THE BUILDING INDUSTRY

HL Deb 22 February 1956 vol 195 cc1205-22

3.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE rose to draw attention to the effects of the overloading of the building industry in certain areas; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, since I put this Motion on the Order Paper, I notice that fears have been expressed that, far from the building industry being overloaded, it is likely to suffer restriction and unemployment as a result of Government policy. I am in no sense qualified to predict what the future of the building industry in this country will be, but, like many ether people, I am much concerned about building costs. So far as my own part of the country is concerned, there seems to he no sign whatever that costs are going down, nor is there any sign of unemployment. On the contrary, builders seem to have a good deal more on their hands than they can properly undertake. There are long delays in the execution of contracts and costs continue slowly but steadily to rise. It is quite common to find that the lowest tenders for comparable council houses have gone up by, say, £100 in the last eighteen months.

In my area the lowest tender we received for a certain school is a good deal above the Ministry's ceiling price. In fact, the Ministry's house control machine seems to be coming more and more into the picture. I do not know on what principles the Government's control of maximum prices for local government building is based. Presumably, one of the factors in it is the general level of prices throughout the country. In any case, we do not seem, as a rule, to get any better value for money as a result of these controls. The usual effect is that our standards have to be cut down, sometimes to an undesirably low level.

Building costs are not the only reason for the rise in rates that has been experienced over the last few years. It is not the only reason for the increase in rents, but it is certainly one reason. As we know, there has been a good deal of protest about the rise in rates in the last few years, a rise which is usually attributed to the incompetence are extravagance of the elected representatives on the councils. Angry ratepayers are not always easily persuaded that the rises are due to causes outside the control of the local councils. As a representative of local authorities, perhaps it was owing to this sort of stimulation that I made some inquiries into tins question of rising costs.

I first consulted local builders. Naturally enough, they pointed out that there had been a considerable rise in wage rates and in the cost of materials. But in addition, they told me that there is a considerable shortage of building labour, resulting not only in some contractors virtually bribing men away by paying more than regionally agreed rates of pay but, more commonly in men having to be transported over long distances. I am told that labour for the new town of Crawley has to come not only from London and Brighton, but from places as far away as Hastings and Tunbridge Wells. I was told by another builder in West Sussex that he is sending some of his men to fulfil a Government contract in Buckingharnshire. It is easy to see that costs are likely to rise if men are paid not only for building, and at rates which some of us may consider generous, at least as compared with rates of pay of agricultural labourers, but also for travelling anything up to 100 miles a day. I do not want to exaggerate. This practice is not universal, even in my own area, but it is quite common and I think it is getting commoner.

Another factor, which I am not told so much about by builders but which I can see for myself, is that to-day there is not a great deal of incentive for the builders to produce close, competitive tenders for jobs on offer. If you take half a dozen tenders, at least 50 per cent. of them are from 30. 40 or 50 per cent. above the lowest render; and one sometimes wonders why some of these tenders are put in at all. Again, I do not wish to exaggerate by saying that the tendering system has broken down, but it certainly is not working as it is meant to.

Having made these inquiries locally, I then tried to discover how the costs of building in ray own area of East Sussex compared with building costs in other areas. Here, I must confess, I had great difficulty in finding any figures bearing on this question. There is plenty of official information about average building costs, but very little of an official nature about regional costs. However, I found one document which seems to throw quite an interesting; light on what is happening. It is not an official document, but is a pamphlet called Housing Statistics, issued annually by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, a reputable body. It gives a large number of figures relating to constructional and administrative costs of council houses built all over England and Wales. I should like to quote from this document, and in order to simplify my argument I will refer to only one category of houses—namely, three-bedroomed houses—and I do not wish to take into account anything for land or services, but only constructional costs and architects' fees. All the figures which I quote relate to the financial year 1954–55.

The document opens with the rather remarkable statement that the cheapest house built during that period of the three-bedroomed type was built at Lowestoft, at a cost of £1,146, and the most expensive, built at Welshpool, cost £2,982—a difference of over £1,800. I do not attach great importance to single examples of that sort, because we all know that even when dealing with constructional costs only a great many different factors have to be taken into account: there are particular specifications, particular materials, special transportation difficulties and so forth. Nevertheless, making all allowances for that kind of thing, if the same tendency is found to be repeated in a considerable number of cases, I think one may conclude that there is some fundamental cause to account for it.

It seems to me that, if one goes through the seventy-five odd pages of this document, a certain pattern emerges. One finds that there are definite areas of high costs, generally in the London area, certain areas of the Midlands and in Wales, and that there are certain areas of low costs, generally, but not entirely, confined to East Anglia and the North-East of England, and that the difference between the cost of a house in the high-cost area and the cost of a comparable house in a low-cost area is in the range of £500, £600 or £700. For example, houses built at East Ham, Barking, Beckenham, Ealing, Epsom, Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Hornsey, Kingston-on-Thames, Stretford, Sutton, Wimbledon and Willesden, last year all cost between £1,700 and £2,000 each to build, as did houses in certain parts of Wales and in one or two places in the Midlands and in Lancashire. On the other hand, houses were built at Canterbury, Chester, Great Yarmouth, Ipswich, Lowestoft, Peterborough, Bury St. Edmunds and various other places in the North and North-East of England for under £1,300 each, again quoting construction costs. One of the most remarkable contrasts seems to be in Kent, where at Beckenham houses were built costing £2,094 each, whereas demonstration houses were built at Canterbury for £1,124 each, a difference of nearly £1,000 a house.

I do not wish to weary your Lordships by quoting too many figures, but these differences seem rather remarkable and consistent. I am wondering if the Government can say whether or not they think this document presents a true picture, and, if so, what is their explanation of these differences. I am quite ready to believe that in remoter parts of Wales, Cornwall and the Isle of Wight there are transportation difficulties which may account for a great deal, but I will not believe that that is the reason for the high costs in London or parts of the Midlands. I would ask my noble friend whether it is not reasonable to suppose that at least one explanation of these differences in cost is the operation of the ordinary law of supply and demand; that where you have had excessive demand prices have gone up, and where you have had normal demand prices have remained normal. There may, of course, be some quite different explanation. But, unless my figures are completely wrong, there must be some explanation of these disparities, which are considerable when one reflects that the interest we have to pay on £500 of capital cost is more than 10s. a week in rent—more than the whole of the subsidy which the Government are now giving for special purposes such as slum clearance and town development. Variations in local costs are not like variations in rainfall: there must be some human explanation for them.

If excessive demand is the cause or a cause of high costs, does it not also follow that anything the Government or local authorities may do to encourage still further building demand within these high cost areas—for example, by expanding towns under the Town Development Act or by giving licences for large factory ex- tensions—will simply tend to put up prices still more? Will not such actions tend to wipe out the advantages of any subsidy that might be given in such areas? I understand that the object of a subsidy is to allow the working classes, or people in the lower income group bracket, or whatever the correct expression is, to have decent houses at rents they can afford. But if you put up building costs against yourself, as it were, it seems to me that the main object of the subsidy is simply cancelled out. The new town of Crawley is, I believe, one of the best administered of the new towns, but it lies within an area of high cost; in fact, its very existence has contributed to those high costs. Despite all the subsidy money that has been poured into that town with the object, presumably, of reducing rents, there has in fact been a rent strike in progress for several weeks past, and it is still continuing. I am not in any way trying to justify this strike. I have no particular knowledge of it, and I should not like to express any views about it. I am saying merely that in this particular case at least some of the inhabitants do not think they are being charged rents within their means.

I feel that if this excessive demand is an explanation of high costs within a particular area, another conclusion follows, and that is that physical controls of the sort that we had during and after the war would not be a deterrent. It is not that there is too much building of a particular kind—not too many millionaires' palaces or too many cinemas being built—but that there is too much building of all kinds in a particular place. I do not see that that is a problem which can be solved by appointing an official to decide whether a cinema or a couple of shops can be put up in Little Muddles-combe. It is a much bigger problem that can really be tackled only by planning controls and location of industry by the Board of Trade.

I said that I have no knowledge of why building costs should be high in Wales or the Midlands, but I have had the advantage of seeing some figures relating to the London region supplied to the Town Planning Institute. I cannot say that they have been accepted as finally correct by the Town Planning Institute, but I have no reason to suppose they are wrong. They offer, or seem to offer, some explanation of why building costs in the London region are so high. The expression "London region" is. I know, rather a loose one, but I understand it covers an area in the Greater London Plan lying roughly within a circle extending twenty-five to thirty miles from Charing Cross. These figures show that, despite the efforts that have been made to prevent the growth of London, the population of outer London—what is usually called the outer suburbs—is still increasing at the rate of about 45,000 a year. It is reckoned that about 15,000 of these come from inner London and about 30,900 are immigrants into this area from outside. I believe that nearly one-fifth of all the houses built since the war have been built within this London region.

I know that great efforts have been made, particularly by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade, to try to discourage this movement to Lon don. I know that licences have been given very sparingly for industrial expansion in London. Nevertheless, for a variety of complicated reasons, industry still seems to be expanding in this area. The Government admitted in a debate in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago that factory space vacated by industries removed to new towns has been reoccupied by other industries. I understand that the Government are now taking, further steps to prevent this, and I am glad to near it but nothing whatever seems to be done to prevent the growth of offices, which provide employment for perhaps ten times the number of people employed per acre in industry. London seems to be, officially, a place where industry is discouraged; but unofficially it appeals to be an area where the number of offices is being expanded. With respect, that does not seem to me to make a great deal of sense. Offices have to be built, but have such a large number of them to be built within this circle?

We have heard a great deal in recent weeks about the Barbican Scheme, and its architectural merits and demerits have been freely discussed. I am not concerned with its architectural side: I am concerned with only one aspect of it, or of any similar scheme to put what is called a new town in the centre of London, to provide working space for, I believe, something ever 20,000 people. I am wondering where these people are going to live, where their chidren will be educated, and where the old people's homes and the rest of the buildings required will be situated. I know very well that the Government have recently introduced measures which may have the effect of limiting the present rate of building. They have introduced the credit squeeze; they have put up the rates for borrowing; they have altered their subsidy policy to correspond more with their planning policy; and they have invited local authorities to postpone any but essential building.

Those are general measures applicable to the whole country, but I am wondering whether, unless they are combined with other steps particularly directed to preventing the growth of certain areas of population, particularly in London, these measures will have quite the effect that is intended. Such seems the magnetic attraction of London that one might almost imagine that there would be unemployment elsewhere and, at the same time, overloading of industry in this London region. But when we, who live on the periphery of the London area, are asked to postpone putting up various buildings—for example, homes for the aged, clinics, and so forth—although we in Sussex are a well-disciplined lot of people and do what we are told, I confess that the wisdom of this postponement is being questioned. The question asked is: "What advantage shall we get by deferring these things? Shall we not have to pay a good deal more for them when we come to build?"

I do not know the answer to these questions. I have certainly no simple solution to offer, and I do not envy the responsibility of the Ministers, of any Party, who have to solve these problems. I am glad that towns a long way from London, such as Thetford, Daventry and Swindon, are now being selected for expansion, but I am a little surprised that the Ministry should permit the expansion of towns within, say, a radius of fifty miles from where your Lordships are now sitting. Going on as we are at present, it seems likely that in a matter of years this built-up area will have a radius, not of twenty-five to thirty miles but of thirty-five to forty miles, except for the Green Belt, and that the new and expanded towns within that area will simply be merged into other building. Presumably, costs will keep up not only in this area but some way beyond it.

I confess that I was a little surprised to hear that the Government had sanctioned an enormous expansion of industry at Luton, about thirty miles from London, which will, I understand, involve a transfer of population of some 80,000 people, with large incidental expense. I have no doubt whatever that there were compelling reasons for that decision, but I find it a little difficult to reconcile it with the appeals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for reduced capital expenditure. One wonders sometimes whether there is complete co-ordination between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It may be that there is some misunderstanding of Government policy. My one constructive suggestion is that both policy and facts should be given more publicity. In my Motion, I am calling attention to what I believe to be the facts. I am asking the Government to say whether, in their opinion, they are true or not. I am also moving that Papers be laid. A Motion of this kind is often a formality, but I feel that in this particular case it would be a good thing if some Papers were laid. Accordingly, I beg to move for Papers.

House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.

3.39 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I feel that out of courtesy to the noble Viscount who has introduced this Motion a word or two should be said from this side of the House. We had hoped that my noble friend Lord Quibell would be here to say something on the subject, but I seem to be destined, in the last few days, to speak on behalf of absent friends. I am doing so once more on this occasion. The noble Viscount has raised a number of interesting subjects each one of which would have been suitable for a separate debate. Many of them could not possibly have been inferred from the terms of his Motion. I do not say that they are irrelevant, but nobody would have guessed that, arising out of his Motion, he could have brought in the Barbican Scheme, the economic situation or the methods which the Government have adopted for meeting that situation, or even the question of new towns and expanded towns. It is a little difficult for anyone immediately following him, without previous intention of speaking, to take him up on each one of these separate aspects of his speech, but I will make one or two observations about sonic of the things he has said.

I agree with him that there is a constant rise in the cost of building—it is one of the problems we have got to face. No doubt one of the causes is the constant rise in wages, which is due to reasons which we may be discussing on another occasion; but it seems to me all part of the same problem of the inflationary situation in which we find ourselves. It is not only building costs that are going up, but so many other things as well. I think the question of building costs would be a difficult question to discuss in isolation; it is really part of the general problem.

The noble Viscount also raised the question of the wide variety in the costs of building. With all respect, I have seen the document from which he quoted—he was good enough to draw my attention to it some time ago. I think it is a mistake to draw any conclusions from that document, because we do not know whether one is dealing with an isolated house on a particular occasion, or with a large number of houses, or with the kind of site upon which a house is built. Merely to take out of a document the statement that one particular house cost £2,900 to build and another £1,500 or £1,100 would, I think, be most misleading and would be no indication that there is such a wide variation in the cost of building. So that before we accept the fact that there is this great variation in costs or draw any conclusions from it, one would need to have a lot more information. I imagine that that was one of the objects of the noble Viscount's Motion, to find out whether that is so and, if it is, what are the reasons for it.

He also referred to the question of expanded towns and new towns. I am sure he will realise that there is a good reason for the introduction by the present Government of the Town Development Act, which was, in fact, an Act prepared by the present Government's predecessors. It was an agreed measure, and, as I say, I think he will appreciate that there were good reasons for it. One reason is that in many cases local authorities have a heavy housing programme, with long waiting lists and without the necessary land on which to build; they have to build outside and roust rely on the help of other authorities to provide them with that land and the services and all the necessary facilities. It is easy to say, "Go fifty miles out, or not less than fifty miles," but it is asking a great deal of a number of people to expect them to uproot themselves and go and live 100 miles away, as the noble Viscount would wish them to, without being quite sure what they are going to find when they get to the expanded towns. Therefore there must inevitably be a tendency not to go too far away.

The same applies to the new towns in relation to the de-congestion of London. Ideally, it would be nice if we could build our new towns in connection with London 100 miles away, but to do that industry must be persuaded to go out that distance. The industries which are at present in London are dependent upon the London market and regard it as a great sacrifice to go too far away. Therefore, we have to hold a balance between, on the one hand, persuading these industries and populations to go out in such a way as not to cause the kind of embarrassment to which the noble Viscount has referred, and, on the other, making these new towns viable, so that the industries which do go out are able to carry on efficiently and in a way which will attract population. That is not an easy problem, as I am sure the noble Viscount will realise.

I do not want to say much more at this stage. I am looking forward to the noble Viscount's participation in the debate on March 6 on the Housing Subsidies Bill. A good part of his speech was directed to the question of subsidies, and I think that would be a more suitable occasion for discussing the whole question of subsidies, and possibly the economic factors to which he has referred in his speech in connection with housing. But he has raised a large number of interesting problems, and I greatly appreciate his having done so; I am sorry that he has not a better House for it. They are interesting problems, and I am quite sure that at some time in the near future every one of those problems could be discussed in this House with great advantage.

3.47 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)

My Lords, the Motion which my noble friend has seer fit to move to-day embraces the whole of the building industry, whether it is house building, to a certain extent educational buildings, and certainly industrial development. I think it would therefore be appropriate if I endeavoured to reply to some of the many questions under those headings which my noble friend has asked me in the course of his observations. Let me say at once that I do not intend, for the reasons which were given by Lord Silkin, to say anything about the Housing Subsidies Bill, the Second Reading of which will take place in this House on March 6, when there will be ample opportunity for your Lordships to take part in that discussion.

My noble friend Lord Gage bases his case on the fact that in certain areas the building industry is being asked to meet a demand which is far and away in excess of its existing capacity, and that that fact inevitably results in higher costs, considerable delays in building and a breakdown in competitive tendering. From the information that I have acquired I think it is true to say that in a small number of areas the building industry is overloaded, and in those areas costs are undoubtedly slightly higher and work does take longer to complete, due to the fact that there is an insufficient labour force. I can, however, find no evidence that there has been a breakdown in competitive tendering, although there are indications that for some types of work, again in certain areas, fewer contractors are now prepared to tender than previously.

Since the final removal of controls in November, 1954, it has not been possible to assess with any degree of accuracy the extent to which demand exceeds the maximum capacity of the industry, but by the summer of last year the industry found that it could no longer obtain labour and materials to maintain at the same rate an expansion of output which began in 1953 when licences for industrial buildings only were freely granted. I should point out, however, that the overloading was marginal and was met by spreading labour and material more thinly over the sites. My noble friend quoted figures for the cost of erecting a single house in Lowestoft and another figure for a single house in Welshpool. I imagine that the two sites where the houses were being erected were completely different in character; and in that case the cost of erecting a house would obviously vary. My noble friend will know full well that this industry has always faced changing demands, and this in itself has forced building labour to become mobile. I believe that all your Lordships would agree that this mobility is perfectly all right in times of local unemployment; but when there is a shortage of labour, as there is today, it facilitates movement chiefly to those particular areas where the rates of pay are highest.

It may be useful if I give the noble Viscount some figures showing the estimated work done in 1955. Many of the points which he made, and the questions which he asked, were, of course, of a highly technical nature. Last year, new housing accounted for £595 million. Other new work, such as local authority work, factories, shops and offices, accounted for £670 million; and general repair and maintenance, £585 million. Although there is an estimated reduction of £25 million in new houses, compared with the previous year, there was, nevertheless, an overall increase of some £70 million. That extra demand on the industry occurred mainly in industrial and new development areas, labour being drawn from rural areas where the demand was less and where unemployment might have occurred had work not been available elsewhere. Perhaps on some occasions more labour was withdrawn from rural areas than could be spared; but generally the shortage was more severe in the industrial and development areas. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works, however, received no reports last year suggesting that the shortage of labour in the region in which the noble Viscount is chiefly interested—the SouthEastern—was above the average or that any essential work was seriously delayed.

I pass now to the question of building costs. In common with most other goods and services, the cost of all building rose in 1955. Material costs increased by 5 per cent. and labour costs by from 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. As the noble Viscount will be aware, there have always been variations in building costs from place to place, and it is therefore difficult to find comparable figures. It is difficult, in fact, to make any comparison between one area and another, but it is essential always to take into account the cost of the land, site conditions, the remoteness of the site, design of the house or houses and size of contract. All these factors must, and do, have a bearing on cost, and are always subject to some degree of fluctuation. I have been advised that local variations between the highest and the lowest contract have not widened during recent years, averaging something of the order of £150 for a three-bedroomed house. I agree with the noble Viscount that differences ranging from £500 to £700 a house do occur, but they are due to the varying factors which I have mentioned, and not in any way to the overloading of the industry.

My noble friend Lord Gage asked whether the movement of population is the major cause of the increase in the demand for houses and, therefore, in the rising costs. Since 1951–52 the increase in population in the Metropolitan Area has been halted. The population has, in fact, decreased since that time by 71,000 and I understand that a report has recently appeared in The Times showing that the population has still further decreased. The noble Viscount will be well aware that the demand for houses in London has always been greater than the supply. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, is doing all he can to stop the growth of industrial and office employment in London, and to this end he has reduced the land available in the London Plan for these purposes. New industrial and office development outside the designated areas will not be permitted.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to interrupt, it is easy to get into difficulties when defining what is meant by a particular area of London. I was quoting the area covered by the Greater London Plan, which is considerably larger than the Metropolitan Area to which the noble Earl was referring. I did not refer to the fact that the population of inner London was declining, but was protesting at the growth outward, on the periphery of London and much wider afield.

THE EARL, OF MUNSTER

The area of which I am speaking is that of the London Plan which, as the noble Viscount knows, is the administrative County of London. I understand that it is to that area that the London Plan definitely refers. The extensions which are taking place in the districts immediately adjoining London are another matter altogether, but I thought that I might give the noble Viscount some indication of what is happening in the administrative County of London because, if my recollection serves me correctly, the noble Viscount raised the question of the continued increase it population there, Dealing with the question of Central London, I would remind my noble friend that as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, announced last June, the London County Council have allocated considerable sums of money to purchase factories which are wrongly located when those factories are vacated by firms moving into new or expanded towns. At the same time, he pointed out that Her Majesty's Government have increased from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. their grant in respect of the loss on such transactions.

My noble friend also raised the question of co-ordination between Government Departments in regard to the location of industry. This again is a very large subject, but I can assure him, quite briefly, that when certificates for industrial projects are given there is coordination between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade. I would further remind him that the industrial development certificate seeks to ensure the proper distribution of industry on a nation-wide basis; it has never been, and was never intended to be, an instrument for local planning, for that, as the noble Viscount knows full well, is the function of the local planning authorities. Furthermore, it has never been used for the control of building. The noble Viscount made a passing reference to a decision which was reached on allowing a larger expansion of industry in Bedfordshire. I think the noble Viscount will agree that, in all the circumstances, the decision to grant a certificate in that particular case was justified. My noble friend made some mention of the credit squeeze, and, in so far as there is an overload, the steps advanced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place on Friday of last week are, of course, directed to restoring the balance. I do not wish on this occasion, speaking on this Motion which deals only with certain areas of the country, to enter further into this very large subject.

May I try to sum up what I have been endeavouring to tell the noble Viscount? It is, I think, true to say that the building industry is overloaded in certain areas, but not considerably, and in the country as a whole the overload is only marginal. The overload in particular areas does result in slightly higher costs, and works take longer to complete if labour is spread too thinly over the area. On the other hand, there is no evidence of a breakdown in competitive tendering, though in some areas, and for some types of work, rather fewer contractors tender now than was previously the case. Nor has the cost of building increased more than the cost of goods and services generally in other industries. Building costs are not abnormally high. At the same time, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reduce the standard of houses or of schools below the desirable limit, and, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence that building in the area from which the noble Viscount himself comes is more expensive than building in other similar areas.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting him? I should like to be quite clear upon the statement which he has made in so far as what is described as non-competitive tendering is concerned. I gather that he says that, while there are a few cases where there may be fewer contractors, there is no evidence that such organised non-competitive tendering is taking place. Does he intend that to apply only to local housing contracts or more generally to the whole field of local authority contracting requirements? I should like to know what the noble Earl has to say about that.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I thought it would be clear that what I was endeavouring to explain was that, where there may be large Government works of one sort or another in the course of erection and the local authority is building houses in the same neighbourhood, the local builder who may be building the new factory in the course of erection obviously does not apply for the job of building local authority houses. In that way there has been a tendency for tendering to fall off in the particular areas con- cerned. It is difficult to say just which areas. I cannot at the moment think of any particular example.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I accept that as it applies in general to all sorts of housing. But there is evidence in the form of local authority protests of sectional tenders. For example, in connection with bigger operational building requirements, there is evidence that tenders have often been sent in at almost exactly the same level.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

That is quite a different point. I was talking of the absence of tenders or reductions in numbers of tenders. I said that in some instances there was not, perhaps, the same number of firms tendering. The point which the noble Viscount now raises regarding the level of tenders which are sometimes sent in, if he will forgive my saying so, has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am dealing with a different point—namely, the number of tenders sent in to a local authority for the same job, and I have said that in some cases these are not as numerous as they were a few years ago. I am not dealing with cases where a number of tenders have been submitted, in which the same prices are quoted. That does not enter into the subject which I am now discussing.

LORD KERSHAW

My Lords, does the noble Earl suggest that there are not cases in which arrangements are made between builders in a given area as to who should tender for a given contract?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am suggesting nothing. If the noble Lord has any knowledge of such cases, perhaps he will be good enough to let me know of them.

I return now to a question which I discussed at the beginning of my remarks—the mobility of building labour. This, as my noble friend Lord Gage is aware, is traditional. It is inevitable, and I think it is generally desirable; and the higher costs which result from the needs of mobility are, in those cases, quite unavoidable. It is also inevitable that, when labour is scarce in a particular area, contractors will be tempted to offer higher rates. But again there is no evidence that this practice is widespread. My noble friend quoted some figures for house building from a booklet called Housing Statistics, but, for the reasons that I have already explained, these figures must be read with some care, since they cannot hope to be truly comparable. We are already taking action to minimise any unplanned influx into London by putting the brake on industrial development in the congested central areas. Finally, there is complete co-ordination between all interested Government Departments when applications for industrial development certificates are considered.

My Lords, I have dealt, though briefly, with the questions which the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has raised. As Lord Silkin said, each one of the noble Viscount's main points could be the subject of a very wide and very lengthy debate. I have, I think, replied to the majority of the important questions which he asked me. It may he that he will think that I have not replied at sufficient length, but I have given him some information which should indicate to him that we are doing all we can to assist generally and that this overloading of the industry occurs only in a few areas throughout the country.

4.7 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I must apologise to the House for having, apparently, put down a Motion in unsuitable terms. I had one main object, which was to discover whether building costs were different in different regions. I must confess that I am a little disappointed with the reply which the noble Earl has given me. Apparently my figures are not correct, but it seems to be almost impossible to say what are the correct figures. I would invite my noble friend to reconsider this matter. I feel that it is a matter of considerable public interest, and I would most humbly suggest that there are not such extraordinary difficulties about getting comparable figures, even allowing for differentials which must be taken into account. I started by saying that I accepted at once that to compare one house with another would get one nowhere, but I also suggest that if a large number of houses in one area are compared with a large number of houses in another area, something more can be deduced. I was hoping that I should have some promise of further information, but my noble friend did not hold out any hope of that. I have no wish to press this matter at the moment, but I do hope that the noble Earl will reconsider the matter, and endeavour to produce some figures; for if official figures are not produced people must be forgiven for quoting unofficial figures. I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.