HC Deb 09 February 1976 vol 905 cc194-206

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment a subject of great importance in my constituency which has similar application in other towns where there is a substantial population of Service families.

The Armed Forces normally offer accommodation to men and their families during their period of service. The Royal Navy provides accommodation for 3,600 families in Gosport and concentrations of Service housing elsewhere in the so-called garrison towns of Aldershot and Plymouth. Gosport stands out because of the many Service housing units compared with a total of only 26.000 homes in the whole of the borough, of which about 6,000 are council units. The points I am making are of general application to garrison towns. If I refer particularly to Gosport, it is because of my own experience and knowledge of the area and because I am able to refer to a helpful report from the Social Services Research and Intelligence Unit produced recently by the Portsmouth Polytechnic and Hampshire Social Services Department.

Generally speaking, the housing problems of Service families start at the time they leave the Services. Many families are fortunate enough and prudent enough to buy their own houses before their date of discharge. The Royal Navy has a house-purchase scheme which allows senior men to do this. Other families are able to make savings which enable them to buy houses on leaving the Service. I would certainly urge each Service family to save and plan with a view to buying its own house at the appropriate time.

There are many families leaving the Services who are not able to buy their own homes. This is not surprising when all the factors are taken into account. The age of men joining the Royal Navy is particularly low. The Seebohm Report of 1973 quoted a survey—admittedly this was before the raising of the school leaving age—which showed that two-thirds of entrants joined the Royal Navy before the age of 17. Moreover, according to the recent social services survey in the Portsmouth and Gosport areas, almost half leave prematurely, buying themselves out of the Service, being invalided out or being given a discharge on compassionate grounds, or after fulfilling a short-service engagement such as for four years.

It is not surpising, therefore, that many ex-Service families cannot buy and are obliged to rent. This is where the trouble starts. The present Government have chosen to follow policies which have effectively driven out the private landlord, and in doing so they have driven out the private tenant. This is a reverberation of an earlier debate this evening. The result of driving out the private landlord is that it is virtually impossible to obtain a private letting in my constituency.

Even a house-owning Service family going abroad or away from the area for a year or two is reluctant to let its house. Usually it does not do so. Such families fear that they will not be able to obtain repossession or that there will be a long delay before they can do so.

Service families nearing the end of a period of service have no real alternative to looking to the local councils to provide accommodation. Most councils face a heavy pressure of demand and have evolved their own rules for allocating housing. One rule which tends to be of general application is the residential qualification, but residence is usually defined to exclude residence in Service quarters. Therefore the Service family might be said to become stateless, as if it had been resident in no area during its period of service.

If the family reaches the end of its period of service without having managed to obtain fresh accommodation, it finds itself in unauthorised possession of Service quarters. The Ministry of Defence is exceptionally sympathetic in such cases. I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Ministry and I pay tribute to the considerable work they undertake in helping Service and ex-Service men and their families. But there must come a limit to the patience of the Ministry, because the housing will eventually be needed for other serving families.

Eviction is an important matter because it strengthens the case for a Service family to be provided with alternative accommodation. Many Service families have told me of their shame and anger at having to be evicted from their Service premises at the end of their period of service. They feel it is contrary to what they stand for and, indeed, what they have worked for during their time in the Armed Services. They feel that they are being treated in an apparently dishonourable way.

If and when a family is evicted, it becomes technically homeless. At this point the family is the responsibility of the local authority in which the homelessness occurs and it must take action to provide accommodation. This means that the so-called garrison towns, such as Gosport, have to bear the burden because these people, having become homeless, become the responsibility of the Gosport Borough Council.

The paradox is that many of the families do not want to live in Gosport. Many come from other parts of the country and would like to return there. In the circumstances I have outlined, however, the weight of responsibility is thrown not on the local authority in the area of origin of the family but only on the authority in whose area the homelessness occurs. In the case I am out-lining it is the garrison town of Gosport.

Let me give an example of the unfair operation of the present rules. Mr. John Andrews served in the Royal Navy for 11 years and his period of service ended on 1st April 1975. He, his wife and two children live in a naval house at Homer Close on the Rowner Naval Estate at Gosport, where I called to see them yesterday. Mr. Andrews comes from Lewisham, where his parents lived. His wife also comes from Lewisham, where her parents live and have always lived. Mr. Andrews is confident that he could find employment in Lewisham and, indeed, has had a firm offer of a job there. They would like to buy their own house and have some savings, but from inquiries they have made it become clear that it is not financially possible for them to buy at this time. Therefore, they have to rent.

The Andrews family has always intended to return to Lewisham. Over six years ago Mr. and Mrs. Andrews put their name on the housing waiting list at Lewisham and were told to notify Lewisham six months before they left the Service. Now, apparently, Lewisham is interpreting the rules differently and, despite persistent correspondence and despite all the facts being placed before that authority, Lewisham is not prepared to offer accommodation. Its latest letter to Mr. and Mrs. Andrews says: If you are able to secure private accommodation (however temporary and inadequate and especially if it is in this Borough) your application can be considered in accordance with the terms of the points scheme. But in the absence of the Andrews family physically moving to Lewisham—where, incidentally, there is no rentable property they can afford—it seems that Lewisham has turned them down. They have no hope of obtaining council accommodation in Lewisham.

The Ministry of Defence must eventually evict the family, and the Andrews family will then become homeless in Gosport. When that occurs, the family will become the responsibility of Gosport Borough Council and the Hampshire Social Services Department. Those authorities will have to find the family accommodation, perhaps by paying for a hotel room on a bed-and-breakfast basis, at a cost to the social services department of £35 a week.

The case of Mr. and Mrs. Andrews and their children is not exceptional. During a 17-month survey period in the Gosport and Portsmouth area it was found that 273 families improperly held on to their Service accommodation at the end of their period of service. Of these, 173 were in Gosport. Most cases are eventually resolved, but at any one time there is an average of six ex-Service families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the Gosport and Portsmouth area.

The circumstances are particularly acute if the husband has to retire prematurely from the Services, as happens in a fair proportion of cases. Some of the most distressing situations occur when there is a break-up of the marriage, leaving the deserted wife and children in the unauthorised occupation of Service quarters. The chances are that the wife will be given accommodation which will almost certainly be many miles from her original home and many miles from her parents and her original friends.

The problems which I have outlined are, of course, known to the Department of the Environment and to the Ministry of Defence. The Department of the Environment issued a circular, No. 54/75, dealing with the housing problems of ex-Service families. It referred to the position of garrison towns but it failed to give sufficient weight to the overwhelming housing demand which arises in garrison towns simply because Service men are living there at the time of their discharge.

Gosport is "home" to the Royal Navy because of the large number of naval housing units in the borough, and we are happy that it should be that way. But garrison towns such as Gosport have a burden of housing demand thrown upon them which is simply and unequivocally impossible to bear. It is completely unfair and unreasonable to expect Gosport to act as the provider of housing in the last resort to all Service families resident there. Circular 54/75 is completely disregarded by a large number of local authorities, and action must be taken to rectify the position.

I have taken up a fair number of cases myself, and I am not particularly proud to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I have drawn Circular 54/75 forcibly to the attention to a number of local authorities—which I have not mentioned this evening—they have quite often caved in. In one or two cases they have written back quite rapidly, particularly when I have mentioned the possibility of an Adjournment debate, and said that the housing committee has reconsidered the matter and that in the light of the circular housing can be found. But it should not be necessary for me to do the work of the Department of the Environment. The Department should emphasise the point sufficiently itself.

I suggest the following. First, every encouragement should be given to Service families at all stages in their careers to plan for their future housing needs, preferably by saving for house purchase. Second, if Service families choose to put their names on council house waiting lists they should not be debarred from priority solely by lack of a residential qualification. I recently read the robust language of Circular 24 issued in 1955, in which the then Minister in referring to housing for Servicemen, said: That these men should be penalised in this way, solely by reason of the fact that they have been serving their country, is a most grievous injustice, which should not be allowed to continue. The Minister was referring to the application of the residential qualification to Servicemen. I do not think there is any reason why the language of the Ministry should be less robust than it was in 1955.

My third suggestion—this is a completely new idea—is that each Service man should choose and nominate at the time of his enlistment the local authority of his origin. When he marries, his wife should also be entitled to nominate her local authority of origin. It would then be the responsibility of that nominated authority to assist in the provision of housing accommodation at the time of the family's return to civilian life.

Should the local authority of origin not be able to provide housing, the alternative should be that any local authority in which the ex-Service man has found secure employment should accept responsibility for housing him and his family. Such a proposal, if accepted, would spread the burden of responsibility for the comparatively small number of families who are not able to make satisfactory arrangements at the end of their Service period.

My point about privately-rented accommodation is, of course, a political one, but with that exception I hope that the Minister will accept that the points I have made are completely non-partisan.

The problems I have outlined are acute and are becoming worse. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that an early strengthening or alteration of Circular 54/75 will be made in the near future, perhaps on the lines I have indicated. Pressure on Service families and other people seeking council accommodation in garrison towns is such that the situation simply cannot be left as it stands at present.

11.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for the opportunity that this debate provides of looking at the Government's policy on the housing of ex-Service families, in the light of the points he has raised in the rather special circumstances of his constituency. He has made a special case, and a very strong one, for ex-Service men and women. The difficulty is that housing authorities are faced with a number of categories who regard themselves as special cases, and they have to decide between the priorities.

Ex-Service men and ex-Service women can, and indeed do, face particular difficulties in finding accommodation for themselves and their families when their time in the Services comes to an end. They are subject to an unusually high rate of upheaval, which prevents them from putting down roots in any one place. They are, therefore, often ill-placed to fulfil residential qualifications for housing on discharge. Moreover, the place where a Service man settles on leaving the Forces is normally predetermined by the prospects for his future employment.

But the sort of difficulties that ex-Service families face are not exclusive to them. For example, there are many people and groups for whom insistence by a local authority on residential qualifications would create problems. The diminishing relevance of residential qualifications to tenancy allocation policies is a message we have been seeking to get over to local authorities in the context of our advice on homeless people, old people, single working people, one-parent families and battered wives. Our circular of guidance to local authorities last summer about the housing need of ex-Service men certainly made the point that they should not be required to satisfy residential qualifications to be accepted on housing waiting lists.

It could be argued, as some people do, that Service men have a considerable advantage over other mobile people: they are often able to make their plans for accommodation following discharge some time in advance of this, and the resettlement officers of the Ministry of Defence strongly encourage this, although the hon. Gentleman indicated that there were those buying themselves out and so on who obviously did not have this long-term advantage. The Government expect Service men to act on this advice to make early preparation and take advantage of the other help which the Ministry of Defence offers.

Some Service men will want to buy their own homes, and they can get special help with this, apart from the assistance available more generally. Officers and Service men of all three Services nearing the end of pensionable engagements are able to obtain an advance of pay to assist with buying a house. The amounts involved have recently been improved. A new scheme has been introduced to help the serving man over 50 to buy a house for his retirement. Help will also be given to those who are declared redundant as a result of the recent cut-back in defence expenditure: they will be eligible for the main Ministry of Defence assisted house purchase scheme, and, of course, the financial compensation they will receive will help some of them to enter the house purchase market.

There will, however, still be many who will have to look to the rented sector to secure accommodation. The hon. Member implied that this would have to be public housing because of the shortage of private rented accommodation. I ought to deal with his allegation that the present Government should take the blame for this shortage, though since the House has heard the arguments on this several times before I do not intend to do so at any length.

The privately rented sector has been getting smaller since the end of the last war. The 1974 Rent Act was necessary to bring the full protection of the Rent Acts to the furnished tenant whose landlord was not resident. It has been suggested that, if the Act were repealed, numbers of furnished dwellings would rise again. I do not accept this. There is no real evidence of the withholding of property, and there is also no reason to believe that relaxation of protection would do anything but bring about a return to the situation of extortionate rent demands and arbitrary dispossession which made the 1974 Act necessary in the first place.

Our circular has accepted that, where a Service man takes his responsibilities seriously and seeks to plan ahead, local authorities ought to be prepared to accept his application for housing; and it indicates that, where he has associations with an area away from where he is stationed, the authority in question should be prepared to give particular sympathy to his application even though he has not been resident in recent times, and—just as important—should be prepared to entertain an application even though the Service man is at present adequately housed in married quarters and may not need accommodation for some time ahead.

It is important that ex-Service men and women should not be deterred from moving away from areas of military concentration because of the attitude of authorities in other parts of the country. Defence is a national task undertaken in the interests of the country as a whole, and local authorities throughout the country should therefore recognise that they have a responsibility to consider the claims of families who have contributed to their security and who seek to settle in their area.

It has happened that foresight on the part of a Service man has resulted in his name coming to the top of a housing waiting list earlier than his discharge. We would hope that authorities would not penalise him for looking ahead, by removing his name because he cannot take up the offer at that stage.

Garrison towns such as Gosport obviously are much in our minds when discussing this subject. The Government seek to recognise their difficulties—as they recognise the difficulties of authorities under other and perhaps more widespread pressures—and in its resettlement advice the Ministry of Defence emphasises the wisdom of not seeking to settle there—or anywhere else—if local authority housing is scarce. Our circular makes clear that as things are, we can hardly call on housing authorities to expand their programme especially to cater for the needs of ex-Service men. If, however, there is scope for expansion and good employment opportunities exist, there are good grounds for an authority to make the necessary provision as part of its stategy for dealing with the problems of its area.

We have heard that Gosport takes the view that it is not for it to provide accommodation for a family no member of which has roots in its area. It has a long waiting list, and I can understand its desire to give priority to its own residents. Every housing authority has heart-breaking decisions to make when there are families in desperate need of a home. A garrison town like Gosport has more than its share of allocation problems. I know Gosport has tried hard to make housing available and has dealt with cases with some sympathy. But especially where a Service man has married locally or has managed to secure a job or an offer of a job locally the local authority should give serious consideration to his claims for accommodation.

In the Government's view there is, however, no basis for saying that the housing needs of ex-Service men should predominate over the needs of other people or groups. If they are at risk of homelessness, the duty to be imposed on local authorities in this respect will apply to them as much as to others. But it is right that the special position of Service men should be borne in mind by local authorities and that the absence of a residential qualification should not mean that the claim of a Service man is not given due consideration.

The case raised by the hon. Member, that of Mr. and Mrs Andrews, is clearly distressing. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that as a Government we should impose a duty on local authorities to rehouse ex-Service men and not all the other groups to which I have referred who are desperately in need of housing. Priorities are always difficult to establish and it is important that local authorities, which are aware of all the circumstances, should judge each case on its merits. We are concerned about all homeless people, whatever their route to homelessness, and we are proposing legislation to deal with their problems.

The housing allocation system of local authorities must be sensitive to all needs. Authorities must be left the freedom to decide which cases are most deserving of help and must be able to deal with those first. I understand that the two authorities, Gosport and Lewisham, have been in touch and I hope that as a result of the debate further consideration will be given and a suitable solution found.

Mr. Viggers

Since the Minister has asked, may I suggest that a proper course would not be for the Government to dictate to local authorities but would be for them to do what was done in 1955—namely, to ask local authorities the extent to which they are fulfilling the requirements of the circular sent to them?

Mr. Armstrong

I will bear that in mind.

I ought to say a word about procedures. Some local authorities have not been prepared to accept other evidence of impending eviction than a court order before being prepared to consider a Service man's housing needs. The close co-operation which exists between Service authorities and local authorities ought to make it unnecessary to resort to the courts—which is very distressing not only for ex-Service men but for the Service authorities. They are very reluctant to see someone who has served his country well turned out on to the streets. Indeed, Ministry of Defence practice lays down that the appropriate Defence Minister must himself approve an application to the courts for a warrant for possession following a court order. Service married quarters are provided to combat the special stress which a Service career can put on family life, in particular separation and uncertainty. This requires that they should remain available as temporary housing.

Although, therefore, the Services treat each case of likely occupancy as sympathetically as possible, they are constrained by the need to find accommodation for currently serving Service tamilies, who must naturally take priority. We recognise that the question of procedure is difficult and I have asked my Department to review with the Ministry of Defence whether there is some other way than a court order of satisfying local authorities that a housing need exists. I recognise the measure of distress that a court order can bring to a family.

I have mentioned some of the ways in which the Ministry of Defence helps individual Service men when their discharge is in prospect. There is one other very important way in which they are constantly seeking to assist the general housing situation—by releasing houses no longer needed by them for Service personnel. The figures for recent releases are not unimpressive.

In the period 1st April 1972 to 31st March 1975, 928 Service quarters were offered to local authorities. In the same period, 1,198 civilian quarters were offered to local authorities. In the next four years the Ministry of Defence estimates that some 3,500 quarters will become surplus to requirements and offered up. The Ministry of Defence will continue to look for opportunities for further releases

Our circular was issued only last summer and it is too early to come to a view about its general efficacy, though we shall, of course, keep it under review. Our present view would be that the circular strikes as good a balance as it is possible to strike between the particular needs of ex-Service men and housing needs generally and recognises the special difficulties in garrison towns. But I will look again at all the points the hon. Gentleman has made to see whether on any particular aspect new guidance might be helpful or should be issued.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.