39. Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Works how many letters or other communications he has received concerning the recently announced increases in expenditure on Royal palaces; and how many of the letters support, and how many condemn, such increases.
§ Lord John HopeI have received two letters. One was critical of one item in the Estimates. The purport of the other was obscure.
Mr. HamiltonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that that kind of Answer will not get him very far? Is he aware that I have sent him 112 letters, 103 of which support the view that I take and only nine support the proposal that he is making? Does he think that it is a civilised priority that £50,000 should be spent on 1A, Kensington Palace when hundreds of thousands of people are living in slum conditions?
§ Lord John HopeConsidering all that the hon. Member has been saying about this matter, I should not have thought that just over 100 letters meant very much one way or the other. Indeed, as he himself has said, some of those letters he sent me were critical of himself, such as that which began with the words:
Better for you if you left the Queen alone.
Mr. HamiltonWhy did the Minister, in his original Answer, give inaccurate information? [Interruption.] Further, can he say why at this time £50,000 should be spent on one house when the Government are saying that they seek to provide National Assistance for people who need it most?
§ Lord John HopeI am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know which Question we are on. I understood that we were on Question No. 39, which is about letters which I have received, or are we on the next Question? I could not hear above all the shouting.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) was asking a further supplementary question to Question No. 39.
§ Lord John HopeThe answer to that part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question which I heard is that my original answer was not inaccurate.