28. Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Health if, as an experiment, he will allow houses to be built without licence in one city in order to test whether private enterprise produces better results than his controls.
§ Mr. BevanIf, as the Question suggests, the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the building of houses by private enterprise on an unrestricted scale, regardless of the building resources of the area and 551 the local authority's own programme, free from control of selling price, and to be disposed of without any test of priority of need for a house, it is not an experiment which I can countenance.
Brigadier ClarkeDoes the Minister realise that his controls and the planning, of his party have just about halved the building programme of this country?
§ Squadron-Leader BurdenIf the housing report recently issued indicts private enterprise, why should not the Minister welcome such a suggestion, to prove that the Government can build more cheaply than private enterprise?
§ Mr. BevanBecause the report of the Girdwood Committee has established no evidence whatever that houses built under licence are built either quicker or more cheaply than by local authorities.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ElliotWhat does the Minister mean by saying "established"? What the Girdwood Committee said was that they were aware that houses were built quicker, and there was no evidence one way or another to show they were cheaper.
§ Mr. BevanThe answer is that it is not true today. If local building contractors who have contracts to build houses for local authorities build houses under licence more cheaply, they are not doing their duty by their contracts with the local authorities.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ElliotThen the Minister withdraws his previous statement that the Girdwood Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then the Minister withdraws his previous statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—that the Girdwood Committee established—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. To ask the Minister to withdraw a statement is hardly asking for information.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ElliotI am asking, Sir, if the Minister has withdrawn it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No "]—there seems to be some dubiety about it. If I may say so, I think that would be a proper subject for a supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am asking— 552 [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am asking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Mr. Speaker is the guardian of Order and not bawling from hon. Members opposite. I am asking the Minister if he now withdraws the statement that the Girdwood Committee established the fact that private enterprise could not build cheaper than local authorities?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot continue this any longer.
§ Major Guy LloydOn a point of Order. Is it not a fact, Sir, that the Minister made a statement which my right hon. and gallant Friend asked him to confirm and he did not do so. The Minister said that it would not be true today. My right hon. and gallant Friend suggests that the statement is correct.
§ Mr. SpeakerThose are not points of Order. I cannot control what the Minister says. It has nothing to do with me.
29. Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Health if he will allow a more favourable percentage of licences to private builders in bomb-damaged towns so that those towns can be rebuilt more rapidly.
§ Mr. BevanI do not accept the implication in the latter part of the Question, and the first part does not therefore appear to arise.
Brigadier ClarkeDoes the Minister not realise that bomb-damaged towns like Portsmouth and Plymouth will never get rebuilt while he keeps his present building programme going?
§ Mr. BevanGreat progress has been made there, and no more progress would be made if licences were given because mostly all the building force is used up now.