| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Protection and Education of Children
Ms Margaret Hodge accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of short-notice and temporary teachers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 178.]
Ministry of Defence Housing
[Relevant document: Sixth Report from the Defence Committee on the future of the Married Quarters Estate, House of Commons Paper No. 424 of Session 1995-96.]
Madam Speaker:
I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I have to limit the speeches of Back Benchers to 10 minutes during the debate.
4.8 pm
Dr. David Clark (South Shields): I beg to move,
- That this House notes that the Government proposes to sell all Ministry of Defence married quarters in England and Wales, including those occupied by service families as well as empty properties, to developers; further notes that this will leave service tenants dependent on a declining number of properties leased back for 25 years; notes that most of the properties can be exchanged by the developer with a neutral arbitrator, rather than the tenants or the Ministry of Defence, deciding whether or not exchanges are permitted; notes that the arbitrator will have to base his decision on set criteria which are vaguely worded, so that developers with expert legal advice will be able progressively to cream off the best estates; notes that steep rises in rents and the downward ratchet on the number of homes leased back, embodied in the proposed scheme, will progressively reduce and break up married quarter estates; notes that, especially at a time of overstretch, and poor recruiting and retention, these estates play a vital role in maintaining the morale of service families and the maintenance of the regimental system; and calls on the Government to dispose of surplus estates, to provide homes for civilian families but, before selling any estate with service tenants, to consult the tenants on the estate, to report to Parliament on the outcome of the consultation and to table an affirmative resolution in both Houses.
As the Prime Minister reminded us recently, the sale
That date is significant, as it was Budget day--which gives the game away. The Government have never seriously attempted to deny the fact that the sale was not concerned with the long-term interests of our service men and women: the scheme was concocted solely to raise finances for the Treasury coffers--which the House will recall is the Secretary of State's old hunting ground.
One question that comes immediately to mind is: why has this scheme succeeded in interesting the financial markets when all the others have failed? The answer is
quite simple: this scheme is extremely financially rewarding for them, at the expense of the taxpayer and the service men and women and their families. The deal is breathtaking in its short-termism. The Government hope to raise about £1.5 billion by selling 58,000 forces family homes to a single purchaser--any one of four foreign financial institutions.
The MOD then plans to rent back the houses in order to meet our forces' housing requirements. However, it will retain responsibility for repairs, maintenance and management of the estates. It has guaranteed the purchaser market-based rents on shorthold tenancies and sweeteners far in excess of the money invested. Well within a decade, the speculators will have got back their cash and more, and will also own all defence married quarters and the associated land. The MOD gets to keep all the responsibility and none of the power over how the estate is run--all the bills and none of the proceeds from the estate.
They are the facts as the House and our forces' families know them to be. What devil lurks in the detail of the scheme, which the MOD has consistently refused to disclose to hon. Members or to service families? Instead of allaying the very real concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House and of service families, the MOD's obsessive secrecy has increased them. We know where the details are, but we are not allowed to see the prospectus.
The Government's lack of confidence in the plans is so great that they have refused numerous requests to see the "Married Quarters Estate Information Memorandum". In the past three weeks, representations have been made to me by a number of parties who have a financial stake in the sell-off. As a result of those meetings, I now understand why the scheme is so attractive to them--indeed, it is widely known as the "goldmine of the decade".
Under the terms of the contract as set out in the "Married Quarters Estate Information Memorandum", the MOD will transfer 58,400 houses to the purchaser. Some 2,700 of them--the surplus estate--will be disposed of immediately by the purchaser for a quick profit. The remaining 55,700 houses--the retained estate--will be transferred to the purchaser on 999-year leases, with breaks every 25 years, and rented back by the MOD.
The MOD will have to pay a guaranteed sum to the purchaser in order to rent the properties back. The sum will run into tens of millions of pounds every year; for the first year, the figure will be roughly £112 million. Over 25 years, that annual guaranteed payment alone will amount to many times more than the £1.5 billion to be raised from the sale. Market-rate rent rises will add to the sum to be paid by the MOD, while the purchaser will enjoy the attractive bonus of receiving progressively more empty houses, with which he can do what he chooses.
The key is the 25-year period. Under the terms of the 25-year master agreement, there is a guaranteed release of further units. As well as the 2,700 surplus houses to be sold immediately by the purchaser, the MOD has promised to release further units each year. The first 695 family homes must be released within two years, with a minimum of 2,780 within five years, and a minimum of 13,360 will be released over the 25 years. That represents a quarter of the entire estate as it stands today. I can only
assume that such a drastic cut in the size of the estate reflects the Government's plans further to reduce the strength of our armed forces.
Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham):
The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that the MOD housing estate has been the subject of Public Accounts Committee recommendations for at least 10 years. At no time during that period have there been fewer than 12,000 empty homes, and at times the total has reached 15,000. Can the hon. Gentleman really defend such a state of affairs?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
It is this Tory Government.
Sir Peter Hordern:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that that was the case sone years back, into the Labour Government as well. It has been the most disgraceful and incompetent performance for many years, and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) seems to want to perpetuate it. I can only tell him that the figures that he is now releasing do not even begin to match the number of homes on the MOD housing estate that have remained vacant for probably a quarter of a century and more.
Dr. Clark:
I cannot accept responsibility for the mismanagement of Army houses over the past 18 years. I must point out that it is possible to sell off the houses without this financial rip-off of a scheme.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Clark:
No, I must press on. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and I said that I would be as brief as I could.
Let me list one or two of the other benefits gained by the lucky purchaser. An aspect of the sale that has received considerable attention is the site exchange option, which provides the purchaser with the right to require the MOD to hand over properties in exchange for substitute sites. In a desperate attempt to placate service families, the MOD introduced a number of vaguely worded criteria that must be met by the substitute sites, relating to, for instance, travel-to-work time, suitability and standard of dwellings, security considerations and prime rates. Importantly, the criteria do not include access to employment for dependants of service personnel, which concerns service families very much.
That means that there is no guarantee for the families. The MOD has lost control of the transfer. If there is a dispute between the MOD and the purchaser, it will go to an arbitrator who will make the final decision. The military needs of this country will not be the criterion on which that decision is made. That directly contradicts the Prime Minister's assurance, given to the leader of the Labour party:
"has been under consideration for a number of years".--[Official Report, 25 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 149.]
The Secretary of State's immediate predecessor wasted £5 million on financial advisers in an abortive attempt to sell off the houses. On 28 November 1995, the present Secretary of State announced out of the blue his master plan.
"It will not mean service personnel being moved against their will."--[Official Report, 25 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 148.]
He was wrong, and we know that he was wrong, because the Minister of State for Defence Procurement told us later that, under the terms of the contract, service families could be moved against their will, but would be forced to do so only if comparable accommodation was offered. What is comparable is a matter for debate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |