§ Q1. Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the Government's review of expenditure home and overseas; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House on Tuesday last.—[Vol. 756, c. 1577–93.]
§ Mr. RobertsEvents have, of course, caught up with this Question, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who welcome the cuts in defence are surprised and disappointed that the Government did not take advantage of this opportunity to bring about a rapid saving of many millions of pounds by 1946 bringing our troops home from Germany?
§ The Prime MinisterEvents have, in fact, got ahead of this Question. We are in the middle of a debate on this matter, and this, together with all other aspects of the defence proposals, can be discussed more fully during the debate.
§ Mr. G. CampbellCan the right hon. Gentleman say how much, if any, of the cuts recently announced has been made in the Polaris programme?
§ The Prime MinisterDoes the hon. Gentleman mean how many of the cuts announced on Tuesday apply to Polaris?
§ Mr. CampbellYes.
§ The Prime MinisterAs far as I am aware, there is no change in that programme, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is under contract to give the House a fuller account of the exact working out in terms of expenditure both in manpower and equipment.
§ Mr. HefferWould not my right hon. Friend agree that it might have been better to have cut down the regional employment premium rather than attack the social services, particularly in relation to prescription charges?
§ The Prime MinisterWe are in the middle of the debate. This is one of the main themes of it, and will no doubt continue to be so. My hon. Friend and I both represent one of the development areas where the position is rapidly improving, and it would be wrong to conclude that there was not great urgency in dealing with the problems of development areas as a whole, most of which need more help than Merseyside.
§ Mr. BarnettIs not there a great danger of a myth developing that our economic troubles are all caused by excessive public expenditure compared with that of our industrial competitors abroad? Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing the comparative figures of our industrial competitors to show clearly that our rate of public expenditure is not too bad?
§ The Prime MinisterI shall be glad to consider trying to get meaningful figures on that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend might like to put down a Question 1947 to the appropriate Minister in due course. We have to look at this week's package, as I have said a number of times, as part of a wider attack on our problems. The fact that we have come to this decision this week ought not to lend support to any myth based on this package alone.
§ Mr. LongdenIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of his hon. Friends, having achieved their first objective, namely, that we should decimate our forces and withdraw from our responsibilities and commitments east of Suez, are proceeding with their next, which is that we should withdraw from N.A.T.O.?
§ The Prime MinisterNo doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to make that speech at perhaps even greater length during the debate if he feels that it is relevant to the House reaching a decision, but we have made clear in the statement, and in subsequent speeches, that what is being done in defence is to concentrate still more on our obligations to N.A.T.O.
§ Q3. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint one Minister to co-ordinate the various Departmental cuts consequent upon devaluation and the handling of publicity arising therefrom.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. MartenWould not the Prime Minister reconsider that Answer? Does he recall that on television on 19th November—and again in the House on 22nd November—he gave a solemn undertaking to the nation that the housing programme would be safeguarded? Within two months he has cut the housing programme. Does not the country deserve an apology?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the question of the housing programme, in relation to targets the matter has been dealt with by my right hon. Friends and myself. There is a cut of 16,500 houses in each of the two years, as compared with the 500,000 target. It is our view that to this extent it will be that much more difficult to reach the 500,000 target; it will be 16,000 houses more difficult. But no one at this stage is capable of forecasting what will be the response of the private sector of house building in terms of making up the total. At the present time, despite many forecasts from hon. 1948 Members opposite that we would not do so, we have reached the 400,000 target.
§ Mr. OgdenWill my right hon. Friend confirm that areas such as Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham—the priority areas—will be exempted from any cuts in the housing programme for slum clearance purposes?
§ The Prime MinisterI said in my statement that priority areas—and this applies to England and Wales, and Scotland—both in respect of overcrowding and slum clearance proposals will be able to have their requirements fully met.
§ Mr. MaudlingAs this Question refers to co-ordination, will the Prime Minister say who will co-ordinate the statement made by the Chancellor yesterday, that the aim of 500,000 houses by 1970 must be adjusted, with his own explicit pledge in March, 1966, in Bradford that this was an aim from which in no circumstances, however adverse, the Government would ever be deflected?
§ The Prime MinisterIt was co-ordinated yesterday by my right hon. Friend's statement. As far as the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is concerned, obviously when we have got the country in a position— [Laughter.]—perhaps we can have slightly more co-operation and a little less frivolity from hon. Members opposite in regard to this matter—then will be the time to reinstitute the priorities upon which the whole House is agreed.