§ Q3. Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he will now assume personal responsibility for increasing the housing output.
§ Q6. Mr. Huntasked the Prime Minister whether he will now assume direct responsibility for the housing drive.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mrs. ShortCould my right hon. Friend say how much longer he is prepared to allow Tory councils to deny to thousands of families a year the right to a decent home, since this is what is happening? Does he not think that he ought now to put the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Public Building and Works together to make one Ministry of Construction, to set up a house-building organisation and to get the houses built? Will my right hon. Friend please take action on this matter now?
§ The Prime MinisterThe proposal put forward by my hon. Friend I have replied to on a number of occasions——
§ Mrs. ShortBut they have all been bad replies.
§ The Prime MinisterBut it would not deal with the abysmal performance of certain Tory local councils. When one considers how these Tory local councils are cutting back on council housing, despite the fact that they are getting from this Government the most generous subsidies in history, one can only imagine what they would do if there were a Government carrying out the subsidy policy of the party opposite.
§ Mr. HuntBut has the Prime Minister calculated that, with housing completions running at a rate of 365,000 a year, 135,000 families a year are being deprived of homes categorically promised to them by the right hon. Gentleman at the last election, when he made his pledge of 500,000 homes a year? Has he not got those people on his conscience?
§ The Prime MinisterHaving dealt with this matter on a number of occasions, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that over 2 million houses have been built by this Government in five years——
§ The Prime MinisterI did answer the Question—if hon. Gentlemen opposite had stopped barracking they would have heard it—over 2 million houses, more than a quarter better than in the last five years of the Conservative Government, a Government who had already had eight years to gear themselves to the situation.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunThe Prime Minister has referred to those councils which, despite the great need, are slashing their house building programmes. Will the Government now use the available compulsory powers to refuse permission to councils to cut their lists in this way? If it involves local public inquiries so much the better, because it will spotlight the guilty councils.
§ The Prime MinisterThis will be a matter for the electors in those areas who will no doubt take into account not only the cutting of the housing programme, but also increased council house rents, which would have been even higher if it had not been for legislation by this Government restraining increases, legislation which was voted against by the party opposite.
§ Mr. PeytonIs it not unreasonably optimistic to hope that the Prime Minister will now try to deal with the point about the pledge which he made? He will recall that he distinguished it from "promise". It was a pledge to be carried out in all circumstances, no matter what the difficulties. [Interruption.] Instead of electioneering, or answering questions which have not been asked, will he deal with that point?
§ The Prime MinisterI have dealt with the point on a number of occasions in this House, and I did so when the Government had to take decisions following devaluation. I do not remember right hon. Gentlemen opposite coming to the House when they broke their pledge on the Rent Act.
§ Mr. HeathThe Prime Minister this afternoon has succeeded in producing a greater string of inaccuracies, to use a polite word, than even he has been able to produce before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Will he kindly give the reference in the alleged Conservative manifesto 201 which said that no legislation about rents would be introduced and which he has so often quoted? Will he also give a reference to the question which the late Mr. Bevan was supposed to have asked? Secondly, it is true that the House is being unfair in blaming the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—for not carrying through his solemn election pledge of 500,000 houses, because he broke that pledge, as he says, after devaluation, when he announced that the Government would build 483,500 houses. Will he now explain why——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Noise does not help at all.
§ Mr. HeathWill he now explain why the Government have not succeeded in building 483,500 houses but only 365,000 since he gave his last pledge?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the first question, it was not in the Tory manifesto [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not say that it was in the Tory manifesto. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did."] I said that it was a statement in the election and that it was in answer to a question by Aneurin Bevan. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to deny that. It was a question by Aneurin Bevan and it was officially denied by the Tory Party at the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who by?"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Again, noise does not help.
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman wants to deny it, the records can be searched on this matter. [Interruption.] With regard to the second question, I stated the position after devaluation. I did not say how many houses would be built as a result. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that at that time we could not have foreseen what the Tory councils would do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—nor could we have foreseen that a Tory housing spokesman would chide Tory councils for building too many. But with regard to the figures he has quoted, the Tories in 13 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not again."] —exceed it in only one year, when they were setting the stage for the election and for an £800 million deficit.
§ Mr. CrawshawWould my right hon. Friend not agree that, despite generous Government help, the building of council houses imposes a tremendous burden on local rates and therefore the housing programme becomes a party political cockpit? Has not the time now arrived when this should be a rate imposed across the country so that the houses can be built with the rate burden being shared equally with those areas which do not have the burden of building these houses?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is on a good point. That is why I have given priority to those areas where these problems are greatest. But when right hon. Gentlemen opposite say they will cut the housing subsidy by £100 million, that must mean a substantial reduction in the number of houses built by local authorities.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Prime Minister aware that his own Minister of Housing —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—has never been able to deny that the record of such Labour councils as still exist is far worse than that of Conservative councils in this period? The reason is plain enough. It is difficult for local authorities with high interest rates—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Some Members on both sides of the House do not like to hear what they disagree with.
§ Mr. Joseph SlaterOn a point of order. During my 20 years as a Member of this House, I have never known so much latitude granted to a Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in asking a question and being given permission by the Chair to do so at such length. Is it not time that this was stopped?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Chair gives both latitude and longitude to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition.
§ Mr. William HamiltonOn a point of order.
§ Dame Irene WardOn a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. With all the good will in the world, I can only take 203 one point of order at a time. Mr. William Hamilton, point of order.
§ Mr. William HamiltonFurther to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Joseph Slater). I have previously made the same point but, having listened to the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), may I withdraw my opposition and encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to call the right hon. Gentleman more often?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That, indeed, is a left-handed compliment.
§ Dame Irene WardOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In all the time that I have been in the House of Commons I have never heard a Prime Minister take so long answering his rotten—[Interruption.]—giving such rotten replies to questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is clear that the two points of order cancel each other out.
§ Mr. LubbockOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker. On one or two other occasions you have deprecated the raising of points of order during the Prime Minister's Question time, because it prevents other hon. Members who have later Questions from getting them answered. I raise this point with you only because the hour of 3.30 is past. Will not you remind hon. Members once again that, by doing this, right hon. and hon. Members who have not got Questions of their own on the Order Paper are being extremely selfish in depriving their colleagues of their opportunity?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has put eloquently what I have said on previous occasions, that raising points of order during Question Time costs someone a Question which he had reason to expect that he would ask.
§ Mr. HeathOn the question of subsidies, will the Prime Minister recognise that what this side of the House has urged is that the subsidies should be renegotiated so that local authority housing is concentrated on those in need, namely, the elderly, the disabled, and those who are not able to pay a fair 204 rent, that those who can pay a fair rent should do so, and that those who cannot should have rent rebates? That is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's own Secretary of State for Social Security. When will he recognise that and stop misrepresenting the facts?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman has put some four or five questions to me in the last few minutes. The answer to the first one is, "No, Sir". The answer to his point about subsidies is this. While I notice his hysterical comment—and it is very easy to get him hysterical these days, I have noticed—that we increased interest rates to penalise Tory councils, the right hon. Gentleman, apart from his presumed knowledge of world interest rates, should recognise that in subsidies to the large local authorities we are now producing something like double what his Government did when they went out of office. Against their £67 million in their last year, which was a peak for them, we have now been providing £131 million.
With regard to the questions which show the right hon. Gentleman's sensitivity about Tory housing policy, the right hon. Gentleman no doubt will have seen——
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonToo long, and too many election speeches.
§ The Prime MinisterI am replying to some at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt will have seen the answers given a week last Friday showing for each major city what it would mean for council house rents if the policy that he is currently touting round the country were carried out. There would be inordinate increases in his housing policy.
With regard to his question about those in special need, we have done more for each of the categories that he mentioned than his Government ever did. It is clear from what he and his hon. Friend the Shadow Minister have said that they would provide no subsidies for general housing need, that they are committed to reducing our £130 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am replying to a speech in the form of about a hundred supplementaries asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Having pledged themselves to reduce housing subsidies from 205 £130 million to £30 million, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can only be proposing inordinate increases in council house rents which we shall resist.
§ Mr. WyattOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that Questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may be dealt with more expeditiously, could not we have a quarter of an hour on Mondays and Wednesdays for electioneering, and could not we have injury time for points of order during Questions to my right hon. Friend?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman's first point is a political one. His second point about injury time has already been suggested to the Chair. I have no power to arrange for injury time. Knowing the House as I do, I think that, if the House arranged for injury time, there would be more injuries.