§ 3.14 p.m.
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, I beg to move that the Building Control (Cost Limit Exemption) Order 1966, a copy of which was laid before the House on August 10 last, be approved. This Order, which came into force on August 11, reduces from £100,000 to £50,000 the cost limit below which work is exempt from control under Section 2 of the Building Control Act 1966. The Order is not retrospective. It does not make it unlawful to continue work on a project in a licensable category costing less than £100,000 but more than £50,000 which was started or contracted for before 371 the Order was made. But projects costing more than £50,000 which were not started or contracted for before August 11 require licences, unless they are exempt on other grounds. I need hardly remind the House that these other exemptions are extensive, and that licences are not required for housing, industrial and research premises, for most development covered by office development permits or for any work in a development area.
The reduction of the cost limit for building licensing was one of the measures announced by the Prime Minister in an other place on July 20 with the object of reducing the general pressure of demand on the economy as a whole. These measures were designed to restrain less essential work in both the public and the private sectors. In the private sector it was announced that there would be a tighter control on office building, and this was introduced by the Control of Office Development (Designation of Areas) Order 1966 which the House approved on August 12. It was also announced that when the Building Control Bill, which was then before this House, received the Royal Assent my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works would make this Order reducing the cost limit to £50,000. The House will recall that my noble friend Lord Shepherd explained in his statement on July 26, at Report stage on the Building Control Bill, why it was decided to proceed by Order and not by amendment of the Bill. The reduction of the cost limit by Order made it clear that this is regarded not so much as a permanent measure to reshape the control, but rather as a move designed primarily to meet exceptional difficulties.
The Order gives the Government greater scope to adjust the volume of privately sponsored construction work as the economic situation develops. With a cost limit of £100,000 the control affected about 500 projects worth £180 million in a year: lowering the limit extends control to cover, in all, about 1,000 projects worth £220 million in a year, subject to the effect of other measures of restraint on the level of demand. Until July the Minister withheld approval from less than 10 per cent. of the projects about which he had been consulted. But thereafter the economic situation made it necessary to defer a 372 larger proportion of privately sponsored work. The lowering of the limit makes it possible to postpone some of the smaller, less essential schemes, instead of having to defer some larger projects more in the public interest. There is the additional advantage, when postponement is necessary to deal with short-term difficulties, that these smaller projects have a shorter time scale. Their deferment does not affect the load on the industry for so far ahead as the deferment of larger projects.
When the intention to make the Order was announced the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, asked what addition would be required to the staff of my right honour able friend's Department to deal with the extra work. My noble friend Lord Shepherd said that he doubted whether there would be any increase in staff at all, and I can confirm that there has been none. It was originally estimated that fewer than a dozen staff would be required to administer the control, and ten staff are in post.
My Lords, the deferment of a larger proportion of privately sponsored building work was part of the package of measures announced in July to deal with a very serious situation in the economy as a whole. The construction industry could not be excluded from these and the measures had to be related to the need to restrain demand generally. Their effect should not be exaggerated. Before July there were indications that the demand on the industry would increase significantly in 1967. The effect of the July measures is likely to be that demand in 1966 and 1967 is maintained at about the same level as in 1965.
The amount of privately sponsored work which has to be deferred must depend on the level of demand and the development of the economic situation. The essence of the case for the Order is that in the circumstances following July, when a comparatively large proportion of licensable work has to be deferred, it is advantageous to hold up some smaller in essential projects to allow some larger, more urgent projects to go ahead. I hope that the Order is acceptable to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Building Control (Cost Limit Exemption) Order 1966 be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
373VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I do not suppose that this Motion is really acceptable to this House at all, but, on the other hand, the matter was dealt with on the Report stage of the Building Control Bill, and, acceptable or not, I dare say it is another of the measures which has emanated from the Government which we shall have to put up with. I hope the noble Lord in moving this measure was not really supposing that such measures as this, inflicting yet more controls on the country, were really advantageous in the long term. I wished that I had been able to detect some slightly greater note of regret in what he said in having to impose an even tighter restriction on something which is already very tightly controlled by planning control, by I.D.Cs, by O.D.P.s, and of course now by the ordinary financial restrictions on what anybody can get to do anything with in any sphere at all.
I think the figures given by the noble Lord were those quoted on July 26. However he added, I think, one poignant qualification to them, that these figures were subject to other restrictions now imposed on the level of demand; and he also suggested that one of the reasons why the staff would not be increased, or there would be very little extra work involved, was that the whole level of projects which would otherwise have come up, perhaps, for licences under this Bill has fallen away. I wonder whether the noble Lord has any more accurate figures about the number of projects which he thinks in fact will be affected, than the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was able to give on July 26 last, because I think it would be interesting to see whether the Board of Trade has been able in any way to quantify the effect that the rest of the economic restrictions imposed by this Government have had on the level of enthusiasm for getting on with projects of building and of construction of other sorts.
What little experience I have had is that not only have the other economic measures introduced by this Government been most effective in discouraging people from embarking upon projects but the very complexity of controls such as are embodied in this Order, the complexity of the Building Control Act itself, with its very difficult language, the complexity 374 of complying with the wider definition of industrial buildings in the Industrial Development Act which was passed very soon after this, and all the other complexities which followed from the control of office buildings, now more widely ex tended, have had a discouraging effect in themselves. The very introduction of this sort of highly complicated control from Whitehall discourages people from moving ahead with a project which I think otherwise would be perfectly possible and even within this Government's ideas of what ought to be allowed. I do not know whether the noble Lord would care to comment on that, but I must say I would be glad to collect for my note-book another quotation from the Government Front Bench of at any rate a little regret at having to impose yet an other control on the private citizen.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, two questions regarding this Order. First of all, does it apply to local authorities where they propose to build new offices, swimming baths and so on; and, secondly, could he say something about the working of Section 3(2)? As I read this subsection it might have the most calamitous effect on a building costing between £50,000 and £100,000 where certain site works have already started and would have proceeded had it not been for this Order, but now apparently a permit will have to be applied for.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, as one who has steadfastly advocated the re imposition of some kind of building control for the last fifteen years, I feel I must extend my support on this occasion to Her Majesty's Government, although I agree with the noble Viscount that it might have been made a little simpler. I still adhere to the view that the removal of all building controls led to the greatest wastage of money which this country has ever known, and the construction of a mass of buildings which were entirely unnecessary, to the exclusion of those which were much more vital. Therefore I am glad to support the Government and I hope they will keep this control in being.
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, I quite understand that it was too much to expect the noble Viscount 375 to give support to this Order, and there fore I welcome the support which has come from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, on the Cross Benches. I regret that I do not have with me the figures for which the noble Viscount asked. I will let him have them as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, asked about council building. I understand that council building is controlled by another Order and therefore will not be affected by this particular one. I think those are all the questions I was asked, and I will repeat that I hope noble Lords will accept this order.
§ LORD HARLECHAnd also, my Lords, would the noble Lord reply to my noble friend Lord Boothby, who ex pressed the hope that this control would be kept on for ever?
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, may I just remind the House that this is a very serious matter—
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONAnd nobody regrets more than the Government the necessity for this Order.
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONI repeat, this Order is necessary. The reason this Order has been presented to the House is that by adopting it we shall, I believe, be getting our building priorities in the right order during this very difficult period. Therefore with regard to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I repeat that this is a serious matter and the control will not last a moment longer than is necessary. I hope that the House will now approve the Order.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, whilst I appreciate the courtesy which my noble friend extends to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, the figures for which the noble Viscount asked are important. 376 Could it be arranged for them to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT in order that we may all know them?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSWould it be of convenience to the noble Lord if I put down a Question for written Answer?
LORD HAWKEAlso could the noble Lord reply to my other question, which was to explain the working of Article 3(2) of the Order?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSPossibly I could come to the rescue of the noble Lord and ask him whether it is not in fact in very much the same form as subsection (3) of Section 7 of the Act?
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, so far as Lord Hawke's question is concerned, I think he was asking about the amount of work subject to control under Article 3(2). It was estimated that with the cost limit of £100,000 the control would effect about 500 projects worth £180 million a year, and applications were received up to July at about this rate—that is, £15 million a month. Subject to the effect of the other July measures, the lowering of the limit to £50,000 brings under control about another 500 projects worth about £40 million, making a total of 1,000 projects worth £220 million—still less than 9 per cent. of all new construction.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his entirely unsolicited answer, because that was nothing to do with what I asked.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)My Lords, I very much wonder whether we are in any sort of order by now. It seems to me that we are in danger of straying outside our very wide bounds of order.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, this is an Order which the Government are trying to get through the House, and I am merely asking the Minister in charge whether he will explain how a certain paragraph works out in practice.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDWhen a Minister has spoken more than once he cannot, according to our ordinary practice, be subjected to prolonged cross-examination, however intelligent.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.