THE HOUSING SITUATION

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, is that quite right? There were a large number of sites already laid.

§ LORD SILKIN

There were very few sites. When the Labour Government took office the war was still in progress and, indeed, they had to make application to the Services for the release of key men—architects, surveyors and so on. They had to build up their organisation. There was also a shortage of raw materials. Indeed, they had to start at less than scratch, because we were still operating under war conditions.

The Government have certainly set about their task with energy. The present Minister has sent out to the local authorities no fewer than nine circulars and two memoranda. He has also produced a Town Development Bill. I make no complaint about that. I think it is right that the local authorities should know the Minister's mind, as indicated by the circulars which he is sending out. But I hope that he will bear in mind that there is a limit to the digestive capacity of local authorities, and it would be a pity to give them mental indigestion. At any rate, if the output of houses is going to be as good as the output of circulars, we shall be doing very well indeed.

The Government are proposing to attack the housing problem under four main heads—a reduction in the total size of houses; an increase in the ratio of houses to be erected under licence by private builders; the sale of houses owned by local authorities, and the use of alternative materials and improved methods of construction.. I wish to say a word or two about each of those. First, I realise that the reduction in the size of houses is in accordance with the advice given by the Ministers predecessor in the circular of April, 1951, and, therefore, in a sense I suppose that I am estopped from making any criticism of it. In so far as 206 it produces the same result and provides rooms of the same size, I suppose that in present circumstances it could be justified. But I am bound to say that I personally regret what amounts to a lowering of standards. I was very proud of the Bevan house. One has to remember that these houses have to stand for eighty, ninety or one hundred years. We hope—I certainly believe—that standards are continuing to rise. These were houses of which one could be proud, which looked ahead and which provided that improvement in conditions which we all anticipate and hope for in housing. But I make no serious criticism of what the Minister has attempted to do. I realise that it is an attempt to bring down the cost of housing, to reduce the amount of labour involved and to permit of the existing material being spread over a larger number of houses. So long as this is not a permanent condition but related to our present difficulties, I feel that it is legitimate.

I would ask the noble Lord whether he can assure me that this lower standard of housing—and it is a lower standard—is such that, if and when times get better, these same houses can be improved. For instance, the second w.c. is omitted: will it he possible at some future date to add a second w.c., and to add other facilities which exist in the present type of house but which are going to be omitted? I think that that would indeed be a wise precaution. I have in mind the case of a number of local authority fiats which are being built up to six and seven storeys without lifts, and the well is such that it will not be possible at any time to install a lift. With a little foresight, that well could have been made of sufficient size to permit the installation of a lift at some time when it became practicable, when people began to demand lifts and to refuse to climb six or seven flights of stairs. It is upon matters of that kind that. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give some assurance. In the meantime, I must accept, with regret, what I hope is only a temporary reduction in standard.

What I have said applies to local authority houses, but I should like some explanation about the houses that are to be built by private enterprise. I see that a maximum is established in terms of cost, but there is no minimum except the structural requirements laid down by 207 the National House-builders' Registration Council. These, however, are structural requirements and not amenity requirements. The requirements of the Registration Council do not cover such things as the size of rooms, the lavatories and the ordinary necessities of a house. While I recognise that no builder trying to sell his houses would put up dwellings that would be quite unsaleable, nevertheless I should like some assurance that somebody is going to examine these standards to see that houses erected are not below the standards we have learnt to expect in our new housing, merely in order to be offered for sale at an attractive price. I say quite frankly that I recognise that we have to give the private builder rather more freedom than perhaps we should the local authorities. Nevertheless, I feel that there ought to be some minimum standards below which private builders should not be allowed to go.

In this connection, I should also like to make the point that houses alone are not sufficient. They must be homes; and by "homes" I mean they must be in an environment which people to-day are entitled to expect. They must be healthy and convenient places in which to live. Therefore, in addition to homes, especially on new estates, there will be a need for shops, open spaces, schools and all the rest of it. I should like the noble Lord to explain what will be the effect of the restrictions that have been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the provision of these other things. If one takes literally the Chancellor's statement of January 29, there will be no shops, no offices, no new schools and so on. I should like to be assured that in the case of new housing estates, certainly, there will not merely be houses but the amenities that naturally go with them.

I come now to the second question, the increase in the ratio given to private builders. How is the Minister going to satisfy himself that his Party's promise, made in the Election manifesto—which, I may say, they will not be allowed to forget—will be carried out; that is, the promise that the number of houses built for letting will not be reduced? I put a Question down on this matter some months ago, and it was answered fully by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. From his 208 reply, I understand that the position is this: that if 200,000 houses are built and if, on an average, only one licence in four is given to private builders, instead of the permitted maximum of one in two, then by process of arithmetic (I have not troubled to work out the actual figures: I take it the noble Lord's arithmetic is right) the number of houses for letting will not be less than it was.

§ LORD LLOYD

I should like to interrupt for a moment on that point. I did say on that occasion that this was not a case of exact mathematics. What I said was based on previous experience, and that was, in the opinion of those who have had considerable experience, the probability.

§ LORD SILKIN

I quite follow that, but, of course, the promise was an exact one, that there would be not fewer houses for letting than there are to-day. I understand that the licensing rests entirely with the housing authorities and that it is not intended to interfere with their decisions. But the fulfilment of the Election pledge is based on two hypotheses: one, that there will be at least 200,000 houses built, and the other that the estimate or guess (whichever you like to call it) that on an average one licence in four will go to private builders will in fact materialise. What if either goes wrong? The noble Lord has explained that this matter is not entirely in his hands. The licensing is in the hands of the local authorities. What is the Minister doing in case it goes wrong? What is he doing to ensure that it does not go wrong? I imagine that he is keeping his fingers crossed and hoping for the best, but is he doing anything else; and, if it does not work out right, what is he going to do then? I should be glad if the noble Lord could answer that point.

My main criticism of the increase in the ratio of houses for sale is that by this means there will be what is popularly known as "queue jumping." The ability to buy a house, or perhaps just to put down a deposit, will enable a person on the housing list to get a higher priority than others. After all, the provision of houses in existing conditions should be based on need. I am not one of those who allege that the only need is in one section of the community. The need for housing exists universally, and 209 I know many cases where there is hardship among people who might be described as middle-class or even higher. It is just as great, just as serious, as it is among people of the lower incomes. None the less, I feel that it should not be the power of the purse that decides whether one individual or another gets a house. I have no doctrinal objection to home ownership; I want to make that abundantly clear. After all, the Labour Government accepted the principle of licensing, and it is merely a question of the numbers.

Nevertheless, with this increased ratio there is the great danger that people who are high up in the housing list, and who have the greatest need, will lose their claim. These fists have been prepared by local authorities, usually with very great care and based on points: an assessment is made of so many points for ex-Service men so many points for the size of family, health conditions, conditions in which they are living and so on. All these factors come into the points system, and, as I say, the persons who are high up on the list are the persons who have the greatest need. If this new factor of giving more private licences is introduced there will be the danger that people whose need is less will be able, under licence from the local authority with all the facilities that that involves, to buy a house to which they are not entitled. If so, it means that they will be given an advantage. I do not know what justification there is for this change. It cannot be a financial one, surely. However, perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will enlarge on that.

I notice that the building industry regard this increase in the ratio of houses to be licensed for private building as a step in the right direction. I am not surprised that they are not completely enthusiastic. The building industry had been led to expect that they were going to be set free, free to build as many houses as they liked and under any conditions that they pleased. I have been fortifying myself by reading a certain amount of pre-Election literature, and if I were a builder I should be very disappointed that I had not been set free. What is the position to-day of a builder? He still has to obtain a licence to build; he still has to find a specific purchaser or a tenant before he obtains his licence; he has to get planning consent, by-law 210 approval; he has to satisfy the requirements of the National House-builders Registration Council, and during the course of construction his work will be subject to periodic inspection. He has to comply with the regulations over the use of timber and steel, and at the end of his work there is a limitation on the price at which he may sell the house or the rent he may charge. That is hardly setting the builder free. But I imagine that among friends all is forgiven, and temporarily forgotten, and I expect that we shall not hear very much more about "setting the builders free" until the next Election.

I should like the noble Lord to explain how the sale of local authority houses is going to help the, housing problem, how it will add one single house to our numbers. I can see how it is likely to reduce the number of available houses. After all, every local authority house constitutes part of the pool. In the days before the war when I was chairman of a housing committee, we used to estimate that, on an average, a house became vacant every live years. To-day the local authority with which I was concerned have some 200,000 houses, and if similar conditions to those I have mentioned applied to-day, this authority would have 40,000 houses a year to let, merely from the pool. But I understand that houses are now occupied on an average for a longer period than five years. Putting it at ten years, that still gives them a pool of 20,000 houses a year for letting, which is substantially mom than the number that they can build. These houses are a very important factor in dealing with the housing problem—whether the total be 20,000 houses or even only 15,000. At all events, it is a larger number than can be built. If they were going to sell all their houses (which I sincerely hope they will not be permitted to do) none of these would be available for letting; in so far as a local authority is permitted to sell houses, surely that must reduce the pool of houses available for letting.

I should therefore like the noble Lord to explain what is the purpose of permitting the sale of local authority houses. Is it financial? Is it to enable the local authorities to make money? It can hardly be that, because I imagine that in a great many cases the local authority will be asked to lend the money for the 211 purchase and therefore they will simply be taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. Can the noble Lord who is to reply tell us whether any applications have actually been made by local authorities for permission to sell? Has there been any real demand from the local authorities for these powers? I understand that the power to sell has been on the Statute Book for some years; there is nothing new in that. Why have the Government suddenly brought it out into the open? Who is "putting on the heat" for this? It is not the local authorities; they could have done it at any time. Most of them do not want to sell their houses. Why then do the Government raise this proposal? Have there been any applications to sell; how many; has the Minister made any decision; and can the noble Lord tell us whether any protests have reached the Government? What are to be the Government's criteria as to whether they permit the sale of houses or not? What is to be the test?

On the last question, the use of alternative materials and improved methods of construction, I have explained to your Lordship that a great many of the recommendations of the two Committee set up have actually been put into operation. Is there anything more that the Government have in mind? I think we are almost at only the beginning of prefabrication. Have they in mind carrying out any further research or experiment in prefabrication and mechanisation, and are they going to give facilities to industries, particularly to builders, who want to mechanise their plant? I should like to suggest to the noble Lord one possibility of relieving the shortage.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON)

Would the noble Lord mind developing the point? The noble Lord asked what facilities were going to be given; I am not quite sure what he had in mind.

§ LORD SILKIN

Well, what I have in mind is this. I referred to the two exhibitions that were held just before the Election, and I think a similar one was held in 1945, where wonderful plant and equipment was shown which would reduce the amount of labour and simplify output in housing. But this equipment 212 has to be produced and made available. It is no good showing these things if builders cannot get them; and they can get them only if the Government encourage their production. My question is: Are the Government going to encourage the production of this equipment and plant of special type, and expedite its availability to builders?

I want to make one suggestion—namely, the use of timber houses. I would say at once that these are not suitable in congested areas, but up and down the country there is a considerable number of them. Of course, on the Continent, in the United States and in other places there are very large numbers. Shortly after the First World War a number of local authorities, the London County Council in particular, experimented with various types of houses, and they built a number of timber houses. These have now been standing for some thirty years and it has been possible to judge whether or not they are satisfactory. I understand that they are satisfactory in every possible way. The maintenance charges are no higher than for the normal house. They have certain advantages, one being that they are not too hot in summer and not too cold in winter. The tenants like them very much, and I should imagine that such houses would be fairly easy to build. Indeed, in the last few years we in this country have developed an industry for the building of timber houses. The capacity exists, but we have been exporting them. I think that that is all to the good. But would it not be possible, in suitable areas and in suitable places, and with proper safeguards against fire risk, to encourage the production of a larger number of timber houses? I can assure the noble Lord that they would be well received by tenants. They would be cheaper than the normal house. They could be quickly mass produced, and there is no need to go to Sweden or Finland in order to import them; we can make them ourselves.

Before I sit down I should like to ask a few general questions. Will licences be given readily for the conversion of large houses into flats, maisonettes or small separate houses? At present these licences are being given. I should like to know whether this policy 213 will be continued or perhaps even extended. A large house, which very often is a white elephant, can be turned to advantage and, if properly converted, can make a great contribution to the solution of the housing problem. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure the House that these conversions will be allowed to continue. What is the Minister doing to ensure that houses are being built in the right places, not only in conformity with town planning principles but also where they are most needed—I mean from the point of view of existing economic and strategic needs? There are the special requirements of agricultural workers, mine workers, of labour required for brickworks and, of course, of labour for rearmament. It is no use talking of transferring a half a million workers from peace-time industry to rearmament unless you can provide accommodation for them. Special priority will be necessary in many cases, particularly for rural housing. I need not emphasise the vital need for increased food production, but we shall not get is unless we can provide more accommodation for the rural worker. This will need a high degree of priority. If, however, local authorities are being encouraged to build as fast as they can, without limit, as I understand is the case, how will the Minister ensure that he gets this priority for houses where they are most needed? Will not the limiting factor always be labour and materials? Then, I should like to ask what the Government are doing to increase the supply of bricks, cement, timber and fittings, which are bound to be in short supply. Unless there is an even flow of these things, I can assure the noble Lord that housing will be badly held up. We must ensure an adequate supply of all these materials, and that will need a great deal of preparatory work.

Next I should like to ask, what is the Government policy on development of new towns? I was glad to see that the Minister had spoken in rather enthusiastic terms about existing developments in the new towns. There are now fourteen new towns, in which, naturally, I have a paternal interest because they were all started during my term of office. But can the noble Lord say whether or not there are any more in contemplation? Every new town is started for a specific purpose—for dispersal, in order to pro- 214 vide for a particular type of industrial worker, or for some special reason or other. There is still a need for more new towns in certain parts of the country. Does the Minister contemplate the setting up of more new towns where a good case can be made out? My last question is: What is to be the policy about slum clearance and areas of comprehensive redevelopment necessitated by bad or obsolete lay-out? Unhappily, as the noble Lord knows, we still have large numbers of slums and very large areas in the big cities which are in great need of redevelopment. Upon some of these work has actually been started. Will the local authorities be encouraged to go on with their slum clearance and comprehensive redevelopment schemes?

That concludes the questions that I want to put to the noble Lord. I realise that I have given him material for a very long speech. But I did give him some notice of what I was going to ask him, and no doubt he will have had a very busy time finding the answers. I have perforce had to leave unsaid a good deal that I think ought to be said in a debate of this kind, but I see that there is a very long list of speakers, and I am sure that any defects on my part will be made good. The Government will be faced with ever-increasing difficulties. The competition of rearmament is going to be very great and acute. But the Government have pledged themselves to give the highest priority to horsing, after rearmament. If they honour that pledge and proceed with the erection of homes with energy, determination and enthusiasm, in an imaginative way and not by depressing standards or spoiling the amenities of our towns and the countryside, they will earn a debt of gratitude from the nation—and for one, will not hesitate to acknowledge it. But if they fail, it will be the cruellest deception that has ever been perpetrated on those who are in need of homes and who have relied on their promises. And the nation will never forget. I beg to move for Papers.

§ LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord who has moved this Motion by making a survey of the complete field of housing, but I want to put in a particular plea for one section of the community about which I have spoken to your Lordships on pre- 215 vious occasions. I trust that you will bear with me if I once again put forward my plea on their behalf. The people I refer to are those who are growing old; people who are really in need of care and attention because of age and infirmity. I want to be very careful not to base my remarks on sentiment, but I think I have one or two points I can put before your Lordships which, you may find, afford convincing support to my argument that by making provision of proper housing for people in this category we shall be meeting a very great need and contributing largely to the solution of the housing problem.

The first point I should like to make is this. The experiment was tried in one London borough—I think it was Hornsey—about four years ago of providing a small group of special houses for persons of the sort I have mentioned. The local council built a series of about fifteen small houses for old people in the borough. Those houses were constructed on substantial lines and were extremely up-to-date and comfortable. By building them the council were able to arrange for the transfer from other homes of old people whose families had grown up and gone out into the world. These old people, in the circumstances, found smaller dwellings much more convenient for their purposes, and their transference meant that fifteen other and larger houses were made available for young couples and couples with families. That experiment was reported to the Minister—I think in comparatively recent times, possibly in the life of the present Government. I should like to know whether the idea has been followed up; whether there is any proposal for developments arising out of that kind of experiment.

It is necessary, I believe, to be careful not to put up houses for old people in too large colonies. It is not advisable to have great sections of the older members of the community living together in one area. Nevertheless, it is a fact that in the Scandinavian countries large colonies have been built. I do not know if any of your Lordships has recently been to Copenhagen, but if you have you may have noticed that there is there a very large section devoted to flats and apartments for old people. There must be several thousands of these folks living together. The dwellings certainly look 216 pleasant, and they are obviously popular, for there is a long waiting list of would-be occupants. Nevertheless, I think that the general feeling in this country would be opposed to that system. Certainly, that is my feeling. I consider that what is needed is to get these old people, so to speak, split up, so that they can give help and comfort to their children and to young members of the community generally. It is, for example, a great advantage to a young married couple with, perhaps, two or three children, to have the wife's mother living close at hand so that she can take care of the children from time to time when, it may be, their parents want to go out to the pictures or to take some other form of recreation. If parents have not someone like that to come in and give them a hand, it means that the wife is going to be tied to the children and the husband is bound to go out by himself, and, doing so, he may get into all sorts of difficulties and troubles which may lead to a breaking up of the marriage. Therefore I think that when it can be arranged to have grandmothers living near their children and grandchildren, this will tend to prevent the breaking up of a good many marriages.

Another reason for making special provision of housing for these old people is that almost every day one reads in the Press reports of the rising cost of the National Health Service and of the great difficulty that is experienced in finding accommodation in hospitals for old people when they become sick. Now it is difficult to prove what I am going to say, but I think I can give your Lordships some evidence in support of it. If people are properly housed there will be a big reduction in the incidence of the chronic rather degenerating and crippling, diseases which sometimes occur in old age. One has seen this borne out by what has happened in two places where there are large colonies for old people—me near Mill Hill and the other near Weybridge. During the past fifty years from 5,000 to 6,000 people have been in occupation of cottages at these places. They are nice cottages but it is true that in one instance a number of the old people are a trifle isolated. I understand that over the past fifty years there have been at these places practically no cases of these chronic, crippling illnesses which attack old people, causing them to need hospital treatment and often to occupy 217 beds for a considerable period, thereby making hospitals reluctant to admit them. I admit that that is rather a negative sort of proof of my contention, but I think more investigation on the same lines would show that what I have said is true and that we can cut down the incidence of these diseases in this way. We have succeeded in greatly reducing the incidence of infectious diseases during the past century by means of better and cleaner housing conditions, and I feel sure that we could cut down the incidence of these chronic complaints of old people by taking measures on similar lines.

One of the real tragedies of the present time, in my view, is the separation of housing from health. It was, I believe, wrong to separate local government housing from the other work of the Ministry of Health. Housing, properly directed, pan be of immense value from the point of view of both curative and preventive methods of treating illness. Furthermore, housing involves big medical and health problems. It is very difficult to prove that by having good housing you cut down long illnesses, but what I can prove quite clearly is that if you have bad housing you will greatly encourage such illnesses. A part of London in which I work and which I know well is St. Pancras, and in some districts of that borough housing conditions are distinctly bad. This, I think, is largely because so many of the houses were built in Victorian times to house families. They are often four-storey structures, and although when they were built they were very suitable for their purpose, conditions have so changed that now each floor and, maybe, each room has often become a home for a separate person or a separate family.

Because old people, as a general rule, have not much money, they tend to be pushed by economic pressure to the top floor. Rooms on the top floor are usually cheaper than those on the lower floors. Poor old people living in the top storeys are often without w.c. facilities, as these places are in a great many cases situated on the ground floor. There are even instances where to obtain water it is necessary to descend to ground level, as there are no taps in the upper parts of some of these dwellings. It is very easy to see how mental decay and self-neglect sets in when people, through infirmity, are unable to get down to the ground floors 218 of these places. This leads to a very great amount of really serious illness which, again, requires patients to be kept for a long time in hospital. And when they come out after being treated or cured, the difficulty of re-housing them is enormous. I know that good and friendly local authorities do their best for these old people, but the accommodation just is not there, and they are confronted with the choice of keeping people in hospital after they are perfectly well or of sending them back to their lop floors, knowing full well that in six months time they will be back in hospital again. I support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his plea for some encouragement for the programmes of slum clearance, as they are of as much importance to the people I am talking about as to their younger contemporaries. To come back to whit I said a moment ago, the important thing is to realise what a great amount of sickness and expense the country is caused by the present housing shortage. Everything that can be done should be done to build as many houses as possible and make them available to young as well as old people. I am not saying this in any critical way, because I am sure the Government have every intention of carrying out this work.

§ THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for bringing this matter before the House. He has a specialised knowledge of the subject and speaks with all the authority of great experience. I found myself in complete agreement with a number of his remarks at the beginning, most certainly so when he described this as a most vital and urgent problem. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion there. We all feel that, after the problem of defence, this is the most vital of all social problems confronting the country to-day. For, notwithstanding all that has been done, there are three undeniable facts. The first is that overcrowding in our towns is almost as serious as it ever has been. There are very long waiting lists, and in many towns these waiting lists are longer than they were the year before last. The second undeniable fact is that a large number of houses, running into tens of thousands, which were long ago 219 condemned as unfit for human habitation, are still occupied. Slums cannot be swept away until some accommodation is found for the people who are now living in them. They would prefer to live under a roof in a slum, rather than have no roof to live under. The third fact, which I feel is not always recognised, is that new slums are being created by the deterioration of existing property, partly through neglect and neglect of repairs.

I also found myself in agreement with the noble Lord when he spoke in high terms of the way in which the late Government carried through a very great housing programme. I have always supported that programme, and I feel that the main lines of the policy adopted by the late Government were right. That statement, however, does not necessarily mean that I am critical of new experiments and new methods, which apparently the present Government intend to attempt. A policy which may be right for one period may need considerable modification later. Therefore, I am very willing to see the private speculator and builder having greater opportunities, within limits, than he had in the past. He claims that he will be able to build more quickly than the public authorities. Let him have a try—I am not so alarmed about the modifications in the standard as the noble Lord. His criticisms were obviously gentle because indications of the Government's modifications were suggested under the previous Government. I wonder whether this step really means anything like a lowering of the standard of building. My housing experts, to whom I often have to turn for advice, have urged me to distinguish between the standard of building and the standard of accommodation. They are strongly opposed to any kind of reduction in the standard of building. If we reduce the standard of the strength of walls and of the materials used, we are preparing slums for the future. On the other hand, I believe that there can be some change in the standard of accommodation, and that a number of minor changes can be made—dropping things which would be desirable but which, under the present emergency, cannot be afforded. I think it is right that experiments should be made in that direction to see whether houses cannot be built at 220 a lower cost. If they can be built at a lower cost, more houses will be put up.

I hope very much that this matter may not be dealt with from a Party point of view. On the main principles there is agreement between the Parties. The noble Lord referred to a number of manifestoes and speeches made during the Election. Whether to my good fortune or to my misfortune, I was out of the country at the time and did not have the pleasure of reading these various manifestoes and I can express no opinion on them; but when I have discussed this matter with members of different Parties I find that substantially they agree. There are differences in detail, but they are at one in a determination to see that a large number of houses are built as quickly as possible. The target of 300,000 houses seems to me to be a somewhat ambitious one. I think there will be practical difficulties in realising it. But there is nothing like having a striking target. If we had a target of 300,000, we might build 250,000, which would be more than a target of 200,000.

I do not propose to say anything about the actual building of houses. I want to urge two points, which I think ought to be kept in mind. First, I hope the Government will see that existing accommodation is used to the widest extent and is not in any kind of way dissipated. For instance, I have been struck by the way in which a large number of dwelling-houses in different parts of the country are now taken over as offices of various local authorities, instead of being converted into flats, whether for old people or others. I know one town where only eight years ago there was a row of quite attractive houses, each occupied by a separate family; and in one or two cases there might have been two families in the one house. Now all these houses are offices connected with one of the local authorities. The demand of local authorities for new offices and new accommodation is becoming a dangerous mania. If a vicarage is now vacated, as it often is between the departure of a vicar and the arrival of a new one, there are local authorities who at once put in an order for compulsory purchase. I know a case of this kind in the North Riding. If they were successful, the work of the Church in that place would be hopelessly crippled, perhaps for years; 221 there would be a search for accommodation elsewhere, while a vicarage which had been used for 200 or 300 years for the purposes connected with the Church would be turned, not into a number of houses out into a number of rather comfortable offices for a growing bureaucracy. If one ascertained the total number of houses which were once used for habitation but which are now used as offices, the sum total throughout the country would be very large indeed.

But I want to emphasise what the noble Lord who has just spoken dwelt upon—namely, that a good deal of space in houses is now not fully used. People are over housed in some cases, although in many more cases they are under housed. I am thinking, as the noble Lord was, of those houses which once were occupied by a family; where the children have grown up and gone out into the world, and the parents remain alone in a large house. I am told that the cycle of a family house is forty years, but that during that time it is used to the full extent for only fifteen years. This means that there are a number of houses, especially, I think, in the country, now occupied by two old people, although at one time they were occupied by a large family. The old people will not move away for two quite good reasons. The first is that if they move away from a house which is controlled they will have to pay higher rent elsewhere. The other reason is even stronger, and it is one in which I sympathise with them more warmly—namely, that they are afraid they will be moved right away from the village which has been their home for a number of years and find themselves among strangers. Therefore, it is of great importance that a much larger number of houses to accommodate two people should Le built for these old people. In that way the larger houses will be set free for those who have growing families. I hope that that matter will be kept carefully in Mind. The List document I saw on this matter showed that recently a considerable number of houses have been built for aged couples. That is a policy which, as the old increase in number, should be steadily pursued.

The other point I want to make is about the deterioration of good property into slums, which is taking place day by day. It is no doubt due to a number of causes, but one of them is the Rent Restrictions 222 Acts—I am now touching on a very controversial matter, and I doubt whether any Government, even if they had a large majority, would cote to deal with this particular problem in a comprehensive way. I recognise fully that these Rent Restrictions Acts are necessary, and I would not for a moment propose their complete abolition. But they are acting unfairly in certain ways, and there are a large number of cases where the rent is nothing like sufficient to meet the necessary repairs. Of course the rent of houses is completely out of any kind of relation with the income of those who occupy the houses. Some of your Lordships may have seen a book called Poverty and the Welfare State recently written by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree. It relates again to investigations at York. He says that in York, of the working-class families he investigated, he found nine poorer families whose rent was 25s. a week, but 1,044 families at the highest rate of working-class income where the rent was only 10s. a week. There has been no readjustment between rent and wages for a long time.

The point I want to make, however, is not so much the general but the specific point, that in a large number of cases the rent received is not sufficient to meet the necessary repairs. Mr. Rowntree refers a case of a man he says he knows well. The house which that man owns is let at 4s. a week, and after necessary repairs the net receipts for the whole year at the end of 1950 were 1s. 8d. When that is the case, repairs, which may be substantial, cannot be carried out, and one finds a large number of houses gradually deteriorating into slums. That is one of the matters in connection with the Rent Restrictions Acts which ought to receive most careful consideration. Not long ago some interesting figures were published by the Royal Institute of Chartered Accountants which showed that the maintenance cost index for 1951 was 275, as against 100 for 1939. If that is the case, then the cost of repairs has gone up out of all proportion to the rents received.

I should like to ask one question of the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government. I have not given notice of the question, and shall not be at all surprised if he tells me that he must have further notice of it. As the noble Lord already has a large number of questions to answer, I feel that I ought to apologise 223 for asking this. However, I should be grateful if he could give us any information about the progress made in connection with the new towns. Fifteen new towns are to be built, and they are to have a population of 440,000 people. I understand that at the end of last year only 3,000 houses in those towns had been completed, and that there were only 10,000 people in actual occupation. I do not know whether or not that is so, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give us any information on that point. Unless these new towns become strong and flourishing within a comparatively short time, the congestion and the spread of old towns will continue at an appalling rate. I believe that this housing question is one which we must solve, for unless the people of the country have good houses we shall not have a people who are contented and happy.

§ LORD WOOLTON

My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the most reverend Primate as I unfold the case I have to put to your Lordships to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has been most tolerant, not only in his speech, but in the length of time he has agreed to wait before addressing your Lordships on his Motion. I personally am grateful to him for the consideration he showed in postponing the debate, as he did on one occasion, for my convenience. I am also grateful to him in that before he let loose that rather long string of questions to me he was considerate enough to give me notice—thereby disturbing my week-end's peace in trying to find the answers to them. The noble Lord speaks not only with the knowledge of a person who has occupied high office in the Department concerned with the problems with which we are dealing to-day, but also as a man who hat had a large practical experience of these problems both in local administration and in industry. I am sure that we are all grateful to him for having given us this opportunity of expressing our views to-day on a problem which, if one looks back over the Parliamentary history of the last fifty years, has occupied a dominant place in the attention of every Government in peace time. I personally have no doubt that it is the most important of all the social problems which confront this country to-day. I have no doubt that, from the national point of view, it ranks only 224 second—I am afraid it is second—in importance to the financial problems which engaged your Lordships' attention a week ago. It is true that different political Parties have different views as to how this problem could be solved; but there is no difference in any Party as to its urgency and importance.

As was his duty, the noble Lord told us of the accomplishments of his own Party when they are in office. Only to a minor degree do I dissent from any of his assumptions, but I am sure he will agree that it is profitless for us to pursue disagreements on this subject. The business of the present Government is to build on what they found when they took office, and I was delighted to hear the broad-minded statement which the noble Lord made just before he sat down, when he said that if we could do better, then he, at any rate—and I am sure all noble Lords opposite—would be glad for the sake of the country.

I have been interested in this problem for a very long time. It goes back to the days of my youth when I was doing social work. With the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I had a great deal to do with this problem when we were both engaged in the Coalition Government on the problems of reconstruction and endeavouring to get some sort of blue-print for what might happen when the war was over. The noble and learned Earl will remember that at that time we were considerably concerned to find out what was the possible productivity and capacity of the building trade. In each of the five years from 1934 to 1938, the figures of house construction in Great Britain varied from a minimum of 338,000 in 1934, to 367,000 in 1938. Even in 1939, when the country was considerably engaged in the process of rearmament, the figure was 306,000. The interesting thing about these figures is that, during these six years, the number of houses built in England and Wales by local authorities varied from a "low" of 43,000 in 1935 to a "high" of 88,000 in 1938, whereas the number of houses built by private enterprise in this period ranged from 252,000 to 275,000. I should say that in Scotland the position was reversed; roughly speaking, twice as many houses were built before the war by local authorities as by private enterprise. I give your Lordships these figures because they form some justification for 225 an estimate that some of us made and which will remain with us until, in the pride of accomplishment, people forget it.

Before the war, Governments were concerned with a very different problem of housing from the one with which we are concerned. For the most part—and I am glad that it should have been raised again to-day—they were concerned with the problems of slum clearance and overcrowding. Only 33,500 unfit houses have been pulled down during the course of the last six years since the war. I was asked whether we shall continue slum clearance. I am sure that the most reverend Primate has given us the answer to this question. We must build houses before we destroy houses in which people are living, however much we regret that anybody should be living in such conditions. Of course, the deterioration of houses has been going on all these years, and in addition we lost 218,000 houses during the war.

I do not find it very easy to arrive at any sort of calculation as to the number of houses we shall require in order to provide a home for every family. However, I do know this—and I think it is important that we should say it in your Lordships' House to-day—that the problem is so great in its magnitude and is so important in its consequences that it calls for a united effort, not only from all political Parties, which I believe we shall have on this issue, but from all the people who are either directly or indirectly engaged in the occupation of house building. The building trades of all ranks have it within their power to hasten the day when every family in this country can have a home of its own. Every man in the trade is engaged on work of supreme national importance. To help in this work is to help the nation to health and to happiness. The demand is so great that no firm and no operative in the building industry need have any fear about there not being plenty to occupy his capacity and his time for years to come. No one need be looking round the corner wondering whether there is unemployment there. He might, indeed, look round the corner, when he will find thousands of people waiting for the homes which only the building trade can provide for them.

Governments may give encouragement or they may retard. What Governments 226 cannot do is build houses: the glory of accomplishedment must belong to the building trade. The responsibility of the Government is a joint one. It is partly a national responsibility and partly a local one, but in this matter it is clear and defined. I can assure the House that the whole Cabinet are determined, within the limits of our capacity and second only to the call for defence, to do everything to encourage local authorities and those engaged in the industry in their efforts to meet the housing needs of the country. Obviously, the first task is to complete the 225,000 houses which are now under construction and the 86,000 houses for which licences have been given and which are awaiting a start. To get the best results—and here, of course, is where perhaps we have departed a little from the ways of the previous Government, and I hope we are right—it is quite clear to us that we must try to use all the forces that are at our disposal. The greatest need is for houses to let and we prescribe that local authorities must devote at least one-half of their programme to the building of council houses for letting. Your Lordships have so much personal experience of this problem that you know that there are widely varying conditions in different areas in the country. It is only after this 50 per cent. has been provided, that local authorities may use their discretion according to local circumstances as to the extent to which they will issue private licences. The other thing that we have said, and we say it with emphasis, is that virtually the only limit to a local authority's programme is the local capacity for building houses.

I realise that there are some people who doubt the policy of making it easier for people who want to buy their own homes to do so. I wonder whether there is not a little danger of being doctrinaire about this. Personally, I rather like living in my own house, and I think a great many other people feel just as I do about it. I remember that early in my youth I spent some time living in one of the cotton towns in East Lancashire. It was a matter of very great pride to those cotton operatives that they owned their own houses; and beautifully they kept them, in spite of the fact that the climate was not good. They washed them outside and they washed them inside. It was a 227 matter of housewifely pride, and the husbands, too, were proud of them. They saved their money in order to own their own houses. I think that is a good thing. It will be a good thing if we encourage a lot of people in this country, if they have the means to do it, to own their own houses. I believe that, without causing any hardship to other people—this is the issue between us—it can be encouraged.

But there is another sort of house that we should like to see more widely licensed—and I am sure that those of your Lordships who live in the country will realise that this is a problem that is very wide in its application—that is, the house that is built by the small builder. There must be many small builders who could build two, three or half a dozen houses as a "hospital job" (as I believe they call it in the trade, although I do not know why), worked in with other tasks of essential repair and maintenance of existing properties. If they can do it, why not let them do it, and by that means increase the number of houses available in the rural districts?

I am glad to see that some local authorities are issuing what they call block licences for building a suitable number of houses, on condition that the occupants of the completed houses are approved by the local authority. I believe that that building on a large scale is the way in which we shall not only get more houses more quickly but also bring down the cost of houses. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was concerned as to whether, in the process of this housing drive, we were likely to reduce the standards of building in this country. He was meticulously careful in asking the question about the standards of building. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord was a little hesitant in his speech about building, but not at all hesitant in his speech about amenities. I think that is the distinction. The answer about building is "No." We do not want to reduce the standard of building. Local authorities may reduce the standard of amenities, but I share with the noble Lord opposite the hope that, in the process of so doing, they will have the foresight to provide for the addition of amenities in better times. We have come to the conclusion that economy in reducing the size of corridors and unoccupied space is quite justifiable in these days. 228 It will reduce the cost of the houses; it will reduce the demand on materials, and I think it will be a good thing from both points of view.

The noble Lord reminded your Lordships that the standards must be up to those laid down by the National House-builders Registration Council, and he wondered whether there was some danger of people building houses that were so small that (if I may use the vernacular) it would not be possible to "swing a cat round" in them. I do not think there is much danger of that, because at the present time the demand for the reasonable house is much too big for any private builder to be tempted to fall into that error. But I should be glad to see an increasingly large number of dwellings built for elderly people who perhaps have not the means to look after larger houses and certainly do not want the physical labour of doing so. I do not know whether I should say this but, speaking to the noble Lord as one grandfather to another, I am sure that he was right when he said it was important that grandparents should not be too far removed from their grandchildren, in order that they might on occasion act as "sitters-in" while the younger people went out and enjoyed themselves.

I revert to Lord Silkin's question as to whether the fact that building licences are to be given for the building of houses for owner-occupiers will involve a reduction in the number of houses that will be available for letting—I think that was the most serious question which the noble Lord put to me. My noble friend Lord Lloyd gave the Minister's answer to that question a short time ago. I have consulted my right honourable friend about this matter. He is confident that at least as many houses will be built for letting as before and that, whilst much freedom is given to local authorities, the proportion of council houses built to those undertaken for owner-occupiers will probably be in the region of one in four, in England and Wales, and one in five in Scotland. The noble Lord asked me this quite impossible question: what would the Minister do if the number of houses built for letting was not maintained. I dare not go so far back into history as to say: "Wait and see," but I will say that we are, in Parliamentary language, thoroughly seized of the problem, and that it will be our business to 229 deal with it in the very early stages if we see that there is any danger of it happening.

Then there was the question of what is going to happen if people "jump the queue" and, because they have more money, are able to get a house earlier than those who have less money. Do not let us get confused about this issue. The noble Lord said that housing authorities had points schemes, schemes that indicated the relative needs for a house. A man can have need of a house, in spite of the fact that he has enough money to buy one; the two points are not mutually exclusive. I have here a cutting from a newspaper which says that a Government official earning £3,000 a year, will £500 expenses—I think that is rather good—is living in a Glasgow council house. I see no reason why the gentleman, had he been so inclined and if he had the need (as obviously he had, otherwise I am sure the Glasgow Corporation would not have let him have the house), should not have bought it and relieved the Glasgow Corporation and the country of the financial obligations that were involved.

Then I was asked, had there been any protests made? That was a question to which the noble Lord knew the answer. There nave been protests made about councils selling houses. There was a certain amount of demonstration in Glasgow a short time ago, but I am given to understand—and here I speak not of what I know but of what I am told—that the replies given by, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland went some way, at any rate, to satisfy local feeling in the matter, and the Glasgow Corporation proposals were supported.

§ LORD GREENHILL

I hope to be given the opportunity of being able to contradict that later.

§ LORD WOOLTON

You observe I chose my language with great care; said that I was so told. The noble Lord asked me why a local authority should sell a house. He asked me whether there was any real demand for this power to sell. Why is the noble Lord bothering about this, because if there is no real demand then the situation will not arise? Some people have said that they thought there was a great demand. I personally 230 express no opinion about it, but I will say (and I am sure it will give the noble Lord much satisfaction to know it) that there does not appear to have been any very great demand made to the Minister for his permission in this matter. But if there is no demand nobody will be damaged.

§ LORD SILKIN

I was afraid that the Government might be putting ideas into local authorities' heads.

§ LORD WOOLTON

But the ideas were already there and, as the noble Lord pointed out, this was not a new idea. The noble Lord asked me about questions of town planning—I am sorry to occupy so much of your Lordships' time on questions put to me. The noble Lord probably knows more about town and country planning than anybody else in this House, and I gather on great authority that the noble Lord understood the Act that he was administering. The noble and learned Earl and I spent a very large amount of time trying to understand it before it came into existence.

§ EARL JOWITT

And succeeded, in part.

§ LORD WOOLTON

He asked me whether in fact the present occupant of the office dealing with town and country planning would see that the principles of town planning were adhered to and whether they would satisfy the strategic and economic needs of the people. I can assure him, that my right honourable friend is very much alive to the problems and concerned with them. I do not think the noble Lord need worry unduly about our use of the phrase "setting the builders free." We never said that we would set them completely free, and we had every intention of continuing to license as long as it was necessary to license. We certainly always had the intention of seeing that builders obeyed the by-laws. I am sure he thinks we are right in saying that we propose to continue to exercise a maximum size to which builders can build. I am sure the building trade will welcome his solicitations on their behalf.

May I revert to the question of the strategic and economic needs to which he referred? So far as we are concerned, they come under three headings. In the first place, we are extremely anxious to 231 encourage the building of houses in rural areas and to encourage in particular the building of houses near people's work in rural areas. It is one of the most important things we have to do. Indeed, we must do everything we can to encourage farmers to produce more food. I believe we shall help them a great deal if we can get houses for the farm workers to live in. The other issue is that of miners, and there the Minister has made a special allocation in order that houses shall be built near to their work, because the need of coal is, indeed, probably the greatest need of the country. We are also endeavouring to make arrangements for increasing the provision of houses for people engaged on rearmament work and in the export trade.

Now I come to the question of new towns. Some time ago my noble friend Lord Gage asked me whether, living as I do within about fifteen miles of it, I would co and see the new town at Crawley in Sussex. So I went, and I was most impressed by the work that had been done under the previous Government in the building of that town. There are eight new towns under way around London. Here are the figures: 2,763 houses had been completed by January 31, and 4,351 were under construction. I do not think those figures would give a great deal of comfort to the most reverend Primate, but I chanced to get them out. I am told that progress is being made with the towns of Aycliffe and Peterlee. So far as the extension of this idea of new towns is concerned, the Government, generally speaking, would, before they embark on a very extensive enterprise of this nature, like to wait and see a little more clearly what measure of success will come from it. I was asked whether there was any proposals for further new towns, and the reply is that there are. The Manchester Corporation is proposing a new town at Congleton, and the Lancashire Development Plan is proposing a new town, I believe, at Skelmerdale.

My Lords, I have occupied your attention for a long time, much longer than I personally like doing. I hope I have answered most of the questions. In regard to substitutes we shall have to use all our ingenuity if we are to complete our quota. The noble Lord asked me 232 a question which has intrigued me a great deal—namely, on the use of timber houses. I know timber houses and how good they are. Of course, we can use timber houses only if we can get the timber from this country, because the balance of payments makes it extremely difficult for us in these days to get timber from other places. My Lords, as the debate proceeds other noble Lords will raise questions. Let me assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will give the closest attention to any such questions. There has been some doubt whether we were wise in saying that we should endeavour to build 300,000 houses. To-day I have given your Lordships the evidence on which we based our opinion: it was the capacity of the industry. But never mind whether we were wise or not. The truth is, that we have embarked on a bold adventure. We have been chided perhaps for putting the target too high. I agree it may be that circumstances that we cannot control may prevent us from reaching it. But let us face this fact: the target is not high enough to meet the needs of the people of this country, and we, as a Government, dare do no less than aim at the highest that is within the possible bounds of accomplishment; and we shall strive, without ceasing, to that end.

§ LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

My Lords, in asking for the indulgence of the House I hope I may be forgiven for pointing out that it is not the easiest of tasks for one who has been a referee for a good many years to return to the ranks of the players. However, I am greatly relieved by the assurances of my noble friends that, whilst there may be hard hitting, rough play is not favoured in your Lordships' House. But, lest I be tempted, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will forgive me if, on this occasion, I do not follow him, though on one or two of his remarks I should very much like to do so. We are all greatly concerned about the problem of housing. As the most reverend Primate said, it is the most vital and urgent domestic problem before us to-day. I think my noble friend Lord Silkin was right in pointing out that the late Government had made a very good start; but the waiting lists are still increasing.

233 As a former housing committee chairman and a Member of Parliament for one of the Divisions of Leeds, I know that city and its housing problems perhaps better than any other. Notwithstanding every effort, year by year the housing lists in that city increase in number, and there are now nearer 30,000 than 20,000 applicants. Moreover, at least 16,000 houses were condemned long before the war as unfit for human habitation, but they look as though they may continue to be occupied for very many years to come. Therefore the proposals of this or any ether Government to relieve or solve this problem deserve full and fair consideration.

We are all aware that the present proposals differ from those of the late Government in two main respects: first, in the permissive use of up to 50 per cent. of the allocations which are made to local authorities for private building, and, secondly, the decision to encourage the sale of council houses. I am a believer, as I imagine most of your Lordships are, in house-ownership and in the activities of building societies and other bodies which help to that end, and I would welcome a greater measure of private building and house sale, subject to one principal condition—namely, that the letting of houses to the most needy cases and to those who cannot afford to buy a house is not thereby unduly prejudiced. Here, my Lords, I think the Government's proposals fail. Surely, it is clear, beyond peradventure, that if, out of any given number of completed houses, the proportion of houses sold to those who can afford to buy is increased, then the number of houses available for letting must necessarily be reduced. Similarly, if council houses are sold, surely it is clear that the pool of houses available for letting must be reduced, and in that way those who must rent a house will be put further back in the queue. In point of fact, in both cases the purchaser obtains an advantage over the prospective tenant, who is often, and indeed usually, because he presumably has less means, in greater need.

My Lords, the only justification for these changes would be the production of more houses. Apart from the possible reduction of standards of accommodation and, one gathers, some cessation of other forms of building, I have yet to hear from any Government speaker any substantial proposal which would result in the pro- 234 duction of more houses. Surely this is the really crucial point without which the Government proposals get us nowhere. Indeed, as the noble Lord has said, the promise, or target, or aim, or hope, of 300,000 houses within a year, has already receded into the dim and distant future.

§ LORD WOOLTON

I did not say that.

§ LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

As the noble Lord has said, he and no doubt many others would be glad if it could be forgotten altogether. It is no reflection on the last Government that they were unable to do more than in fact they did do. As my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, they succeeded to an inheritance of bombed premises and an industry which hardly existed at the end of the war; to a position where the majority of workers were in the forces, and there was a great shortage of materials, and other difficulties. Now conditions are different. Much of the really urgent work has been done. The building trade is better organised, materials are much more plentiful, sites are prepared and much construction is on the way.

The great difficulty is obviously that of labour. In Leers, in pre-war days, there were some 2,500 tradesmen. There are probably the same number now, but only 1,000 are engaged on corporation work. Why is that? I am advised that the reasons are several in number. There is much alternative employment under better conditions. A number of large firms now have their own building staffs. Some tradesmen are or have been, employed on repairs or maintenance or similar work, or on factories where cost is not the first essential and higher wages can be paid. Then in a large city there is always a call for workers to go outside the city, to smaller towns and so on, to carry out factory or other work on a more remunerative basis; and if a contractor can obtain non-competitive work, either outside or inside the city, he naturally prefers to take on work of that type.

Therefore it seems to me that the great necessity is to endeavour to bring workers back to the cities and to municipal work. Here, I am going to venture to make a suggestion and to give what I hope may be good though, perhaps, unpalatable advice to the Government. The only way to increase the labour force is to offer greater incentives. That may be a matter 235 for regret, but I believe it to be a fact. I am afraid that local authorities must be allowed to pay higher prices than have been the case. At present, tenders are submitted to regional officers, who work on a ceiling of average prices and occasionally turn down tenders. These officers should, I suggest, be given a wider discretion, especially in large cities where the need and the difficulties are greatest. Incidentally, I should like to ask how the proposed regional body is to differ from the arrangement which is now carried out. At present, as I understand it, regional officers of the Housing, Works and Labour Department consult together. If there is to be a new body—as I gather there is—I shall be glad to know how that will differ from the old arrangement, and also whether local authorities will be represented upon it. If not, I think they ought to be.

Adverting to the question of prices, here, again, I understand, there is little or no liaison between the different Government contract-authorising Departments. The Ministry of Education, for example, allows much higher prices per square foot for the building of schools—which one would imagine to be simple work—than does the Ministry of Housing for houses; and the Home Office authorises higher prices, too. Houses, however, are clearly the first necessity, and I therefore suggest that consideration should be given to giving better contracts, thereby encouraging more contractors to compete and to pay better wages. That step, combined with the stoppage of other classes of building, would gradually bring contractors and tradesmen back into the industry and we should get more houses.

Finally, and speaking for myself only, I venture to suggest that the possibility and practicability of prefabricated temporary houses or bungalows be again considered. We are barely holding our own in the big cities, but if numbers of temporary houses were built, thousands would have a home of their own who have otherwise no hope for years to come. In the future, when we hope the building of permanent houses will have begun to overtake demand, the numbers occupying temporary houses can be reduced and transfers made, until the full complement of permanent houses has been built. With regard to what has been said by my noble friend concerning timber 236 houses, though I think there are other forms of construction for temporary houses which will probably be more practical in this country than building with timber, the construction of temporary houses would, in any event, employ labour not normally employed on the production of houses; and they can be erected easily and quickly. This course may be expensive, but the need is great, and I know, from personal experience, that hundreds, indeed, probably thousands, of couples would prefer a temporary bungalow with reasonable amenities to continuing to live in overcrowded or slum conditions or, as in so many cases, with relatives. The proposal would have one great advantage. Houses could be built on sites which are too small for any estate of permanent houses, or are, perhaps, not fully developed, or are partly occupied by premises which, in due course, will come down. These sites frequently have drains, water, roads and other services near at hand, and this would avoid the necessity of having to provide those services at enormous expense, as is so frequently the case with new estates at a considerable distance on the outskirts of cities. I commend that suggestion to the Government.

My Lords, I should have wished to say a word or two on the subject which was raised by the most reverend Primate, that of the maintenance and repair of existing privately-owned property, but I think that, on this occasion, I will content myself by urging the Government to give close attention to the position in that regard and to provide the means of doing the work necessary. On the general question of providing houses for those who so badly need them, I will conclude by wishing the Government, and, indeed, all concerned in the work, God speed.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, my first happy task this afternoon is to congratulate the noble Lord who has just made his maiden speech in this House, and I am sure that I speak for every noble Lord present when I extend a welcome to him. Although his having sat as a "referee," as he termed it, may have made it more difficult for him to make a speech, it certainly did not in any way incapacitate the noble Lord. Perhaps it made it easier for him to make the 237 ideal maiden speech, which is one without too much controversial matter in it. At any rate, I am sure that we all welcome the noble Lord, after his great services in another place, to our deliberations here.

We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for initiating this debate to-day. I am glad that it had to be postponed from the date for which it was originally put down, otherwise I should not have been here to take part. One thing winch struck me about the noble Lord's speech was that he referred with complete composure and, I thought, with a little complacency to what the previous Government had done in the matter of houses. He accused the Conservative Party—and I suppose a certain number of us here were included in the category—of making reckless promises at the last General Election when we promised a target of 300,000 houses. It may be that none of us expected that target to increase from 195,000 to 300,000 in one year, but that, of course, is the target which (despite what the noble Lord who has just sat down has said) we hope, and still believe, we can accomplish within a measurable space of time. But if conditions when the Labour Government took over in 1945 were as bad as Lord Silkin made them out to be, what frightfully reckless promises we had at that Election!We were promised millions of houses within a short space of time. I do not believe that the promise to try to get 300,000 houses is an excessive one. After all, before the war, from 1934 to 1938, the number built each year never fell below 344,000, and in 1938 about 367,000 permanent houses were completed.

It is clear that, with the present rearmament programme to which we are all committed, this is not the easiest time to raise the housing target. But I hope and believe that we can achieve our figure. The first requisite, of course, is the land. It is true that there are a fairly large number of sites available. I believe—as I pointed out when I interrupted the noble Lord in his speech—that there were quite a number of sites available for housing in 1945. In my view, if we are going to have any considerable amount of private building, as contrasted with local government building, we shall find that the provisions of the 238 Town and Country Planning Act will get in the way of acquiring the sites needed. Before long we shall have to try to secure from the Government some pronouncement on what, if anything, they propose to do in regard to the Town and Country Planning Act. If the Act is allowed to remain as it is, it will not be long before there has to be some Treasury scheme for the compensation to be paid. The assessments are coining in and are being agreed now by the district valuers, and it o ill not be long before it can be easily ascertained whether the £300,000,000 will be too much—which I doubt—or not nearly enough. Whatever a Communist Government might do about taking away a man's rights without payment, however near to that the Labour Government might have gone without the risk of attaching to themselves the label of Communist, I do not know; but I know that it would be fatal if a Conservative Government did not pay in full what its own officers had assessed as the proper compensation. I think this matter should be looked into pretty soon.

I have said that the question of sites would be more difficult for private builders because, of course, the local authorities have power to requisition land. The Central Land Board can requisition on behalf of private builders, but that is a far more roundabout way and we might find ourselves held up for want of land on which to build. The second thing required is adequate supplies of building materials. I believe that there is considerable delay in supplies of roofing slates. It takes about eighteen months to deliver after the order is given. I cannot think why that should be so. Perhaps the slate mines are undermanned, but there is still plenty of slate in Wales, and there are plenty of roofing tiles. Plasterboard takes rather long to deliver, but I am told that there is plenty of plywood, which in many cases can be a substitute. Although there is a shortage of facing bricks, there are plenty of common bricks, and if we reverted to the old practice of rough casting, we could use common bricks and meet the difficulty of the shortage of facing bricks.

Cement is sometimes difficult, and if we look round the countryside we can see the reason. The length of cement roads and kerbs which seems to be required for a modern school amazes me. 239 It is quite unnecessary for education to have to walk the last part of the way down a cement road: one does not walk down a cement highway to get to the school. I believe that local education authorities are being frightfully extravagant in this kind of thing and are depriving the building trade of cement needed to build homes for people. I hope a lot of that extravagance will be eliminated. I like to see good new schools, but a school costing £200,000 for 500 pupils can have some things cut out without in any way depriving the children of good classrooms and a good school. I am thinking of the kind of school which has classrooms built only on one side of the passage. When it is a bungalow school there can easily be lights in the top of the passage, and classrooms on both sides. That would save a large length of walling. In some modern schools we have not only a gymnasium, but an assembly hall and large dining rooms as well. The assembly hall is not often used and it would do no harm if it were used at other times as a gymnasium. That would cut out one large part of expensive construction and would give us extra labour to build more homes. If we look round, we shall find many ways in which we can economise.

I am told that the soft woods position is good. Soft woods were slightly easier to get last year, and we imported the biggest supply since the war, 1,650,000 standards. In regard to substitutes, I am glad to see that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has brought in Sir Percy Mills to help him. I know what good work Sir Percy Mills did in the days of the war, and I am certain that he will get down to the practical task of seeing where substitutes can be used, and advising the Minister accordingly. Next comes the actual allotting of contracts to build. I believe that the Minister is right in allotting contracts for a number of houses to be built outside the purview of the local authorities. We can probably rely on the local authorities' keeping up the same rate as last year, which was 190,000 houses, and I believe that the rest have to be obtained by other means. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Woolton say that he thought the small builders could build three or four houses 240 a year. No doubt they could do that without needing extra men, because they could work them in on house building between jobs of repairs. When we look in local builders' yards, it is extraordinary to see the amount of material lying in them; if they could build houses, they could use some of that material and that would avoid their having to make demands on materials in short supply.

I hope that we shall go a little further than my noble friend Lord Woolton suggested and allow any builder to erect four houses a year conforming to local government building by-laws without having to procure a licence. We must rid the licensing authority of some of the burdens put upon them, and this would be a step in that direction. I would also relieve the licensing authority of the need to license repairs for houses. We must keep the existing houses in the best repair that we can. With the present cost of repairs, no sensible owner would wish to be extravagant and will want only to keep the house in habitable repair. This would also relieve the licensing authority of a further burden, and would enable them to deal more promptly with licences for new building and for the expansion or conversion of existing buildings. If we can relieve the licensing authority of these duties, we shall get other things through far more quickly.

I should also like to see some of the big building contractors put on large-scale constructions, particularly in some of the new towns. We talk of new towns as though they are something new in our midst, invented since the war. But, of course, they are not. I represented the constituency of Uxbridge, and anybody who has visited that district will know of the building that took place at Hayes and Harlington and Ruislip—a whole new town, that of South Ruislip, suddenly grew up. That was all done by some of the large building contractors: they knew they had a job to do, not of building ten or twenty houses but hundreds; they took down their cranes, their road-making machinery, and so on, and got on with the job. The whole thing was planned so that the bricklayers went from house to house, and were followed by the carpenters, the slaters, and so on. If we are to get these 100,000 extra houses something like that will have to be done. For my part, in these difficult times I should like to see more houses built in 241 terraces. I do not know why everybody is so much against the terrace and in favour of the semi-detached house. In Sloane Square, and many other similar places, the houses are built in terraces—they are not called terraces, but nevertheless they are terraces—and being built in such a fashion they economise by saving a large number of walls. If they are well constructed, I see no objection to building houses in terraces. Probably some noble Lords opposite have seen the T.U.C. memorial houses in Tolpuddle, in Dorset. That is a very fine memorial: the houses are built in a terrace, and they do not look out of place, even in a delightful Dorset landscape. So let us economise in the outer walls—

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY)

And in land.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

And in land, as I am reminded—by building some of these houses in terraces—although if the noble Lord means, by economising in land, not having so much garden, I must say that in the country I am all in favour of a man having a sufficiency of garden to grow his own vegetables.

I believe that by concentrating the greater part of house building in the hands of local authorities the late Government were instrumental in causing fewer houses to be built—I say that for this reason: local authorities are less adaptable, and if the materials were not forthcoming it was not easy to make a change. The plans had been approved regionally, and perhaps centrally, and to get an alteration for the use of tiles instead of slates involved so much correspondence with the regional office, or headquarters in London, that they preferred to wait until something came. That sort of thing does not go on where the private builder builds the houses. Another point which was greatly to the disadvantage of local authorities was this. Since almost nobody could get a house except through local councils the number of names on the housing lists included everybody who wanted a house; whereas before the war, when people could get houses outside the local authorities, their waiting lists were not half as big. By concentrating them all, it looked as if the late Government had done even worse than they had in regard to the housing situation—if 242 noble Lords understand what I mean by that.

Finally, I should like to say a few words on the question of man-power. I believe that the noble Lord was right when he said that we have approximately the same number of people in the building trade now as we lad before the war. I have already said that I hope a great many more will be employed on building homes. I believe—some noble Lords will have heard me say this sort of thing before—that we can get more work out of the men by giving them more incentive. The incentive I continue to press for is not to pay them more, but to arrange that they shall not be taxed on their overtime earnings. I know that this raises difficult problem It will be said that by putting more money, untaxed, in the hands of the workmen, there will be still more money chasing fewer goods. However, my suggestion to overcome that problem is this: let them have their overtime, tax-free, if they put the money they earn in overtime into the cost of buying a house. Many people would work much harder if they thought they were working overtime in order to get a home of their own. I have not the slightest doubt that every pundit in the Treasury will "go up in the air" at a suggestion of that sort, but if we are to get more houses built, we must try new methods.

There is one other point that I wish to make on the man-power question. There are ways in which the building trade unions can help. At the present moment, when a new refinery or power station is being built, in quite a number of cases—either because the pipes are not laid out correctly, or because it is easier to build a straight wall and then cut holes in it for the pipes to go through—there is a great deal of cutting out of brickwork to be done. I am told that when a big power station was being built, 25 per cent. of the bricklayer's time was occupied in cutting out holes in the bricks, rather than in laying them. There are machines which can do this work, and I asked an experienced building contractor about it. I said, "Are they easy to work?" and he said, "Even you could work one after about half-an-hour." It is just a machine which will bore a hole in bricks in the same way as you have a hole bored in your tooth.

243 All that is necessary is to hold the machine steady, and yet the unions insist that it should be a bricklayer's job. It need not be a bricklayer's job. I know that talks are going on between both sides of the industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolton said, there is plenty of work for bricklayers to do, and it is the real work of laying bricks. That will go on for years, and they will not work themselves out of a job by allowing other people to take on these new tools. But they could then do the invaluable job of laying more bricks to build more homes for the people.

I am obliged to your Lordships for listening to me for so long. Of course I wish the Government well. I believe that they have started to tackle this problem in the right way. It will still need a great deal of drive and energy to complete it, but I am quite certain that the drive and energy will be forthcoming. I am one of those who believe that in one or two years, at any rate before the end of the lifetime of this Parliament, we shall have produced the 300,000 houses aimed at.

§ LORD MESTON

My Lords, this debate appears to be a long-distance marathon race, so far as the number of speakers and the length of speeches are concerned. I will therefore try to be as speedy as possible. In a debate on the subject of housing, any attempt to cover the whole ground is likely only to lead to redundancy and a waste of public time, and therefore I will concentrate on a very few points. In the best sense this is a non-Party debate, and I am sure that all concerned will persist, whatever Government are in power, to carry out their building policies, even although they may not agree with all that the Government propose. It appears to me that, so long as the maximum number of houses are constructed at reasonable speed and at a reasonable cost, it is a matter of secondary importance whether the method employed is local authority building or building by private enterprise.

As your Lordships know, local authorities employ the contracting builders who make their financial arrangements and organise their business in one way. The private house builder, as distinct from the contracting builder, makes his financial 244 arrangements and organises his business in a somewhat different way. In my view, it is a pity that the contracting builder or the private house builder should be asked or required at any time to do a job other than the particular job for which he is specially qualified. The only criticism which I have to make about the Government's policy is that they are taking up a somewhat modified attitude towards private enterprise. I always thought that when we had a Conservative Government back in power it would be the next best thing to a Liberal Government. I am not quite sure when the Liberal Party are coming back into power—I have not consulted the oracle on the subject recently—but I had hoped that the Conservative Party would be very much more in favour of private enterprise than they are showing themselves to be. A considerable number of people in the building trade are rather pained, to put it mildly, at the somewhat disappointing attitude of the present Government towards private enterprise.

I have said something about the difference between the contracting builder and the private house builder, and that leads me to make the suggestion that the general position would be greatly simplified if local authorities were allowed to build only for people who were unable to purchase their own houses—that is to say, if they were restricted to building for the purpose of letting. The private house builder—and this is a heresy with which your Lordships will not agree—should be allowed to build houses either for sale or letting, according to the desire of the builder. Where no subsidy is given, private enterprise should be granted licences without any control of price, or selection of purchasers or tenants. On the other hand, if a subsidy is given, say up to £150, then it is quite fair that the local authority should control the selling price.

Furthermore, private enterprise should not be penalised as it is at the present time. One has to be very careful when dealing with the subject of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, especially in the presence of the noble Lord the mover of this Motion, who is the architect, or at any rate the sponsor, of that Statute. I think that I am right in saying that, broadly speaking, local authorities are exempt wholly—certainly 245 they are partly—from the payment of development charge. The matter is dealt with in the rather complicated provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I will not go into them in detail, but they provide in substance that although the local authority is not called upon to pay a development charge, it may have to make a payment to the Central Land Board in lieu of that charge. The Statute then goes on to say that the Central Land Board may repay to the local authority the money which the local authority has in the first instance paid to the Central Land Board. How that conundrum works out in practice I do not profess to know. One thing I do know, and that is that the private house builder has to pay 100 per cent. development charge on any development which he undertakes within the meaning of that word in the Town and Country Planning Act,. 1947. I submit to the Government that they should look into the question of the imposition of development charges upon private house builders, because these charges are factors which militate against private house builders reducing the cost of building undertaken by them.

I will now say a few words about the control of building materials. I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was the only one of your Lordships to refer to any of these materials in any detail. There are a great number of people in this country, some of whom are very ignorant, who say that controls ought to be abolished but fail to give any reason for their assertion. I am going to be rather more careful and ask the Government whether they consider that the control of building materials is necessary at all, or at any rate to the extent to which it exists at the present time. Let us examine these materials briefly in detail. So far as bricks are concerned, there are plenty of brickworks in this country to provide all the bricks required if enough coal is forthcoming. So far as cement is concerned, there is more cement than is necessary for our own use and, in fact, a considerable amount of cement is exported. As for timber, this has been partly freed from control, so far as hardwoods are concerned. All softwoods, which are the woods mostly used in housing, should be freed completely and handed back to the timber merchants, who will, as in pre-war years, get us all the timber 246 we want at the lowest prices. I wonder how that statement will register in the minds of the Government, or indeed of anybody else.

One does not wish to be unfair but it is noticeable that softwoods for housing were approximately £10 to £18 per standard in 1939; now, under timber control, they are from £125 to £150 per standard. It does not appear that the control of softwoods has contributed at all towards any diminution in price, remembering all the time, of course, that prices have automatically risen in the last twelve years. As for lime, plasters, tiles and slates, these are produced by our own country and all that is needed is that the Government should provide coal, transport and labour for their production. I submit that no control here is needed. As for steel, very little is needed in housing; it is only necessary for rods in concrete—when I say "housing," I mean the construction of dwelling-houses; I am not referring, of course, to the construction of colossal Government offices.

Finally, may I dwell upon one miscellaneous but not. I hope, unimportant point? When the selling price of a house to-day is controlled by the local authority, the builder is often placed in a difficult position. In days gone by, if I employed a builder to build a house, I had to pay the builder instalments as the building proceeded. Now, where the selling price is controlled the builder is often kept out of his money until the house is sold—that is to say, he may in practice be kept out of his money for any period between six and eighteen months. Again—although I am quite sure that many of your Lordships will not agree with me on this point—the margin between the actual cost to the builder