HC Deb 14 March 1952 vol 497 cc1883-94

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

I want now to direct the attention of the House away from the subject of safety in the home to the problem, or part of the problem, of providing homes—namely the problem of brick production. I wish to express appreciation that the Minister has come along at the end of the Parliamentary week to reply to this debate. I should like to welcome him in what I think is his first speech at the Despatch Box as Minister of Works.

I would explain to the House that though I gave notice of my intention to raise this matter following unsatisfactory replies by the Minister to Questions on 4th December, I hope to cover a wider field than that issue. I hope to make some suggestions which may assist in the production of bricks and thus increase the amount of housing which all of us want. I hope, however, that the Minister will explain now what he meant when he said on 4th December: I asked the Federation to let me know…about controls in relation to building in general, which I am glad to say that they are doing. The truth is that the confidence of the brick industry was badly shaken by the faulty planning under the last Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2230.] I hope that he will also say what action he has taken following his consultations with the National Federation of Clay Industries to which he made reference on that occasion. As he admitted then, the much derided housing programme of the late Government was held up by shortage of bricks. His predecessor set a target of 6,800 million bricks for 1951. and yet only 6,080 million were produced. That is a shortfall of 720 million, or 11 per cent. Nor is it, as I think he at first imagined, a matter of removing controls. As he has since discovered, the only control over brick production is the need of manufacturers to register with his Department. After all, that is not a very substantial control.

The truth is that this is a private industry free of all controls which has constantly failed, perhaps through no fault of its own, to fulfil the demands made on it in the national interest and which constantly has to seek the assistance of the Government in various ways. If the Minister applies to the brick industry the doctrine of laissez faire which he used so eloquently to expound from these benches, I suggest that we shall never have enough bricks to enable us to continue the building programme which we should like to carry out.

I hope also that the freeing of price control over other building materials announced earlier this week will not have disastrous results, but no doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing those matters on another occasion. However, the Minister may console himself in his early Ministerial statements on this subject by the knowledge that another of his Ministerial colleagues showed some ignorance of the problems of brick production.

I refer to what was said by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in what was described as an exclusive talk to the "Sunday Times" on 27th January. He said then that the measures now being devised would mean a change in ideas in building outside the housing field in order to increase supplies for houses. Why, for example, asked the Minister, should so many bricks be required for building a power station?

The truth is that the type of brick used for power stations is an engineering brick made from special clay by brickmaking plants which cannot produce the normal housing brick—or at least so I am assured by those who claim to be experts in the industry. Such make-shifts, of course, would mean that the bricklaying labour would be unemployed without a corresponding increase in the number of bricks required to push on the housing programme.

What, then, are the main problems in getting more bricks, and what is the size of the problem? In 1938 the total production was 7,800 million, of which 2,640 million were Flettons. In 1950 the total production was 5,921 million of which 2,040 million were Flettons. Approximately an increase of 30 per cent. is wanted all round if we are to get current brick production up to the level of 1938.

The immediate need is, perhaps, an annual rate of about 7,000 million bricks with 7,400 million as a long-term target. This target was, I believe, given to the industry by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, so I do not think the industry can complain about the uncertainty of Government planning. They were told that they could plan to increase production by 25 per cent. above their present output. Perhaps today the Minister may be able to give us his estimate of brick requirements for this year so that we may see how brick production measures up to the estimated need.

I was happy to see that as a result of steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in conjunction with the then Minister of Labour, to provide more labour for the brick industry, production has shown an increase in recent months, although it is still below the annual rate estimated to be necessary to sustain a housing programme of only 200,000 houses a year. I do not want to deny all credit to the present Minister, because obviously he has continued the policy begun by his predecessor.

The problem can be broadly stated under three headings: shortage of labour, lack of modern equipment in the non-Fletton sector, and problems of distribution and problems due to the division of the industry into the low-cost Fletton area, with natural advantages and large-scale production, and the traditional method non-Fletton section, where in many cases kilns are antiquated, conditions bad, and the average size of the firm very small. A great deal has been done to help meet the labour shortage, although in the short run it is possibly the greatest handicap to increased production.

Foreign labour of all sorts has been recruited, and recently special efforts have been made to bring in Italian workers. But I believe that all these are temporary expedients, and that the industry badly needs more British workers. Although good piece-work and bonus rates can often be earned, the work is arduous and not very congenial, despite the improved ammenities introduced in 1948 by the Clay Works (Welfare) Special Regulations. The labour position is not improved when the Ministry of Labour issue a poster saying how much better off a brick worker is when he transfers to the Coal Board.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles)

I think the Coal Board issued it.

Mr. Mulley

I understand that the Minister of Labour issued it and that he said in answer to a Question earlier in the week that the poster had been withdrawn. I think that is a good thing, although the argument is undoubtedly true.

I wonder if the Minister may perhaps be able to persuade schools to take an interest in brickworks, and especially those that have completely modernised their plant, as have some of the Fletton group. Perhaps the introduction of apprentice schemes may also help to attract some new young entrants into the industry. But even if the labour problems were overcome, that would not be enough to produce the extra bricks we need. Writing in the January issue of the "British Clayworker"—I hope the Minister is a regular reader of this periodical—Mr. Wigley, the independent chairman of the National Association of Roofing Tile Makers, says: Looking at the position broadly, would it not be true to say that we are using all the labour and all the fuel that we can reasonably dispose of on a business basis within the funds available to the industry, and that even if an influx of labour occurred the net increase in production might still be only comparatively moderate in that much of the latent productive capacity suggested by the Ministry Survey (if it really exists and there is some doubt about that, at least in the Brick Section) might prove uneconomic in operation or for the wrong type of brick for housing needs. He goes on to say: So far as the Clay Roofing Tile Section is concerned, production in 1950 was under 50 per cent. of 1938 and while the Government Housing Programme might be carried out without any more bricks by a switch to other types of construction an increasing Programme up to 100,000 extra roofs must in any case demand a proportionately greater expansion of production in the Tile Industry than is demanded of the Brick Industry. And in 1951 clay roofing tiles production was only 42 per cent. of 1938.

It seems that the industry has not the capital to finance its requirements, and this problem has been aggravated by the recent increase in the rate of interest. The new Excess Profits Levy may also hit this industry harder than it will hit many others because of the industry's low level of production in the years which form the standard, 1946–49, and thus reduce the incentive the Minister seems to be offering to other building materials firms.

The 40 per cent. initial allowance has also gone and, while I would not advocate its retention now on general grounds, there may be a case for providing a somewhat similar scheme for the brick industry. I understand that suggestions for a re-equipment subsidy or levy have been submitted to the Minister and that he has rejected them. Perhaps he will say something on that point. Certainly some form of guaranteed price and encouragement to produce stocks in the winter months are necessary, especially now that the rate of interest means that the cost of holding stocks inevitably will be higher.

In this connection it is interesting to note that Mr. Wigley says: I recognise that some part of these proposals would probably require the machinery of Government through Statutory Orders to operate, but so long as they were operating to the advantage of the Industry and in the national interest, I cannot see that we should look on them from a political angle but solely from the point of view whether they represent good business principles or not. So it seems the industry is not absolutely opposed to controls, and in fact one section of it at least seems to be asking for more controls and not less.

In order to allow the Minister time to reply I cannot deal at length with the problem of distribution. But I believe that is also a major problem. We must avoid friction between Fletton and non-Fletton producers, and we must avoid having bricks travelling long journeys because of the price or because the local authority architects issue special specifications. We must avoid Fletton bricks going to Nottingham and Nottingham bricks going to Scotland with the additional handling costs that that involves, as I discovered was happening last year. We must see that not only do we have enough bricks, but that we have enough to ensure adequate stocks on each building site. I believe that is an important factor in the productivity of the building industry.

This is an enormous task, and I hope the Minister will agree that a committee should be set up to examine the problems and in particular to investigate capital re-equipment, storage credits and distribution of bricks. I have no doubt that in fixing the housing target at 300,000 houses some attention was paid to the problems of the brick industry. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell the House how he proposes to overcome these difficulties.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles)

I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for raising this important subject of bricks. Bricks, of course, are fundamental to our building programme. On looking over the history of the brick industry since the war, I must tell the hon. Member that I conclude that the Labour Government intervened too much—and at times unwisely—with this industry which, apart from the great mass-producers in the Peterborough and Bletchley areas, consists of a very large number of small brickyards which are scattered about the country and which are very sensitive to the general climate of their industry.

During the war the industry was reduced to a very small size. It produced only 1,000 million bricks annually as against 7,500 million bricks annually before the war. In the years immediately after the war it did fairly well, until the planners went haywire in 1947. The planners then made a sudden cut in the demand for building resources, including bricks, and there were further capital cuts in 1948. That shook the confidence of the small brickyards and stopped the climb back to the pre-war position. Output was interrupted.

It is true that in 1949 and in 1950 there was a reasonable recovery, but we had another unsatisfactory year last year, when, as the hon. Member told us, output was very far below the target which had been set by the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) when he was Minister of Works. Can we do better this year? I should like to tell the House of certain steps which I am taking, directly, to help this industry; but I am quite certain that nothing which a Minister can do will have the same effect as the knowledge that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has taken the lid off the number of houses that are to be built. The confidence in the minds of the producers of bricks that the demand is there is worth all the little help and little manoeuvres that a Minister and his advisers can undertake.

It cannot be a coincidence that when the number of houses was planned down to 200,000 a year by the Labour Government the brick producers produced exactly the number of bricks required for that total of houses. That is to say, at the end of every one of the last three years brick stocks have been almost exactly the same—one week's supply and no more. That is very much as though we were playing cricket and somebody said "Nobody may make more than 50 runs in this game." If one went into bat and made 40 runs, one would proceed to bat extremely slowly in order not to get out before the tea interval. That is exactly what happened in the building industry under this planning. The industry knew that it could not go beyond what the great authorities in Whitehall said, and that must be the reason why production exactly matched up to this total of houses, which was held down by Government decision.

Mr. Mulley

I think the Minister oversimplifies the point, because bricks are used not only for housing but for other forms of building, and the Government were consequently having to hold down even defence works because of the shortage of bricks in certain areas.

Mr. Eccles

That is true, but the main expansion possibility in relation to brick production has always been housing, scattered as it is right throughout the length and breadth of the land, and taking, as it does, the bricks from the small local yards. I say that it is a better basis for expansion to tell the brick industry, as we have told it, that as it increases its output and other materials become available, so the local authorities and private builders will be allowed to get ahead with housing.

We are not now putting an annual ceiling on houses, and I think that is a very important factor—more important than any particular steps that I, in the Ministry of Works, can take to give confidence to this industry. In other words, some of the responsibility for the rate at which their product is used has been turned over from the Ministers and their servants to the building industry itself. I believe that to be a most important factor, and it is having its effect.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the output in January. In January, 541 million bricks were produced, against 480 million in January, 1950, and 485 million in January, 1951. That is a considerable jump. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has largely been done because confidence has been restored. I believe that upward trend will continue. If it does, we shall get 6,500 million bricks this year. That will be a tight squeeze against all the demands we have to make, but it will go a long way.

I am opposed to setting a fixed target. It does not seem to me to make any sense, partly, of course, because there are substitutes for bricks. We can economise in the use of bricks; we can use more concrete construction; we can use fewer bricks on the inside of a house. But I am not in favour of it; I think building in bricks is traditional, English and more beautiful than building in other materials, and I hope and believe that the brick industry will rise to its opportunities and that we shall not have to go in for a tremendous programme of substitutes.

There are some direct economies to be made, of course. I think the hon. Gentleman was not quite right in what he said about power stations. After all, the extravagance in the use of bricks on power stations was on the outside of the stations, which have been built like cathedrals, and, in some cases, have been encased in eight million bricks. In my view, we should have done better to have built those power stations as cheaply as possible and to have got them up quicker, instead of turning them into these structures which possibly are very fine structures, artistically, but which have been very extravagant in bricks.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of labour, and I want to pay my tribute to the Ministry of Labour, both before we came into office and since—very much so since—for, to my knowledge, they have helped very much in getting labour for this industry. The position is a little better—that is to say, the turnover is not quite so fast as it was. I think the Budget will help here. As the hon. Member himself said, the skilled men in this industry—the firers and the setters—earn very good money, and at any rate they are well within the P.A.Y.E. range. I confidently expect that the Income Tax reliefs which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given will act as an incentive and will help us in this industry.

Sometimes it is said that the working of overtime is not very easy in brickyards, but that is true only when the kilns are working to full capacity, and in so many of the smaller brickyards they are not. If we can get the men to stay on to prepare the kilns, that will mean the production of more bricks. I have great hopes that from the areas where the kilns have not been fully employed, the incentive given in the Budget will soon bear fruit.

There is the difficulty of housing for the key workers in the brickyards in certain remote areas. This problem was investigated by our predecessors before we came into office, and we have continued the investigation. We find that the provision of 400 houses would be of great assistance, if they were built near the brickfields. So far, 150 have already been provided and we are thinking about how we can get the others.

There is no hold up as regard modernisation of plant, as there is in some industries. That is to say, the licences and the steel both for the maintenance of plant and for extensions, are being freely given. I know, of course, that an increase in the rate of interest adds to the cost. That is part of our general policy to take the load off our economy, and I am sure that we ought to go through with it. It is certainly in the interests of the building industry that the overload should be somewhat reduced.

We have tried to do too much, and a tighter credit policy, although inconvenient to some members of the building industry, will bring its rewards. It will certainly bring nearer the day when we can case the licensing system. That will be a very considerable help to the industry.

We do not need a committee to look into this question. That is rather the kind of method which our predecessors used—I will not say to shift responsibility, but to deal with these things. My opinion is that the Ministers responsible for these industries should do the thing themselves, and if they do not do it properly they will have to be got rid of. That is the proper way to run the country, and not by committees.

The hon. Member touched on the transport of bricks. He said it would be a good thing to avoid competition between Fletton and other bricks and to avoid long journeys. I should like a little more competition; that is a healthy sign. What I want is to get the maximum number of bricks produced and sold. That is done if we have more competition, even though here and there someone may do a little overlapping and go into his neighbour's territory.

Mr. Mulley

What the Minister said about 1947 may well be true, but I warn him, since he makes this point about competition, that the fear of the Fletton producers covering the whole field is one of the factors that will mean the non-Fletton producers not bringing into operation plant which they are not at present using.

Mr. Eccles

That may be so, but I think that Englishmen are more robust than does the hon. Member. If somebody comes along and produces sufficient bricks, and cheaply enough, that is part of the way to get costs down. There is room both for the Flettons and for the others.

It was the nationalisation policy of the hon. Member's party which restricted the radius of C licences to 25 miles. That has done great injury to the brick industry and to housing. There is no doubt whatever that one of the reasons why it has not been possible to distribute bricks efficiently is because they could not be carried more than 25 miles in a private lorry without getting permits and all the rest, which held up delivery.

Of course, I favour the use of bricks from local yards, and I very much hope that with the introduction of more private building, with licences for persons to put up the houses they have so long wanted to erect, houses of that sort will be built with local bricks. This is a great opportunity to get back to a little variation in building.

I do not think it is true that the brick industry has constantly failed, as, I think, the hon. Member said. It has had a hard time and has not always been given the encouragement and continuity of orders which it deserved.

Brickyards make very little call on foreign exchange. Bricks are made with home-quarried clay and home-produced coal. They need some steel for their plant, which we will give them. This is a vital, basic industry, which has a good future before it, but my last word is that I think that brick producers will do their job better if I let them look after themselves and the Minister of Housing and Local Government keeps up his orders, rather than if I interfere with them day in, day out.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Four o'Clock.