HC Deb 26 November 1947 vol 444 cc2027-46

5.15 p.m.

Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end, to add: (2) The Minister of Works shall, not later than the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and each six months thereafter, until the completion of the temporary housing programme, lay before Parliament a progress report showing, interalia, the average cost of each completed type of temporary house within the previous six months and an explanation of any variation of costs which has occurred since the previous report. I move this Amendment so as to prevent this House and the country experiencing the kind of shock they received when this Bill was presented for Second Reading. After all, it is a very considerable thing that where contingencies of £22 million—that is what the figure worked out to be—have been allowed for two years ago, we should now be asked to give an additional £20 million. The figures given to us on Second Reading are very difficult to understand, and I should have thought it would have been much simpler if the figures could have been reduced to the actual increases in the individual houses instead of being given in large lump sums. Even the figures as given are difficult to reconcile. The Minister told us that there were four causes for increases. The first of these was the increase in wage rates of 11 per cent. He said that these involved an increase of about £11 million on site preparation and house erection and on the supply of the fitments. He then gave us his second cause for the increase, the cost of distribution and transport, which amounted to £7,500,000.

He gave us no other figures apart from those two, and moved on to his fourth item. I do not know whether he meant to say his third item, but he called it his fourth. That item was the aluminium house. I want to put that aside for the moment and to come to what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary because I cannot make the figures agree. One of the reasons why we are putting down this Amendment is that we shall have, it possible, detailed figures at periodic intervals. The hon. Gentleman said: As far as increased costs of the Ministry of Works types of temporary houses are concerned, the factory costs of those houses are down. A third of the increase in cost is due to the increase in site preparation costs.… That would mean that a third of the increase, if we remove the aluminium house from the calculations, would be £8,600,000. That figure does not com-pate with any figure given by the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary continued: Almost all the remainder "— that would be two-thirds— is due to increases in transport and storage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1570.] That works out at a figure in excess of £15 million, but the Minister gave the figure for the cost of distribution and transport as £7,500,000. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can explain, but it is difficult to understand exactly what was meant. The hon. Gentleman will realise that still we are not aware of the actual cost of the Ministry of Works type of temporary house. The last figure was somewhere about £1,100. What it is now I do not know. I do not think it has ever been given, and it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could give us that figure today.

May I turn to another reason why the figures should be given in connection with the aluminium house? The hon. Gentleman, in summing up the situation, told us that there was a 40 per cent. increase in the cost due to differences in regard to the make-up of the structure. Then there was a 35 per cent. increase in the cost of the components. He claimed that these components were really nothing to do with the housing programme, but I do not see how houses of this nature can be provided without the components; they are part of the house, and surely they must come into the programme? Then he went on to say that he was left with less than 20 per cent. Actually he was left with 25 per cent. on his own figures. I am not making a point of that, but it is difficult when one is making calculations. He-went on: most of which is due to increases in over-head charges.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1570 and 1571.] Here we are left without any details whatever. The House had thrown at it during Second Reading merely mass figures which do not seem to tie up, and there is nothing at all to show how the increased cost of the house is arrived at. We are desirous, that these things should be known. We think it would be helpful, not only to Members of this Committee but also to the public, and we should like to have a statement from time to time showing how the costs have varied and the reasons for these variations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin)

This Amendment represents the next stage of the argument put forward during the Second Reading Debate, that more information should be supplied on the detailed figures and, particularly, a breakdown of the increase in costs involved by the change in the present Estimates as against the 1945 Estimates. The suggestion was made then, I think by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) that some kind of Government publication should be provided—possibly along the lines of the 1945 White Paper which set forth the particular items by which the increase in the Estimate had been made up—for this later stage now we are nearing completion of the temporary housing programme.

It would be difficult to accept the Amendment. The programme is coming to an end and a progress report limited to the last six months—the first thing asked for in the Amendment—and then one which contains the tail-end of the programme in the second six months, would not provide hon. Members with the information they want, or right hon. Gentlemen opposite with the answers to the questions they have asked today. However, the Minister of Works and the Minister of Supply are eager to meet the request for further information, and they are prepared to provide a similar breakdown of figures to that given in the White Paper of 1945 in some suitable form. No doubt the most suitable form would be a White Paper giving the costs of all the various types of houses, and the reasons for the increase in costs, broken down in the way this was done in the 1945 White Paper. However, I am not yet in a position to make clear in what precise form the information can be supplied, but my right hon. Friends are prepared to meet precisely the request made from both sides of the Committee, and in that case I think the Amendment is unnecessary.

Commander Galbraith

Could the hon. Gentleman say when that White Paper will be available? It is a matter of some importance.

Mr. Durbin

I am afraid I cannot commit myself now to a date, but as soon as possible.

Commander Galbraith

Would it be before the end of the present year? After all, that is giving a considerable period of time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has all the figures available. Could they not be put together?

Mr. Durbin

Nearly all the figures are available—I have been looking into that today—but I cannot commit myself to a precise date. I think before the end of the year is possible, but I should need further information on that.

Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)

I must admit that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone some distance in an attempt to meet the complaint made from both sides of the House in our earlier discussions. Had he made that statement earlier it might not have been necessary for me to disturb some hon. Members from their positions of leisure at a late hour last night. I therefore wish he had made it earlier, because I detest having to take such a step, which I do not make a practice of doing. At the same time, I am not quite happy about this. It is not quite what we have asked for in the Amendment, and I should like to see a running commentary on how the situation was developing during the remaining months. That will not be covered in the White Paper suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, though I welcome that as far as it goes. The hon. Gentleman said he would supply me with certain information for which I asked, particularly as regards the aluminium house, and I understood that information would be available before we reached this stage of the Debate but, so far, it is not in my hands. Therefore, I cannot pursue the point much further, but it underlines the fact that, supposing we accept this Clause, we are doing so without having all the information that we should have in our hands or in our pockets before we do so.

I should hate to do anything which held up the passage of this Bill if I thought that by so doing I was holding up by one minute the erection of a single temporary house. I have always been a warm supporter of such houses. However, I wonder if we should be doing that if, at this stage of the Bill, we had some information before us? It is difficult for the Committee to arrive at a fair conclusion on whether these rather general statements give us sufficient information or not on this particularly large sum of money, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can go further than he has gone in order to help us a little more.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Braddock (Mitcham)

I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has found himself unable to accept this Amendment because, in my submission, it is almost useless. The damage is already done, and any investigation as to increased costs on a cost that is already very much too high, is not going to get us to the root of the difficulty.

Commander Galbraith

The hon. Member will remember that more damage can be done. There is an additional £3 million for contingencies, and the Minister said that he could not say that was the end of it.

Mr. Braddock

Yes, but we are dealing with a basic sum of £200 million.

Commander Galbraith

No.

Mr. Braddock

Twenty million pounds, unless I am wrong, is the suggested 10 per cent. increase.

Commander Galbraith

Yes.

Mr. Braddock

It is the basic sum which has to be looked at, the £200 million, and I was hopeful that the Parliamentary Secretary would have made some statement on the suggestions I made in the Second Reading Debate. Unless we get some clarification of this issue, the whole principle of building by prefebrication has received its death blow in this country.

I cannot bring myself to believe that these figures are a correct assessment of the financial side of prefabrication. We have accepted, I think on good authority, that manufacturing commodities in workshops, on the belt, in a planned way, is an economic method of production, yet our experience in prefabricated housing seems to show that the more workshop production there is, the greater the cost. The aluminium house, which is the only really prefabricated house we have, is almost wholly workshop produced. We are told it is costing £1,610. I should not be at all surprised to find the cost more, in view of past experience. Other types are not prefabricated in the real sense of the word, but the components are made in bigger pieces than bricks, and have to be gathered together on the site and put together, and the cost is apparently something over £1,400. So that the more prefabrication there is, the greater the cost. That is just nonsense in view of experience in all other types of production, and it leads me to believe that there is something basically wrong in the whole set-up in regard to prefabricated houses.

I am a friend of prefabrication, and believe that there is, or should be, a great future for this type of industry in our own country for houses, schools, hospitals and everything else, and a still greater use abroad. I can see the building up of a great industry in this country to provide for the needs of rapidly developing countries all over the world. We are going in for Colonial development, and we know that the new Indian Dominions are demanding rapid housing. But, if this production is to receive such a blow, and we are to be told this is to be the repercussion on this type of manufacture of living accommodation, the thing is damned at its birth. I do not believe these financial results give a true reflection of the real cost of these houses.

I ask the Government as I asked them in my speech on the Second Reading—to which I got no reply whatever from the Under-Secretary—that there should be a real, basic, investigation into the costs of these jobs in the workshops. We did that during the war and during the 1914–18 war. We prided ourselves on sending accountants into the munition factories, and finding out the real costs of production. As hon. Members know, the Exchequer was saved vast sums of money in that way. In view of the importance of the production of this commodity it is due to the building trade, to prefabricated building producers, and to this House that such an investigation should be made. I could not vote for this Amendment, because it simply begs the whole question, and buries the past. That is what we must not allow to be buried. I ask the Government to give the matter further consideration with a view to showing the country what is the real cost of these houses. In my opinion, it is vastly less than the amount the Government are being asked to pay in the accounts we have before us.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), who has addressed the Committee with such enthusiasm, and even engendered a little heat against his own Government; but, with the best will in the world, I find it a little difficult to follow the logic of his argument. He let us see how very deeply disturbed he is, as others in the Committee must be, about the whole process of temporary housing accommodation, and the voting of this additional £20 million. But, the hon. Member said that if the Amendment were accepted, it would get us nowhere, and would merely be opening an inquest which would prove useless, that the harm had been done, and it would be better for the Government to turn a deaf ear, and advise the Committee to reject the Amendment, through the Division Lobbies if necessary. I cannot follow that argument.

Surely the hon. Member will agree that we must be guided by past experience. If bad mistakes have been made in the past, we must take due steps to see that such mistakes—so far as we can help it—are not made in the future. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Mitcham cannot be in any doubt that the public in his division, which is thickly populated, and the public throughout Britain are deeply disturbed about the disclosure of mounting costs of housing in general, and of prefabricated houses in particular, about which he professed himself so deeply concerned. It would be no exaggeration to say that the public mind has been staggered by the figures revealed in regard to the lightning increase from £920 to over £1,600. I hope the hon. Member will join us in the Division Lobby, if necessary in order to show the Government that we think the House of Commons and the public are entitled to have the additional information. After all, £20 million added to £200 million is a very big sum of money. For what does a Committee of the House of Commons exist, if not to inquire how public money is expended?

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) that none of us would wish to hold up or prejudice the quick production of temporary accommodation. Quite the reverse, our job is to urge the Government even further in regard to this necessity. No one can be in any doubt on the other side of the Committee that the public mind is very deeply disturbed, not only at the expense, but at the lack of speedy production in this direction. I speak particularly as a Scottish Member. That is why I am especially glad that this Amendment was moved by another Scottish Member, because north of the Border there is much more to do—there is "muckle to do," to use the old Scottish phrase—about temporary housing accommodation, than there is here.

That is why I hope that even now, the Parliamentary Secretary will see the wisdom of this Amendment. If he cannot accept it in toto—and he has already intimated that he is not in a position to do so this evening—it is quite within his compass to reply again, and say that he will go further in considering this matter than he was prepared to do when he replied to my hon. and gallant Friend. He may be sure that if he will take that course, he will not merely be pleasing this. Committee but the general public of Great Britain. If he will take this course, not only will they be assured of a full revelation of costs and prices, but they will also be able to see how quickly or slowly the Government are proceeding in providing this type of accommodation. If, in his own interests, he takes this course, he will be acting wisely.

Mr. Sparks (Acton)

I have listened with some interest to what has been said, but it is important that we should make some distinction between what we are discussing—temporary housing—and what is being brought into discussion in the Debate—that is, permanent construction. I should indeed be sorry to think that our temporary housing programme is to set the standard for permanent pre-fabrication. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) said quite a good deal about the imperfections of the temporary housing programme, and I thought he rather implied that the weaknesses which appear to exist in relation to costs, and probably design also, augur ill for the future development of prefabrication. I do not take that view, because the temporary housing programme is essentially a temporary undertaking, and I should hesitate to think that the temporary structures which are at present being erected are to be the criteria upon which permanent prefabrication is to take place. Therefore, there is no relationship between the production of existing temporary houses and the far wider and more substantial programme of permanent prefabrication. Permanent prefabrication will, I believe, be a success. We cannot judge its ultimate success on the basis of temporary housing programme standards.

A good deal of what has been called "synthetic indignation" has been worked up from the benches opposite on the question of the cost of the aluminium house. The financial structure of the temporary housing programme cannot be judged on the cost of one type of house out of many. The whole temporary housing scheme is a wasteful and extravagant expenditure of public funds. Its only justification is the serious urgency of the need for housing accommodation in our towns and cities and in our smaller towns also. That is the only possible justification for the whole scheme, and to isolate one particular house from all its surrounding connections, and say, "This, and this alone is the expensive item" is to argue about something which is out of all proportion to the scheme as a whole.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I am quite sure that the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent what has been said from this side of the Committee. The Minister and Parliamentary Secretary have made it perfectly clear that the largest item of increase in the whole schedule of increases was attached to the increase of price of the aluminium house. There is no doubt about that, and that is why that particular type has gained the greatest importance in the course of the Debate.

545. P. m.

Mr. Sparks

I dare say that the hon. Member is quite correct, and that there is something in what he says. It is one of the items-, but I submit that we cannot isolate one particular item; we must take the programme as a whole. This is a temporary housing scheme, and at the end of 10 years, or 12 years at the outside, all these temporary houses are to be demolished, and the families who are in them will have to be provided with further housing accommodation. Therefore, when one takes the scheme as a whole, one realises what a great waste and extravagance it is to spend £220 million to build temporary structures that will only last for 10 or 12 years, at the end of which period they are to be demolished and the families in them rehoused in other houses. That indicates to me quite clearly that the whole conception of a temporary housing scheme is based upon, I will not say extravagance or waste, but a very expensive foundation. Therefore, let us get this matter in its proper perspective.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

The hon. Member has just intimated that at some time—in 10 or 12 years—these houses will be pulled down. I understood one of the Ministers to say the other day that they might far outlive that period. Has the hon. Member any authority to say that it is laid down somewhere that they will have to be destroyed at the end of a definite period?

Mr. Sparks

Yes. During the Second Reading Debate, in reply to me, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that I was aware, and we were all aware, that this was a temporary housing scheme to last for 10 years. Is it temporary or is it not? This is a temporary housing scheme, and quite a number of these houses have been built upon land which has been leased for 10 or 12 years only. The policy pursued by the previous Government was that land acquired for temporary houses should be acquired on the basis of a 10 or 12 years' lease, which involves obligations upon the local authority—and this applies to the whole of the temporary housing schemes—at the end of the life of the temporary houses. I hesitate to think what some of these temporary houses will look like if they are to last longer than 10 years; they will be much like rabbit hutches. I very much doubt whether many of them would last longer than 10 years. So we are faced with the position of having a temporary housing scheme which at the end of 10 or 12 years is to cease,' the accommodation is to be dismantled, and the families concerned are to be rehoused in other accommodation.

Quite a considerable amount of the land upon which these temporary structures are built has. as I have said, been acquired on leases of 10 to 12 years. At the end of that time the roads, sewers and services are to be dug up and the capital expenditure involved, wasted. More money has to be spent to do that or else the developed site is to be handed over to the owner to utilise as he wishes. Therefore, I would draw the attention of the Committee to the wider aspects of this temporary housing scheme. It is no use judging it on the basis of the cost of the aluminium house. The scheme must be taken as a whole, and when that is done anyone will realise that the scheme is very expensive and wasteful, and its only possible justification is the immediate urgency for housing accommodation in our towns and cities.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)

If anything, the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has emphasised the desirability of the very Amendment which we are discussing. That is to say, he claims that he would go even further than our Amendment and say that an even more exhaustive inquiry should be granted. I understood the Minister to offer to break down the figures, which, while not going quite so far as we would wish, would give us, in general, the information which we seek. That seemed to be a valuable concession, a fair offer which we on this side of the Committee would be anxious to accept. We think that he should be able to give an indication before we part with this Amendment, of when he will be able to give the information. I should have thought that he might have been able to afford us that information or, at any rate, that he might have explained that he would give that explanation before Parliament parted with this Bin. The Bill must also be taken in another place. It may not be convenient for the Minister to have a statement made here, but it may be possible to have a statement made in the other place. I think a case has been made out by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee for the break down of the figures in as great detail as the Minister can possibly afford.

The question has been raised that these are merely temporary houses and that we must not bring into account these figures when we are dealing with permanent prefabricated types. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), on the other hand, said that if these were the real and true figures for any kind of prefabricated house, it augured ill, to put it no higher than that, for the future of all prefabricated houses. Those of us who sat in previous Parliaments will remember that I have a long history in this matter concerned with the original prefabrication when we worked upon the Weir steel houses more than 20 years ago. I must say that we were able to get very much cheaper houses relatively even to the traditional methods, than it is possible to show on any kind of figures given today.

There is a further point where the prefabricated house comes in. It also acts, or should act, as a martingale upon soaring costs of traditional construction. We are a little disquieted to see these costs high above the level for traditional construction. It was our experience that the Weir house could always beat the first set of brick houses and never beat the second. That was a very healthy thing. Seeing the approach of the prefabricated house, people working in the traditional methods, to use a vulgarism, pulled up their socks and were able to produce at very much cheaper rates than before.

I think that the Committee requires a break down of these figures. The truth is probably half way between the view taken by the hon. Member for Mitcham and that taken by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). I do not think that these houses will be pulled down in 10 years and the inhabitants thrown into the streets. It is very improbable that we shall have enough housing accommodation in 10 years to be in a position actually to destroy housing accommodation in this country. That is extremely unlikely.

Mr. Sparks

Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me what is to happen to the sites on which these temporary houses are erected?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young)

Hon. Members are widening this discussion into a Second Reading Debate. I think that we ought to keep more closely to the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I was only dealing with the point which the hon. Member for Acton had raised. I would simply use the old Parliamentary phrase that "the resources of civilisation are not exhausted," and I believe that they will not be exhausted. We wish to know, as we put it in this Amendment: …the average cost of each completed type of temporary house. I am sure that information would be of value in examining the costs of the permanent type of prefabricated houses.

Mr. Sparks

Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he intends to include in that the cost of the sites and the construction of sites in addition to the actual production costs of the houses, because that is very important?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

The average cost of the house. The house exists not in the air or as a castle in Spain, but on an actual site on a piece of ground. Very few of us would wish to live in a house entirely divorced from all connection with the earth. In fact, I think we must take it that the average cost of the house means the average cost. Naturally, the site and the preparation of the site would come into question also.

I do not wish to widen the scope of the Debate, but I would say that experiments in prefabrication have always proved slightly less satisfactory than their originators had hoped before the programme was undertaken. One of the Committees appointed by a previous Minister of Health, Mr. Ernest Brown, reported rather unfavourably on the undertaking of prefabrication at all. I agree that owing to the enormous pressure on the housing accommodation of this country, pressure which is likely to proceed for many years, it was very desirable to undertake this auxiliary programme. But it is very necessary to see that money is not wastefully expended upon it, for it not only pushes up the cost of the temporary houses but also the cost of other prefabricated houses, and also helps to push up the cost of all traditional building. People dealing in the traditional method say that the Government are willing to pay £1,600 for an aluminium house which, if I remember rightly, is of some 700 superficial feet against the 900 superficial feet of the traditional house. They say, "If these are the prices the Government are willing to pay, there is no necessity for us to burst ourselves"—using again a colloquial phrase—"in trying to cut down our costs to the point at which we cannot see any profit for ourselves."

For this programme and for the greater programme of the traditional houses, direct cost accounting is very desirable indeed. Although the Minister has gone some way, I hope that he will be able to meet us still further, and assure us that before Parliament parts with this Bill, he will be able to give figures. I hope that, first, he will make a statement saying what the White Paper will be and, second, I hope that he will lay figures showing what the figures actually are, before Parliament is asked to pass a sponge over this whole transaction and give up its control, as it certainly will, once this Measure reaches the Statute Book.

Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

It must be obvious to the Parliamentary Secretary how concerned hon. Members on all sides of the Committee are on this question. I would suggest most respectfully that this is not a party Amendment. It is not one made for party capital. Several hon. Members opposite have been even more critical of the programme of the Government than we have on this side of the Committee. They have put forward the argument that this Amendment does not go far enough; but in this life one cannot always get the whole cake. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who said that these houses will only last for 10 years, knows perfectly well that a further lease can be acquired if necessary. The leases could be compulsorily acquired. That is done in housing every day. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) said that this Amendment did not go nearly far enough.

I would like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that this House is very deeply concerned. I think that even the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will join us in saying that we would like these particulars to be published so that we can follow with interest, and not with carping criticism, the situation as it develops from day to day. I do not wish to widen the Debate, but I would point out that I am speaking because of pressure in my constituency where people are deeply worried because of the few houses which are being built. Cost bears a very close relationship to that. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make sure that he is not delayed in erecting houses in rural areas by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I conclude by saying that I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to meet us. We do not want to vote against this Bill, nor do we wish to continue this Debate unnecessarily. We want to feel that the Minister will meet the spirit of our Amendment. If 31st December is impossible, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an answer to my right hon. and gallant Friend, and to say at what date the first report can be expected. May I add that, the earlier it is, the more it will meet with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams (Torquay)

So far as this Amendment submitted by my two right hon. Friends on the Front Bench is concerned. I do not think it goes nearly far enough. This Amendment really calls for a report at the end of the year, and, as far as I understand the position, after that, we shall have another report every six months. Frankly, that is not what I want. I go very much further, and I take a point of view very close to that of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), who put forward an extraordinarily strong case for something even more powerful than this Amendment. His point of view was that this prefabrication was an experiment that might have a tremendous future, not only in connection with housing, but also concerning the development of the trade of this country. For that reason, and because of the enormous increase in the cost of these houses, I think it is essential that we should really get down to the facts concerning this increase and the reason for it at the present time.

The Amendment will give us a report on what happens in the next six months, but it will really mean a very considerable time-lag, and I would emphasise that. After what has been said, not by one hon. Gentleman opposite but, on two or three occasions, by two and even three hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they have asked that the whole future of this industry should be borne in mind, there is some point in the request that the Parliamentary Secretary should look into the matter again. I do not expect him to treat this matter seriously, because, on the Front Bench, they do not realise that housing is a serious matter. It is the back benchers and the Members of the Conservative Party who do that, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman was laughing at the idea of getting this business on a proper footing.

This is an Amendment which I shall support if it goes to a Division. I am very disappointed, and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary's answer means anything at all. I would like to see the hon. Member for Mitcham put down a proper Amendment for the purpose of forcing an inquiry into the whole conduct of this business about these houses in the last few years, and he may be able to do so at another stage of the Bill. If he were able to do so, I would willingly help him in every possible way. It is not satisfactory for the people of this country to know that they are paying this vast sum of £1,6oo for houses that are only temporary and which have been attacked on every side, and it is also most discouraging to those builders who are building good permanent houses to see the alarming price which the Government are allowing to be paid for these temporary houses.

Mr. Durbin

Three points have been raised in the discussion on this Amendment. So far as that which concerns the date of the published statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is prepared to make, my information is that all the figures are now assembled and available, and that it is only a question of printing. Unless there are unforeseen difficulties, we can undertake to provide it before the end of the current year. As far as I can see there is really no substantial difference between the proposal made from this side of the Committee and the Amendment. The only point of discussion has been whether a White Paper, surveying the whole story up to date, or progress reports, at six monthly intervals, is the more suitable way of providing the information which hon. Members quite rightly require.

Mr. Sparks

Could the hon. Gentleman, at the same time, include in such a White Paper particulars of the number of houses erected on land held on lease?

Mr. Durbin

I think I would like to point out that, as the programme is now drawing to a conclusion, a White Paper surveying the whole story is really more suitable than a progress report, since a progress report would only apply to very recent events, and 90 per cent of the story would not be told.

Commander Galbraith

May I interrupt? The hon. Gentleman will realise that, when the programme has come to an end, it would be advisable for us to know the final result.

Mr. Durbin

I can meet that point by saying that any further information, after publication of the statement, can be supplied to anyone who is interested in it. I must repeat, that six-monthly progress reports scarcely seem to be the best way of dealing with a story which is 90 per cent. told already. It would seem to be very odd to have a progress report only referring to the last 10 per cent. of the programme. For these reasons, we hope the Amendment will be withdrawn, on the understanding that the information asked for regarding the breakdown of the increase in cost, shall be supplied in the way in which they were supplied in the White Paper on the original estimate.

There is one last point. I wish to say something about the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock). I think we feel very strongly in the Ministry of Works that it would be quite incorrect to take these figures out of their economic context and regard them as a test of the principle of prefabrication. I should like to explain that, of course, the costs of the prefabricated types ought to be linked up with those of the permanent prefabricated houses. There is in existence in draft already, a report of the progress in the prefabrication of permanent houses as a whole, but it is not possible at this moment to give a date for the publication of the report. I can, "however, assure hon. Members that cost investigations are being continued and that the report will be produced in a reasonable time.

I am now able to make available to the Committee the figures of the cost of the aluminium house for which I was asked. The amount of aluminium going into the house is two tons. The ratio in which that is derived from secondary scrap and from virgin aluminium is 75 per cent. scrap and 25 per cent. virgin aluminium. The price of the scrap has increased a little from £46 per ton to an average, for some months recently, of £51 per ton, and the price of virgin aluminium has declined from about £85 per ton to £80 per ton. The net effect upon the price of the house is not considerable. A very slight increase in price is to be derived from balancing those two figures. Therefore, almost the whole of the increased cost of 40 per cent., to which I referred, is due to increased aluminium content for the two reasons I gave—change in specification and steel substitution. The accountancy practice has been to add the market price of the scrap and of the virgin aluminium to the cost of the house. It is not a question of one department making a profit at the expense of another. If this practice were not followed, there would, of course, be a hidden subsidy on the aluminium house. I can only repeat the guarantee that we will produce the breakdown of the costs that has been asked for. We cannot help thinking that a White Paper would be a much better way of doing it, in view of the stage reached in the programme, and that White Paper should be available before the end of the year.

Mr. C. Williams

The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) made the point that some of these houses were built on land which would have to go back at the end of 10 years. I do not think that is possible. Could the hon. Gentleman deal with that point, because it is one of value. I feel sure that it is covered from the point of view that the Ministry have full powers to go on with the site, and to use it either for the continuation of the houses or for another purpose.

Mr. Durbin

I tried to make it quite clear that the legal basis of the temporary housing programme is a 10-year one. Although a number of these houses, particularly the aluminium houses, are technically and physically capable of a much longer life than that, there is no intention on the part of the Government to go back on the guarantee given, that this is a temporary housing programme, and, therefore, only for 10 years. As far as the continuation of their maintenance beyond the 10-year period is concerned, that is a matter for the interested local authorities.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Am I to understand that there is no profit on these houses?

Mr. Durbin

No, Sir; it is Government finance.

Commander Galbraith

I appreciate the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with this matter, and I agree with him that it would be practically the same thing as that which is in the Amendment if we were supplied with a White Paper giving the information which he has suggested it should contain. That would help us very materially, and I am willing to accept his assurance that such a White Paper will be produced before the end of the present year. That, I think, meets us a little more than half way. But there is also the point, to which the Parliamentary Secretary himself referred, that we are drawing towards the end of the programme. Can the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works tell us whether it is his intention, when the programme is completed, that we should have a full report covering the whole of the programme and showing exactly what the cost has been? If he could tell us what he has in mind about that, I think that would complete the matter.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key)

If there were any material changes in the costs, and so on, during the period, I certainly think that should be done. This programme will end in May next year.

Commander Galbraith

Not for Scotland.

Mr. Key

Except for Scotland; that is only a very small part of the programme. It is not a question of it not being important, but only of it not affecting the whole. As I have said, if there were any material changes, it would be quite right and proper to publish an addendum to the White Paper giving the particulars. I would be prepared to do that on the completion of the programme.

Commander Galbraith

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer in the spirit in which it is made. That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.