HOUSING

§ Mr. Marples (Wallasey)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Address, at the end, to add, But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech shows no resolve to ensure a steady increase in the rate of house building up to at least 300,000 houses a year. I am quite sure there is not a Member in the House, irrespective of party, who, in his own heart, is not deeply worried about the shortage of houses. My main task this afternoon is to devote myself to the technical problem of seeing whether these houses can be built, and the question I ask myself is—is it physically possible to build 300,000 houses a year and, if so, how? For that purpose I must make one assumption, and it is that what happens to the house is irrelevant, at any rate for the purpose of my argument. I am solely concerned with the erection of the house from the virgin soil to the last tile. My task is solely to show that there is no technical reason to prevent their being built. In order to do that I pro- 606 pose to divide my speech into four parts. First, I should like to deal with the main Socialist criticism. Secondly, I should like to discuss the question of building materials. Thirdly, I want to deal with the question of labour; and fourthly with the methods by which the extra 100,000 houses could be obtained by marrying, as it were, the labour and the materials.

First of all, the Socialist criticism. Socialists ask this question: if we build more houses, what building are we to do without? Is it the building of hospitals or schools which we shall cut? That question is based on two assumptions: first, that it is impossible to build more houses with the existing labour force and that efficiency is at present 100 per cent. and is static; and secondly, that we shall always build the same type of house in the same way. We do not accept those assumptions. I shall give the House the reasons why we do not accept them.

There are some very interesting building statistics in connection with the school building programme. Suppose in 1949 a distinguished Member on the Government Front Bench—suppose the Lord President of the Council—had asked us if we proposed to increase the number of primary school places by 50 per cent. Would he have asked, "If you do that, what other building are you going to do without?" If he had asked that question the answer would have been that the efficiency of the school building programme has increased by almost 50 per cent. in the two years from 1949 to the end of this year, and that the cost of a primary school place in 1949 was £195 and that it had been reduced to £140 in 1950. That means that 10 seats in 1949 cost £1,950, and that 15 seats today would cost only slightly over that figure. In other words, the school building programme has increased by 50 per cent. for almost the same expenditure of money. Therefore the question would not have been irrelevant, and we say that what has been done in school building must be done in house building.

On the question of building materials, the shortage has been the greatest single factor in the loss of productivity in the building industry since the war. In 1946 we had the disastrous experience of the Minister of Health overloading the building industry with a programme of houses 607 for which there were insufficient materials. Materials must not only be there: they must be seen to be there by the men on the site. That is one of the most important factors in building today, because labour will simply not work itself out of a job, and I say, quite frankly, from my own experience of building houses, that I do not blame the men at all. Unless the man on the site sees ever-increasing piles of materials he will not be able to give of his best work.

Let me divide materials into the three main items—timber, cement, and bricks. Let us take timber first. The first point about timber is that there is not a world shortage. Timber is physically in existence, and the world output of cut timber in 1948 was 3 per cent. higher than in the record pre-war year of 1937. Therefore, the world supply of sawn timber is greater, and we are getting an ever smaller share of an ever larger cake. The second point is the quantity of timber that would be required to deal with the extra 100,000 houses. The President of the Board of Trade considers that 145,000 standards would be sufficient. For the purpose of my calculation I must reject that as being unsound technically, because the 1.6 standards per house includes 10 per cent. for waste on a 1,000-foot house. The President deducts that 10 per cent.—he did so in answer to a Question in this House—and says that only 145,000 standards would be needed. That is not so. A hundred thousand houses, in my opinion, would require not less than 160,000 standards.

I go further. I think we ought to buy more than we need. Look at the good results which would flow from that. I mention this because timber is the key. We could stockpile for strategic reasons, and we could get reduced prices for timber throughout the world; because unless we have full stock yards our buyers will never be able to purchase timber at competitive prices in the world market. The only time we shall get prices down is when we can say to the sellers of timber, "Our stock yards are full. You can keep your timber." If we could say that to them, prices would come down, without politicians on either side having to negotiate the matter at a high level. Not only should we benefit by reduced prices, we should benefit immensely by 608 reduced building costs and by increased building speed, and we should eliminate waste of timber.

The recent hold up of the completion of houses is entirely due to the break down of timber supplies in the summer, and what happened was this. The rafter size is, generally speaking, four inches by four inches. When orders went to the merchants they did not have well-balanced stocks and they took larger sizes, and cut them down. In order to supply the four-inch by two-inch rafters which were necessary, they cut them from two-and-a-half inches by seven pieces of timber. That left the merchant with a piece of timber six inches long and half an inch wide, and there is virtually nothing he can do with that except put it on the watchman's fire. So, unless we have a large range of stocks in the timber yards of this country building will always be difficult.

We on these benches propose to do two things with the timber situation. The first is to allocate dollars—as many dollars as are needed—for the timber for the extra 100,000 houses, because we consider that houses are the highest social priority, ranking second only to defence. Secondly, we propose to abolish bulk buying in every quarter of the globe, and not merely in those parts which suit the President of the Board of Trade. We propose to abolish it not for price considerations mainly, not for doctrinal reasons, but mostly for practical reasons. I shall tell hon. Members opposite why, as they rather doubt that statement. Pre-war, if any building firm in this country wished to buy timber from abroad they would send precise specifications and the sizes which were required to Canada. The timber would be cut to that size. It would be shipped back to this country. It would arrive at these shores cheaper than it does now, because under bulk buying we ship from Canada gross timber, and there is waste in freightage, in dollars, and in shipping space.

I come to the next material, which is cement. Before the war we used two and a half tons to four and a half tons on a house. Now we use eight and a half tons, and 100,000 houses would require, at the present extravagant rates, something like 850,000 tons. The first way in which I should tackle the cement problem would be to effect economies, and I think if economies were effected 609 most of the cement we require would be saved. I go so far as to say that it could be saved by the advice of the excellent memorandum prepared by the Minister of Works, if it were carried out by other Government Departments. When we were in the Army we learned that it was not enough to give orders and instructions, but that one must see that they were carried out.

The Minister of Works has got two excellent pamphlets out, one on the saving of cement on houses and the other on saving cement on civil engineering works, and so on; but, in point of fact, no other Government Department is taking the slightest notice of them. Let me read a quotation from the memorandum regarding houses. It says: The applications of the recommendations should result in the use of not more than 6 to 7½ tons of cement.… This recommended range is considerably below the average of the cement actually specified in the bills of quantities examined. In other words, six tons to seven-and-half tons would be used, and we are using eight-and-a-half tons. I know for a fact that it is still being carried on, because some local authorities are issuing bills of quantities on 1890 specifications, based on 1890 cement and 1890 building techniques—in the year 1950, when cement is very much better in quality and building techniques are very much better than they were 60 years ago.

My view is that most of the cement could be saved and we must remember that increased timber stocks would automatically make a great saving in cement. For example, a solid concrete floor takes a ton of cement, but if timber is used for part of the flooring, there would be an automatic saving in cement.

§ Mr. Marples

The Minister nods his head. All I can ask is, why have they not carried out these economy measures? I hope this debate will not degenerate into the normal rough and tumble we have had with the Minister of Health on previous occasions. I say so, because I believe this problem is far too serious for that kind of thing and if I address myself to some serious arguments, I expect that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will deal with those arguments on their merits. If we cannot get enough 610 cement from the actual savings, the expected annual increase in cement for 1951–52, or a very small proportion of it, will be sufficient to build the houses without impinging in any way on the export of cement, but the export of cement can be kept in reserve as a cushion and in that way there should be no difficulties in regard to cement.

Now I come to the question of bricks. A house requires 20,000 bricks—that is a rather extravagant estimate—which means 2,000 million bricks for 100,000 houses. The output of the industry is now 6,000 million, but pre-war it was 8,000 million. I would suggest two methods for overcoming the brick shortage. The first suggestion is one of economy where bricks are employed in parts of the house where it is not necessary to use bricks, in internal walls where breeze blocks and other materials would be just as suitable. I am sorry that the Lord President of the Council is not in his place. If he tours his constituency of South Lewisham he will find that a direct labour scheme is being spoiled by using bricks on internal partitions. The first method is to economise on the use of bricks by using such suitable substitute materials as are available where it is technically possible.

The second method is by increased production, which I think is the key to the whole of the building materials problem. Labour is the limiting factor. The capacity is virtually the same as it was prewar. I am allowing for the fact that some old yards have dropped out of existence, but the present larger yards, with increased mechanisation and greater efficiency, make the capacity about the same. The raw material of clay is the same while, to a large extent, the coal is the same, although perhaps it is not of the same quality. I estimate that we require 5,000 additional workers in the brickyards to give the extra production needed for another 100,000 houses.

I wish to make two suggestions on how this could be done. If necessary we could allocate, or consider allocating, more houses to the local authorities in whose areas there are brickyards, because mobility of labour is grievously affected by lack of housing. I make the suggestion because it is easier and cheaper to build a house next to a brickyard, than to build it elsewhere. A brick 611 doubles in price if taken 100 miles. Therefore, it would be reasonable that houses should be built next to brickyards in order that the workers can be housed. [Laughter.] I do not see what is wrong with that suggestion and if the hon. Member opposite wishes to make any interjection, I will give way to him.

I hope that will provide the necessary labour to do the trick, but, if it does not, I would not exclude the possibility of getting in some foreign labour from Italy, where they have some quite good brickyard workers who are at the moment unemployed. I do not exclude it, although I would rather have British workers making British bricks. I was much impressed by what was said by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) in moving the Address in reply to the King's Speech. He said that at the Chorley labour exchange they had to have an interpreter for 18 different languages. If they can do that at Chorley, I should think it not an unreasonable suggestion that some Italian labour should be brought over to help to provide the bricks.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I am interested in the hon. Member's argument, because I have some brickworkers in my constituency. Would he address himself to the desirability of raising the wages of brickworkers and to the effect that would have upon production of bricks?

§ Mr. Marples

I am not responsible for the wage freeze and the hon. Member should put that question to his Front Bench. Secondly, there is the question of lack of confidence in the industry generally. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will agree with me that the industry has had a difficult time in the last 10 years. During the war it was concentrated and after the war there was tremendous expansion. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about before the war?"] If we are to get interjections about what happened before the war it is highly unlikely that we shall be building the houses after the war.

Quite frankly, the lack of confidence in the industry is mainly due to the treatment it received at the hands of various governments. First it was concentrated and then, in 1946, it was expanded. The present Minister of Education, 612 whom I see in his place, went to the industry and indicated to them that every brick they produced could be used, but, six months later, in 1947, the headlines in the newspapers were, "Brickyards choked with millions of bricks." When the Minister of Education—who was then the Minister of Works—increased the production of bricks, he was not able to use them and there were 1,000 million bricks choking the yards, sufficient to build 50,000 houses, and production was slowed down. That was because of the extraordinary inconsistency with which the capital cuts were applied. Having been bitten once, brick makers are very shy at the moment and the only way to give them confidence is by a long term programme of five years, or, better still, 10 years, so that they can plan their work to produce bricks with a very smooth rhythm.

Having dealt with the raw materials of timber, cement and bricks, I hope that I have proved that there is no reason why those three materials should not be supplied in sufficient quantities to builders. I now come to the question of building labour. The Socialist Party ask, "From where are we to get the labour?" I believe there are two ways in which we can get the houses. The first is by increasing the output and the second by increasing the number of people in the industry.

Taking the question of increased output first, I would point out that the Minister of Works has carried out a works survey of payment by results in the direct labour schemes. Some 96 local authority schemes were examined and 83 showed an increased output of up to 43 per cent. and, on specific trades, the increase varied from 22 per cent. to 112 per cent. Finally, the report said: In some cases reduction of 25 per cent. on the labour costs were claimed representing over £100 per house. Our view is that payment by results is difficult to apply in the building industry. It is an intricate job and gives a headache to anyone in the industry. Both sides of the industry—and I speak as a member of one side now—will dodge the issue as long as they possibly can. I do not want to allocate blame to either side. I believe that it is six of one and half dozen of the other. It is up to politicians in this House to unite to express the will of the people and to get houses by creating a 613 public opinion which makes the two sides realise that they have to have payment by results whether they like it or not.

On the question of increasing the number of building workers, let us look at the monthly average employed on housing. It dropped from 264,000 in 1947 to 230,000 in 1950. In the last three years, there has been a steady drift away of labour from new house building to other types of building. Every hon. Member in this House knows that that is true. Every hon. Member knows of cases where that is so in his own constituency. That drift must now be stopped; it must be reversed. I do not care whether people are building Labour Clubs or Conservative Clubs—it ought to be stopped and the men ought to go back to building new houses.

§ Mr. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he is going to do that without controls?

§ Mr. Marples

We do not need any more controls than we have already. We can perfectly easily build houses with the controls which we have.

Another method of getting labour could be explained by the Lord President of the Council. He got his labour for the Festival of Britain, and he got some of it by attracting it from the power station which I was helping to build on the other side of the Thames, by giving the workers higher wages. You can get them either by scheduling them under civil engineering or under building. Under one method you pay them a higher rate of pay or a higher rate of subsistence allowance whichever will attract the workers away.

I come now to the second method of increasing the number of workers in the industry. We claim that in 1950 education is much better than it was in 1910 and in 1890 under the wicked Tories and the rather wicked Liberals. But it still takes five years to train a craftsman. If education has improved to the extent claimed, surely it is possible in an emergency to train craftsmen in four years instead of five. It would be quite easy to do away with a lot of tea drinking and tea carrying. I put this forward as a practical suggestion. There will be resistance from both sides of the industry, but I think that in the interests of house building some pressure must be brought to bear.

614 As to the methods of marrying the labour and the materials to produce the houses that we require, my first point is that no single method will produce the houses. It must be a judicious selection and combination of a large number of methods. Perhaps I may be allowed to give some idea of how it can be done. My first heading is "Efficiency in the industry itself." At the present moment, it is running at 75 per cent. of pre-war. If we could get it back to 100 per cent. it would mean, in the words of "The Times," an extra 50,000 houses. I believe that nothing must stand in the way of getting that efficiency back to pre-war level. I am reinforced in that view by a speech made by the Minister of Works,—who has a vast Government Department behind him—when he said that "he saw no real difficulty in raising considerably the rate of house building without extra total cost in 1951." I support the Minister of Works in that statement. It can be raised considerably without any extra cost.

I now come to the first method of increasing efficiency, and it will raise a shout from benches opposite. The first thing that should be done in the industry to increase efficiency is to allow private enterprise to build more houses.

§ Mr. Manuel

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that practically every local authority is employing private enterprise to build houses?

§ Mr. Marples

There has been so much misconception on this issue that I shall take this opportunity of putting it right. The ordinary contracting firm builds in two ways. It builds either for a local authority under specification and contract, or it builds for itself, either to sell or to let. I have here a typical specification, which I shall refer to later and which a local authority sends out to a builder when it asks him to work for it. These are the main differences between a builder working for a local authority, whom I should like to call the contract builder, and the private enterprise man working on his own, whom I would call the private enterprise builder.

§ Mr. Marples

Let me finish my point, and if it is not clear I will willingly give way.

615 In the first case, the local authority has the status and the control. It is the boss and the builder is the servant. The initiative and the drive come from the local authority, and the private enterprise contractor does what he is told. When the private enterprise builder builds for himself, he uses his own initiative, his own planning, his own drive, and, what is more important, he suffers a penalty when he fails. The relationship is this: in the first case, the contract builder is the servant of the local authority. He works to a definition of duties, rigidly and comprehensively drawn up in large documents. In the other case, an ordinary bricklayer, who is perhaps a master builder, with some other people can build a house, using his own initiative. That is the main difference.

If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire wants to know another difference, I will tell him. When a contract builder for a local authority starts to build a house, it is when it is politically desirable, not when it is economically desirable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Minister of Defence, when he was Minister of Fuel and Power, came to a site, on which I was working, to lay the foundation stone. Everyone had to get a move on with that site, not to start operations, but to build up a foundation on which the right hon. Gentleman could lay the foundation stone. He laid the foundation stone, and as soon as his back was turned, after he had made his speech—a rare speech in which the insulted no one—the foundation stone was knocked down and men moved to another site. No private enterprise builder could afford to do that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask anything, I will give way.

§ Mr. Manuel

I do not know what the last observation of the hon. Gentleman has to do with building houses. I wanted to take him up on the question of specifications. He will agree that there are specifications in both types of houses which he has illustrated. Whether the specification for the private house, directly originated by the private builder, is the proper specification or not, I am not prepared to say. I say that there ought to be a standard of building, and that the standard ought not to be decided by the private builder erecting the house.

§ Mr. Marples

I quite agree; there is one. The standards are laid down when the local authority passes the plans, and the district surveyor is there to see that there is adherence to those standards. The hon. Member displays an appalling ignorance of the building industry, although I did not want my aggressiveness to come out on this occasion.

Therefore, the first thing we must have is more private enterprise. I am so tired of arguing this point that I suggest we do what was suggested in the housing debate of 12 months ago. Let us build 400 houses as an experiment. Let private enterprise build them, and let the Minister take them over and let or sell them, or do what he likes with them, and let there be a series of costing clerks on the job to see which method is the cheaper. If I am proved to be wrong, I will humbly apologise publicly, but if I am not, I suggest that we include this method in the building of houses. My second point is that payment by results must be increased. In 32 schemes, the Minister of Works reports a 27 per cent. increase in efficiency.

My last suggestion is that we should have a long-term programme of nontraditional houses, so that the inventive genius of our people can be got to work, which will not be the case if it is a short-term programme. The last programme of prefabricated houses was a short-term programme, and it failed because it was a short-term programme. The Minister is looking worried. He knows that when the capital investment cut was introduced, anyone engaged on producing permanent prefabricated houses had all his orders cut off.

§ Mr. Bevan

The hon. Member is hopelessly inaccurate. The reason why the non-traditional programme was stopped was because the House had authorised finance for general subsidy of non-traditional building up to the end of 1947, and not beyond that.

§ Mr. Marples

That is exactly what I said—it was a short-term programme. I was saying that there should be a long-term programme. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that my firm spent £80,000 on putting up a factory for the building of non-traditional houses, but that when it came to producing them all the orders were stopped and the plant and factory had to be sold. Does he think 617 that I, or anyone else, will go in for nontraditional houses on that basis? If he does, he has greater faith in human nature than I have.

I come to my second method, which concerns the type of houses. By that I mean whether the houses are to be of one, two or three bedrooms. We are still building houses of three bedrooms to an extent of over 50 per cent. of the total programme. I believe that, so far as the type of house is concerned, we should bear two considerations in mind.

First, we should have regard to the view of the people who are on the waiting lists. After all, they are interested parties who ought to have a great deal to say as to the size and type of house we build. It was Chesterton who said: The true idealist is a man who first asks what the other wants. I believe that the people on the waiting lists should be taken into consideration.

Second, we ought not to fall below the Dudley Committee recommendations. My view is that the present situation demands a far larger proportion of our building to be devoted to the requirements of old people—that is, to houses with two bedrooms. That, in itself, would create many more units. It would mean that we should get more houses, because these houses would be smaller in area. Also, we should be able to reduce the rents, which is a very important consideration these days. Further, people in large houses would move into smaller houses, thus enabling the larger houses to be let.

§ Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

What about the landlord?

§ Mr. Marples

A relative of mine is living in a house which is 1,600 feet. She is a married woman, 60 years of age, and she wants to get a bungalow or flat and to let the other house, which is rent restricted. At present, she cannot move out of the house because the local authority will not accept her on the housing list as she already has a house.

§ Mr. Shurmer

What is the local authority?

§ Mr. Marples

I give the hon. Member my word that that is the position. She is a close blood relative of mine. I do not know whether or not it is a Tory council, although I do not think it can 618 be from the way they are behaving. This lady cannot get on the local authority housing list, nor can she get a permit to build a house.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

Where is this?

§ Mr. Marples

It is in the north of England.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels

But where is it?

§ Mr. Marples

This case concerns a relative of mine, and I have given the case as an illustration. I will not tell the hon. and learned Member where it is now, although I shall do so privately outside the House, as I do not wish to give the case publicity.

§ Mr. Speaker

Order.

§ Mr. Marples

The second thing is——

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels

The hon. Member is afraid to answer the question.

§ Mr. Marples

There should be greater freedom for the local authorities. York is not the same as Yeovil, and Brighton is not the same as London. If democratically elected local authorities express a strong desire to erect a large number of small houses instead of a small number of large houses, that request should be sympathetically considered, subject to the standards not falling below the recommendations of the Dudley Committee. The local authorities are much nearer the centre of the problem than centralised Whitehall. The wishes of the local authorities should be taken into consideration much more than at present.

Third, simple houses should be completed at once on the basis of adding any additional items later. These modern items of equipment do not always work very well. Those of us who have been in this Chamber during the last week know that to be the case; at one moment it is like being on the bridge of a destroyer, and the next moment it is like being in a brick kiln, although we know that everything will be adjusted later. So far as houses are concerned, some of these unnecessary items could be postponed until a more favourable moment. I shall give the House an example, although the Minister of Health has 619 already moved in this respect. The Gird-wood Committee, on page 15, paragraph 65, state: A second W.C. is now included on the advice of the Ministry of Health. I believe that a second lavatory and an outside tool shed are very desirable things.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

For the rich?

§ Mr. Marples

Not only for the rich, but for everyone. But, taking a broad view of the country's position, I should have thought that at this moment we could leave this until later, when these additions can be made without any extra cost.

§ Mr. Manuel

To all houses?

§ Mr. Marples

Certainly. The hon. Member has got me quite wrong. I may have been aggressive in places, but I do not care on which side the vested interest is, whether it be on the employer's or employee's side, or on the landlord's or the tenant's side. What I am saying is that we should be unanimous on both sides of the House in abolishing some of these restrictions. If we stop the lavatories and outside toolsheds it would mean we would have a row of 13 houses instead of a row of 12. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, it would, because each costs £100. If hon. Gentlemen opposite object to that, they have to ask themselves whether they want to house 13 families with one lavatory each, or 12 families with two lavatories, leaving one family homeless. It is a choice of evils, and we must decide where the balance of advantage lies.

I have mentioned three matters which together would give us a considerable number of houses. I come to the last method, and that is the alteration of priorities. In balance that must come, in our view, from altering the social priorities. We believe that housing is the first social priority, subject only to the overriding needs of defence. We must decide on those priorities according to the position at a particular time. When they are decided upon they must be adhered to and not altered. They must be decided in relation to the building programme as a whole. For example, it is no use cutting out a social 620 industry which does not use the materials and the labour that are wanted in house construction. Cuts must be selective according to the method, building and construction that is going on.

In that respect I should like to quote one other example—I believe that some of the building we are carrying out in our capital investment programme could be cut without injuring that programme. I refer to power stations. I believe we ought not to have a single unit of electricity less than we are having now. If anything we want more. The civil engineering work and the electrical equipment on power stations ought, if anything, to be increased, not reduced. We ought not, however, to be building "cathedrals" to house our power stations. In America they build power stations, and leave them in the open. They do not put anything round them. In this country some of the building work above ground, some of the superstructure is far too extravagant and far too expensive. If the Minister wants any private information on that I am quite prepared to give it to him afterwards.

§ Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland)

Does that apply to cinemas?

§ Mr. Marples

Yes. I want to make it quite clear that it applies to anything—Government offices, cinemas or anything taking materials which should be used for housebuilding. It includes Labour Clubs, Conservative Clubs, Liberal Clubs or whatever they may be. These should be cut out. [Laughter.] When hon. Members opposite ask for constructive sugestions apparently they do not want them. We are asked to make suggestions and when we give chapter and verse, hon. Members opposite jeer and criticise. What we on these benches want is not any violent controversy. [Laughter.] At least, I do not. I want the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, to answer some of my points chapter and verse.

After being fairly constructive there are two points of criticism I should like to make, because, after all, this is, in effect, a vote of censure. The first is concerned with the number of houses built, and the second with the cost of those houses. What are the net additions to our stock of houses? Two factors to be taken into consideration are obsolescence on one hand, which is reducing the stock, and on 621 the other hand, the new houses built, which is adding to the stock. The Minister of Health, in 1944, estimated that annually obsolescence accounted for 200,000 houses. He is now building, annually, slightly fewer than 200,000. Therefore, we are not making the slightest dent at all in our housing problem. The stock remains the same. No slum clearance has been affected, and as far as I can see, we are not in new houses replacing the war damage; we are not replacing even the obsolescence which takes place. I believe that the Government are being complacent and lack drive and energy in this respect.

One of the last points of criticism concerns costs. This has to do with the Minister of Health—if I could have his attention for a moment—for in 1945 his intention was to bring costs down. I was a newcomer to the House, and I listened to the right hon. Gentleman making a very stirring speech on this matter. He said this: As a result of a tug-of-war that has been going on between the Ministry of Health and building contractors for the last four months, housing costs have been held and in some cases tenders are coming down. The right hon. Gentleman was asking at the time for £100 million, and he added … by the same scientific organisation of material supplies we shall progressively reduce the costs of building. He said later: We are going to be judged by results."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 1,000–1.] In the OFFICIAL REPORT it is recorded that Members said, "Hear, hear."

What are the results? Take the period between 1947 and 1949 on the Girdwood Committee figures. Costs came to £1,159 in 1947, and £1,321 in 1949. That is a 12½ per cent. rise in two years despite a reduction in the Ministry of Education Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman promised to reduce costs and he agreed to be judged by the results. Does he think that an increase in costs is implementing the promise he made? If not, what percentage increase does he consider constitutes failure? Costs, in my opinion, will rise further unless we get an adequate supply of building material.

I have taken longer than I ought to have taken. I have given some indication of the kind of measures which should have been taken much earlier. I hope 622 they will be taken now, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman or someone else will announce a new housing policy, thereby giving way to some of the pressure which comes from Government back benchers as well as from hon. Members on this side of the House. Anything that remains short of a long-term rate of 300,000 houses a year is, in our view, inadequate.

Our censure on the right hon. Gentleman is for building far too few houses, building too expensively, and building too late. I have sought to prove that 300,000 houses can be built, and unless these arguments can be knocked down, then a vote against the Amendment is a vote against the building of 300,000 houses a year. There is no technical reason, in my opinion, why these houses should not be built. I want hon. Gentlemen opposite to get this quite clear—we on these benches believe it can be done. We shall allow nothing to stand in the way of the houses being built, but the initiative, drive and example must come from the top—from those in power. We have one settled purpose which is to build these houses. I remember a quotation from Disraeli, with which hon. Members opposite do not probably agree. It is this: I have brought myself by long meditation to the conviction that a human being with a settled purpose must accomplish it; and nothing can resist a will which is prepared to sacrifice even its own existence in its fulfilment. We have that settled purpose, we have that will, and, given the opportunity, we shall build those houses.

§ Mr. McAdden (Southend, East)

I beg to second the Amendment.

As I was fortunate enough to have been able to express my views on this subject a few days ago, I will obey the injunction of Mr. Speaker that we should keep our speeches short, and will content myself merely with seconding the Amendment.

§ Mr. Gibson (Clapham)

All the way through the speech of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) I wondered when he was coming to the subject of the Amendment. Right at the end of his speech he said that the Opposition wanted to reach a target of 300,000 houses a year. The hon. Member has had some practical experience of the building industry. I hope he will forgive me for saying that 623 he did not once attempt to explain how, assuming that his party were in office, they would build the extra 100,000 houses. He made a lot of minor suggestions for increasing output and for increasing the number of workers in the industry. One was to increase the number of apprentices and to reduce the training period to about four years; but that would not provide building trade operatives during the next four years. On his own argument, the apprentices would not be ready to build until they had had four years' training.

It is a fact that the reason the apprentices agreement, to which all the unions in the industry have agreed, is not being implemented is that the contractors will not take on the apprentices. Even in London, where we have done fairly well, there is a very great shortage of apprentices in all the trades to replace the natural wastage in the building industry. There are joint agreements and joint committees the purpose of which is to find apprentices to do this work, but the employers will not take them on in many cases. Understandably, it is a bad economic proposition. That is not the way to build these mythical, additional 100,000 houses.

Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman said that this Amendment is a vote of censure. Hon. Members opposite would like the country to believe that they could do this extra building without impinging upon vital building operations in other directions. It is essential, therefore, that the country should know what has already been done. The impression which it is attempted to create in this debate is that very little has been done to build houses in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Apparently there are Members of the Opposition who agree with that.

The facts were put into the hands of hon. Members only a few days ago in the Housing Returns for September, which showed that in Great Britain since the end of the war 1,259,729 families had been housed. [An HON. MEMBER: "In how many houses?"] That means that five million people have been housed. That is not bad for any Government in the provision of additional housing accommodation of one kind or another. If we 624 must not include requisitioned houses, bomb-damaged houses that have been repaired, and so on, we are left with a figure of 927,658 houses, which means that there were provided completely new permanent and temporary houses for a population of 3,700,000.

The fact is that this Government, although not doing as much as any of us would have liked in this direction, have already housed more than one million people each year since the end of the war. It is really too bad of hon. Gentlemen opposite to try to prove that the country is in an uproar. I remember the uproars which occurred after the First World War. I took part in them. I am sure that but for the terrific drive by local authorities, contractors and trade unions to provide additional housing accommodation we should have had a social outburst in this country long ago. The only people who do not realise the truth of that are Members of the Conservative Party in the British Parliament. Everybody else does. I should like to quote an American newspaper. In April last the "New York Herald Tribune" said: The British have perhaps the most successful housing record of the whole lot. Up to September 30, 1949, the British programme of subsidies had produced 556,000 permanent post-war dwellings and 171,000 temporary ones. Another 262,000 have been repaired or converted into dwellings from something else. Between September and the end of February this year, were added 250,000 permanent houses, bringing the post-war total well beyond the estimated 851,000 houses destroyed or badly damaged during the war. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had the audacity to say that we were not catching up with the bomb-destroyed houses. We are well in front of the number of bomb-damaged and destroyed houses in this country. It is true to say, taking the country as a whole, that there are actually more houses in this land to day than there were in 1939. That is certainly true of London. Let me give some figures: In London we had 80,000 houses completely destroyed. We have built in one way and another, by permanent and temporary houses and by the repair of bomb-damaged dwellings, 165,000 houses in London since the end of the war. Excluding from that figure 80,000 houses destroyed, we find that there are actually 9,500 more houses in London now than there were before the 625 war. That is in addition to the fact that the population of London has dropped from 4¼ million to 3⅓ million.

§ Mr. Henry Brooke (Hampstead)

Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me——

§ Mr. Gibson

I am saying that the number of houses provided is so great that we have exceeded the number of houses which existed in London before the war. That is true of the whole country. When the Minister of Health makes a public speech in which he says that, he is speaking the truth.

It is not going to be easy, however, because the housing problem is not solved. Nobody has said that more frequently in this House than I have. No one has suggested from these benches that we have reached the end of the road and that there is not need for a very large number of houses still to be built. After all, 100 years of jerrybuilding and speculative building take some catching up with, and until we do that we shall always have a large number of houses to be built. I hope, therefore, that the House will realise that something has been done of a very considerable nature., and that whatever Government were in power, they would be entitled to credit for their work.

Why are the waiting lists so large? It is true that all over the country the waiting lists are still very large, and even larger than ever. They are larger than ever because the Labour local authorities, having control of housing in their areas, have kept their lists open, whereas the Tory local authorities between the wars closed their lists, making believe that there was no housing problem and giving a completely false impression. Who are the people on the lists? I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a very large number are young married people who are looking for homes, many of them living with "in-laws," with all the family troubles which that brings for most young families. There are still many families overcrowded. No one with any knowledge of the housing problem would dispute that.

But there are very many people on the waiting lists who are there because they want something better than the house in which they are living now and not because they are overcrowder or living with "in-laws." [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]

626 Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not like that, but I meet my constituents once a week and I know what they tell me, and I also know what my experience has been in another connection. It is good that these people are on the lists. It is one of the by-products of full employment. People can afford to go to a better house and pay a little more in travelling expenses or a little more in rent. I hope that we shall not attempt to close the lists but will go on increasing the output of houses.

I will show some of the ways in which it can be done. I think that from what I have said the House will agree that I am very concerned that there should be a substantial increase in the number of houses built. How are we to do it? At the moment every operative in the building industry is employed. We cannot fill the gaps with men who are unemployed as we did between the wars, when 14 per cent. of the building trade operatives were often out of work. We must, therefore, come to some decision as to priorities. The hon. Member for Wallasey dodged the question entirely. We must decide whether we are to have fewer schools so that a few more men may build houses. Are we to have fewer power stations? The hon. Member did not suggest that we should not build power stations; he wanted them to be less artistic. I have looked at some of the power stations and I am afraid that I do not agree with his view that they are very artistic. However, that would not produce any more bricklayers.

We have to decide whether we wish to continue building factories which produce goods for export. Unless hon. Gentlemen who support the Amendment are prepared to deal with that point, they are not facing the issue, and unless they do that, the Amendment stands condemned as a piece of pure political camouflage which is an attempt to mislead the people of this country. It will, no doubt, be given further publicity in the Tory newspapers during the weekend.

In order to get an additional 100,000 houses, the Tory Party must find an additional 125,000 building trade operatives. Experience shows that if we are to build a house in between nine and 11 months, we need something like one and a quarter men per house. Are those men 627 to be taken from the building of schools, special schools, factories and health centres?

§ Mr. Alport (Colchester)

How many health centres are being built?

§ Mr. Gibson

I could tell the hon. Gentleman of one or two which are being built in London.

§ Mr. Iain MacLeod (Enfield, West)

They are the only ones in Britain.

§ Mr. Gibson

Are we to stop these operations in order to release the men to build a few more houses? If so, we must face the fact that the economic interests of the country are bound to suffer for a year or two. Unless hon. Members face that, they are not being honest with the electorate or with their own party. This is what "The Times" says. I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite love the editorial which "The Times" published on this subject, but it ought to be repeated. This is what was said in "The Times" on 17th October: So great an expansion of house building, to be sustained 'over a period of years,' would, indeed, be difficult to achieve. It was not attained after the 1914–18 war until 1933"— When we argue about the period just after the First World War, we get sneers from the Opposition. Of course, they will not sneer at "The Times." It is "The Times" which says that it took 15 years after the First World War to build up to anything like the 300,000 mark. "The Times" goes on: and it is doubtful whether there is any early prospect of returning to the conditions which made possible the housing boom of the 1930s. "The Times" wound up the editorial by saying: In short, the Opposition have not yet found a completely realistic alternative to the Labour policy of strict regulation, discouragement of private building, and disregard of the difficulties caused by rent control and subsidies. There can be no abrupt winding up of all controls, nor can there be any firm pledge that a much larger volume of house building, or a substantial reduction of costs, can be achieved, except gradually over a lengthy period and in favourable economic conditions. That is exactly what some of us have been saying in this House for a long time. It is quite unreal for the Opposition to put down an Amendment of this kind asking for a target of 300,000 houses without at the same time telling us what other building work they would stop.

628 I agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey that there are at least two methods by which output can be increased. The last time I had the honour of speaking on this subject in the House I argued—I still believe I was right—that it would be possible to increase the number of houses being built without increased capital cost. I gave some facts to show how that was possible. But I am sure that unless the industry itself carries out the recommendations made by the Productivity Council, it will never reach anything like the degree of efficiency which the hon. Member said it ought to reach. I do not propose to quote all the recommendations of that Council, but one or two are so important that they ought to be mentioned briefly. On page 64, the Report reads: The attention of the general contractor, and of all others concerned, is drawn to the following recommendations, aimed at the improvement of contract organisation … constructional work should not be started until the organisation of the job has been worked out to the most advanced stage possible. I know from experience how difficult it sometimes is to get contractors to do that.

§ Mr. Gibson

I am afraid that I cannot give way. The Report goes on: General and positive use should be made of simplified time and progress schedules, which should be circulated widely throughout the job. The last few words are very important. The men on the job must know what are the time and progress schedules to which they are working. The Report also says: The encouragement of the maximum economic use of mechanical aids of all descriptions, and the wider spreading of information appraising the merits of machinery and plant available. I believe that a wide extension of the use of these kinds of mechanical aids in the British building industry would substantially increase the output of all kinds of building—not only housing—and reduce the overall capital cost. Until the industry is prepared to adopt these recommendations in the widest sense, it will never reach the stage of efficiency it should.

I want also to plead for the operation of incentive bonus schemes. The hon. Gentleman referred to this, but was dubious about the possibilities. He suggested 629 that both sides of the industry were responsible for the fact that bonus schemes are not as widely operative as they might be. That is true in the part of England he comes from, but it is not true over the rest of the country. The unions have been ready and willing to apply bonus schemes, and in London in particular have done so with great success. The London County Council on its own building works has had an increase of output of over 40 per cent. since the end of 1947, while at the same time increasing the earnings of the operatives by between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. In spite of the increased earnings, and because of the increased output, they are getting a reduction of £68 in the labour cost of every house built. I believe the widest possible extension of that would produce more houses at a cheaper rate.

It is being done in other parts of the country. In a recent issue of "Housing," there was an article by the building works manager of the Wolverhampton Corporation showing that the building of both houses and flats can be carried out at a cheaper overall cost by joint consultation with the men on the site while paying them more wages. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if we can succeed in getting a successful bonus scheme going, we can reduce charges.

§ Mr. Gibson

In the case of the Wolverhampton scheme, they have reduced their overhead charges from 27.25 to 25 per cent. Therefore, the industry must be encouraged to adopt the incentive bonus scheme as widely as possible. It is the laggards in the employers' organisation who have not taken it up. It requires some close attention and a little more staff in the office to set it going but, if they will do it, they will get a larger output, more satisfied building operatives, and the housing problem of this country will soon be solved, though I do not expect to see it solved during the next five or 10 years.

If the Opposition decide to force this Amendment to a Division, we ought to be told before we vote, which of these other building projects they propose to cut out in order to provide the necessary labour to do the job. The hon. Gentleman talked a good deal about material. The material can be found. If we cannot get 630 timber, there are alternatives, as some of us know from experience. But if we had all the material that the hon. Gentleman dreamed of, and did not get the extra labour force, we could not increase output. Therefore, we have to solve this key difficulty of providing labour, and in view of the present position we can only do so by stopping the building of other urgent projects.

It was interesting to note that recently the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said: We cannot do everything at once. We may have to do with fewer technical colleges;"— Is that the policy of the Opposition?— we may have to postpone the educational programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 327.] Is that the policy of the Opposition?

§ Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Certainly.

§ Mr. Gibson

That is exactly what hon. Gentlemen opposite did with the Fisher Act; they passed a beautiful Act of Parliament and then refrained from implementing it. Fortunately, this time the Butler Act has got through and we are carrying it out. Unless we are prepared to spend money on building the necessary schools, particularly technical schools, this country will never be able completely to overcome its economic difficulties.

I believe that the output of the industry can be increased by the application of brains to it, by the adoption of new methods, by increasing the use of machinery. If we had half the horsepower on our sites that the Americans have, we would increase output tremendously. Output can be increased by efficient site organisation, by incentive schemes, and by bringing the operatives fully into joint consultation over all that goes on at the site. If that is done, we can secure the co-operation of all sides of the building industry, which will lead to an increase in the number of houses built, but it cannot be done by trickery and what I regard as deceitful slogans such as that which the Conservative Party have adopted.

§ Lady Megan Lloyd George (Anglesey)

The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) has spoken with intimate knowledge of the building industry. I should 631 like also to congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) on what I think we would all agree was a distinguished Parliamentary performance. He, too, has an intimate knowledge of his subject, though not exactly from the same standpoint as that of the hon. Member for Clapham. He spoke with considerable moderation and made a plausible, although from my point of view not a convincing case.

There is not one of us who does not believe that broken homes, ill-health and misery, caused by the shortage of houses and the bad slum conditions in our cities and villages does not constitute today a challenge to all political parties and also to this House. The more desperate the housing situation becomes the more urgent is it that we should make housing a top priority in our social services, and the more vital does it become that we should use all methods, orthodox and unorthodox, to solve it at the earliest possible moment. But it also becomes equally important to see that we do not raise the hopes of the people who are waiting in the queues unless we are absolutely convinced that we have the resources and the materials available to provide the houses and to reach the target which we set ourselves.

What is this target which has been put before us today? In the Debate a year ago the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said he would give us the Conservative policy on housing in a single sentence. The Conservative Conference at Blackpool this year went one better and gave it to us in a shout—from the floor. As a result we have today this Amendment in which the party above the Gangway gives a guarantee and a pledge to the country that it will build 300,000 houses a year. At least a minimum—I think that was the phrase—of 300,000 houses a year.

It may be good electioneering—I am not even sure of that—but I still remain unconvinced after the adroit and persuasive speech of the hon. Member for Wallasey that it is a target which it is not difficult, perhaps impossible, to achieve in present circumstances. The hon. Member made many constructive suggestions, but they do not add up to an additional 100,000 houses a year. The hon. and 632 gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said at the conference at Blackpool that what he wanted his party to do was to quote a figure which the electorate could grasp. What is really wanted, if I may say so, is a target figure we can reach in the circumstances of today.

I should like to look at this target of 300,000 houses and to measure it by the yardstick of what was actually achieved before the last war. The average number of houses produced in the 20 years before the war was 200,000 houses a year—that is, at the rate at which we are building today.

§ Mr. Bevan

It was less than the rate which is being built today, because the Girdwood Report has already said that the 200,000 houses we are building is equal to a pre-war rate of 240,000 houses a year.

§ Lady Megan Lloyd George

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; that strengthens my case. In fact, the average number of houses built before the war was less than the number which are being built today. Even in the peak year of building before the war—1937—only 347,000 houses were built.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

No. 367,000.

§ Lady Megan Lloyd George

I am open to correction, but I think that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman checks the figure he will find that in 1937 it was 347,000 houses.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

If the noble Lady is speaking of the peak figure she will find, I think, that she has omitted Scotland, and that the figure of 200,000 which has been given is the figure for England and Scotland.

§ Lady Megan Lloyd George

If I was omitting Scotland I quite agree that it was a serious omission and one which I could not possibly hope to get away with.

I accept, then, the figure which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given of 367,000. But those houses were built in circumstances very different from today. I will give the right hon. and gallant Member those extra 20,000 if only he will take into account the different circumstances. There was then no shortage of materials; there were over 100,000 building operatives out of work. We were 633 spending £197 million on armaments, instead of over £1,000 million as we are faced with spending today. In 1937 there were no restrictions and no licence system. The building industry was free to build to its heart's content as many jerry-built houses to the acre as it possibly could—and how it packed them in! In fact, there were all the conditions which the hon. Member for Wallasey and his party say, if they were restored today, would enable them to accelerate to an enormous extent the amount of building. Despite favourable conditions of those pre-war years, the Tory Party say that they could build to within 60,000 houses of that target in the conditions of today.

There was one thing which the hon. Member for Wallasey never mentioned, from the beginning to the end of his speech, and that was the international situation of today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."] He did not take into account the conflicting——

§ Mr. Marples

I said, "subject to the strategic requirements of today."

§ Hon. Members

Oh.

§ Lady Megan Lloyd George

The hon. Member certainly said "subject to defence," but I do not think he made any reference to the worsening international situation. I do not know whether in the face of all these conflicting claims of defence and of the export trade, and particularly in face of the international situation, which has become much more grim in the last 48 hours, the party above the Gangway still adhere to their pledge and guarantee of 300,000 new houses a year.

§ Sir Arnold Gridley (Stockport, South)

Yes.

§ Lady Megan Lloyd George

The hon. Member says, "Yes." His party are going to adhere to that target without regard to the new commitments to the number of new factories which may have to be built to meet the new defence commitments which may be imposed upon us in an increasing degree. I am very glad, however, to know their intentions.

How do the party above the Gangway propose to achieve this new target figure? The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) explained the new Conservative policy to the delegates in Blackpool on the night before the target 634 was fixed. He said that the keynote of that policy was that, "We cannot do everything at once." That is a very admirable expression of opinion, and admirably suits the sanity of the right hon. Gentleman. But that is not what we have had today from the hon. Member for Wallasey.

We are told that there are to be no cuts. There was a time when we were told about cuts in capital expenditure—we were told that they were absolutely vital, and must be effected without delay. What we have now, however, is not a cut—it is an increase in capital expenditure. The economics of the policy have not yet been explained to us. I hope we shall hear more about that before the end of the Debate. Where is the additional expenditure to come from? From a cut in the schools or in the hospitals programmes? That is what the House is entitled to know if it is to be asked tonight to accept this target of an extra 100,000 houses.

But this is not only a matter of capital expenditure. As everyone knows, and as the hon. Member for Wallasey has already said, shortages apply an even greater limiting factor upon the housing programme than does expenditure. He spoke about timber. He said that there is plenty of timber, and sawn timber, in the world, but he did not tell us exactly from where we were to get the supplies. I am told, for instance, that France has stopped exports of softwoods and hardwoods and that Austria has practically shut down on exports. The new tax in Sweden, I am told, will, for the moment at any rate, stop shipments and supplies from Yugoslavia are coming through very slowly. Where are these additional supplies to come from?

§ Mr. Paget (Northampton)

Russia?

§ Lady Megan Lloyd George

I wonder. Hon. Gentlemen will no doubt say that we should get them from the dollar areas.

The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok said, I think, that this extra 100,000 houses would cost only £11 million more in terms of dollars. Are they still going to do everything at once? What about all those other little dollar accounts for additional newsprint and for more food supplies? Have they too been cut out of the policy of the Conservative Party? Have they abandoned those claims? Or do those small sums which 635 we need not bother about, but which will add up to a formidable total, which this country will have to face, still stand?

When I listen to some of these speeches of hon. and right hon. Members of the Opposition it seems to me that they are accusing the Government of failure in their housing programme on doctrinal grounds. There is the sort of suggestion that if they had been in power they would have adopted some very different policy from the outset. But I am not so sure. I do not think they can get away with that one either, because when in 1945 Mr. Willink, who was then Conservative Minister of Health, made the position of his party quite clear, what did he say? He said: The Government must control the private work—building and repair and decorative work done on private account—the Government must control the price of materials, standard components, and fittings for houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 1020.] There was not very much free enterprise about that.

§ Mr. Harmar Nicholls

That was six years ago.

§ Lady Megan Lloyd George

I know it was six years ago, but that was the policy they were going to adopt in the post-war period——

§ Mr. Nicholls

The war was still on.

§ Lady Megan Lloyd George

That was in the days when the Conservative Party was responsible for the practical job of building houses, and not engaged in building sand castles in the heady air of Blackpool. I say that in fact the Minister of Health has been surprisingly orthodox in his housing policy—sometimes too orthodox for me. If he had been as revolutionary in his actions as he has been in his speeches I think that some of the criticisms from this side of the House might have been justified; and I am not sure that we might not have had more houses. But his bark has been worse than his bite.

The Conservative Party have made it quite clear that they have abandoned what I call the Willink policy, and they are now back to a free industry, subject only to the limitation that in future no house should exceed a maximum, I do not quite know 636 what the maximum is. I think it is a financial maximum, the limit that they may spend upon the house. That would mean a free for all. It would mean a preponderance of houses for sale; and it would mean a jolly poor look out for the workers who cannot afford to buy a house. We on these benches want to make it clear that, as far as we are concerned, the first priority is to provide houses for rent, for those whose need is by far the greatest, for those whose need is by far the most poignant, and for those whose needs were the least satisfied in the years between the wars.

There are one or two things which I should like to raise with the Minister. This fixed target cannot be accepted, but we nevertheless believe that the number of houses can be increased. We should like to see the first priority in civil building most definitely given to housing. I do not think we are assured of that today. Many cases have been raised to illustrate it. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) mentioned a £35,000 licence given for a dance hall. There are many Government buildings of a rather sumptuous character going up; I do not know whether such buildings are releasing additional accommodation. We have heard from the hon. Member for Wallasey about clubs being erected. I have been informed—I hope it is not true—that a licence has been granted for the renovation of the Carlton Club—if I may say so, a difficult task at any time——