3.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Address, at the end, to add: but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech makes no reference to the grievous and growing distress in town and country arising out of the continuing decline in the number of new houses built each year and contains no indication that the Government intend to take more effective measures to deal with the situation. When the House concluded its business last week the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Craddock) had delivered his maiden speech. By a singular piece of misfortune he had been only two days in the last House before he had to stand for election again. He delivered his maiden speech with great agreement to all sides, and it was a valuable contribution to our Debate. We shall be glad to hear from him again, all the more so since he felt it necessary to touch upon the subject which the House is about to Debate.

Our Amendment on this subject cannot be thought by any stretch of imagination to be either factious or fractious. It brings in the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, who I understand is to speak in this Debate. We are glad to see that he is completely over his recent chill and has reappeared with what I hope without offence one might describe as his usual rude health. I am sure he will agree that the Debate on the Address can scarcely relate to a more important subject. Indeed, we need to go no further than the testimony of many of the Government speakers themselves. It was evident at Question time today, and it has been evident in several of the speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

The hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) in one of the very first speeches delivered in this Parliament said: I am rather dismayed that there is no specific reference in the Gracious Speech to our main human problem in Scotland, and that is the specific problem of the lack of housing … I am aware that the problem is felt in Britain as well, in the rural areas as well as in the industrial areas. Consequently, we should have unanimity on both sides of the House in examining the ways and means of how best to tackle the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 100.] That opportunity we propose to afford him.

Mr. Moeran (Bedfordshire, South)

On a point of Order. I am the Member for Bedfordshire, South, and I have not yet made my maiden speech.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

It is unusual for those of us from north of the Border, particularly from Clydeside, to be accused of not sounding the consonant "r," but if I did not sound it sufficiently strongly, let me repeat it was Bradford, South, to which I referred.

The Minister will also agree with our action, because on 14th of July, 1948, when we debated housing, he said: The Opposition are very naughty. Why have they not had a Debate before? Really, this is shocking neglect on the part of the Opposition. It is a year since we had a Debate on housing, and we have had it now only because the Opposition have been taunted into it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July,. 1948; Vol. 453, c. 1313.] We try to oblige, and I take it that the Minister in the course of this Debate is going to announce some substantial concessions following the admirable example of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. If not I can promise him that he will hear more of this subject, and he will have many other opportunities of making his voice heard.

The size and the urgency of the problem are matters on which there will be little dispute. On the size of it, the Minister last week, by a judicious—from his point of view—written answer, explained that it would be misleading to publish any figures of the waiting lists centrally as the result of the requests made to local authorities. He said that preliminary consultations with the associations of local authorities are to be undertaken to decide the form that the new survey would take. All this will take a considerable time, let us say till after the next General Election. How rash it was in these circumstances—by his own statement, he is little apprised of the size of the problem—to give the pledge he did in this House on 16th March, 1949: We are now within sight of providing for every separate family the comfort and privacy of a separate household."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 16th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2124.] Moses the prophet saw the promised land, but it is not on record that he ever entered into it. The 40 years in the wilderness is certainly no longer than, by the testimony of some hon. Members opposite, will be required to work off the waiting lists in some of the great cities. The hon. Member for Lady-wood (Mr. Yates) suggested that even double the present rate of housing would mean 30 years before the waiting lists in Birmingham were worked off. There is no sign of double the present rate of housing. In fact, it is rather declining, and it is to that aspect of the situation that we desire to direct the attention of the House this afternoon.

It is not necessary to have an inquiry to ascertain what we all know, which is that the problem is urgent and poignant. I do not think that justice is done in the estimates of the White Paper drawn up by the predecessors of this Government, who were, after all, largely this Government themselves. The Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council were equally responsible for the White Paper with any other hon. or right hon. Member. However, I am glad to note that the Minister made it clear that the White Paper envisaged not 750,000 houses, as has been so often stated, but 1,250,000. To this figure has to be added an allowance for a further 400,000 houses, making a total of 1,650,000 houses. These in their turn, were under-estimates. The Scottish Committee on housing, in its report for 1945, gave the figure for Scotland alone as some 470,000 houses. No doubt hon. Members will wish to give lists for their own areas. Therefore, we must compare like with like.

If the Minister wishes, he can have figures which I have compiled; and I have no doubt that other figures will be supplied to him in the course of the Debate. I only wish to give him the figures for Glasgow. In 1945, the waiting list in Glasgow was 86,000. In 1950, the waiting list had risen to 94,300. That does not look as if rapid progress were being made in the fulfilment of the pledge which he gave to the House on 16th March.

How do the Government propose to deal with this problem? They propose to deal with it by a heavy cut in housing. That is the proposal which has to be debated and voted upon in the earliest days of this Parliament. It is the proposal which we shall ask the House tonight to resist. We shall resist it ourselves, and we shall ask every Member in every quarter of the House to resist this proposal for a further cut in housing. That is what we are discussing today and that is what we are voting upon tonight. Those who vote against our Amendment are voting for a cut in housing.

This is the only occasion on which such a proposal can properly be debated. It is a Government decision which involves many Ministers, I do not deny. It is not the sole responsibility of the Minister of Health. It is the Government whom we indict tonight, and it is a Government decision which we desire to ask the House to overturn. It is a decision involving the Ministry of Supply as well as the Ministry of Finance. It involves the authority of the head of the Government himself. This is the time when it has to be debated. Why? Because building weather is now beginning. This is the time when the fine building weather runs. The decision was an administrative one by the Government. It can be altered by the Government. What is done tonight will affect the whole construction problem for the rest of this year. Tonight it can be speeded up. The Government ask for retardation, but we ask for acceleration. We cannot believe that the House will refuse our demand. Those who do so will take upon themselves a heavy responsibility.

The fall begins already to be manifest. In October, 1948, the houses constructed were 19,741, but in October, 1949, they were 16,433. In November, 1948, the houses completed were 18,866. In November, 1949, they were 16,492.

In December, 1948, the houses completed were 19,321. In December, 1949, they were 17,436. It is that process which is lengthening the waiting lists, and of which we ask the House to disapprove. This is a cut upon a cut.

The round number of permanent houses produced in the United Kingdom in 1948 was 228,000. The round number produced in the United Kingdom in 1949 was 198,000. The intended number for 1950, according to the statement of the Government, is 175,000. That is a fall, a cut, in two years of between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. That is what we mean by the words "continuing decline in the number of houses built each year." That is the position which the Government have to justify here tonight.

It will, of course, be felt both in the rural areas and in the urban areas, but as the problem is larger in scale in the urban areas it will be felt more bitterly there. Those of us who represent urban areas know well how bitterly that problem is felt, and we know well how the dwellers in those areas will resent a decision by this House that facilities for solving that problem should be diminished. The figure of 175,000 is far less than, is nearly half, what have been built before the war in the days of Tory misrule. The Government say: "All that is unfair. There has been a war." Had there not been a war in 1947? Had there not been a war in 1948? We do not ask them to compare their record with ours.—our achievement is so much better as to be beyond comparison. We ask them to compare themselves with themselves. How do they justify falling so far below their own figure?

Of course we shall be told, as we were told by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) and others, that one must compare the post-war records of each Government. We are perfectly willing to take on the Government on that also. After the 1914–18 War the Government of the day inherited a machine which, under the Liberal-Labour Coalition of the day had been allowed to run down to practically nothing. It is unjust perhaps to call it a Liberal-Labour Coalition. Let us say that it was a Liberal Government supported with singular faithfulness by the Labour Members of the day, and in whose Cabinet a former Labour Member, Mr. Burns, played a nominal part. [An HON. MEMBER: "So did the Opposition."] I am not denying that there are episodes in his past about which we do not entirely agree.

However, let me come to the point with which we are dealing, that is to say, the action taken by the Government of which my right hon. Friend was an honoured Member after the 1914–18 war. In two years we brought up the number of houses to within 4,000 of the number which were being built before the war. [Laughter.] Yes, and hon. Members are still 180,000 behind the numbers which were built by us before the war.

An Hon. Member

We had some air raids in the last war.

Mrs. Middleton (Plymouth, Sutton)

rose—

Hon. Members

Give way.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

No, but I will give hon. Members a figure in which they and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will be interested. The figure which the Government propose is only 30,000 houses a year more than were being built during the Boer War. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Crimea?"] I think they beat the Crimea, but not by very much. This is a figure which we are asked by the Government to accept as progress—30,000 above the Boer War. That is the figure which the Government ask us to vote tonight, and that is the figure which we say is a derisory figure and which we ask the House to reject tonight with contumely.

We were building in the five years from 1900 to 1905 145,000 houses a year and the population of Great Britain was then some 37 million. Today the population is 11 million more, 48½ million, and the Government ask that only 30,000 a year more should be regarded as adequate to deal with that increased population. Is it to be wondered at that the waiting lists grow? Is it to be wondered at that complaint is widespread? Is it to wondered at that from every quarter—from hon. Members' own supporters—comes the request that a new Minister with new drive should be secured to deal with this problem?

There is no need to enter into recondite explanations about extra marriages, people living longer, less unemployment. Eleven million more people and 30,000 more houses to deal with them! That is the Government programme. We do not need to look far to find the reason for the shortage, the admitted shortage, in the housing provision for the people. Does the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd-George) think that a justifiable figure? Does the noble Lady think that her father would have accepted that position? Does she think that in the days of the Boer War—

Mr. Porter (Leeds, Central)

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in order in addressing direct questions to another hon. Member and not addressing himself to you, Sir?

Mr. Speaker

I was not aware of that. I thought that the right hon. and gallant Member was addressing the Chair.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I think the ears of the hon. Member must have deceived him or he would have heard quite clearly that that question was addressed through the Chair, as questions can and should be addressed by any hon. Member of the House—as I am addressing questions to the Minister through the Chair, questions to which we shall demand an answer from the Minister.

Lady Megan Lloyd George (Anglesey)

The answer that I would make to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is that my father was an exception to most rules, and that I do not think he would have accepted either the figure of the present Government or the figure which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Government, if it were in, would be likely to achieve.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

It has been said by a friend of mine that women have a very poor grasp of excuses, but that does not apply to the noble Lady. The House, and indeed, the noble Lady, has often treated the Minister with indulgence in the hope that some of those promises were about to be fulfilled. The noble Lady in 1948 made many excuses for the Minister—

Lady Megan Lloyd George indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

She said then: The programme has come out of the capital investment cuts, in the main, unscratched and unscathed … The programme has started to gather speed … The Minister did not disabuse her mind on that occasion. Yet since then it has fallen by 50,000 a year. She said: To use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, … this is the end of the beginning, and I would add that it is a good beginning and a sound beginning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 1229 and 1232.] Is it a good beginning and a sound beginning to have a figure which has diminished by nearly 50,000 houses a year which is showing the fall I have just quoted to the House, which is intended to show a further fall by the programme of the Government itself? Is that a good beginning or a sound beginning? I shall leave the Minister to justify that statement.

These are the figures for new construction of permanent houses, but the situation is worse than those figures show. These figures have been reinforced, not only by a great programme of temporary houses of one kind or another, but by a large amount of repairs and conversions. In 1945, 9,799 unoccupied war-damaged houses were repaired. In 1949 only 4,844 were repaired. The creation of new flats and dwellings by repairing old houses is also running out as a source of supply. Some 47,000 dwellings came from that source in 1947, 28,000 in 1948, 14,784 in 1949. And remember, houses do not stand still. If they are not maintained, they begin to fall down. During our administration 1,000 people a day were being moved out of the slums. That has stopped. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh at the thought of slum dwellers being moved out of the slums. The slum dwellers do not laugh at it, neither will the House, and neither will they when they see the action of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite tonight.

Two million houses in Britain today are more than one hundred years old. [An HON. MEMBER: "You built them."] What other operatives have to operate with so much obsolete plant? The housewife has been singled out by the Government for a cut in her working plant of nearly double that of anyone else. The over-all cut in capital expenditure is a cut of some 7 per cent.; the overall cut on housing is 16 per cent. What is it that the Minister and the Government consider is of a greater priority than housing? What is the plant which more vehemently requires renewing? We were renewing that plant at the rate of 1,000 houses a day before the war. We on this side have no reason to be ashamed of our housing record. Let the Government look to it. Their housing record already stands in grave jeopardy, and if the programme of cuts, which is all that is before the House, is continued, it will stand in graver jeopardy still.

Meanwhile, the labour force which was sufficient to produce that great programme of housing is still maintained. The labour force which produced 1,000 houses a day, as well as schools, hospitals and other buildings, is still maintained. In 1939 there were roughly one million men in housing; in June 1948, as in June, 1949, the number of people employed in housing was still one million. By the end of that time the state of full employment existed in the key trades of the bricklayers and the plasterers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. The number of unemployed plasterers in Scotland, for instance, in 1938 was registered at under 100. Today, with full employment, it is 61. Of course, a certain number of people change their jobs, but the key trades of the bricklayers and plasterers were in the past very highly employed. Indeed, if they were not, would it not be all the more astonishing that we could build 367,000 houses a year and maintain all the other capital development of the country with the same forces—[Interruption]—with the same forces as today and half of them unemployed? It would be an even greater achievement than we are asking the House to give us credit for doing.

Mr. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, according to the official figures, from 1921, the earliest on record, until 1939 there were never fewer than 86,000 unemployed building trade workers and as many as nearly 250,000 for many of those years?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

The hon. Member ought to know better than that. One of his first actions in coming into the House was to introduce a Private Members' Bill, with Sir Oswald Mosley, for an increase in the construction of houses.

Mr. McGovern

On a point of Order. A false statement has been made. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of Order."] False information has been given and a false statement made. In 1930 I introduced a Bill to provide £500 million for the building of houses. It was a Private Member's Bill and had nothing to do with Sir Oswald Mosley; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman went into the Lobby against me.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

The hon. Member knows very well that he introduced the Bill because of the gross unemployment among building operatives at that time under the Labour Government. As for his association with Sir Oswald Mosley then and later, he will remember very well that he was associated with Sir Oswald Mosley's group when Sir Oswald Mosley resigned from office in this House—

Mr. McGovern

if you want trouble you can have it. Mr. Speaker, the only association I had with Sir Oswald Mosley was when he was a member of the Labour Party.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

The important point is that the unemployment to which the hon. Member refers reached enormous heights under the Labour Government, that the unemployment was gradually worn down under the National Government [Interruption]. Yes—and that before the outbreak of war, in the key trades, we had got it far below what the hon. Member and his friends desired in the introduction of the Bill to which I referred. The figure which the hon. Member gives is, of course, swollen by the inclusion of a great many men who were not in the key industries at all. A house cannot be painted if it has not been built; therefore, the key industries are the important ones. The hon. Member will know—and if he wants trouble he can have it too—that part of the shortage of housing in Scotland is due to the action of the building unions in Scotland who would not allow labour into those trades.

The difficulty is serious enough, heaven knows, to require the attention of all of us, and the careful attention of us this afternoon. That is why it is difficult to contain oneself, to refrain from indignation when the Government propose to cut housing and ask the sanction of this House to carry it out. There is, obviously, a maldeployment of labour; the labour is being badly applied. There is a shortage of material. These are the two excuses which the Government give for their failure in this matter. The Prime Minister today gave a statement that labour in Scotland is already fully employed. "Fully employed"—when the Laidlaw Committee in its Report says of Scotland that it takes three men to do what two men did before the war. There can be full employment—

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)

We are having it now.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

That may be. There may well be full employment without full production. The right hon. Gentleman will find a good deal of difficulty in justifying the demands which he is making upon the labour force compared with the output he is securing from them.

There are too few houses and they are costing too much. The reports of the Girdwood and the Laidlaw Committees are the most recent we have had, but no doubt there has been a speed-up since then. We ask the Minister to tell us how much it has been speeded up. I have no doubt that the figure that was given of 14 months for local authority house building has since been improved upon. It may be 11 months, or even less. Again, we wish to know. Prewar, it was often as low as six months. Has the figure been brought as low as that?

Those figures are, of course, reflected in the costs. The costs of a house nowadays are out of all proportion to what they were before the war. What is more, they have risen since the Minister first took charge of this matter. In 1946 the cost of a three-bedroomed house was estimated at £1,100; in 1947, £1,242; in 1949, £1,323. That is exclusive of land and so on. The all-in cost in 1949 was something like £1,500. The Chancellor's figures at the time of the cut were equivalent to £1,400. It was two and two-thirds as much for an exactly corresponding house in post-war as compared with pre-war. The Minister is wont to claim that these houses now being built are larger and more commodious and that, therefore, we are not comparing like with like. But, compare like with like exactly and we find a figure of two and two-thirds.

The excuse given by Ministers is timber. Timber, they say, is short. Timber, the Lord President of the Council said in his broadcast, was the only thing which was holding him back. He said: We are today building every single house that can be built. No Government could build more. He went on in a rather disingenuous manner to taunt Lewisham Borough Council for not building more houses, houses which he himself as a Cabinet Minister had forbidden them to build. Is it really true that timber is holding up the whole housing effort of this country? If so, what an indictment of the management of our affairs by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Even if all the extra timber had to be purchased in dollar areas, under £10 million would provide enough timber for another 100,000 houses.

Is the Minister going to assure us that it is impossible for the Government to obtain exchange to the extent of £10 million for the housing of the people of this country? That is a question which requires an answer. Even if it is impossible to obtain dollars to buy timber because of other priorities. It would be interesting to know what priority the Government place above this. Let them look at the soft currency countries, let them look to the Baltic countries. It is surely true that if some of the unrequited exports going to other areas went to the Baltic it would be possible to obtain a large supply of softwood from the Baltic countries.

Whatever the cause, it must be remedied. The country cannot continue with the housing allocation on these figures. The new allocations have spread dismay in all the local authorities, and I have telegrams and messages from everywhere requiring that something should be done. I have a telegram from Dundee saying: Housing conditions in Dundee require immediate alleviation, 495 families are squatting in condemned properties, many children in most undesirable environment, urge action now. That is from the Housing Convenor of Dundee Corporation. It is one of many instances which can be given. I say the Government cannot maintain the position under which they say we cannot afford even the sum of £10 million to procure the timber necessary to increase the housing programme in Great Britain. The difficulties before us are undoubtedly grave enough, but they can be met and should be met by the positive constructive action which we have repeatedly urged upon the Government.

First, let there be an ample supply of raw materials and, if necessary, let all our efforts be devoted to obtaining the materials which should be brought from abroad in ample supply, and to obtaining home produced materials in proper quantities as they are needed by the programme. Owing to these expansions and contractions very often when the houses were going up the output in the brickyards was going down, and often when the output in the brickyards was going up the numbers of houses were being cut.

Secondly, let the deployment of labour be more efficient. In that certainly the private builder, building for the private citizen, must be allowed to take a share. For the first time it is an offence, punishable by fine or imprisonment, for a man to try to build a house for himself or family in certain parts of this country. A great part of the housing was done for the private citizen by the private builder before and it could be done again. It is not just to say that houses built under those conditions were only built for wealthy people.

Whenever hon. Members say, "built for sale" they bring up the picture of some wealthy man putting down some vast sum of money, jumping the queue and getting ahead of poorer citizens. Yet, before the war, in 1939, a three-bedroomed house, semi-detached, could be bought for £40 down and 14s. a week for 25 years. Does anyone suggest that 14s. a week is an undue sum to pay for a house, especially when at the end of 25 years the house was the man's own instead of being the property of the local authority for ever and ever?

Does anyone suggest that it is a bad thing for a man to try to get a house for himself? Surely these figures for private enterprise could again be improved upon if the Minister even brought them back to what they were originally. That would be an improvement. If the Secretary of State for Scotland could bring them back to the figure allowed for many areas in England it would be an improvement. The private builder, building for the private citizen, produced a vast mass of houses and it was no disadvantage to the country that this vast mass of houses was produced without subsidy from the rates or subsidy from taxation.

The Minister's right hon. Friend in Scotland will not allow houses to be built for private citizens and the Minister has cut it down to a trickle. For a time he stopped it altogether. The result is that the lists are swollen by many people not necessarily desirous of taking a house, which will mean that citizens far worse off, those living in far worse housing conditions, will subsidise them, perhaps indefinitely, by large sums, in some cases by a pound a week. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt?

Mr. Bevan

Certainly, I wanted to ask if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would arrange that his right hon. Friend who winds up for the Opposition tonight, would give a firm figure from the Opposition of what they think should be the proportion between houses to be built for sale and to rent, because, in the last four years, we have had six different sets of figures.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

In the course of our numerous debates I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have learned better than that. As I have said time and again, let him make a start. We do not ask everything of him—we know he will be slow and hesitant in these matters—but let him make a start and first restore the figure to what it was originally. Then it can be extended—

Mr. Bevan

Would that be all right?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

The right hon. Gentleman is so eager to justify himself that he will not wait until the end of the sentence. He has a difficult enough task already before him to justify the cut in housing which is before the House of Commons tonight. We do not wish unnecessarily to complicate that task. All we say is that the private builder building for the private citizen has played and can yet play a great and useful part in housing, and that building directly for the private citizen, not necessarily for the local authority, is one of the oldest established traditions in the world, a tradition which the Labour Party are breaking at great cost to the country and with very little credit to themselves.

The re-deployment of labour by means of allowing the private builder to build for the private citizen will, we believe, speed up the process of housing. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] The hon. Member may not have been listening. Let him not intervene without listening. There has to be an adequate supply of timber, and that is available if the Government can find exchange for it; and if the Government cannot find £10 million of exchange it is a greater condemnation of themselves than has ever been uttered on this side of the House. Buy the raw material, produce the raw material, redeploy the labour and allow both the private builder building for the private citizen and the local authority to play a reasonable part in the production of houses. Let us make sure that we do not underestimate the initiative which the ordinary citizen of this country will develop if given a chance.

The Government ask for the Conservative policy on housing. We can give it in a single sentence. It is, "On to the sixth million, and let nothing stand between the citizens and the houses." We believe that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will set themselves that as a task, they will do better than coming before the House tonight and asking for a vote to cut house building to one of the lowest figures we have ever had in this country, and to cut it by 50,000 below what they themselves were building two years ago when we were closer to the end of the war.

4.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

I do not think that this House has ever been treated to such an ineffectual speech on this subject as it has heard today from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). We in this House, and indeed the country generally, might have expected, after the recent General Election, at least some clear indication of policy from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but instead we had a typical remark at the end of the speech to which we have just listened, full of synthetic spleen—a noteworthy remark that Conservative policy on housing could be expressed in a single sentence. He has certainly not been able to tell us much more about Conservative policy on housing this afternoon.

I should have thought that we and the country might at this time have expected a really clear elucidation of Conservative policy on housing in some detail because of the claims and misstatements that have been made in the country throughout the election period. I have before me the election address of my Conservative opponent, who also did not consider that housing policy required any lengthy statement. He did say that: We intend to reduce building controls on small houses, and loans up to £95 in every £100 will be available to help intending owners. That was at least some sort of statement, but we have not had even that from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I shall in a moment or two deal with this practical proposal towards helping to solve our housing problem. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has painted a picture of the serious housing position in the country, and every Member in this House must surely appreciate the very difficult circumstances in practically every large town in the country. One would have expected all of us to be at one in the aim of securing the alleviation of this problem as rapidly as possible.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has gone back a long way into past history in order to take credit for Conservative achievement. I particularly noted his great delight at the figures for house building in the early 1900s. There are a lot of those houses in my constituency, and it is not at all surprising that about 100 per cent. of their occupants vote Labour at elections. If that is the type of house building programme which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Conservative Party offer to this House and to this country today there is no question as to what answer they will get both from the House and from the country, because those jerry built private enterprise houses of the early 1900s are largely tumbling down to rack and ruin today and require a wholly disproportionate amount of materials to try to hold them up. Is that then the Conservative proposal for our consideration today?

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to express his sorrow at the way in which labour was distributed. I shall deal with that point in a moment or two. He expressed the view that houses were costing too much, though he made no reference whatever to the comparable increases in costs in other industries. Of course, he made a heavy attack upon the cut in the house building programme which was included in the White Paper submitted to the previous House of Commons some months ago. That is rather extraordinary. I do not at this moment wish to develop that point very far, but it is worth recalling that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been pressing vigorously for severe cuts in capital expenditure, and it comes ill from their mouths now to seek to secure a little party political advantage out of the most unhappily necessary cut which was recently imposed and which will only become effective next year.

It is right that at this time we should have some clear statement of facts about the housing situation. I shall, therefore, try to deal in a serious spirit, and not in the rather flamboyant manner of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with the real problems that confront us in this housing problem. Let me first make clear once again the basis for the consistent policy of the Government on housing since 1945. In the first place, it has been to allocate to building as much of the national resources as we can afford in the circumstances arising out of the war. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to dodge that issue. It is no use for them to try to pretend that there is only one demand upon those capital resources, because that is just not true.

Secondly, it has been our policy to ensure that those resources available for buildings are used in the first place for the most essential purposes, and that they are not wasted upon luxuries. We know, not only in this country, but in other countries abroad where the Conservative policy has been adopted, that there are not so many of those signs on vacant plots of land saying, "Site for luxury cinema," because they are being built—to the detriment of house building for the masses of ordinary people. Lastly, it has always been our policy to ensure that the resources available for housing are used to secure houses for those in greatest need.

Here we come to the clear issue with the Opposition. The only brief statement of policy we have had from the Opposition has been that the private house builder should be given greater scope in building houses for sale. That would obviously mean that there would be fewer, and not more, houses for those who need them to rent. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, it is still a fact that those who can afford to buy houses in this country—even with the assistance of low rates of interest from local authorities or from building societies—are in a comparatively privileged position as compared with the vast mass of people who just cannot afford the amounts involved. We occasionally hear from hon. Members opposite of cases where people cannot afford to pay the rents of local authority houses. Yet those are the people who, presumably, are to be asked to buy a house; to put down a sum of money on deposit and then pay the comparatively heavy charge for repayments and interest which would be involved. What a ludicrous position the Opposition are in.

I propose to devote some time to the facts of the situation. Since the end of the war we have built in Great Britain a total of additional homes, excluding Service camps and temporary huts and requisitioned properties, of 1,063,000, of which 638,000 are new permanent houses and 157,000 are temporary houses—[An HON. MEMBER: "Steel boxes."] If anyone talks about steel boxes they need only remember the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition, who unfortunately is not present at this moment, who conjured steel and other boxes out of his mind without trying to work out how he was to get the materials for them. That is a matter which should be remembered by my interrupter.

In addition to this building work, we have had war damage repairs carried out to some 775,000 houses. These are minor repairs which did not require whole rebuilding, but nevertheless took a very large part of the repair work needed in this country. We can estimate that those will be equivalent to something over 100,000 new houses. I think we should pay a tribute to the work done by local authorities up and down the country. We have published more information upon the work being done by local authorities in the matter of housing than any previous Government have ever done. We have done so in the hope of keeping up a good competitive spirit among local authorities, and that is something which I am sure hon. Members opposite would be pleased to encourage.

We are very glad to see, for example, that one urban district, which holds the trophy for the most houses built at the moment in relation to its population, has built one house for every 15 of its population. That is the most successful urban district council. It is invidious to pick out individual local authorities, because one knows the widely different circumstances of individual cases, but the figures shown by these local authorities prove clearly that there is nothing to prevent local authorities from going ahead with great developments in house building; and many of our authorities show by their figures that they can carry out immense programmes of house building to the great benefit of our people.

There is one further fact which I wish to bring to the attention of the House, and that is the proportion of house building in rural areas as against the urban areas. It has often been said that little attention has been paid to the rural areas. That is a very fair criticism to make of past Governments prior to the war. Indeed, they did precious little in the rural areas. But in the period ending 31st December, 1949, from the end of the war, the rural authorities in England and Wales have been responsible for 120,936 permanent houses; and other authorities have been responsible for some 437,000. That means, in relation to the population, that there have been more houses provided in rural areas than in the urban areas, which is a point of some importance in considering the problems in the rural areas and in the towns.

A frequent complaint which is made by hon. Members opposite is that the builders are not allowed to build. Well, of course, the immediate answer which occurs to one is, "What on earth have they been doing?" There has been a very small proportion of direct labour building taken over, and there, presumably, the private builder can claim that the work is being taken from him. The proportion of direct labour building is only about 7 per cent. of the houses built.

But what annoys hon. Members opposite is that the private builder is building on account of the local authorities, and there are strict controls and regulations over the amount of profits they can make. That is the real basis of the criticisms from hon. Members opposite.

Let us look at a typical case to see what is the demand for houses for purchase. I will take a case already mentioned, that of Birmingham. There we would willingly admit the seriousness of the housing situation, and we shall certainly do everything possible to assist in getting a better housing programme in Birmingham than has been possible recently. But what happened in Birmingham? I understand they sought to strengthen the case for increasing the proportion of privately built houses, from the proportion of one in five then existing, by inviting applications from those who wished to buy houses. They received applications from 6,000 persons. About 3,000 of those were on the waiting list of the local authority. But that waiting list comprises a total of something under 60,000 names.

That simply means that if we go by need there is no doubt at all that a ratio of one in five for private building for purchase is wildly out; that we are being far too generous to the private builder for purchase and we are not giving enough houses in proportion to those who need a house to rent. Therefore, let hon. Members opposite beware. This case no doubt is typical of many parts of the country where also there is no doubt whatever that the urgent need we have to meet is for more houses to rent.

Another point we must consider is that, if, indeed, it were true that there is some pool of labour available that is not being used at the moment and which should be brought into house building, then hon. Members opposite might have a better case to make. What again is the fact? The fact is that from the last figures we have, for 16th January, 1950, the total number of building and civil engineering workers in England and Wales unemployed at that date—a date when one might expect a comparatively high figure —was something like 35,000, of whom 10,000 were craftsmen.

That figure should be compared with the pre-war figure of December, 1938, of some 187,000 unemployed building and civil engineering workers. The total labour force in the building trade is somewhere about one million, which means, therefore, that the total unemployment at the latest date was just over 3 per cent. So far as craftsmen are concerned the figure was only about 1.7 per cent. at a time of the year when one would expect a comparatively high level of unemployment. That shows that there just is not available this general pool of workers to come into house building.

Let me take the case which has been made about the low rate of building from the present building force. It has been pointed out that, very roughly, the total labour force in the building and civil engineering trades was about the same pre-war, in 1938, as it is today. It has been argued by hon. Members opposite that considerably fewer houses are being built today with the same labour. Of course, to some extent that is perfectly true because, thank heaven, we are building better houses. We are building houses of a much higher standard than those approved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have no wish to go back to the standards of those days. We must maintain much higher standards which we consider necessary today.

Mr. Duncan Sandys (Streatham)

We cannot allow that to go by. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the improved standards on which he is now congratulating himself, were standards laid down by the wartime Coalition Government?

Mr. Blenkinsop

In fact they are higher, but the great point is that one hears always a great deal of talk from the Opposition about what they were going to do in times of national emergency, and when it comes to carrying out those proposals it is another matter altogether. The issue is that we have in fact ensured a higher standard—certainly with the advice of the Dudley Committee and of others.

Let us take these figures and break them down. In actual fact, as far as we can estimate the position, in 1938 there were about 330,000 workers employed on new housing as compared with about 220,000 in 1949. For all other new constructional work the figure was about 375,000 in 1938 compared with 236,000 in 1949. The figure for repair and maintenance work, both for housing and for other constructional work, in 1938 was 325,000 and the figure in 1949 was something over 500,000. Therefore, we ask hon. Members opposite whether they would enforce the movement of workers from repair and other constructional work to new housing. This is a valid point. They already complain that our controls are irksome. They wish to sweep away many of these controls, particularly in connection with housing. How will they ensure the better use of our labour force? How will they move workers from repair work which is urgently necessary, to new house construction without effective and strict controls—which they say they are not prepared to use—over the labour?

I must say that the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite are completely fictitious. They just do not hold water. It is true that today, with something like one-third less building force we are building per worker, bearing in mind the quality and standards of amenity of houses today, very roughly at a comparable rate to pre-war. That means that there has been a great improvement since the Report of the Girdwood Committee in 1947. It has been due partly to the more balanced programme that we now have in operation, partly to the greater effort by all those concerned and partly to the incentive schemes which have been most valuable in many cases in bringing extra production.

A further point which is often raised is the question of traditional and nontraditional houses. Sometimes it is said, "Have you done enough to try to find ways of building with the use of materials which do not raise quite the same problems of shortages that you find in the case of the average traditional house?" It is sometimes alleged that not enough attention has been paid to new methods of construction. I should like to point out that nearly 100,000 nontraditional houses had been completed up to 31st December, 1949. These are permanent houses built by non-traditional methods, many of them with the assistance of grants made available to local authorities to encourage new developments in house building. In addition, to this figure should be added some 13,000 permanent aluminium bungalows.

The special grants referred to amount to £26,500,000 paid to local authorities to encourage them to help in the building of non-traditional types of houses. Those grants have now come to an end, because it was felt at the end of 1947 that it should be possible after that period of time for those using the non-traditional methods to compete on equal terms with the builders of traditional houses. Very largely they have been able to do so. There is no doubt that the wide variety of houses which are being built in different parts of the country are providing us with a valuable addition to our house building programme.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove mentioned the question of costs. He seemed to think that it was something extraordinary that my right hon. Friend had not prevented building costs of traditional houses from going up at all since he took office in 1945. My right hon. Friend would be something more than a Welshman if he had succeeded in doing so; but what he can fairly claim is that while there has been an increase in costs for traditional house building, based upon tender costs, of only from 100 to 115 during the period from 1945 to the present day, the industrial material costs have risen from 100 to 145.

I do not say that we should not take every possible action to attack high costs throughout the building industry, for it is clear that the policy of effective control in the house building industry has been of the utmost value in keeping down, comparatively, the costs of house building as against the costs in other industries. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to press for a withdrawal of these very controls, we can only assume that we shall be faced with further soaring costs, to the disadvantage of every man and woman in this country.

Now let me say a word about the problem of rents, which is very often raised in the House and over which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman skated lightly for a while today. It is important that the House should realise that, from surveys made, the average rent, excluding rates, in 1949 for post-war houses appears to be approximately 14s. 3d. per week, which works out at 10 per cent. of average wages. P.E.P., in a survey published about a month ago, quoted a figure of an average rent, inclusive of rates, of 21s., which does not greatly disagree with the figure I have given. When we come to the post-war rents of pre-war houses, we find that the average in 1949 was about 9s. 3d., which works out at a percentage of wages of something between 6 and 7. On the other hand, if we take the pre-war estimates made by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, taking an average pre-war income of 67s., we get an average rent of 7s., which again is a percentage of 10.

All I suggest is that, while it is true that the rents of these houses have gone up, they have certainly not risen out of proportion to the income of the majority of the tenants, and it is always important to remember that local authorities are no obliged to use their subsidies equally over the whole block of their houses, but that it is a matter entirely for them to decide.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's first figure was the average rent for the post-war local authority house. Has he got further figures to illustrate the rentals of houses finished during the last 12 months and let for the first time?

Mr. Blenkinsop

All I can give are the figures from the survey. I do not pretend that this survey is of great value, but the figures appear to be confirmed by the report of P.E.P., which suggests that the rental quoted is a reasonable average. The rents, of course, vary from very much lower figures to very much higher ones.

On the question of standards, I gather from the speeches of hon. Members opposite that they feel that the standards of house building today are too high. I hope they will make the point quite clear during this Debate. We feel that the standards of post-war houses, while undoubtedly higher than they were before the war, are not too high to meet the needs of our people. I therefore believe that it is vitally important that the Opposition, in considering this Debate today, should clearly express their view and say whether they would themselves reduce the existing standards and attempt to achieve economies in that way.

I believe that this whole housing problem is very largely a moral problem, and that it is immoral at this time to ask that a part, even a large part, of the limited resources available should be devoted to providing accommodation for those who do not need accommodation as urgently as do others. We insist that the policy which the Government has followed during the last four and a half years, and which they intend to follow, shall be directed to the needs of the people as against the policy of enabling individuals to buy higher standards of house accommodation. We have always recognised the right of a limited number of people to build houses. What may be in question is whether the proportion which we have hitherto established has been the right proportion or not. The estimates which we have made suggest that, if anything, we have been too generous in our allocations to private house building and not to the opposite.

I must insist once more, in concluding my remarks on this matter, that the whole House has a right to be disgusted at the failure of the Opposition to put forward any constructive proposals before this House and the country.

4.56 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George (Anglesey)

I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say, at the conclusion of his speech, that the Government have no intention of lowering the housing standards set up by the Dudley Committee during the war. They are certainly not too high, but only just adequate, and the real danger is that once they have been debased it will be extremly difficult to raise them again.

I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House are glad to have an opportunity, at this early stage in a new Parliament, to discuss a problem which affects the social life of the whole country. No hon. Member, no matter in what quarter of the House, can possibly say that they are satisfied with the progress that has been made and is being made today. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove, (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in his opening speech, gave us some striking figures of the waiting list for houses in Glasgow, and told us of telegrams and messages which he had received from all over the country expressing dissatisfaction with housing conditions. Of course, there is no hon. Member in any part of the House who cannot quote distressing cases of overcrowding, of appalling housing conditions and of the tragic social consequences that too often come from the failure to provide a separate home for every family in the country. It is true that local authorities in every part of the country are haunted by the long waiting lists for houses, which never seem to grow any less. I know of a small country town with a population of 2,000, which has a waiting list, even in that small community, of 250, and that in spite of the fact that 100 new permanent houses have been built there, in addition to a number of temporary houses. The Minister knows the case perfectly well. It is a very invidious task for local authorities to have to choose tenants from a queue most of whom are equally deserving. I think we can say that the great proportion of local authorities discharge that difficult and distasteful task conscientiously and well. But we all know of cases where that function is not discharged in the best interests of the people. It is not only vital that justice should be done, but that justice should be seen to be done.

Mr. Ronald Mackay (Reading, North)

Will the noble Lady permit me? We have had this question over and over again. If the 250 waiting list in the town of 2,000 people which the noble Lady mentions is to be satisfied, over six million houses will have to be built in this country.

Lady Megan Lloyd George

Whatever the target, it must be a target which produces houses for the people who are in need of them. At the moment, it is perfectly true that all the housing lists are not, in fact, accurate. Many people have their names on one or more council housing list, and one of the things we would urge the Minister to do is to instruct local authorities to revise their lists at the earliest possible moment so that we may arrive at an accurate figure of the real families requiring accommodation. But even when we have done that, even when we have pruned those housing lists, there is surely no one in any part of this House who does not believe that there will still remain an immense and formidable problem of new housing. At the present rate of progress it will take years to catch up with the shortage.

We recognise, therefore, the gravity of the housing situation, but we on these benches, also recognise some of the practical difficulties that have to be considered and overcome. I believe it would be neither responsible nor honest at this moment to say that we could launch tomorrow, within a week, or within a few months, a great new housing drive which would satisfy the needs of the whole community. That is a suggestion which is implicit in the policy of the party above the Gangway, as expressed at the Election, in their manifesto, in their broadcasts and in the Amendment which they have put before the House today.

In that Amendment, the Conservative Party speak of the grievous and growing distress in town and country arising out of the continuing decline in the number of new houses built each year. But there has been "grievous distress" in this country for a very long time both as a result of overcrowding and of families having to live in sub-standard and slum houses. It is not a problem which has arisen in the last four and a half years; it is a problem which has been accumulating unchecked for 30, 40 or 50 years, and during that time it has caused grievous and growing distress in town and country. First of all, there are about four million obsolete houses in this country over 60 years old. That is not a problem which has suddenly arisen, It is a problem which was present in an acute form before the war. We may say, of course, that it has grown since, and naturally so, because, during the war, it was impossible for any party to tackle that problem. The neglect therefore, has, of course, made it more acute. Certainly, none of us can be satisfied with the conditions as they are. Questions were raised today about housing conditions in Scotland. I cannot speak about them, but I can certainly speak about conditions in Wales, not only in the industrial but in the rural areas, where the slums are as appalling as anything one can find in the great cities of this country. In many cases they are even worse, they are not spectacular, and therefore it is not so easy to get local authorities to tackle them or to rouse public opinion to make it difficult for local authorities not to tackle them.

We are certainly not satisfied, but that is not the question on which we are asked to vote tonight. That is a vote of censure which carries with it the assumption that we believe the Conservative Opposition would, in fact, tackle the housing problem better than the present Government. That I am certainly not prepared to accept for a single moment. We certainly do not consider that, in this instance, it would improve matters to put Charles out in order to make this James king. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove went back some way in considering housing conditions in this country; he went back to the Boer War. That is a very lively and fascinating period from a political, if not from a housing, point of view, particularly to an hon. Member who sits on these benches.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he was not anxious to compare the record of the present Government with the record of the Conservative Party before the war. I should rather like to consider that comparison for a moment. I well remember that in the last housing Debate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke with some pride of the 365,000 houses a year built before the war by a Conservative Government, and how he compared that figure most favourably with the record of the Labour Government. But is that really comparable? Are the circumstances comparable? Then there was no shortage of materials; there was plenty of labour available, and there were none of the scarcities or economic conditions which always prevail in post-war periods. At that time the cost of housing was a quarter of what it is now, and, may I add, there was no acute dollar problem then.

Yet, with all these advantages—plenty of materials, plenty of labour, and no dollar difficulties—the Conservative Party were able to produce only 140,000 more house a year than did the Minister of Health with all these difficulties. Is that really a prospect that will make hon. Members agree to flock into the Lobby to say, "Do let us have another dose of a Conservative housing policy such as we had before the war"? I do not think so.

The Conservative Party speak in their Amendment of more effective measures to deal with the housing situation. We have heard very little in the Debate of these effective measures which they propose to put in hand. What are they? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that they did not intend to cut expenditure on housing programmes—at least, that is what I understood him to say. I do not remember that he made any complaint at all when the housing expenditure was cut by £35 million during the last Parliament. I do not remember any protest coming at that time from the benches above the Gangway. Will they restore that cut? Will they increase the expenditure on housing? Are we to have another example of more economy, increased expenditure and reduced taxation simultaneously?

What else do they put forward? They say, as the Parliamentary Secretary reminded us this afternoon, that they wish to free the private builder. But at this moment the private builder is already constructing houses for local authorities. If he were to switch over that would be that fewer local authority houses were built, and the people in the greatest need of houses in this country today—those whose need was least satisfied in the interwar period when we had a Conservative housing policy—would again suffer. That would be the first consequence.

Of course, there are small firms in different parts of the country which, at the moment, are not fully employed or are employed on non-essential work. I hope very much that the Minister of Health will rope them all in because, in the aggregate, they will provide a powerful reinforcement. But in the main, private builders today are building for local authorities. We on these benches are certainly eager and anxious to see the ratio of private building restored and increased when circumstances permit. But we must remember that local authorities are now empowered to provide houses, not only for the working classes, but for other sections of the community, so that there is really no reason why there should be cases of hardship which cannot be satisfied by the local authorities.

I think that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, was less than fair this afternoon. He took little or no account of the practical difficulties with which any Government—and I do not care what party it is drawn from—would be faced today if they were to accelerate considerably the housing programme. There are limiting factors. The principal limiting factor is timber. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not tell us where we are to get greatly increased supplies of timber. I believe timber is in shorter supply this year than at any time since the war.

I was very glad to hear that the President of the Board of Trade is now engaged in negotiating with the Swedes for further supplies; I do not think that, in this instance, it makes any difference, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested it might, whether the buying is in private or in public hands, because it is really largely a dollar question. It is also a question of getting more supplies from the Soviet Union, and it would not make very much difference whether a private or a public buyer approached that particular source.

I hope the Government will scour the world for timber, and particularly the soft currency areas. I hope also that the utmost economy will be exercised in the use of timber. I believe instructions have been sent out to local authorities already, and I hope that, if necessary, those local authorities will change their designs to fit in with those instructions. I also hope the Government will undertake scientific research to see whether it is possible to have substitutes for timber. They may have done that already. If so, I hope we shall hear more about it.

Above all, do we hope the Government will give housing the first priority. I think that hon. Members in many parts of the House are still a little afraid that that is a principal and that it is not practised in Government policy. We hope no materials will be made available for places of entertainment or Government Departments—not at all the same thing —and other non-essential premises, such as in the case of the vast expansion of commercial premises—which was raised by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) at the end of the last Parliament. We trust we shall have nothing like that again. We hope that schemes of this kind will not be allowed to take precedence, or even to take their place in the queue at all. We hope, too, that the Minister of Health will do his utmost to see that restrictive practices in the building industry, on both sides, are not allowed to impede the housing programme.

I was sorry to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that non-traditional houses were rather coming to an end, and that the Government no longer intended to build either aluminium houses or the Airey houses.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I was merely saying that the special grant procedure had been adopted to give encouragement to new types of building. It came to an end at the end of 1947. I did say that the non-traditional types were able to hold their own with traditional building.

Lady Megan Lloyd George

I am glad to hear that. Every encouragement should be given to the building of these houses. Every advantage must be taken of all available means in order to increase the housing programme. Finally, we hope that the Minister of Health will put all the energy, all the Celtic fervour of which he is undoubtedly possessed into a renewed housing drive to bring us at any rate within sight of the solution of this intractable problem.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

By universal consent, housing is the most pressing of all our social problems, but I shall endeavour to observe the tradition of this House in being non-controversial in a maiden speech. When I read the Amendment to the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, I naturally expected that we would be told this afternoon what the Conservative Party would do that is not being done now. That is the acid test of the Amendment, and I was somewhat astonished at the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) producing nothing but comparable figures during the Crimean and the Boer Wars as indicative of what the Conservative Party accomplished.

I represent a constituency in the City of Glasgow, a city which, despite its having built almost 70,000 municipal houses, is. still the worst-housed city in this country. It is a city with a mass of festering slums, a city with a high incidence of tuberculosis, a city with the highest overcrowding record in the country, and a city with over 100,000 applicants desiring municipal accommodation. These conditions are not the result of the failure of the local authority to build houses. They are not the outcome of a policy pursued by a Labour Government. They existed before the advent of a Labour Government, and before the outbreak of war. These conditions are the legacy of the failure and neglect of successive Conservative Governments, particularly during the inter-war period.

We were told, during the election campaign, that the nation was getting 1,000 houses per day before the war. We had that number for something like four or five years out of the 20 years of the interwar period. It is rather unfortunate that that figure was not reached during the whole of the inter-war period. Had we achieved that, we would have had over six million houses instead of the 42 million that were built. I am satisfied that hon. Members opposite know, within their hearts and souls, the reasons why we did not get that figure of 1,000 houses per day. It was due to the absence of planning, and the absence of any properly conceived policy. Nothing but indecision and infirmity of purpose characterised the attitude of the Governments of those days, so far as the housing problem was concerned. I reiterate what the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) indicated that it was a tragedy that in those years, when there was an abundant supply of labour and materials, we had between 150,000 and 180,000 of our building trade workers almost continuously unemployed.

The second reason why we failed to achieve the figures was the abolition of the greatest piece of housing legislation that was ever introduced into this Assembly, namely, the Wheatley Act, 1924. I consider that the abolition of that Act stands as an imperishable monument to the inefficiency of the Opposition in their handling of the housing problem. With all these things in mind, therefore, I have the utmost difficulty in appreciating precisely what prompted the Amendment to the Gracious Speech. I recognise that, despite unprecedented difficulties, despite the devastating impact of war on the national economy and the physical destruction created by the war, this Government is making progress, but nevertheless I feel that there is much still to be done. I think that that progress will require to be considerably accelerated.

With a view to that acceleration I want to suggest three points for the consideration of the appropriate Ministers. I should like the Government to consult with the industry in order to ascertain all the implications that would be involved in the granting of a guaranteed week of 44 hours for the building trade worker. It is unfortunate that in that industry the worker should be to a considerable extent dependent upon the climatic conditions for his livelihood. Secondly, I should like the Government to inquire into the organisation of the building industry. To my mind the demand on the industry is far beyond its capacity. The industry is hampered by the number of small uneconomic units which comprise its whole.

I find, for example, that in this country there are 136,000 firms in the building industry. Over 60,000 of them employ no one and over 40,000 employ only from one to five operatives. In point of fact, out of 136,000 building firms, only 129 employ over 500 operatives. Despite the important part which the building industry plays in the economic life of the nation, we must all realise that the industry is the most backward of all our major industries. The development of the building industry towards mechanical, modern and mass production methods is lamentably slow. In research and scientific development, the building industry is just not quoted.

Finally, I should like to suggest to the Government, following the point made by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey, the abolition of the present licensing system and the introduction of legislation which would be calculated to limit or restrict for the next year or two all building operations in this country solely to housing, factories and social services. Since licensing was introduced in August, 1945, in the City of Glasgow alone over f16 million worth of work other than housing has been licensed. While I realise that much of that relates to factories and social services, there is also a considerable amount relating to nonessential building. I hope that from that point of view the Government will consider the abolition of the licensing system and, if we are really serious and earnest in dealing with this tragic problem, confine all our building activity to the building of houses, factories and such like. I am satisfied that only by such a concentration of all our resources shall we overcome this tragic problem of housing—a problem which is a grave reproach to our modern civilisation.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Marples (Wallasey)

This is the first occasion in this House on which I have followed a maiden speaker. I think I should be voicing the sentiments of hon. Members on both sides of the House if I said that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Mr. McInnes) spoke with a sincerity which we expect from all Scots; also, if I may say so, with a fervour which is not dissociated from those people who come from north of the Border. I thought he delivered his speech in a very clear way, which I certainly understood. As a building employer and one of those employing more than the 500 he mentioned, I am very glad that he has made those researches into the industry. When the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works publishes the report of the working party on the building industry, no doubt the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, and myself will get together and analyse it as best we can. I should like to say one more word about the hon. Gentleman; I hope I shall be here some time when he makes a controversial speech, because it will be most interesting.

I was going to refer to the Liberal Party, but they are not thronging their benches with their customary enthusiasm. The reason I was going to refer to the Liberal Party was that for about 20 minutes the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) denounced the Tory Party, stating that they had no policy, and made a few criticisms of the Labour Party, but entirely omitted any reference to the Liberal policy. It would indeed be interesting, if the Liberals are hoping to get into power at the next election—provided Lloyds is not bankrupt—to know what their policy is.

I am never quite sure what are the rules of this House as to how often a person should declare his interest in a particular industry, but as this is a new House I should like to declare my interest by saying that I am a building contractor, mostly in the heavy civil engineering line now and erecting fairly large buildings, but in the past erecting a great number of buildings for local authorities. Incidentally, one of the buildings my firm is erecting is a power station at Leeds. When I listened to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), who seconded the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, I was surprised to find that I could not reconcile my knowledge of Leeds with the picture of the æsthetic beauty of that city which the hon. Lady presented to this House. It may be because the power station we are building is next to the sewerage works and that our technical job is to use the effluent from the sewerage works to cool the power station. Be that as it may, I was quite unable to reconcile the two.

This is a serious time in the nation's history. It is necessary for every Member to be as constructive as possible, and I intend today to be constructive. If by any chance my natural ebullience and exuberance run away with me, I ask hon. Members opposite to forgive me because it is only near the end that I shall be exuberant. There is misapprehension in the minds of the people when discussing housing, and to my mind the reason is as follows. Unless housing is divided clearly into two separate categories, we shall never have a rational discussion. The first category is the social aspect, dealing with the disposal of a house when it is erected; who shall own it, and occupy it; and what rent is to be paid. That is the first aspect.

The other aspect is the technical aspect of deciding what shall happen from the virgin soil to the completed building. I maintain that social reasons should decide the social aspect and that technical reasons should decide the technical aspect. Therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary will follow me on the social aspect, I believe that as far as the occupation of a house is concerned there should be two guiding rules. The first is that physical needs provide physical possession. In other words, if a man has no legs and six children and comes from the Army, he is more entitled to the house than a man who has just married, but who comes and asks for it. Physical needs should give physical possession.

My second point is that financial need should secure financial assistance. When local authorities are building nine out of every ten houses, I do not think it is right or proper that every occupant of those nine houses should receive a subsidy. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not"] There are many Labour councils, and Conservative councils for that matter, under which, in fact, they do receive it. I will refer to a specific example in Macclesfield. There is a trade union official in Macclesfield who decided to study politics in order to advance the lot of his fellow men and himself. He did it very successfully. His fellow trade unionists get £4 13s. 6d. a week and he gets £60 a week on the North-West Gas Board.

I do not complain about that; possibly he is worth it. In addition, in between his political studies, he was moderately prolific and had three children, so that he also has a council house. I do not object to that either, because possibly he is entitled to it. What I do object to is the fact that he is receiving a subsidy from the ratepayers of Macclesfield and the taxpayers of this country towards his rent. If I asked any person in this House earning less than £60 a week this question—" Do you think it right and proper that you should pay a contribution towards the rent of a man earning £60 a week? "—I wonder what the answer would be?

Mr. Blenkinsop

It is entirely for the local authorities to decide whether they wish to do this or not.

Mr. Marples

It should not be; it is a matter of principle. It is no use the Treasury benches farming out responsibility on to local authorities; this is a matter of principle. They are giving Exchequer money here, collecting money from the smokers of the country, and in Purchase Tax from the people who buy clothes, and are giving it towards the rent of a trade union official earning £60 a week. I say that that from the central Government is wrong.

Mr. Collick (Birkenhead)

But surely the Macclesfield Tory Council can control that, and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order. Stand up."] What the hon. Member must appreciate in the instance he has given is that it is quite within the capacity of the Macclesfield Tory Council to control the position.

Mr. Marples

It is exactly the same position with regard to the Central Glasgow Labour Council and their control over the £60 million of building licences.

The principle is wrong where an Exchequer grant is given to a man earning £60 a week. No matter what the local council can do, no matter whether they are right or wrong, it does not make the central Government right in this respect.

My main theme, however, is connected with the technical aspect and I must not permit myself to be drawn on to one side. Let me deal with the technical processes of building from the virgin soil to the completed building. The objective is fourfold. It is to build at a high speed; to build at a low cost; to build a large number; and to keep to a reasonable quality. I maintain that technical reasons only should decide that aspect, and this is where the disagreement between the two sides of the House is apparent. Every time hon. Members on this side of the House state that these technical reasons should decide, hon. Members opposite allege that we are saying that because we are also going to decide the disposal of the building. It is not so. It is the framework within which a builder works which enables him to build either cheaply or dearly.

I build only for the local authority. I have never built speculative building for sale or to let, but my friends who do build that way can build 10 to 15 per cent. cheaper and 10 to 15 per cent. faster than I can. What I say is directly contrary to my financial interests, but what I am trying to get the Government to do is to get the best of both worlds—the best of the technical side of building, and also to use whatever methods they like in disposing of the house, so long as they bear in mind those two rules I have mentioned.

To some extent we have to analyse the industry itself, and I must say I am grateful to the Minister of Works for coming along this afternoon. I gave him notice and asked him to come because I believe he holds the key to building houses in this country. I believe that the analysis of the building industry is of paramount importance. In the last 50 years the building industry has developed from the man who was a craftsman and had his own yard, his own labour, and his own material. Development has produced two major features. The first is the growth of the specialist sub-contractor. When hon. Members opposite criticise the builder—that is the builder who actually is the main contractor—they should remember that, generally speaking, in the large building something like 80 per cent. of the main work is let out to specialist sub-contractors, so that the builder has within his control only 20 per cent. of the building.

The second feature of the building industry is that the contractor is an organiser and a financier and must get a rhythm into his work. If he does not, he will never be able to interlock the 80 per cent. of the sub-contractors' work on the site. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Works will appreciate that I am dealing with a production problem and not with the problem of the disposal of the houses. From the point of view of my argument what happens after they have been erected is irrelevant; I do not care if they are burned down or given away. I am concerned here simply with the question of building them from the virgin soil to the roof.

Against that background let hon. Members bring their minds to what happens in the case of a shortage of timber. Take, for example, doors from a sub-contractor. In my constituency we have the firm which turns out the largest number of panelled doors in this country. Before the war they turned out a door for 7s. 6d. Now they turn one out for 33s. There are several reasons for that. The first is that the price of timber has increased from £22 to between £110 and £117 a standard, but the second reason, and possibly the major reason, is the fact that the factory is