BUILDING INDUSTRY

HC Deb 17 March 1964 vol 691 cc1273-320

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

I am grateful to the Lord President of the Council who gave us a conspectus of the whole of the D.S.I.R. I am sorry that I could deal with only a microcosm of it. There was a degree of misunderstanding because I understood that we should be considering the part of the Vote which deals with the Building Research Station, which he characterised as an hors d'oeuvre but which I thought was grace before meat. If I had thought otherwise, instead of making a speech in parenthesis, as it were, I would have made a longer speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with me in the position in which I have been landed tonight.

I hope to speak with some more competence on a subject to which I have been able to give a closer study, and in proceeding to the Ministry of Public Building and Works Vote I address myself to the Minister of that Department. I want to have a personal word or two with him in opening the lists. His party has been in power since 1951 and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that we have had a string of Ministers of Works, beginning with Lord Eccles, whose term was characterised largely by the Coronation. I believe he was mostly preoccupied with that sort of consideration. Then we had Lord Molson, who has gone to another place. I hope that this does not present an omen for the right hon. Gentleman. He was rewarded for many years of faithful service as an Under-Secretary and found himself in a Ministry which probably he thought was a place where the wicked cease to be troubled and the weary are at rest. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Lord John Hope) was the only bright hope of the Ministry.

Then we had the present right hon. Gentleman. I want to give him this bouquet. I think he is probably the best Minister of Works since my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) held the office. It is a curious concern. I went to the Ministry's exhibition last week. The Minister is holding his own exhibition and last week was mounting his own platform and getting on to his own pedestal. He is a considerable empire builder. I do not know if his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government likes it, but the Minister of Public Building and Works seems to be tearing away chunks of the other Ministry for his own.

In a contemporary setting, he has come out as a great advocate of resale price maintenance in the building industry. I do not think anyone can look at the industry now without seeing the rings and price-fixing arrangements, and all that they mean. We may think of the great contemporary argument in this House about resale price maintenance, but it does not start nor finish with the small shop.

The Minister has produced many White Papers. I do not think any Minister has produced more in such a short space of time. We had the White Paper on Reorganisation of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, then one on the Building Agency and then a Report on Winter Building. We have had the Building and Research Information Service Working Party which has recommended a Construction Research and Information Commission to spend eventually £5 million per annum. This is all in addition to taking over building for the Service Ministries. This would not have done discredit to a Labour Minister. It is in contradistinction to everything which has gone before. I have no doubt that we need all this, but I wish to talk principally tonight about two things, the proposed Building Agency and the N.E.D.C. Report.

Bearing in mind that the Minister has had some rather unkind words to say about the N.E.D.C. Report, I had better leave that until the last. I have a copy of The Times with me. This is rather curious. I had a message from America the other day. I think the Minister has gone far aid wide proclaiming his Ministry. He addressed the American builders at Las Vegas on 2nd March, and I read: Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Minister of Public Building and Works told the Annual Convention of American builders in Las Vegas, our building industry 'will successfully meet the challenge presented by our vast construction needs'. Four days later the N.E.D.C. issued a report saying that the industry was unlikely to achieve the output required. The Minister said that he was right. I do not want to misquote him; he said that it was an unduly pessimistic Report, and he added, I am concerned that the building industry should not be depressed by the report. Its approach is somewhat superficial". He also said, We can be quite confident of success if everything continues to go forward as at present. I think that the construction industries will deliver the goods provided nobody mucks them about". But what has the Minister been doing but muck them about? We should have had no results at all if they had not been mucked about. We have had Eccles and Molson and so on, and without this interference the industry would have made no progress at all.

The Minister apparently felt that the N.E.D.C. Report was not up to date and that there had been a time lag. Was it based on the experience of last winter? I should like the Minister in his reply to give me a few dates. We want to establish the truth of the matter. The Minister knows that in the conclusion of the Report we read: However, willingness to change is not in itself enough. Looked at in the light of its ability to meet the level of demand forecast for the years to 1966, it is clear that drastic changes will have to be made and that steps already taken by Government, by public authorities, and by the industry to improve the organisation of demand and to introduce new techniques must be pressed forward. What is clear is that there is no certainty, in present conditions, that the industry will be able to meet the demands upon it. And the possibility cannot be ruled out that by falling short it may hold back the expansion of the economy as a whole. The last sentence is very serious.

The late Aneurin Bevan said, "Never gaze in the crystal ball if you can read the book". Let us look at page 2 and read what it says. The Minister will see that the years 1961–63 represent reality; they represent actual experience, about which we know the figures. The years 1964–66 represent fantasy, prognostication, hope or whatever terminology we use. The fact is that, registered in millions of pounds, the actual experience of the industry, including that for the period during which the Minister has been in office, shows no progress at all.

I will take the output and give the figures in millions of pounds. For housing they are: 1961, £732 million; 1962, £750 million; 1963, £761 million. There is not much improvement to be seen in those figures. For new non-housing work in the public sector, the figures are: 1961, £576 million; 1962, £610 million; 1963, £615 million. In the private sector, for new non-housing work, the figures are: 1961, £694 million; 1962, £674 million; 1963, £632 million. The total new non-housing work was: 1961, £1,270 million; 1962, £1,284 million; 1963, £1,247 million. That does not show much improvement.

The total new work was: 1961, £2,002 million; 1962, £2,034 million; 1963, £2,008 million. For repairs and maintenance the figures were: 1961, £843 million; 1962, £821 million; 1963, £827 million. The total of the construction output for Great Britain was: 1961, £2,845 million; 1962, £2,855 million; 1963, £2,835 million. The total for the United Kingdom, including an allowance for Northern Ireland, was: 1961, £2,919 million; 1962, £2,914 million; 1963. £2,927 million.

Where is the improvement? Why does the Minister suggest that the N.E.D.C. should have taken a rosy view of the picture? It is true that we have been given figures for the following years, but these are only estimates. If the Minister suggests that there has been a time-lag, we have to take the Report itself, and he will bear in mind that this Report was put by the Director-General before the N.E.D.C. on 5th February, 1964. That is not long ago. It was printed in March, 1964.

I therefore hope that in creating this impression the Minister knows what he is doing. He cannot accuse us of quoting figures unfairly. This is the evidence given in the N.E.D.C.'s Report, and he has to show the evidence on which he bases the future results.

Let us turn to paragraph 66 of the Report. Broadly, the idea is that the amount of building by industrialised techniques has not been as much as was expected. The N.E.D.C. says that too much has been claimed for it. It continues: The principal advantage, and indeed the reason why increased industrialisation is essential for the construction industry, is the saving of labour and the replacement of scarce craft skills by other skills. Saving of site labour may be offset to some extent by an increase in factory labour…There are inadequate data with which to compare costs of building by traditional and industrialised methods. In fact, it may be premature to make comparisons because industrialised methods may become significantly cheaper as experience is gained in using them. However, it is plain that many systems produce buildings which are no more expensive than similar types produced by traditional techniques. But even these systems have as their main attributes that they economise in the use of scarce skilled labour and that they speed the progress of building. Up to now the claims made for industrialised building seem to have been extravagant. A most knowledgeable man in the industry has argued—and the Minister might like to consider this argument—that about £3,600 million of work is being produced annually by the industry and, although no definite figures are available, that it is probable that industrialised building contributes only a small factor to the annual output. If the Minister has figures to split this up, I should be glad to have them. Therefore, a council which promoted efficiency in traditional methods could, even by achieving a small percentage increase in productivity, perhaps make a greater contribution to output than concentrating on industrial methods alone at present. I should like to know what research and development there has been in traditional building.

I have said enough about the N.E.D.C.'s Report for the Minister to wish to justify what he said, and I move on to the Building Agency. I make a point with which the Minister may have some sympathy. He has appointed Mr. Prosser at £10,000 a year. I have no doubt that this is his commercial value, and I will say no more than to express the view of the whole House that we wish him well in his new appointment. The Minister has appointed somebody at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as deputy at £6,000 a year.

These appointments are made—I say this really in parenthesis—by a Minister whose salary is £5,750 a year. This is absolutely grotesque. It is just as grotesque as the fact that the Minister of Transport, with his great responsibilities, pays Dr. Beeching £24,000 a year. However, such things have now become commonplace. They are merely an echo of the cowardice that has affected public life, when Ministers in successive Governments have not stood up for a proper relationship and a proper differential. I have been a shop steward in the engineering industry in my time. I never tolerated this sort of thing, and I do not want to see it continued here. It is a thoroughly bad thing.

The Financial Times of 19th February, 1964, which is not a political friend of the Labour Party, had something to say about the appointment of these men. The paper questioned whether Mr. Prosser had enough powers for the job. Then the paper gave a character sketch, saying what a tough man he was. He also comes from Merseyside. He has been used to dealing with tough people from Liverpool. Then the Financial Times said: 'If he does not get some real powers to bang their heads together', said one systems enthusiast sourly, 'he had better have a look at another old building problem—making bricks without straw' I turn new to the question of the powers of the Building Agency. There is one inexplicable omission from the terms of reference of the Agency to which The Times Review of Industry called attention over the weekend. Why is there no reference in the Agency's terms of reference to suggest that it will be dealing with trade unions? In a speech I made earlier this evening I said something about the great period of technological change which we are in for. Building is one of the world's oldest crafts. The brick was something which a man could pick up in his hand. In 1944 there was a great promise that we were to go in for mechanised building with the Portal house. This never materialised. We relaxed, if that is the right word—I do not use it in an insulting way—back to traditional building.

The Building Agency must be a great co-ordinating agency. Does the Minister understand the size of the problem? It is suggested that many of the old-fashioned craft skills will have to be replaced. It is suggested that the type of apprenticeship for the industry will have to be altered, that instead of the bricklayer we will have to have a carpenter or a plasterer apprenticed to the industry. It is well known that great firms in the industry do not take on enough apprentices. We may well have to imagine an apprenticeship as a form of adult training. Whereas a boy apprentice is now apprenticed locally, he will probably have to be dealt with by the State and trained by the State.

There are, in addition, the claims of the semi-skilled unions. There will have to be men at the production point putting these things together. There will often be a clash before the wage rates of the industrial worker and industrial trade unionist and those of craft trade unionists. I hope that the Minister will act sufficiently soon, because this is a vital point in his programme, to prevent happening here what happened in the steel industry and what may well happen again, where great technological changes take place so that the production work completely changes and somehow the men with trained skills—I am thinking of my own union, the A.E.U—are left on the sideline.

Labour relations are the most precious commodity that the Minister has in the industry. He claims that in 10 years the industry must increase its output by 50 per cent. with the same force.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)

Virtually the same.

Mr. Pannell

The Minister knows that the N.E.D.C. cast grave doubts on that. In paragraph 7 the Council refers to the Government's target for housing. It uses these words: There are, however, serious objections to attempting to raise the level much above 360,000 in 1966 unless—and this is an essential condition—the output and productivity of the industry rise substantially in the present year. In some areas where skilled labour is less scarce or where houses or flats are designed in such a way that there is economy in skilled manpower, the increase in the number of housing units constructed can safely exceed the national average rate of increase. However, the Council makes it plain that prognostication is a very dicy business indeed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what economic ills the Council foretells if the industry is streched too far.

Some questions have been asked about the National Building Agency. The curious thing is not so much what its powers are but what they are not. That is what troubles my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Agency will not be part of a Government Department. It will not build. It will not place contracts for buildinig. The White Paper is not completely clear on its powers to place contracts for components. I should be glad if the Minister would say whether the powers are there. Nor will it control their execution. Only exceptionally will the Agency provide a full design service. It will not supersede existing consortia of local authorities; although it is expected to have a highly qualified staff, it will not seek to get such a great staff that it will denude all the other agencies for building. There will be no compulsion to use it. It will obtain part of its income through fees charged for the service which it will provide, and the rest will presumably come from the public purse. One of my hon. Friends from the mining industry describes the Agency as a toothless wonder.

What are its teeth? What are its powers? So that the Minister will not accuse us of making only destructive criticism, I will now tell him the sort of powers we think the Agency should have. We think that there should be powers to build and that with powers to build the Agency could produce some realistic and determined public competition to prevent private contractors from taking advantage of the overloaded state of the industry. There is no question about that. One gathers from official reports that there is no real competition in the building industry at present.

I am not necessarily asking that the Agency should build. I want to meet the Minister fairly on this. I do not want a propaganda point from him in reply. I am concerned that public agencies operating with public money shall always have the reserve power to protect the public interest. The Agency could provide a first-class planning and design service for local authorities and other public organisations. It is unrealistic to believe that every authority can employ enough specialised staff to cope, for example, with the sort of large-scale central area development which takes place only once in a lifetime.

I am sure that the Minister of Housing and Local Government must have experience of local authorities asking for direct labour schemes on works outside housing for which they do not have the technical staff to formulate plans. Why should these authorities always have to go to private contractors for help? These are the sort of questions that are bound to be asked, and it seems, therefore, that the powers of the Agency as set out are not clearly defined.

I am not certain, but I am wondering if the Minister considers this a start and expects to add other powers later. The right hon. Gentleman is tending to become more and more public-minded the more he gains experience of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. It must be realised that the right hon. Gentleman is really living on borrowed time and we all accept that he wishes to leave a monument behind him. Time is running out for this Government and I appreciate that if he can leave a workable Ministry behind him and can show that some sort of progress was made under his guidance that will be to his credit. Certainly nothing of the sort can be said of his predecessors. One of our charges against his and similar Ministries is that they have been stagnant and, because of that, the rate of growth of the building industry has been below the national average.

As I have pointed out, the building industry has been drastically short of research and has been regarded for many years as one of Britain's backward industries. I am not saying that it has been easy for the Minister to pull the industry out of its difficulties, although he must admit that not much progress has been made. This brings me to the question of productivity. I have tried to digest the figures published on this matter and the first point to recall is the statement by the Minister recently that the industry's output must rise by over 50 per cent. in the next decade with virtually no increase in the labour force.

It is stated on page 7 of the N.E.D.C. Report that, looking ahead to 1966, the demands on the construction industry are expected to rise by 24 per cent. above 1961 or about 10 per cent. above the estimate for 1964. I want solid evidence to show why that conclusion was reached. The output of the industry in 1963 has been estimated to be worth £3,100 million and it seems that, on the basis of the present figures, in 1973 the figure may be estimated at about £4,650 million. That is the size of the problem ahead of us and we must consider the industry in a big way and try to make it more attractive.

I recall a saying when I had something to do with election propaganda, "Who will do, the dirty work under Socialism?" In an industry like building, in an affluent society, people are still required to go out in dirty weather and to do the sort of work a lot of people no longer want to do. Accompanied by some of my hon. Friends I spoke to the representatives of a firm of builders some time ago. This firm has a progressive policy, gives three weeks' holiday, a two years' contract and almost every sort of protection that can be given to workers who must be out in bad weather. Every possible amenity is given and the firm admits that, because of giving these things not a man has been lost in even the severest winter. In the severe weather of last year 160,000 people were laid off. In a normal winter, 60,000 to 70,000 are laid off, and the Minister recognises this fact because he has said that everything possible should be done to keep building workers fully employed because it is a human tragedy and waste that they should be subject to climatic unemployment.

We no longer have the whip and carrot or the terrible unemployment of the 'thirties, when the building industry was the lowest of the low in which to work. Nevertheless, the older workers in the industry still have traditional feelings towards it. Certainly in my constituency it is not difficult to awake the collective memory which my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) says exists in Durham, where building site workers are still regarded by some as doing "lower" work than pit workers. We must somehow get the right type of man into the industry. I do not mean this in a derogatory way, but I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will achieve his target of productivity unless there is a terrific intake of new people, in which case the industry must be made more attractive.

Mr. Rippon

As I have said, we must have a marginal increase in the total number of employees available, but, as wastage from the industry must be replaced, I agree that we will need to bring in new people of high calibre.

Mr. Pannell

As I pointed out earlier, I am referring specifically to craftsmen and to people who, in an age of full employment, can go to factories as maintenance men and earn good money. I am speaking about making the industry more attractive. While on this subject it would not do any harm to mention coalmining. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no use hon. Members opposite throwing me half-hostile looks and making comments about the nationalised coal mining industry because I cannot think what the state of the economy would have been had a Labour Government not nationalised that industry. When we took that step it was one of the greatest acts of nationalisation and social reform that any Government could have taken, and when in years to come the history of this country is written that will be recorded as a truly memorable step. It will probably rank with the freeing of India.

How are men of calibre to be attracted to the building industry? We must, first, do away with the idea that they are just hands; people who are doing that sort of work because they are unable to get any other work. It is curious the thoughts that come to one when considering the depressed industries. I have worked in a few of them in my time and these thoughts are similar to those about which we argue when we debate Africa and similar countries. It is not enough to give a man sufficient to satisfy his economic needs—good wages and so on—because he must be given dignity, particularly in his job.

It may be necessary for special incentives to be given to the men or the industry, or even both. If we have one or two more winters like the last the fall in the number of people willing to work in the industry may be colossal. I have read about a committee which visited Sweden, where building production is kept nearly as high in winter time as it is in the summer months. The techniques used there—and the right hon. Gentleman wil have knowledge of them—are designed to keep building going in such a way that only 6 per cent. is added to the total cost of the building carried out throughout the year. The main question to consider in that scheme is, who pays? The answer is that the Government pay. The Swedish Government consider it cheaper to give this 6 per cent. to stop unemployment in the winter and over employment in the summer—which means overtime, and the rest. It is not only cheaper but is a more socially desirable form of subvention than is the employment exchange. I hope that the Minister will look at that idea.

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to lend his influence with whatever efforts I can make to try to get a whole day's discussion of this fascinating industry. Tomorrow, on a three-line Whip, hon. Members will be lined up to debate housing, but what will we discuss? We shall not discuss the production of houses but only the situation left after the production has ceased—when the Minister has passed over the finished article, as it were.

We will be arguing as if it were something that could be put in a shop, without labour, but the great matters that divide us, the arguments on the allocation of houses, Rachmanism, and the rest, must depend entirely on the production of houses. I cannot remember when we last had a full-scale debate on the production of houses, on how to increase that production, on how to increase the productivity of this great industry and the human dignity of those working in it——

Mr. Rippon

Perhaps the hon. Member will agree that if tomorrow we debate the wrong subject that is not the Government's fault but the fault of the Opposition in having called a three-line Whip on the wrong Amendment.

Mr. Pannell

The Minister can take as much pleasure as he likes out of it, but the probable reason for tomorrow's debate is that his colleagues are not handling things as reasonably as he is handling his own Department—and he can take that as a back-handed compliment if he likes.

I served for many years on a housing authority, and I know that people took far more interest in the housing management committee, on how to let houses, than in the building of the houses—that was dull and prosaic. When I have attempted to run adult schools I have found people far more interested in foreign affairs and the things that give power consciousness than in discussing something like the rating system——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Griniston)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but are we not now getting a little far from the Vote?

Mr. Pannell

With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, not as far as some went before you sat in the Chair—but I accept your rebuke.

I merely want us to have a proper sense of priority. Land has to be bought at a proper price, and then the house has to be built on it. We and the Minister are concerned here with one of our great industries. Whatever Government we have after the next election—and I have little doubt about the result—it will not be the astronomical noughts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the economists that will worry the Government but the houses actually built. That Government will have to establish priorities between houses and education because, contemporaneously with the houses, we have to build the schools—because we want to reduce the size of classes.

We also have to build enough factories to make the economy sufficiently viable to maintain full employment. Those of us with marginal seats have to watch the roads, because far too many voters cast their votes on the basis of what they see from their mini-cars. We have to think of the hospitals. Nobody who represents a constituency such as mine can be insensitive to the scandal of our prisons—I hope that before I depart from this House Armley Gaol will have been razed to the ground.

All these are the problems of the building industry. The Minister serves a great industry, and we are glad to discuss it with him. Before we go to the country, we hope that we may have a full day's debate on a vast, worthwhile and human subject.

7.55 p.m.

Sir Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

Part of the most interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was devoted to offering praise to the Minister. He was justified in that, because although the amount of money asked of us tonight—£3,991,000—is an appreciable sum, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with a Ministry that is expanding very rapidly and is concerned with a great national asset. We expect a great deal from the building industry. Of the total sum asked, £2,630,000 is for new works, and I see from page 211 of the document that to house civil servants is not inexpensive, because to buy the lease of 1–19 Victoria Street and adapt those premises means spending almost £2 million.

I know very well that the Minister is deeply concerned with the need to make our building force, and the building force at his own disposal, as productive as possible, but he will agree that in the provision of public buildings he will not only have to try to offer us greater productivity but must also have an eye to the aesthetic aspect of the buildings. The premises 1–19 Victoria Street are very near here. About every 100 years there is a great upsurge in public building, and I think that we are running into such a phase now. We last had this upsurge in 1858–61 when there was the great debate about "the battle of the styles", when Palmerston took such an interesting part in establishing for us the visual aspect outside this building when he created the present Foreign Office.

It is quite inevitable that, whatever he does, the Minister will be criticised by some. It is impossible to have control of a great machine such as he is creating, to provide great public buildings and to tear others down, without a number of people disliking it very much. Those who would wish to praise him may find themselves rather busy, and not on the spot at the time; those who would wish to criticise him will aways be vocal, and will always be available. Any Minister worthy of his office must accept that as likely, and put up with it.

None the less, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of an editorial in The Times on 9th January entitled "Preservation within Reason". It spoke of not allowing Britain ultimately to become merely a museum. It said that in building we have to accept that, however we look at present and future needs, we cannot preserve everything. To give the Minister an illustration, he may perhaps feel rather sorry that he preserved Downing Street. However criticised he has been because it has cost so much more than he expected, what sort of criticisms would he have got if he had torn it down? Logic said, "Tear it down", yet sentiment for Downing Street made it impossible for him to do that. I have never criticised him because the Estimates over-ran the original sums allocated for it. It was such a miserable, rotten building, so old and badly built originally, that inevitably there was bound to be trouble over it.

There are other buildings, which I do not think I should specify too closely, quite near Downing Street. There is one which has a vista of Whitehall and St. James's and which has been there for 100 years, quite exciting and most interesting, and people love it very much indeed. I hope that the Minister in deciding what he is to do about any particular group of buildings, whether he is going to rebuild them, or whether he is going to tear them down, will take advice and let us see the possibility of a redevelopment over the whole area rather than fragmented or piecemeal development, certainly in this area of Whitehall, which is the ceremonial heart of the Commonwealth.

I should like the Minister to tell us that, before he makes any major decision, he will offer to the House and to the country a set of plans and models of the redevelopment of the whole of this area, including Bridge Street and much further afield, and, of course, tell us what he proposes to do with the present site and building of the Foreign Office. If he can do that, I can assure him that, although there will be lots of people who will still criticise whatever he has in mind, at least he will have the satisfaction of seeing the country torn in twain and the rest of us arguing with each other which is the better thing to do and which plan is the better plan. I think that this will be healthy for us, but if he makes decisions without consulting the country, without telling Parliament and without offering us something to look at first, then indeed he will fall into serious trouble.

After the compliments which have been offered to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West, I need not say more than that the criticisms that have been made against the Minister have been sometimes quite fierce. I will quote only one in order to remind him of that. It is from the Architect's Journal of 20th November, which said: Whitehall and Parliament Square is the most important area, architecturally, in London. We do not, therefore, advocate glass-case preservation. But demolition and reconstruction must be backed by irrefutable logic and by the surety that something better will replace that which is destroyed. Scott's offices are too good, too much part of our history to be lightly discarded. Whitehall has recently been gravely damaged by the new Government offices behind the Banqueting House—a damage still to be extended. Mr. Rippon should perhaps first concentrate on making a success of the proposed offices on the east of Whitehall stretching from Richmond Terrace to Bridge Street before risking any more demolition. I think that it is quite fair to offer advice of that type to the Minister. I would not, perhaps, use words as strongly as this, but I know how much the Minister wants to serve and I feel that I am entitled to urge him to do what I have suggested.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

I am very glad that we are having this debate because whatever Government may be returned in a few months' time the load on the building industry is bound to be a very heavy one indeed. Quite obviously, the load will differ in place and in quality according to the Government. A Labour Government would be concerned, very largely, on the housing front, to build houses for those desperately in need whether they are rented houses or houses for the owner occupier. We should recoil in horror from some of the decisions that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has given in relation to planning when he can permit luxury development at Trossley, one of the last remaining unspoilt escarpments of the North Downs, an area of exceptional beauty and outstanding landscape value, and where he allows development for wealthy commuters.

Quite obviously, our plans would be very different and very much more in touch with the real needs of those who are desperately looking for homes.

Nevertheless, as the N.E.D.C. Report has pointed out and has calculated, the load on the building industry will be a very heavy one. I should like to congratulate those who have compiled the study: they have done an excellent job although we may have some argument as to how gloomy or optimistic it is. Certainly the notes of caution about the future in that document must be studied by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Report points out that total demand is likely to rise in 1966 by more than 24 per cent. on the output of 1961. It is now 1 point higher than that of an earlier study made.

It has been my good fortune over the last eight or nine months to be associated with a number of experts who had been looking at the industry and trying to fathom our way through its labyrinth organisation and we believe that figure is by no means an over estimate—it might be as much as 30 per cent. above 1961—but one that at any rate we must accept for the time being.

For the longer term I think that it would be safer to accept the target which was in the first paragraph of Command 2228, the National Building Agency White Paper, where it says: To meet all these needs— that is for schools, hospitals, houses and so on— the building industry must increase by more than 50 per cent. in the next ten years. It goes on, very significantly but, I think, very truly, to add: This will have to be done without any great increase on the demand of the nation's limited labour resources. In all our own investigations it has seemed to us that to increase the labour force of the building industry will be extraordinarily difficult unless a number of changes are made.

The N.E.D.C. Report indicates that the industry will need, if it is to meet the targets as stated and assuming those also in the White Paper, an intake of about 25,000 skilled men a year and it seems that by most of the traditional sources, including apprenticeships that not many more than 20,000 is the number of new recruits that one can hope will be achieved. The N.E.D.C. study hope that the balance of the labour required will be found firstly by training in new skills through the Ministry of Labour training centres. It hopes that by 1965, some 2,400 men will be trained in the training centres. Here, incidentally, I think that many of us will very much regret that our appeals to the Minister of Labour three years ago about cutting down the training centres did not get a better response because it takes time to build up the training that will be required in the training centres in order by 1965 to get 2,400 more skilled men. It is then hoped that a further increase may be made by training unskilled workers, that is, adult training by the firms themselves on the spot and by other methods. But paragraph 39 of the N.E.D.C. Report probably gives again a sober estimate of all these possible means of training when it says: The best that it seems possible to expect by 1966 is that new techniques can be introduced sufficiently quickly to minimise the effect of shortages of skilled manpower, This again is a cautious note absolutely wise to insert. Even if the manpower targets in all the different ways are met, the industry will only just get by in the matter of labour power.

In addition, there are two or three other matters connected with labour which we ought to consider at this juncture. There, is no reference to the concept of dual apprenticeship in the Report and I hope that attention will be paid to the recommendations of the Carr Report in this respect. We have had interesting discussions with the trade unions, and the Federation of Building Trade Workers has commented favourably about this kind of apprenticeship as something which is likely to come in the future. It is suggested that if a man is trained for two skills these can be conveniently divided, for example, into dry fixers and wet fixers and that thereby he has not only more reasonable opportunities of being continually employed but he will not have to wait unemployed for somebody to finish one job before he can get on with his trade. He can finish the job himself. This is one way in which the output and efficiency of the industry can be increased, with the good will of the trade unions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) mentioned that we must do something about the status of the building worker. In addition to being commercially a success, British coal undertakings have given the worker a new improved status. I know that there are some hon. Members who measure everything only in terms of finance. They remind me of Oscar Wilde, who said that some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Quite apart from what was involved in the organisation of pits on a national scale, the great thing that public ownership did was to raise the status of the worker by various methods. I remember seeing on the front page of the Daily Express a story to the effect that "Slogger Williams", the new Welsh champion, had hewn so many tons of coal in 24 hours. It was a great change to find an industrial worker, on whose efforts the future of Great Britain depended, being featured on the front page of that newspaper as a person of real consequence.

How can the status of the building worker be raised? Partly it is a question of remuneration but also one of conditions of employment. Secondly, it must mean very much longer periods of continuous employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West pointed out, it is customary in many years—and last year was exceptionally bad—for 70,000 to 80,000 building workers to be out of work for a considerable period in the winter. The result, particularly for skilled men, is that they tend to go to other industries where they are less likely to be unemployed in winter. Every year there is a wastage because there is no permanent continuous work. Whether there will be depends on national policy towards the building industry. This fact will be of paramount importance when we consider methods of organising the industry and better co-ordination.

There is not only the question of better status and remuneration but all sorts of things must be done about site conditions. I visited a number of sites and found that the arrangements for ordinary building labours on them were quite deplorable. A much greater attempt must be made to give the building worker the sort of conditions that are provided for other workers. There is also the question of accidents. In 1962 one man was lost for every working day in that year, and during the year there were more than 25,000 accidents which involved more than three days away from work. Therefore, in addition to arranging longer productive runs, we must provide more attractive conditions on the site, particularly at a time when men can work in other industries where they do not have to face the elements as the majority of building workers have to do.

If we adopt all these methods the building labour force will be slowly built up, and by industrialised methods, as paragraph 39 of the N.E.D.C. Report says, the deficiency may be met. We then have to look at the organisation and consider how we can have a better coordinating mahcinery for the industry which is now so fragmented. If we do not do this, obviously the demands on the industry which will be made by the education, hospital and housing programmes, and by the implications of the Buchanan Report, will not be met.

The Government have come forward with the National Building Agency, another innovation on which the present Minister deserves congratulation. It is true that this has come very late in the life of the Government, as many other things have come, but it is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, though it probably shows up some of his predecessors. It is a good idea but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West has said, it is a negative and muted instrument in many respects. Quite a number of technicians in the building industry wonder whether or not the Agency will be able to perform the limited objectives which the Minister has in mind for it. Even the Minister's own Press release about the Agency is full of negatives. The second paragraph contains no fewer than four "nots". The Agency, according to the Press release, …will not undertake building…will be used to supplement, not supplant, the local authority consortium movement…will also be careful not to usurp the functions of private architects…and it will not itself order or stop building materials or components. One, therefore, has to scratch hard to find out what the Agency will do.

In this connection, therefore, the comment of the Observer on 23rd February is worth quoting: The Government is to set up a National Building Agency to put together different orders into unified contracts large enough to employ new methods. But its work will be on a voluntary basis only and it will charge a fee for its services. The danger is that it will find its main clients in those progressive local authorities and builders who would have used new methods in any case and leave the old-fashioned section of the industry unaffected. If example is better than precept, ought not this new agency to be allowed to do some building of its own? Unless it is, Conservative planning is bound to look too late, half-hearted, and ineffectual. This is damning comment and expresses more precisely than I can the reservations which I feel about the Agency.

I should also like to quote the views of an eminent architect whose opinions I sought on this matter. He is a town planner as well and has taken part in the building of a new town. I must not give too many details or he might be identified and might suffer embarrassment. He said of the Agency: I think that it can do a very useful job where a large social building project is being carried out—a new town, a town expansion, a new university and so on. Here the Agency would be dealing with one large project (not several) and it would probably be on a 'simple' site on virgin land. But even with large projects the Agency will not achieve much more than could the existing bodies, unless it can actually participate in the development itself. Unless it is allowed to do some building, the Agency will be remote from the construction problems facing those on the site. It will be too 'theoretical', and will have to rely on the people who are doing the building telling the Agency staff how the building systems work in practice. There will be no automatic 'feed-back' of information about the performance of the systems to the Agency. This is why in the scheme to which my hon. Friend referred we in the Labour Party have thought it essential for practical reasons, and not for doctrinal reasons about public ownership, that this Agency or any machinery which is to do the job must be allowed to build. Having regard to expert opinion of the kind that I have quoted and such opinions as were expressed in the Observer, I hope that the Minister will not allow his doctrinal prejudices to prevent the Agency doing some building in order that it may really serve the purposes which he wants and which, I believe, are essential for the nation.

On this side of the House, we firmly believe that there is need for an agency of this kind, and we believe also that it must have teeth. In our view, it is right that there should be a body which can co-ordinate demand not only for the public authorities but, as far as is possible, for private development as well. If it can work in this way, we shall not only go a long way to increase the productivity of the industry, by giving long runs for building work, but we shall also he able to encourage methods of standardisation, methods of prefabrication, and opportunities for bulk purchase, and so on.

The agency would also be able to assist, not only in placing the orders itself where required but in ensuring that orders are collectively placed for the mass production of many of the articles and, components required. It is significant that for building in Sweden there are only four types of door. No one who knows Sweden at all will say that, as a result, Swedish architecture is in any way inferior to our own; in fact, it is extremely attractive.

This co-ordinating function which the agency could undertake, and which, certainly, our proposed National Building Corporation would undertake, is essential if we are to have long-run programmes for the industry. Quite apart from increasing manpower, particularly skilled manpower, and apart from the development of industrial building, this aspect of the matter is of the greatest importance. All the experts I have talked with tell me that if we could prevent the "stop and go" business which has affected building programmes during the past 12 years we could make the biggest contribution of all to raise the output of the industry. This is a target about which we all agree, and it must be the aim either of the National Building Agency or of the National Building Corporation which we propose.

Next, the Agency must help to coordinate the various parts of the industry in other ways. There is, for instance, the question of forming consortia of smaller firms which can do certain jobs. This is very important in repair work. The Government are now taking through Parliament a Bill, which will be back to the House soon, creating "improvement areas" for old houses. The amount of repair work to be done, if we are really to tackle the job of modernising old houses, about 3 million very old houses now, will place an enormous burden upon the smaller firms. We can only meet this task if the smaller firms can be co-ordinated, and in this also the Agency should help. The co-ordination will be a difficult job, but it can be done. We have had some experience with it both in other countries and here at the end of the war. In some cases, the corporation or agency, on behalf of local authorities, ought to be able to place contracts in order to get particular work done. Sometimes, of course, it will be highly specialised work.

Next, the Agency must provide design teams. In the White Paper and in the Minister's Press hand-out, we are told that only in exceptional cases will the National Building Agency provide what I think the Minister called a full design service. I hope that the cases will not be exceptional. There are many smaller authorities which need help in this way. How often, when one is in on a private discussion at a town hall, one hears the remark, "Is this scheme within tthe capacity of the borough engineer?" One knows only too well that it is not; he has often not been trained for that sort of work now expected in the redevelopment of a town centre, and in the concepts in the Buchanan Report, and so on. What usually happens is that this small authority wanting to redevelop the old part of its centre or, perhaps, improve other parts of its area tends to find that the only way to proceed is by calling in a property development company. Sometimes these partnerships can be satisfactory, but very often they are not. The property development company often has the profitable parts of the development and the poor old ratepayers are left with the unprofitable parts. Therefore, a team of, so to speak, flying experts—town planners, architects and traffic engineers—available for the small authorities is indispensable if any of the objectives of Buchanan and the other forms of development we have in mind are to be attained.

Lastly—here, of course, we have a fundamental difference with the Minister—we believe that the Agency must be allowed to build. I have given the reasons as they were expressed by one distinguished expert. To summarise them, there are three reasons why the co-ordinating body must have building power. First, this is the only way in which one can really know what is happening. One must have experience in the field of doing some of the work, one must be able to test one's own experience against that of the contractor and be able to see the practical effect of some of the things one is trying to do. Second, the Agency will want to do some experimenting itself. I am not suggesting that this should be on a large scale—it need not be—but, if one can have direct experience instead of depending always on someone else telling one his result, this can be very valuable, and, moreover, if one has a check on what one is told, this will often be very little less costly than doing the actual work oneself.

Third, there will inevitably be occasions, particularly in some of our very old areas with a large number of old houses, when the local building industry will have to be supplemented. We shall never get all the old homes repaired in 10 years in the Liverpools of Britain unless we can give the local people the extra help which they need. This can be done if the Agency is allowed to build. As I say, we have a fundamental difference with the Minister here, but I believe that, on practical grounds, what we urge is absolutely necessary.

Lastly, there will come the very big projects which the nation will have to face. I am thinking of some of the Buchanan developments, but there are others, university developments, the renewal of old towns, and so on, which we should have had to undertake even if there had not been the problem of the motor car. On this side of the House, we envisage the full organisation which can do this work. We ought to be able to designate on a regional basis the broad categories of land use. This sort of thing is essential to prevent all the difficulties into which the planning machine is now running, and which are causing it almost to break down in some parts of the country, for instance, in Kent where I happen to live. There must be a machine which could buy up the land required for the purposes of comprehensive redevelopment. Last, we must have a co-ordinating building agency which not only could help with design and help with standardisation but could do building work itself in regional areas or towns where required.

In conclusion, I drew attention to the final paragraph of the N.E.D.C. Report. I wonder whether many people have actually missed it. It is on a separate page under the heading "Conclusion". I do not know whether the Minister who answered the previous debate arranged to hide this pragraph, but the conclusion is very significant. Right at the end, after having argued the matter out and put all the issues, the N.E.D.C. puts this sentence: What is clear is that there is no certainty, in present conditions, that the building industry will be able to meet the demands upon it. The possibility cannot be ruled out that by falling short it may hold back the expansion of the economy as a whole. I believe that for this task we want a mighty instrument. We on this side have proposed that mighty instrument. What the Minister is offering us is a penny whistle.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden (Bishop Auckland)

The main reason for a large part of the Supplementary Estimate is the highly amateurish way in which the building departments of the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Navy were merged into the Ministry of Public Building and Works. The principle of amalgamation has considerable merit, but the method was highly inefficient. Most of the original departments are still physically separate, in scattered buildings. At one time, one set of architects and engineers were going abroad to take over and supervise the work of existing architects and engineers in the War Office, and the originators were, in fact, prevented from carrying on the work which they had originated.

There should have been a great deal of preparatory work by all the four departments and a detailed study made of the problems involved. Why was not this done? The reason was that the right hon. Gentleman was establishing an "image". This was agreed by the Cabinet, and there was built up a picture of a very efficient Minister modernising and industrialising and going through all the right motions. If this had been a genuine move, the preparatory work would have been done over a period of eight to 12 months, perhaps longer, and then an announcement would have been made about amalgamation. The preparation was thoroughly casual. In fact, one Permanent Secretary involved was informed only just before the Press announcement. The Navy works department came over at a different time from the other building works departments, and I have a shrewd suspicion that the reason was that the Navy department resisted harder than the others did.

Evidence of this administrative incompetence has gradually come out in the Supplementary Estimates. On 20th May, 1963, before Sub-Committee G of the Estimates Committee, the Under-Secretary (Finance) to the Ministry of Public Building and Works was asked: Was there no appraisal made of how the three Services would be integrated? (A) Not ahead of the decision, no. He was asked about economies, and he said: The whole intention is to make economies both in the man power employed on these services and in the building work carried out". What do we find in these Supplementary Estimates? First, they are Supplementary Estimates for nearly £4 million, an increase of about 10 per cent. on the original Estimate—a very serious degree of under-estimating. This under-estimate includes items of this description: G(1): 34 extra salaried staff costing an extra £16,000. Obviously that was forgotten in the transfer. In case there is any doubt about that, in the Estimates for 1964–65 this sum is up by £45,000 and there is provision for an extra 55 staff. On G(2) there is an extra £76,000 for industrial staff who have been forgotten. There are two quite shocking items. Provision for overseas telephone and telegraph services from the transferred Service departments had to be increased 60 per cent., an addition of £110,000. There is one item in respect of fees for Agency services. On an original sum of £50,000, an additional £660,000 had to be provided in these Supplementary Estimates—an increase of 1,222 per cent. This figure goes on rising in the current ordinary Estimates which are up by £245,000 to a total of nearly £1 million, or an additional 25 per cent.

In the "grilling" before the Estimates Committee, the Under-Secretary (Finance) admitted that the spring Supplementary Estimates were prepared very hastily I draw the House's atten- tion to a paragraph in Sub-Committee G's Report which summarises its comments on this hasty and ill-preparation of the Estimates and, by implication, criticises the way in which the amalgamation was done. Sub-Committee G states: It was stated in evidence that it was too early to give an indication of the savings that were likely to accrue as a result of the setting up of the new organisation. In the view of Your Committee a great deal of this work should have been done in advance of the effective date of the take-over. They do not consider that the Estimates presented to the House for the current year, particularly in the case of Headquarters' staff, are a reliable guide to the Department's likely expenditure. The transfer would almost certainly have been carried out more smoothly and without the need for interim arrangements, if the decision to merge had been taken in principle and the details worked out before the effective date. In fact the decision that the merger should take place was made on the assumption that benefits would result, but no attempt was made to evaluate them. Your Committee hope that detailed information on the effects of the transfer will be available by the time next year's Estimates are presented. That is the Estimates Committee's investigation into this take-over.

In the Civil Estimates for the current year, there is a similar indication of a rise in Headquarters salaries of over £1 million, and there will be a net increase of 218 posts by 31st March, 1964. There is a little bit of pie in the sky—a decrease of 50 staff for 1965.

One of the main pieces of propaganda which the Minister and his Department have put forward, concerns the successes likely to result from industrialised building. This is included on page 208 with a good deal of the capital estimates. I quote what the Under-Secretary (Finance) said on 20th May, 1963, before Sub-Committee G on the question of industrialised building: The rebuilding of Aldershot, a very long-term project, ten years in fact, which will cost millions of pounds, provides admirable facilities for a real user study, a building study in industrialised form, building to which, one hopes, one can apply the pattern of things to come. What was the pattern of Aldershot? On 31st July, 1963, of four large industrialised buildings, one fell down. A decision was taken as a result of a Building Research Station inquiry to demolish the remaining three. One of these three fell down in the process of demolition. Therefore, out of four fairly large buildings which had been picked out by the Under-Secretary (Finance) two months before as constituting a typical example of a pattern which would be applied, two fell down and another two had to be demolished.

I give the Minister full marks for the Parliamentary way in which he handled this situation. I do not know whether the Question of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) was inspired, but there was a Written Answer to the hon. Member on 19th December. The right hon. Gentleman announced his inquiry, and there was a four-week Parliamentary Recess during which it was impossible to cross-examine the Minister.

Mr. Rippon

Do not blame me for that.

Mr. Boyden

By the time that it was possible to put down Questions which were likely to get an oral answer, the whole matter had been glossed over.

Mr. Rippon

The hon. Member must be fair. I am sure that we have not glossed this over. I had an inquiry made and published a full report. As is often inevitable with research and development, one does not always have success, but the full facts have been put before the House and everyone concerned.

Mr. Boyden

This was a "crashing" success. The fact is that the Minister has been seriously overplaying his hand on industrialised building techniques. The right hon. Gentleman has been claiming that this is something quite original which has been worked out by his Ministry in the last few months or so.

I was very amused to see an advertisement in the Board of Trade Journal—that very august official journal—of 18th October, 1963. I wish to quote one or two things which it says about industrialised building: Advance publicity for the 1963 Building Exhibition, with its theme of Industrialised Building emphasizes 'This new method of construction, employing prefabrication and factory production of components for all types of buildings.' One hand-out goes on to say 'This method of building creates a demand for new kinds of materials, new applications and new construction techniques, replacing many traditional methods.' The newness of industrialised building has been plugged in every piece of publicity for the Exhibition.. The writer of the advertisement goes on to say: …as every advertising man knows, the word 'new' is semantically a very good word to introduce into advertising copy—that is to say, it has the power to compel attention and to arouse curiosity. There has been considerable semantic use of new industrialised building as the cure for everything on the part of the Minister in his political activities.

Since the Minister for Science implied that it was a Labour Government which rejected industrialised building—he referred to the power crane as an example—I wish finally to make this quotation from the writer of the advertisement who is selling his own firm on industrialized building: At the end of hostilities there was a period of laborious redistribution of production capacity and labour resources, associated with acute shortages of raw materials and plant. There arose a desperate need for new buildings—buildings which the traditional industry, itself in a run-down state and facing shortages in all its requirements, was unable to supply. Government Ministries played an important part at this time in encouraging the development of larger prefabricated structures for industrial use. Who was responsible for allowing the industrial techniques to slip and then rediscovering them about 10 years later? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do what they usually do when I make a reference to the past and try to apportion the blame chronologically, they ought to be fair about the activities of a Labour Government in relation to industrialised building.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) made a damning reference from the N.E.D.C. Report on building productivity. Table 2 is equally damning. The gross output for three years was referred to by my hon. Friend. The gross output of the building industry was £2,919 million in 1961; £2,941 million in 1962 and then there is a dip to £2,926 million last year. It gives the productivity index for 1961 as 100, 1962 as 99 and 1963, 100. In other words, from every aspect of the problem—output, productivity and manpower use in industry—there has been nothing like the leap forward suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

What is needed, as my hon. Friend stressed is a much greater mechanisation of house building. Reference was made in the previous Vote to the fact that B.R.S. had developed a power crane and made some developments in industrialised building, but over the 10 previous years the Government have switched the house-building industry much more into the private sector so that at this moment, and certainly over the last 10 years, it has been particularly difficult, by the declared policy of the Government, to apply these rationalisation techniques because the number of builders has been scattered over a much wider section than was the case during the period of the Labour Government.

I should like a great deal of attention directed to reducing the cost of materials, which represents about 40 per cent. of the building industry costs. So far as I can see, nothing has been done in this direction. The price of building materials has been steadily rising. Taking 1954 as 100, in 1959 the figure was 111 and in 1963 it started at 121.7 but by December it was 123.5. The N.E.D.C. refers to delays in the delivery of building materials: There are already delays in the delivery of certain building materials. No one can say that the major building suppliers are doing badly. I have looked out a number of figures showing the profits of some building supply companies. The London Brick Co. had a pre-tax profit for 1962 of £3,134,000. Its 5s. shares stood at 22s. 9d. at the end of the last accounting year. Rugby Portland Cement had a profit of £.2¼ million. Its 5s. shares stood at 64s. 3d. At the end of 1963 British Plaster Board had a profit of £1 million. Its 10s. shares stood at 35s. 6d. The profits of Marley Tiles were £2½ million in 1963 and its 5s. shares stood at 28s.

The Government are trying to squeeze small shopkeepers, but the whole economy could benefit if a reduction was made in the cost of building materials, and the benefit would be much more dramatic and effective than could be provided by any kind of abolition of r.p.m. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the need to stabilise the industry during the winter. The Report on Winter Building from the right hon. Gentleman's Department was an admirable document but it is up to the Government to supply "teeth" There are two simple remedies which the Government could apply. One was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West. It is to provide a subsidy for labour in the industry during the winter. The other is to provide a tax incentive for materials particularly used in winter building.

I wish finally to refer to a matter which was referred to by my hon. Friend, the new document on information in the building industry. The Building Research Station has been making recommendations about this kind of thing for years. In 1926 its first Annual Report drew attention to the need for more building education and the extension of information services. The Annual Report stated: The task of interpretation will only become easier and full advantage of research secured when building education is more closely linked with building sites. Progressive technical efficiency which depends on the rapid absorption throughout industry of new knowledge will then become much more easily obtainable. There are similar quotations in the Annual Reports for 1932, 1934 and 1962, all on the same theme.

When I visited the Station last summer I discussed with several of the leading people there the possibility of emulating the National Agricultural Advisory Service, which the Woodbine Parish Working Party favours. When the right hon. Gentleman started the Working Party his aims were quite modest. He referred to an annual budget of at least £500,000 in five years. But the Woodbine Parish Working Party talks in terms of £3 million and more.

It does not appear that the right hon. Gentleman is fully seized of the importance of the problem. When he first took office he could, by having a word with the director of the Station and others, have learnt of the fundamental problems involved and could have got on with solving them without having to appoint working parties. He has been playing politics throughout. His party politics is good but his stimulation of the building industry and its organisation do not match up to the paper image he has created.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

The right hon. Gentleman asks for an increase of a considerable sum of money on his Estimate in respect of capital expenditure for new works. The sum amounts to £2,630,000. His writ runs north of the Border, so no doubt a considerable proportion of the money arises from work going on in Scotland.

In the past, we have commended the right hon. Gentleman for his industry in spotlighting the possibilities of industrial building and, indeed, he has done something about that. However, I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who said that we have an image of activity rather than the reality. The right hon. Gentleman has shown concern, no doubt from experience, about the efficiency of the Scottish building and construction industry. I believe that it was in 1962 that he set up a committee to look into it and examine the differences in organisation and practice north and south of the Border. He asked it to make recommendations with a view to promoting greater efficiency.

The importance of this has not been lost on us and we have been pressing him on the subject for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) drew attention to the fact that no Minister has sponsored as many White Papers and reports as has the right hon. Gentleman. It reminded me of something I heard the right hon. Gentleman say recently—that everything was all right in education now because the Government have accepted a report.

The right hon. Gentleman should realise that acceptance of a report does not mean anything in itself. What matters is the implementation. I was, therefore, glad to see that the Departmental Report on the Organisation and Practices for Building and Civil Engineering in Scotland, which reported to the Minister in December, stated, in paragraph 10: Since the beginning of the last war the building industry has been the subject of several inquiries… The paragraph then lists these inquiries and goes on: It is clear to us that many of the problems affecting the industry today would not have arisen if the recommendations of those various bodies had been more widely accepted and put into practice. The measure of the Minister's efficiency and ability does not lie in the production of reports. What matters is whether or not he takes the action which lies to his hand and persuades the building industry to implement the reports. We will withhold our plaudits from the Minister until we have seen his efforts in that respect; and that applies to industrialised building and all the fuss that he has made about that.

I was interested to see that, generally speaking, the Working Party concluded that it would be considerably for the benefit of the Scottish building industry if two things applied. The Government have the responsibility for one of them. In paragraph 18, the Report said: we believe also that "stop-go" national financial policies in the past have affected the industry in Scotland more quickly and more acutely than that in England and Wales. The Working Party was probably wrong in that, in the sense that when there is a boom it does not spread to Scotland for a long time. In fact we are still waiting for this legendary boom to reach us. But when there is congestion in the building going on in the south of England, as a magnet it inevitably draws building workers to it from Scotland.

We are supposed to be in the middle of a public works boom in Scotland, with local authorities making tremendous demands on the civil engineering industry, but, inevitably, it is slowed down because we do not have the labour. It is further slowed down when the boom bursts down here and the brakes are applied, not just south of the Border or in the Midlands, but over the whole country. The increase in the Bank Rate last week did not apply just to those parts causing the difficulties in the economy, but to Scotland as well.

Here we have something which is the responsibility of the Government. Have we seen the end of stop-go financial policies? Do we not have the right to say that we have not seen the end of them under the Government in view of the increase in the Bank Rate last week? The reason for the effect of the stop-go policies is clearly stated in the Report: …public sector work, which is more directly influenced by national policies, has formed a higher proportion of the whole construction programme in Scotland than in England and Wales. That is perfectly true.

The Prime Minister can go to the Playhouse, in Glasgow, and speak about the building programme and the endless demand for houses for owner-occupation, but of the 28,000 houses built in Scotland last year, in this year of glory—and in 1953 we were building 39,000—only 6,600) were built for private owner occupation, 1,000 fewer than in 1962. The Prime Minister did not even know what he was talking about in relation to Scotland, not even in relation to owner-occupation. We are not surprised about that, because up there we know him a little better. We know that he does not know what he is talking about —the monarch of the matchstick!

The Report goes on: In the interests of the efficiency of the industry we hope that the demands on it will in future be distributed as evenly as possible over long periods. Can the Minister say whether we can depend on that happening, for it is essential?

The Report drew attention to the financial difficulties of the Scottish industry and said that it was under-capitalised. We may have an even greater proportion of small firms—I believe that there are about 6,000 firms, employing 111,000 men. This inevitably slows down progress of building, because there is a hold-up of finance between client and contractor and between contractor and sub-contractor, and so on, into the specialised services. Even if hon. Members opposite who come from Scotland were here—and they are not here and seldom are, for they never show any interest in these matters—they would bear me out when I say that the commonest thing in Scotland is to find a building firm "going bust" in the middle of operations. The houses are half completed, but the contractor has simply over-played his hand. There is no doubt that that has a lot to do with the flow of finance.

I know that the Minister has no direct responsibility for this, but the Working Party thought fit to report to him and thought that he would use his influence to try to get the industry to put the matter right. The Report drew attention to the fact that there were certain aspects of contracting which had an effect on the situation and said that it would be better if we in Scotland adopted the all trades contract rather than the single trades contract which tends to slow up matters, particularly when the finishing trades come into the building.

What are the Government doing about that? Are they using all their powers to get the trades together to form themselves into a consortium, just as the Government are exhorting local authorities to do when they place building contracts? Recently, I spoke to people in one of the larger building firms in Scotland. They had come to the conclusion that they have to gather together teams of all trades to be sure of meeting completion dates. What are the Government doing about that?

Then there is the question of building materials, and paragraphs 126 and 132 to 135 of this Report contain some interesting comments. There is a reference in the Report to the report by Sir Harold Emmerson, which said: Another factor which can affect conditions in Scotland is the supply of building materials. Most building components come from across the Border, and both distributors and contractors complain of delays. This seems to apply particularly to household fitments and ironmongery coming from the Midlands. Without more detailed enquiry it is not possible to say where the fault lies. The Working Party went very much further and said, in paragraph 134: We would therefore, recommend that, where there is no reason why production in Scotland is not economically practicable, every effort should be made to increase the output of building materials and components there. This is a serious matter. During the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election I was told of a shortage of bricks, at a time when a Stewarton firm was writing to me complaining about the possibilities of industrialised buildings and the fact that it had unused stocks of bricks. Even where we have the materials, there is a lack of information about where the materials are available.

What is the Minister doing to build up this new type of industry and to expand existing ones to meet the demands for building materials? The Report goes on to say: Increased production in Scotland of building components, as distinct from materials, and especially of prefabricated components with limited economical transport range, will be of special importance if the current movement towards the use of industrialised building systems is to develop in Scotland. This can be done, and I hope that the Minister will take the initiative in dealing with the matter. There is unlimited scope for building in Scotland. Large parts of Glasgow ought to be bulldozed and built on again. We need not one new town, but three or four. They ought to be spread around Scotland and not concentrated in one area. There is tremendous scope for the building industry in Scotland, and it is the Minister's job to make use of it. He need not smile about this. This is not a matter for levity.

Mr. Rippon

I nodded at the hon. Member. He should not try to misinterpret what I do.

Mr. Ross

We are used to Ministers nodding—usually when they are asleep. If the right hon. Gentleman knew more about the kind of Ministers that we have to deal with he would realise that we are not nearly offensive enough.

There is a greater need in Scotland for the development of the better techniques which are available in areas which have had a longer run in building, but the right hon. Gentleman must watch this, because it has been demonstrated that newer techniques do not always work in Scotland. Although we usually have better weather than the rest of the country there are times when it rains, and materials which may be used beneficially and speedily in the South prove eventually to have weaknesses in Scotland, owing to the climatic conditions.

To obtain the value of components made from new materials the right hon. Gentleman has been looking abroad, and he recently set up a committee to look into the Agrément system for testing materials, which is used in France. This will be of importance to Scotland, as part of the research being done by private firms in these components is being carried on in Ayrshire. But we often find that when research is completed the firm concerned sets up its factory elsewhere. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland in setting up this committee, and whether there was any Scottish Department representative on the committee.

We want to keep Scotland well in the van of progress in these matters, and it should have been the Government's responsibility to see that there was proper co-operation and co-ordination between Ministries. I shall be disappointed if the right hon. Gentleman, who has been nodding agreement with most of the things that I have been saying, has failed to appreciate the importance of this, and the greater need than ever to make use of all these systems and of a speedy introduction of new materials in Scotland.

I am sorry that I have had to rush my speech. I hope that the Minister realises that there is nothing more important to Scotland than the establishment of an adequate and efficient building force.

9.3 p.m.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)

We have had a wide-ranging and extremely useful debate on an important topic. One matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) and which, perhaps, does not fall within the general ambit of the discussion, related to Government building, especially in the Whitehall area. He asked me for certain assurances about the Government's approach to the problem.

I can give him the assurance which I gave to the House on 17th December, in answer to a Question her for Barking (Mr. Driberg in which I said: What I believe is necessary is that we should look at this area as a whole. Certainly the proposals should be brought forward not just piecemeal but in relation to the rebuilding of Whitehall as a whole. That we will do at the appropriate stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 1027.] I am considering the appointment of a planning consultant to look at the whole of the proposals under consideration for redevelopment in the Whitehall area. It must be understood that while the Government must take a decision on policy—either to retain a building or to replace it—the decision taken to replace it provides an opportunity to see what it is proposed to put up in its place. I can give the House an assurance on that point.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) referred to the new functions of my Ministry in relation to military as well as civil building. That does not fall within the terms of the Vote which we are discussing. I make no complaint about that, but the basis of the Government's policy and the way in which the reorganisation is being carried out has been set out in the White Paper—Cmnd. 2233—The Reorganisation of the Ministry of Public Building and Works—which I published last December. Perhaps there will be another opportunity to debate that in greater detail.

I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who made a most helpful and valuable speech which I am sure we all appreciated—that the National Economic Development Office's recent Report on the construction industry rightly focuses attention on what is a key sector of the national economy. I am concerned that this Report should be seen in its proper perspective. Much of what it says is admirable so far as it goes. Certainly it is right, as the hon. Member said, in saying that any failure of the industry to meet the growing demands made upon it would be a serious brake on expansion.

However, as I have said publicly—and the hon. Member did not misquote me in any way—inevitably, because it is a general Report, its approach is somewhat superficial. In general, its approach to industrialisation of building is too narrow. It must be understood that it was prepared some time ago and it does less than justice to the progress already made by the industry and the Government working together in modernising, methods and promoting increased productivity. It was presented to the Council in February, 1964, and actually published in March, 1964, but, as I shall show, much of the material on which it is based is now a little out of date.

The revolution by consent, to which I have referred from time to time, is now well under way. There is a new climate of change which augurs well. I have found fresh attitudes of mind and a real readiness to try out new ways of doing things. This is at work in every part of the construction industry. There is a complete understanding that the way ahead lies in industrialisation. But this is not just a matter of introducing new systems of building. It is a question of rationalisation and modernising the organisation and methods of the whole building process. It is significant that the construction industry was the first to set up its own economic planning advisory council to assist N.E.D.C.

The industry is now moving away from being essentially a craft-based industry to one based on engineering science and technology. Even within N.E.D.O.'s own rather narrow definition of industrialisation, the work is now further under way than the Report indicates. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers has set up a special section for system builders and this summer will be holding a large-scale exhibition of industrialised building.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that we were rather overplaying our hand and cited an isolated instance, from which we take no comfort, but we are working in a field where there will be some difficulties. That is why the Government's building programme and research organisation should be employed to try out some of the systems to see which might be deployed most effectively.

It is most significant that over the whole field already next year 10 per cent. of local authority houses and 45 per cent. of local authority flats will be system built. Those figures are for England and Wales. More than 15 per cent. of school building will be by system methods.

There is no doubt that by employing these new systems we get a saving of labour and time and that is important. If this is done in sufficient bulk there is also a saving in cost.

That is what we found in school building where there were savings of 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. But much of the saving has gone into raising the standards of construction and the amount of room available, and to some extent that has provided an additional bonus for school building. We have already reached the stage at which virtually whole new towns, such as Livingston, in Scotland, and whole new universities, such as York, are being developed by the use of these new methods. The Ministry is also going ahead with a plan for 2,000 Service houses using industrialised building.

One obstacle to rapid expansion is the shortage of skilled site labour, and to overcome it traditional processes must be mechanised and more work must be transferred from the site to the factory.

I make one other point on which I am sure I shall get agreement from both sides of the Committee: there must be large long-term orders wherever possible. Local authority consortia both for housing and school building are steadily increasing in number and their work will be supplemented by the new National Building Agency.

A great deal has been said about this body this afternoon. Some hon. Members suggested that it will not have sufficient power. It will do three main things. First, it will help to co-ordinate the requirements of those wishing to build programmes which are large and continuing enough to make possible the economic use of industrialised methods. Secondly, it will offer expert and technical advice about the newest methods. Thirdly—another point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West—it will help in encouraging educational and other bodies, including the new Industrial Training Board, to provide more extensive facilities for training in the new techniques. I made this clear in my statement about the National Building Agency on 10th December.

It will have a very clear and close link with the trade unions. One of the directors of the board is Mr. Victor Feather, the Assistant General Secretary of the T.U.C. I assure hon. Members that I attach very great importance to having close relations with the trade unions about developments which are taking place within the industry.

The hon. Member for Leeds, West also referred to the whole problem of changing skills. Research on this is being undertaken by the Building Research Station financed both by the N.F.B.T.E. and by the N.F.B.T.O. The new Industrial Training Board, is also vitally concerned. We are arranging with the Ministry of Labour to obtain practical details of the skills which are being used on sites where industrialised buildings are being erected.

We attach very great importance to the problem of apprenticeship, which was dealt with by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). It is to the credit of both sides of the construction industry that it was the first major industry to agree to reduce from five years to four years the period of apprenticeship. This is in force in five out of the nine regions and covers about 70 per cent. of all apprenticeships.

Hon. Members made great point of the fact that the Agency will not itself build or contract, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington complained that I had said that it will only exceptionally provide a full design service. One must recognise that there are only a limited number of really skilled people available to give advice over a very wide area. I therefore do not think that the Agency itself could normally provide the full design service. What it will do is to get in contact with a local authority or public body or private client and tell them how they can do this; and it will give them advice and help the local authority's own staff, supplemented where necessary by private architects as at present, to get on with the job.

I felt it important that the Agency should exceptionally provide the full design service, because I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that it is essential that there should be a feed-back of information, and, also, that people who work in the Agency should have jobs for which they are themselves primarily responsible and which they can display as an example of how things can be done. I am sure that a number of local authorities will be anxious to co-operate with the Agency on that basis.

I believe that the Agency's services will be widely used, because it will provide a service which is not at present available to either the public or the private sector. Thus it will open up new possibilities of increasing building output and productivity. The board will, in fact, hold its first formal meeting on 19th March. The chairman has told me that he hopes that the Agency will be functioning in three months' time with its first offices open, one in London and the other in Edinburgh. The Agency will be providing an annual report, but, meanwhile, the chairman will be providing me with a monthly statement of how things are going.

In a letter to The Times, which was published on 21st February, 1964, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington explained what the National Building Corporation, which is the Opposition's pale carbon copy of my National Building Agency, would do. The hon. Gentleman said this: Its proposed National Building Corporation would, through its regional organisation, collate building demands in the area"— so will the National Building Agency— prepare long run programmes for the building industry and help to mobilise its resources. So will the National Building Agency. It would form consortia of firms in appropriate cases''— so will the National Building Agency— and by agreement could place development contracts for the smaller authorities, This is a new thing which the National Building Corporation would do. But provided that local authorities have been told how they should draft their contracts and what they should do, it is not necessary for the Agency to sign them. Therefore, the contractual relationship will be between the local authority, which will eventually own the buildings, and the builder who puts them up.

The hon. Gentleman's letter continued in this way: If required its team of highly specialised advisers would be available to assist councils. So will that of the National Building Agency, so there is not a great deal of difference between us.

I do not think that I have time to add anything more on the subject of the National Building Agency, because I would like to revert to what I think was the main topic of the Opposition—that is, the N.E.D.O. Report on the Construction Industry. As I see it, there are four basic conditions of success in raising productivity to the necessary levels.

The first is a steady public investment programme for building and civil engineering work which is under-pinned by large and continuing orders. These the Government are providing. As I announced early last year, arrangements have been made jointly with the Treasury for the Ministry of Public Building and Works to be associated more closely, and at an earlier stage, with the procedures for settling the public investment programmes, so that full account can be taken of the likely effect of the agreed programmes on the construction industries regionally as well as nationally. That is another point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Of course, all these things have to be brought into balance.

The N.E.D.O. Report, in paragraph 78, suggests that the appropriate conditions for and methods of short-term regulation should be examined. The Report calls for greatly improved statistical information…for example, for the regions in which overload is likely". As I said in Answer to a Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) on 29th November, 1963, I have already taken steps, with the full co-operation of the industry, to improve the quality and extent of the statistical information at our disposal to cover both regions and the national scene. The new arrangements have already been introduced. The first returns will be available in May to the industry as well as to the Government.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was very concerned, I think rightly, that we should not have, if we can possibly avoid it, any return to stop-go, certainly not stop-go over the whole field where a situation may well be created in which a cut is imposed in an area where there is already an underload, in spite of the fact that the industry over the country as a whole is overloaded. I would like to make it plain, regarding short-term regulation, that we intend that the industry should have the necessary security to plan ahead. The Government have no intention of damaging this by introducing physical controls.

I have made it clear that the long and short-term prospects for work in the industry depend not only on what the customer wants, but also on what the customer can afford to pay. The industry cannot expect to retain, let alone expand, its present share of expenditure unless it keeps its costs under control. If costs rise faster than productivity the industry cannot expect automatically that the customer will pay for the increase.

At the same time, I wish to emphasise that the industry's record of productivity is much better than the N.E.D.O. Report may lead people to believe. The hon. Member for Leeds, West, referred to Table 1 and the output between 1961 and 1963. But in paragraph 20 the Report explains "In particular, in the period 1961 to 1963, output was hindered by severe weather conditions from November, 1962 to April, 1963."

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to Table 2, which deals with general productivity. It is important to distinguish in this context between new work and maintenance work. This is not done in these tables. There is clearly less scope for raising productivity with maintenance work but, nevertheless, productivity in 1963 on maintenance work was 8 per cent. above that for 1958. On new work the increase in output between 1958 and 1963 has been no less than 27 per cent. That gives a much clearer picture of the rise in productivity of new work.

The second need, if we are to reach our target, is to ensure sound management and that there is a proper understanding of labour relations so that good working conditions are promoted. I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the rising status of the worker. I have tried, in what I have been doing, to bring the industry out of the muck and wheelbarrow age. I have been trying to secure better conditions and in the Ministry's large contracts we have laid down minimum provisions for good site amenities, and so on.

I agree with everything that has been said on the subject of winter building. Having received the initial Report from the Committee which I set up, I have now established a permanent body to ensure that we make progress. I am equally sure that N.E.D.O. was right in stressing the importance of good management. The industry, including the allied professions, is fully alive to this need and many of the larger firms, and some of the others, are already managed with great efficiency. The real need now is to raise the standards of the remainder of the industry and the Ministry is setting an example in its own contracts by specifying the use of such things as the critical path method which will help the industry to have a knowledge of the best techniques, methods and management. To this end we are runing, public lectures, conferences, and giving specific advice. This year we are having about 250 lectures, film shows and conferences.

Both the industry and the professions are now very active in this sector. This need for improved management covers the whole building process; clients, designers and other professions as well as contractors and sub-contractors. A major step forward has been taken with the establishment of the Industrial Training Board for the construction industry. This will involve everybody concerned—employers, unions, educationists and Ministers—in a cooperative effort to improve skills and adapt them to the demands of the new methods.

New methods call for new techniques and procedures, which must cover traditional as well as non-traditional building. One example of this is the placing and management of building contracts. We have been examining this with the full co-operation of the industry to see what improvements are needed and have set up two committees.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to the valuable Report which I have received from Sir William McEwan Younger. I am considering carefully the contents of that Report. The English committee, under Sir Harold Banwell, is about to submit its report. We try to establish the closest possible relations between builders in England and Wales and those in Scotland, and there is a Scottish representative on Sir Harold Banwell's committee. I do not know whether we have put a Scot on the committee that is studying the agrément system, but we consulted the Scottish Development Department about setting it up and it has agreed the membership. However, it is not necessary in everything we do to have every single interest directly represented as long as we co-ordinate, as we are doing.

The third need, if we are to achieve our targets, is up-to-date building regulations that can be uniformly interpreted, and some hon. Members have referred to this. If the construction industry is to extend and modernise, it certainly must not be hampered by a great variety of statutory controls, varying from area to area and which are too rigid to accommodate new methods and materials. We are tackling this problem by introducing later this year a national code of building regulations, which is being worked out in full consultation with the industry and with the local authorities that will have to administer it. That has been considered in very great detail by the advisory committee under Mr. Wynne Edwardes. The code will not be ideal, but it will be a great step forward, and in the light of recommendations made to me I am considering how to improve matters for the future.

Fourthly, if building is to be transferred from a craft-based to a technologically-based industry, which is our aim—in other words, from a labour-intensive to a capital-intensive industry—more must be spent on research and on the dissemination of information. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to this especially. Here, I have now a special responsibility for coordinating building research and development throughout the Government service, so that, again, we are ensuring the closest possible co-operation between all concerned. The industry is increasingly recognising the fact that it must speed up research and development, and spend more money on it. Some one said that I made a rather modest proposal in this respect, and I am glad that representatives of the industry have come forward with something more. It is an indication of the anxiety in the industry to move ahead as fast as possible.

Six months ago representatives of these bodies agreed in principle to my proposal for a Building Research and Information Association and, together, we set up this Working Party which has just reported. The Report endorses the Government's view of the need for more research, and recommends that the machinery to meet it should be financed mainly by a compulsory levy on building and civil engineering firms. One possibility is to set up a development council to raise and administer the levy, and I am pursuing that idea with the representative bodies concerned. It is worth emphasising that this initiative has come from leading persons in the construction industry who worked closely with my officials in producing the Report. It illustrates the progressive attitude to be found in the industry today.

That is why I have called the N.E.D.O. Report unduly pessimistic. That Report has not taken full account of the very rapid developments that have taken place, and that are still taking place. But it is, perhaps, more a difference of emphasis than of substance. The Report warns of failure unless certain things can be put right. That is putting the matter too negatively. I am confident of success if we can continue to pursue the policies and initiatives that are already being implemented.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

Before the Minister sits down, there is one point I should like him to take into account when considering the modernisation of the industry. I am thinking of the handicap that afflicts building and civil engineering firms in development districts. It seems, in so many cases, that the Local Employment Act does not apply to much of the equipment in which those concerns will be called upon to invest.

I have an example that will serve my purpose. The firm I am thinking of decided to purchase a very large collapsible building which would have had the very admirable purpose of enabling work to be carried on inside it independently of the weather. That was an excellent and expensive piece of equipment. This was a development district. The firm made application for a building grant—

It being half-past Nine o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each of the remaining Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply but not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fourth Resolution, put and agreed to.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifth Resolution, put and agreed to.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixth Resolution, put and agreed to.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Seventh Resolution, put and agreed to.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eighth Resolution, put and agreed to.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Ninth Resolution. put and agreed to.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Tenth Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution.