HC Deb 13 December 1955 vol 547 cc980-3
15. Mr. Collins

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the names of associations of local authorities from whom he has received communications criticising or protesting against the proposals in the Housing Subsidies Bill: and the number of individual local authorities from whom he has received similar representations.

Mr. Sandys

The Association of Municipal Corporation, the Urban District Councils' Association, the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, and 71 local authorities.

Mr. Collins

Is the Minister aware that the list which he has read included the most important and responsible authorities representing local government in this country? In view of their criticisms and of the fact that the South-Western Executive of the National Housing Council, a non-political body, referred last week to the housing subsidy cut as vicious, will he not reconsider his policy, stand up to the Treasury, if necessary, and insist on providing, through subsidies, housing for people in need?

Mr. Sandys

It would have been too much to expect that local authorities would welcome a reduction in payments from the Exchequer.

Mr. Gibson

Is it not a fact that those people who have protested about the Bill are those who know most about housing and the need for additional houses? Surely the Minister cannot ignore such a responsible and definite opinion?

Mr. Sandys

I have always gathered that the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) was the fellow who knew most about housing.

Hon. Members

Cheap and childish.

29. Mr. E. Fletcher

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations he has received from the Islington Borough Council as to the effect of the Housing Subsidies Bill on the Borough of Islington.

Mr. Sandys

I am asking the borough council, if it sees no objection, to send the hon. Member a copy of its letter to me.

Mr. Fletcher

I am sure that the council has no objection, but will the Minister deal with its complaint of his refusal to designate requisitioned premises as unsatisfactory housing accommodation, bearing in mind that that will result in a consequent loss of subsidy and render the already existing housing problem of the local authority almost intolerable?

Mr. Sandys

I think that goes a long way from the Question. I certainly, naturally, give most sympathetic consideration to all suggestions put to me by local authorities.

Mr. S. Silverman

Arising out of his original Answer, will the right hon.

Gentleman bear in mind that when a Question about representations made to him appears on the Order Paper for oral answer it is not a courteous Answer to say that the matter can be dealt with in such a way that only he and my hon. Friend will know what the representations were? Once the matter is on the Order Paper, we all have an interest in it and we would like to know about it.

Mr. Sandys

I assumed that the hon. Member was genuinely seeking information and that the best way of giving it to him was to ensure that he got a complete copy of the letter to which he referred.

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order. In his answer to my question, the Minister said that he thought my hon. Friend was genuinely asking for information. That seems to be a rather patronising way of putting it. When Questions are put upon the Order Paper, is it not the right of the House to know what Answer the Minister is giving, if he chooses to give one?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that that is necessarily so. If an hon. Member asks for his own information, it is for the hon. Member to say whether there should be publication. It does not seem to me to be a matter which raises a question of order.

Mr. Fletcher

Surely, if any hon. Member puts down a Question asking for information, he is asking not only for his own information, but for the information of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker

if there is a supplementary question asking for publication of the letter, that is another thing. I see nothing fundamentally wrong or out of order in the answer given by the Minister. He said that he would ask his correspondent whether he could transmit the letter. That is only proper, and I do not see anything wrong with it.

Mr. Lewis

Further to that point of order. If I wanted now to put this Question on the Order Paper, I should be barred from doing so because allegedly the Question has been answered. If an hon. Member is really interested in wanting to know what has happened in regard to, say, Islington compared with his own borough, is it right for the Minister to preclude him from knowing the facts by dodging the Question?

Mr. Speaker

For many years I have heard Ministers say, "I am making inquiries into this matter and will write to the hon. Member." That is a frequent answer, and I see nothing at all wrong with this. There is no point of order in it.

Mr. Silverman

May I raise another point of order and ask you, Mr. Speaker, for guidance as to how the House and Members who put Questions on the Order Paper and then ask supplementary questions on them can be protected from the habit of this particular Minister of treating questioners and the House with cheap sneers and studied contempt?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think these observations should be made. I do not see anything wrong in this method of answering a Question. It has always been done by Ministers of all parties, and there is nothing different in it. We must get on with Questions and not be unfair to other hon. Members. Mr. Swingler.

Mr. Lewis

Further to that point of order. What safeguard is there, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members against Ministers who develop this practice and who go to the extent of answering Questions by saying that they will write to the hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker

That is not generally done. Every Question must stand on its merits. I see nothing wrong with what has been done.