§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ 3.53 p.m.
§ Mr. Churchill (Stretford)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I must express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and other hon. Members for leaving me about five minutes before I am done in by the gong.
1923 I bring this Bill before Parliament today to remedy the hardship, inconvenience and cost imposed by the Labour Government's Rent Act 1974 on those members of the Armed Forces who are owner-occupiers. The Service man, by the nature of his job, is frequently posted away from his home to take up duties elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or overseas. In such circumstances, the Service man who is married is faced with the choices of leaving his home empty and bearing the cost of it while also taking on the cost of a married quarter; separating from his family and leaving them at home while paying the additional cost of single accommodation; and letting his home.
In the case of letting his home he finds that he is paying tax on any rent he receives and in most cases the residue is insufficient to pay the cost of the married quarter rent. Most of all, the owner experiences extreme hardship when a tenant refuses to leave after he gives notice of his need to obtain repossession.
I cite the recent case of a British Army housewife writing in the "British Army Review" in which she said that trauma of a summer existing with her children like nomads, suffering strained relationships with family and friends, until the court ruled that she could have her home back was something that had to be experienced to be fully understood.
Many such cases of individual hardship have been brought before Ministers in the last three years. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) who raised the plight of Service families in this respect in Adjournment debates last year. In these debates Ministers freely admitted the burden of hardship imposed by the hasty and ill-considered passage of the Rent Act 1974.
In the first debate the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is on the Government Front Bench today, declared with some brazenness and frankness:
We all recognise the complexity and obscurity of the Rent Acts."—[Official Report, 2nd March, 1977; Vol. 927, c. 580.]I am very glad that as a result of sustained pressure from my hon. Friends and myself victory is now in sight, and members of the Armed Forces who let their homes are to be relieved of the heavy 1924 financial penalties arising from the Rent Act. The Government had consistently refused to place the Armed Forces on the same footing as members of the Home and Foreign Civil Service who, since the end of 1975, have been able to be reimbursed with taxpayers' money for any legal costs and costs of alternative accommodation involved in repossessing their homes. The Secretary of State for Defence said in a parliamentary reply two months ago that it was not possible to put the Armed Forces in a similar situation to the Civil Service because of pay policy. I do not accept that for one moment, because there is no element of an increase in income involved. It is merely relieving them of burdens that have been unwittingly imposed by the Rent Act 1974.I hope that the Minister will not say that the fact that the Government are to give in and give the Forces some financial relief makes the Bill unnecessary. It does not.
By allowing members of the Armed Forces to be on the same footing as those in agricultural holdings, resident owner-occupiers, those in houses belonging to the Crown, those in local authority housing associations or housing co-operatives—in other words by being in an unprotected tenancy—we shall speed up the repossession process, and cut down delay. Also, it provides a clear incentive to the tenant not to remain in possession against the terms of his tenancy or to prevent the Service family from returning. Furthermore, it is right that the defaulting tenant should bear the burden of any expense arising out of his default rather than putting it on the shoulders of the taxpayer.
§ 3.58 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)I am surprised at the extravagant language that we have heard from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). He knows very well that both the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence accept that there is a problem but it does not arise from the Rent Act 1974 at all. In trying to put words into the mouths of Government spokesmen the hon. Member was going too far.
There is a problem when someone—not only a Service man who works overseas and does a valuable job—returns 1925 and wants to take possession of his home—
§ Mr. Churchill rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Mr. ArmstrongI am sorry that I have not had time to spell out the recognition that the Government have given—
§ It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.