ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL (Hansard, 4 December 1958)

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)
My Lords, this Bill is a further extension of the 1949 Act. That Act has already been extended in 1953 and the present Bill extends the period of operation from 1960 to 1965. Further legislation is necessary because when the current Act expires the Services will still need, for at least a further five-year period, to build quarters at a higher rate than could readily be financed from normal Works Votes.
It is necessary to introduce the Bill now because building operations now being undertaken or planned might extend beyond the end of the next financial year. The purpose of these Acts is to enable houses to be provided for married Service men in Great Britain from loans. It is thus possible to provide houses without making full provision for a capital development of this character from current revenue. This puts the Service man as nearly as possible in the same position as the civilian in respect of provision of housing.
The original Act of 1949 provided for loans up to the value of £40 million. Since then the amount of loans which can be made has been increased from £40 million to £75 million. As I see it, by the end of March, 1960, approximately £67 million counting against the loan allocation will have been spent and 24,500 quarters will have been provided. Over and above this, some 7,900 houses have been built out of Service Works Votes, bringing the total provision since the war to 32,400. If we add up all the married quarters now existing in the United Kingdom, we find a total of about 57,000.
Before presenting this Bill it was desirable to estimate broadly what our future requirements would be. The reshaping of our Forces has necessarily raised new problems. In some places, there are houses which will not be required, and in other places further provision will become necessary. Moreover, with an all-Regular Force it is likely that the ratio of married men will be higher than it is at the present time.
1220 We have estimated, however, that between 1960 and 1965 we shall require to build from the loan, over and above the numbers then existing, at least 11,500 houses costing about £28 million. This figure is covered by the Bill, which will permit an increase in the total loan to the figure of £95 million by the year 1965. This is, of course, a financial measure to make it easier for the Services to find money to build houses. But I should say that it in no way involves relaxation of Parliamentary or Treasury control over the way this money is expended, and the proposed annual loans will be presented in the appropriate Votes in the Service Estimates, so that the control and scrutiny of this expenditure is on exactly the same basis as though the houses had been built under normal Services Works Votes.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the financial aspect arising from the sale of Service quarters. In the original Act, repayment could be made only by sixty equal instalments of interest and capital combined. Up till now, of course, the question of sale has not arisen, but now, as I have said, this will arise in some cases.
The proposal in this clause is, I think, a common-sense solution, by which the proceeds of sale of a house go to pay off the capital debt incurred for its building. The full amount of the sale price will go towards paying off the debt and the interest on it, whether the sale price is more or less than the original cost of the house.
I think it is fair to say that these Acts have been of great benefit to the Services in the provision of quarters, and I commend this further Bill to the House as offering a valuable addition to improving the general conditions of Service life. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ LORD OGMORE
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has explained the objects of the Bill. As I understand them, they are, first, to extend for a further five years the powers under the 1949 Act, and secondly, to increase to a total amount of £95 million the sums authorised under the 1949 and 1953 Acts. The Bill also facilitates the transfer of 1221 premises if they are unwanted by the Services for their own purposes.
The noble Earl has, I think, hinted, though not in any detail, that the original Bill was introduced by the Labour Government, and my noble Leader Lord Alexander of Hillsborough had a good deal to do with it. It has been found most useful, because previous to 1949 married quarters for Servicemen in the United Kingdom had to be provided out of current revenue. That is an example of the curious system under which Government finance in this country so often operates; nobody else in his senses would think of trying to provide capital expenditure of this nature out of fluctuating and current income. Thus the Labour Government, among the many contributions they made to the national welfare, also made this one, under which in future the Services were able to provide out of capital, to be treated as capital, sums for the building of Service accommodation, mainly including married quarters.
Under the original Act, as extended by the Act of 1953, it is anticipated that when the Act runs out in March, 1960, 24,500 quarters will have been provided and £67 million will have been spent. This is £8 million less than the sums available under the existing Acts. The Bill asks for £20 million more. What we should like to know to-night is why the Government feel that they cannot spend the £8 million which is available to them, in addition to the other money they are going to spend up to March, 1960. It is very odd in these days, when there is a long queue of people demanding more money, whether in the Services or outside, whether nationalised industries or private enterprise, that here we have the Services who say they cannot spend the money, and cannot spend it on such a good cause as married quarters for Servicemen. I do not think we should allow this Bill to go through without some explanation of that.
Those of your Lordships who may know but a little of this subject may ask: Is there any need? Alas! as most of us know, the need is there, and it is a pressing need. This has been brought home to us by the Grigg Report. We shall be discussing that Report on December 15 on a Motion standing in my name on the Paper, and also the somewhat elusive reply made to the Report by the Govern- 1222 ment. I think it would be regarded by your Lordships as in order and appropriate if to-night I briefly mention what the Grigg Report found with reference to married quarters in the Services. In paragraph 272 of their Report they say: Too much of present accommodation, both married and single, is nothing short of scandalous. The Services have an immense task if they are within a reasonable time to get everybody into buildings which come up to decent minimum standards; but this they must do if recruiting is not to fall. We doubt whether it will be practicable to allot more than the current allocation of £90 million over the next five years—in the past, the Forces have not used all the money voted for housing. It is, however, vital to ensure that decisions about the future of particular stations are taken quickly; it is lack of such decisions which holds up permanent building and leads to makeshift housing. Then, in paragraph 146, are these curious circumstances found by the Commission. It says: Secondly, we are not certain that the design of barrack-blocks and married quarters is always as imaginative as it might be. We have seen post-war married quarters in Cyprus which seemed in some ways designed for a cooler climate. We were shown quarters at Catterick, built in the 1930's, without a hand-basin in the bathroom, it being assumed that the family could wash themselves at the kitchen sink. It is of prime importance that quarters and barrack-blocks should be well designed, taking their site into account, and this is a matter about which the Services must be forward-looking. It is no good putting up buildings which are just about up to minimum contemporary standards; an attempt must be made to assess what the standards will be in ten years' time. For example, married quarters should he planned to take modern domestic appliances, such as washing-machines and refrigerators, and provision for garaging or parking private cars should be made wherever practicable. The answer by the Government to these trenchant findings by the Commission is this—I mentioned before that it was somewhat elusive, and your Lordships can see whether that description is apposite. They say: As was explained last February in the annual Statement on Defence, the extensive reorganisation of the Services now in progress has inevitably created temporary uncertainties about the precise distribution of the Forces. However, the necessary decisions of policy are being made as rapidly as possible, and the building programme should now go ahead more smoothly. Then, in answer to the design point made by the Commission, the Government say: The Committee's detailed criticisms of the design of buildings will be taken into account. 1223 In my view, that is a somewhat unsatisfactory reply to the criticisms. It is obvious that the provision of suitable married quarters is essential if we are to recruit the type of men whom we need in the Services. You will never get the men, or if you get them, and they are single, you will not keep them as married men, unless you have the right sort of accommodation. So what is required in this field is speed and imagination: speed, because the money is there. The money has been voted by Parliament, or at least it has been provided in an Act, and can be obtained by the Services as and when they require it. It is no good saying, as the Government say, that there are temporary uncertainties. The money has been available since 1949 and the uncertainties have only recently arisen. If necessary, we must recommend the Government to take risks in this field, even though it may afterwards be found that some of the existing barracks may be redundant and other barracks will have to be created. The married quarters, which will, in fact, be built outside existing barracks, can easily be disposed of to local authorities, and there is every provision for that to be done. So there are no risks really; and if there is some slight risk I think the Government should take it in order to get the Services decently housed.
As to imagination, I think it is disgraceful in these days that comments like those in paragraph 146 of the Grigg Report can be made. Why should Service men be treated as if they were sub-human? The Services require intelligent, respectable and honourable men; and proper modern housing and the provision of amenities such as those mentioned in the Report is the least they are entitled to expect. I am certain that Parliament as a whole, not only your Lordships but Members of another place, want the Service men to have these facilities and amenities, and I cannot understand why the Service Departments, who have the money available, do not provide them.
What is wrong with the Service architects? Why do they go on providing these houses with the minimum standards? Why do not they make them gay, with bright colours inside and out? The old Victorian barracks were grim enough, as we know. They looked like gaols, and to live in them, as I well remember—I 1224 have lived in some in my time—they felt like gaols. I remember Woolwich during the war and just after the war. The men were still living in the stables which, in the days when the guns were moved by horses, housed the horses. The men were still living, not only in the quarters above the stables but actually in the stables. In these days that sort of thing is not good enough. The Service architects and their overlords should remember that we are now living in the year 1958 and that 1858 is a long way back. They should give the people in the Services the sort of amenities that Parliament wishes them to have. As your Lordships can see, I support the Bill in its entirety, and I urge the Government to carry out the purposes of the Bill with speed and imagination.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the warm welcome which he has given to this Bill. I concede readily that the original Act of 1949 was a Socialist measure. We have always been only too glad and happy, whenever we found any virtue at all in Socialist measures, to make the best of them. It is rarely enough that we have the opportunity; but when we do, as the noble Lord sees, we keep them going and make them go better.

§ LORD OGMORE
I should like them to go a bit faster.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I should say that, in quoting from the Grigg Report, I think the noble Lord was quoting a house which was over thirty years old. I feel that I can say with assurance that the new accommodation which is being put up, and has been put up in recent years, is very satisfactory. Some of the people have been very well provided for indeed. I am not unaware of the Report of the Grigg Committee which was set up by this Government. We did not expect to have nothing but roses in it: it was their duty to find out the mistakes, and they have brought out a number of points which I can assure the noble Lord are receiving full attention. If he does not like the answer given, all I can say is that the problem is now made known and the Service Departments are dealing with it.
He told us to take risks. With great respect, there are limits to what one can 1225 do in taking risks with public money. There have been big changes in recent years in housing accommodation. The size of the Army, which has been considerably reduced, will mean that the requirements in different places will be markedly changed. It is partly that, perhaps, which has made the Services not make the fullest use they otherwise would have done of the money available. I know that £8 million seems a great deal of money—and it is; but it is not an enormous sum when it is part and parcel of £75 million. I accept fully what the noble Lord has said with regard to the importance of Service accommodation. It is a perfectly fair statement that there is much in certain single and married quarters which could be improved, and it is our intention that we should improve them.