§ Q4. Mr. Channonasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the conference of the Federation of Registered House Builders on 17th November, 1966, on the subject of housing represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir.
§ Mr. ChannonIn the light of the Minister of Housing's estimate in that 658 speech that the likely completion figure for 1967 would be below the Government's target of 400,000 houses in 1965, would the Prime Minister care to explain how he envisages the target figure of 500.000 being reached in 1970?
§ The Prime MinisterI envisage that target with great confidence and great optimism. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the 400,000 target was never adopted by us as a target. My right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government in January, in an election campaign, said:
Let me remind you that in our manifesto we expressly told the electorate, when presented with a Tory target of 400,000, that we did not intend to have an election auction on housing figures".And neither did we.
§ Mr. RipponDoes not the Prime Minister recall that on 27th March in Bradford he said that the Government would go on year by year exceeding the target of 380,000, and he added,
This is not a lightly given promise. It is a pledge."?Does he agree that there is now no prospect of exceding 380,000 houses this year or next year either? Will he give us a new pledge or even a lightly given promise?
§ The Prime MinisterI thought that we might hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Until we have the December figures, I shall not say what figure we shall have for this year. No one knows what the December figure will finally be. As regards what I said at Bradford, this is true; and, of course, we have been maintaining higher figures of achievement than our predecessors. I believe also—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his own considerable record in this, will now get away from the hustings and look at the facts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe also, as I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably does, that as a result of certain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am trying to get on, if I may be allowed. I believe that, as a result of certain economic developments recently—[HON. MEMBERS: "Developments?"] I should be out of order in talking about the export figures, 25 per cent. above what the Tories did two years ago, on which 659 no right hon. Gentleman has yet issued one of his statements.
I was saying to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that I believe that he would feel, as I do, that because of certain changes, particularly on credit, we could now look forward in the next year, if the proper response is made, to a very big—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It is too long because hon. Members seem to be anxious to help me out. I intend to get on—
§ Mr. FarrOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Quite rightly, you call hon. Members to order if they take too long in asking or answering supplementary questions. May I suggest that the Prime Minister has exceeded his fair ration of time for answering this question?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe length of the answer is dictated by the number of interruptions.
§ The Prime MinisterIf I may assume no further interruptions, I was saying to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that, as a result of certain changes in the credit position, the reintroduction of bridging finance and in other ways, we ought now to be able to discuss with the private building industry a very big boost in private building next year.
§ Mr. RipponDoes the pledge still stand, not lightly given and to be carried out whatever the developments or circumstances?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir; I have already said that the pledge still stands, and the economic developments to which I have drawn attention, which have not received the favourable comment of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—perhaps they are too favourable to the national interest to receive that comment—now provide a situation in which we could look forward to a big boost in private building.
§ Mr. HeathWhen, in the Prime Minister's view, will the number of houses built for owner-occupation rise again to the number built in 1964?
§ The Prime MinisterThe number of houses in course of construction is adequate to get a very big increase. One of the mystifying features is why more 660 have not been finished by private enterprise since they had already been started. I believe that next year, if there is the response from private industry—there is nothing now to stop it—we could see a very big increase in private building. In addition, there is the fact that public authority building is now far in excess of anything right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever achieved.
§ Mr. FreesonBearing in mind my right hon. Friend's last remark, that public authority building is now well in excess of what has been achieved hitherto over many years, may we have a close investigation and review of the whole technique of sponsoring and financing private house building for owner-occupation in this country?
§ The Prime MinisterA discussion and general review of that was the occasion of my right hon. Friend's speech which is the subject of this Question. There will be continuing discussions with private industry on all these matters. As regards public authority building, I think, speaking from memory, that we are now this year building more than double the amount the Conservative Government achieved after about eleven years in office.