HL Deb 21 March 1967 vol 281 cc663-6

2.50 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Service families, in addition to those already in the United Kingdom, it is anticipated will have to be housed in this country during the next three years, and what arrangements are now being made to buy or lease accommodation for them.]

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1967 (Cmnd. 3203), Chapter I of which states that 6,000 families will be brought back from overseas theatres, other than Germany, up to April 1, 1968, by which time withdrawals at present planned under the Defence Review will be substantially complete. These families will be provided with accommodation, as a result of the various measures described in paragraph 1 of Chapter X of the Statement, including purchase of houses in the private market which will yield, it is hoped, over 4,000 houses. No further withdrawals have yet been decided upon, although they are currently subject to consideration by Her Majesty's Government.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government are refusing to accept offers of houses or flats for leasing? And is this not a misguided policy, in view of the fact that in all probability an even greater number than 6,000 families will have to be rehoused?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am sorry: I did not hear the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, what I asked was: Is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government have refused a number of flats for leasing for the purpose of housing and rehousing families; and in view of the fact that as a result of the Government's policy a larger number of families than is at present contemplated will have to be rehoused, is it not a foolish action to turn away offers of accommodation at this particular time?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, the preference, and rightly so, of Her Majesty's Government is for permanent married quarters and for wholly owned houses. Most of those which are being negotiated upon at the moment are new houses, many of them in estates. It is much easier to buy them outright and to add them to the stock of new permanent married quarters, the numbers of which are being accelerated. It is difficult for me to give a definite answer as to how far the need will be met in relation to other possible withdrawals. I imagine that the noble Lord particularly had in mind Germany, on which no policy decision has yet been taken. But the position would appear to be that we hope to be able to meet this need. In so far as there is a shortfall, then of course we shall have to look at hirings, mobile homes and caravans. But I would assure the noble Lord that at the present time things are going extremely promisingly.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Answer he has given does not reinforce the fact that it would be much wiser to put a number of these surplus troops in Malta, where there is ample accommodation for the troops themselves and also ample accommodation for their wives and families. Would not that be a great economy for the Government and for the taxpayers of this country, and a great economic advantage to Malta?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I would remind the noble Earl that there has been some extension—some postponement of the run-down—in Malta, but the general answer to his question is, No, my Lords.

LORD THURLOW

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many caravans and tents will be required for the surplus married families?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I do not know that the noble Lord is asking his question in quite such a serious mood as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, No doubt the noble Lord has a special partiality for tents; but I do not think his question really warrants an answer.

LORD THURLOW

My Lords, on the contrary. I think it has already been said by the Government that caravans will be required; and when I visualise the number of families coming home from beautiful married quarters that have cost the British taxpayer a great deal of money, we on this side would like to know how many of them are to be put into caravans, which they will not much like.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, the noble Lord asked about tents, and that is why I did not take him seriously. If he will study the reply I have given, I think he will find that I have already answered his question.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, is it not a short-sighted policy to turn away the possibility of extra housing for married families now? Is not one of the reasons why we cannot remove troops from Germany that we have no accommodation for families in this country? In other words, the lack of accommodation here is preventing the Government withdrawing troops from Germany in a greater number than they are now doing.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, clearly the question of availability of accommodation here is a factor. This relates particularly to families, and I have indicated that current plans meet our current planned withdrawals; and there is contingency planning well ahead to match any possible withdrawals which may or may not arise in relation to Germany. I can only say to the noble Lord that I have noted his point, and I will inquire further into it. But the view is that there is not the need to go for leasing such as he has suggested.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, could the noble Lord elaborate on the "No" which he gave to my noble friend Lord Swinton? Can he explain what factors lie behind that calculation?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I think the answer to that is "No" also. If the noble Earl will rephrase his question I will try to answer it. The noble Earl asked me whether it would not be better, and in the interests of the taxpayer, to leave these families abroad where there are already married quarters, and I said that the answer is, No.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, the suggestion is to spend as much as you can!

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, as I understood it, my noble friend asked whether it would be cheaper to move some of these families into existing barrack accommodation and married quarters in Malta, rather than build new married quarters in this country. I should like to ask the noble Lord why it would not be cheaper.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Earl does not know the answer. But I do not want to get into a discussion on balance of payments questions, and the whole question of our policy of maintaining troops overseas. This arises out of the considered policy of the Government to repatriate a number of our troops from overseas and to reduce commitments which at the moment are a heavy charge on our balance of payments. I think we are going a little wide on this. If the noble Earl would care to put down a Question particularly directed to this point, I will endeavour to answer it.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, on the balance of payments point which the Minister has raised, would not this be but little adversely affected considering that Malta is in the sterling area, while many of these other places are not?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am surprised to discover how few noble Lords on that side of the House appear to be aware that sterling balances are a potential charge on our resources, and may affect the movements across the exchanges.