioned.

Out of 1,467 local authorities we have so far had 1,151 replies and 838 are already applying the principles in the circular, while 174 will do so in future. That makes 1,012 out of 1,151 replies promising positive action; 16 are considering action, 82 replies are only partially satisfactory and 41 are negative. My hon. and learned Friend referred to one authority, but I cannot say into which category it falls and whether it is satisfactory or will be reconsidered.

That is not the final return, but I do not agree that it lacks success. I think that in three months it represents a considerable advance on the position at which we arrived before the sub-committee published its Report. We have taken quite definite steps to bring the Report before local authorities and show them our wishes in respect of it. In addition, the three Service Departments have issued instructions on how to apply 1149 for council houses explaining the responsibilities of councils in this regard. Not everyone understands that quite clearly. That guidance has appeared on unit and mess notice boards and will be brought to the attention of Service men at frequent intervals. Those instructions are being revised, following the circular, so that the men will have up-to-date information.

My hon. and learned Friend clearly feels that this course of action does not go far enough. We cannot discuss the possibilities, but I would say that any form of more definite or statutory action which we could exercise in this field would be more directly opposed to the well-established principles, laid down by the Housing Acts, of giving local authorities the responsibility of providing and managing their own houses. I think it fair to say that it could create resentment among a body of civilians and, without asking whether it was justified or not, that is the one feeling one 1150 does not want to generate in respect of any of the Services.

To sum up, we know very well this problem of housing Regular ex-Service men. I consider that we have done a great deal about it in recent months. We have a great deal of evidence as a result of the circular that local authorities are increasingly sympathetic to ex-Service men's housing needs. Replies to the circular bear that out. If we wish to increase this sympathy I am convinced that this is the best way of doing so. I am well aware that some local authorities have a real difficulty—I mention one which concerns my hon. and learned Friend, Caterham. We are sure that we shall solve the problem along the lines we are pursuing, that is, by the willing co-operation of those concerned, the Ministries, the local authorities and the Service men.