Sitting of 19 March 1926

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bristol Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
Guildford Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.
Medway Conservancy Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
Shoreham Harbour Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Barnet, Llanelly, Lowestoft, Preston, St Helens, and Somerset," presented by Mr. Neville Chamberlain; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  COAL INDUSTRY (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of the importance of the findings of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925) being within the reach of the whole mining community, he will consider the advisability of issuing without delay a cheap edition of the Commission's Report.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The Government is in complete sympathy with the object of my hon. Friend, as stated in his Question; and, in view of the large sales of this Report which have already been effected, we have felt able to arrange that, on and after to-day, the Report shall be on sale at the price of 3d. This will naturally involve an increased financial loss, and it will be understood that the reduction in price, which is a departure from the general policy adopted in the pricing of Government publications, is justified solely by the exceptional circumstances of the case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury any announcement to make regarding change of business for next week?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): It has been arranged that the Debate on the Foreign Office shall take place on Tuesday next, on the Report stage of the Civil Service Vote on Account. Therefore, on Monday we shall take the Report stage of the Navy and Army Estimates. The business for Wednesday and Thursday will remain unaltered—the Second and Third Readings of the Consoliated Fund Bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUILDING MATERIALS (CHARGES AND SUPPLY) BILL.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Mr. BECKETT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I suffer from the advantage and the disadvantage of this Bill having been introduced and discussed last Session. The advantage I suffer from in that respect is that the House will not require me and I do not intend, to inflict upon them long quotations of prices, profits, facts and figures which, in the opinion of myself and my hon. Friends justify the introduction of the Bill. Whatever the view of any hon. Member may be as to the merits or demerits of the particular form which I am proposing for dealing with this problem, there can be very little doubt, in view of the Report from the different Committees that have eat on this question, and in view of the financial columns of the daily Press of all Parties, that the increases in the prices of building materials were very considerable and very severe. Although those increases have taken place, there is nothing in the financial record of the larger fir me supplying those materials to show that they are suffering any handicap or any financial loss; on the contrary, through their services to the nation in this respect.
  The disadvantage that I have in presenting the Bill again to the House is that hon. Members are already fully acquainted with all the facts, and it is extremely difficult to bring forward fresh facts other than the overwhelming weight of evidence accumulated in favour of the Bill last year. I prefer rather than giving all the facts again to remind the House of some of the chief points that came up in our discussion of the Bill last year. The main objections that came from hon. Members opposite were very fairly put under three headings by the hon. Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Mr. Dixey), who, I regret, is not here this morning. His first objection was that the Bill was Socialistic, that it committed us to a certain degree of Socialism, and that, therefore, he was
  758
  opposed to it, and he hoped that it would be defeated. That was a perfectly consistent argument as far as the hon. Member is concerned, because he has consistently set his face against anything and everything which has the slightest taint of what some hon. Members call Socialism, and it was entirely in accord with the speeches and views he has put forward in this House.
  I claim the sympathy of the House this morning because Socialism, during the last 12 months, has not been confined to hon. Members who sit on this side of the House. At one time there was a very clean and clear-cut dividing line between those who believed in Socialism and those who believed in unfettered and unrestricted private enterprise. That sharp cleavage has almost disappeared, and the remnants are rapidly disappearing from modern polities. We find to-day that the battle that is being waged is not whether Socialism is good or bad, but as to what industries and what particular communal interests can best be managed by Socialism and what communal interests can best be managed by unfettered private enterprise. While I do not intend to argue on the merits of private and public enterprise, and while I recognise that this House is composed of a majority of hon. and right hon. Members who are pledged against any complete form of public enterprise, I suggest that there are certain things in our national life which are more properly public interests than private interests, and that if there are any special things which we can put under that heading more than any other it is the supply of food, housing, water, fuel and other necessaries, If this House has any suspicion that private enterprise, unfettered and unrestricted, is hampering in any way the supply of these essential things to the masses of the people, we have not to discuss whether a proposal is Socialistic or capitalistic, but we have to see what this House can do in order to prevent any private interests, however large or small they may be, interfering with these essential services, without which the people of this country cannot retain their health, happiness, prestige or efficiency as workers and citizens.
  I read very carefully the Minister of Health's summing up of this Bill last year, and I was very disappointed,

  759
  because if there is one gentleman on the Benches opposite from who I have learned to expect a constructive and reasoned argument it is the Minister of Health, who regards things, I will not say from what I consider to be a good point of view, hut, at any rate, from an efficient and to some degree a fair point of view. In discussing this Bill he made no attempt to deny the overwhelming evidence put forward by my hon. Friends. He does not say that building materials are as cheap as they ought to be. He does not say that profits are only reasonable in the industry. He does not say that. the cement ring and the Light castings Association are public-spirited companies, serving their fellow-citizens at a fair and reasonable rate of profit. He merely confines himself to the drafted details of the Bill, and says that we have not set up any definition of what is a reasonable price.
  We say that the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Trade must decide as to a reasonable price. The Minister of Health says, "How are you going to define a reasonable price? Why do not you say that a body of experts shall be appointed to do that." I think there are grave objections to that. While a Cabinet Minister has every right to every possible source of expert opinion, I do not think the decision on a question like this should be left to a committee. If a right hon. Gentleman is considered capable of holding Cabinet rank, he must be prepared to take the final decision himself. If the argument advanced is that. a committee of expert's is necessary for this purpose, what is there to prevent the Government, with their majority in this House, inserting an Amendment to that effect and insuring that no injustice is done by the drastic penalties recommended in the later Clauses of the Bill? We are told by many hon. Members opposite that our proposals are too drastic. We are told that a proposal to enable the Minister of Health, where he is convinced that there is illegitimate profiteering at the expense of the nation should take control of the industry, is much too drastic. I do not think we can accuse the present front Bench of being over stern as to what is a reasonable profit and if we can convince them that unreasonable profits are being
  760
  made, that there is profiteering as against the national interest, then surely no steps are too drastic to take with companies or with individuals.
  Ever since the War, and to a certain extent before the War, Government after Government have struggled with this problem, but surely, just after the War, when the men came home after years of self-sacrifice to the land which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) promised them, was the time when we should have made some special effort to deal with this problem. If hon. Members opposite dispute the view which we hold, that the national emergency was made an opportunity for unscrupulous profiteering by a few people and by a few firms, by no means entirely controlled by British interests, I suggest that Parliament has to protect the people of this country in this respect, not only from British firms but from aliens of any nationality who are deliberately using a time of national hardship and national crisis for the purpose of their own agrandisement. The Bill provides that whether that is so or not must be judged by the responsible Minister, and that judgment will have to come before Parliament. However drastic the penalties may be, I do not think they are too drastic if these cases ere preyed. We do not have to go only to papers like the "Daily Mail" and the "New Leader," or to Socialist speakers, for information on this point. We find it in almost everyone of the papers which represent the Press in this country including the Press which represent the views of the hon. Members opposite.
  If we go to the "Builder," which is a trade paper and quite unprejudiced, we find a table of building prices, and this is considered so authentic that the "Times," which is above suspicion, according to hon. Members opposite, re-printed the table in full. I do not propose to read it, but if any hon. Member wishes to use it in his speech I shall be pleased to pass it on to him. I have been carefully over it, from bricks and balast to sand and timber, every essential material necessary in housing, and I find that the average increase over 1914 prices is in the neighbourhood of 100 per cent. Last year the hon. Member for Reading

  761
  (Mr. H. Williams) said that these increases were not abnormal and were not above the increases in other industries. I find that the cost of living index figure is 75 and 1-6th above the pre-War cost of living, but building materials, which are so very urgently needed, are between 94 ac d 96 per cent. above pre-War prices. That table is given in the "Times" on 10th February last. But the "Times" returns to the subject again, and says:
  "The official figures of the Ministry of Health show that the cost of building working-class houses is again on the upward grade. The average prices of houses included in contracts let by local authorities during, December, 1025, were: For 2,4151 non-parlour houses, £448 each; and for 1,416 parlour houses, £197 each."
  They quote figures showing that the cost of the parlour house in September, 1923, was £390, and in December, 1925, £497, and add:
  "It will be seen that generally there is an upward tendency. If a general survey is made of contracts for a period of over two years, the cost of each type has risen by approximately £100."
  That is also the evidence which comes horn my own constituency. The local authority there, rightly or wrongly, after obtaining contracts from a large number of building firms decided that they would build their houses not by contract in the usual way but by direct labour, and the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden), whose name is down to move the rejection of this Bill, will no doubt find some difficulty from the fact that they saved the ratepayers of the town thousands of pounds by this system of direct labour. Owing to a constant restriction of supplies and the increase in the prices of materials they have been compelled to hold up the building of these houses and have also been obliged to go outside this country entirely for materials. They have been obliged to go to France and other countries for some of their materials and they have been able to get them at prices considerably lower than obtain in this country. At, the same time we find alongside that constant rise in prices—this is an interesting fact for which I would like to hear a reason, perhaps from the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) who specialises in that kind of thing—a Ministry of Health that is active in building houses. When Dr. Addison was Minister of Health and started his
  762
  housing scheme, building material prices went up. When, under the wisdom of that hybrid Government, Dr. Addison left the Ministry and was succeeded by someone else, there was a lull in the rise of prices. In 1924 my right hon. Friend took office in a Labour Government as Minister of Health. He announced a building scheme and got the building trades together. There was reason to believe that a great push was to be made in the building of houses. Prices again soared. My right hon. Friend was effectively disposed of by means of the red letter, and then we got a new set of Ministers at the Ministry of Health.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member referring to the price of houses or the price of materials?
  Mr. BECKETT: The price of materials. Directly my right hon. Friend was succeeded by the present holders of office at the Ministry of Health, and it was discovered that perhaps the Ministers had more time, and need not he se marked in their activities as their predecessors had been, some prices began to lapse slightly. There was certainly no continuance of the rise in prices which was noticeable in 1924. I do not wish to be misunderstood in saying that Prices have not fallen to any appreciable extent during this Government's term of office, or, rather, they have not continued to rise as rapidly as in 1924. The most significant thing to me in the whole of this survey of prices is that the number of firms concerned in most of the larger enterprises has been reduced considerably since 1914. Moreover, there are no signs of that huge increase in the production of these materials which one would expect as a result of the national. emergency. Indeed, in some of the products—I feel extremely bitter on this point—there has been what looks to me suspiciously like deliberate restriction and. ca-canny in order to keep up prices One of the worst of these instances is in the case of cement.
  During the War one or two cement companies made enormous profits by supplying cement to Holland. I had it on good authority—I read it in the book of a British Admiral who had a great deal to do with the blockade of Germany—that British firms exported nearly enough cement to Holland to cover

  763
  Holland three times while the War was in progress. While these firms were exporting that cement to our Dutch friends, in an adjacent place my friends, who were beside me, were being blown to pieces by shells from beds of cement which probably strayed over the Dutch border. Whether that be so or not, there is no doubt that this export of cement to Holland was extremely profitable—so profitable that one or two firms after the Armistice were able to buy up almost every other firm in England. I know one very large cement factory on the eastern outskirts of London which was bought up and closed while the demand for cement was ever increasing.
  Into all these things there is urgent necessity for inquiry. It is the duty of this House to see that no interest shall stand between the supply of cheap houses that can be let at a low economic rent and the people who want houses. Whether the people be our friends or enemies, whether they be aliens or Englishmen, if they are standing in the way of this vital need, whether or not we agree that a business man who can make large profits in the ordinary way, is a man to be admired rather than despised, we are not right in agreeing to that in the supply of these essential commodities. If the House does not like this Bill, if hon. Gentlemen opposite say that it is crude and useless, if they pick holes in it for real or imaginary reasons, although they can pick no hole in the evidence that we brought forward in support of a similar Bill 12 months ago—if hon. Gentlemen opposite exercise their debating skill in that way, and if they cannot ling any holes in the evidence, how is it; that 12 months have gone by and they have not supplanted what they regarded as our crude, uneducated and foolish effort, by some better, more skilled, and more cultured method of their own? It is just the same in Debate after Debate on Bill after Bill; we are always wrong, hon. Members say our methods are wrong. They say that we have not skill in Parliamentary drafting, and all the rest of it. I do not know how more skilful individually right hon. Gentlemen opposite are, but they have at their command more skilful craftsmen than I can command. I hear remarks about minority brains. In this House judging by the
  764
  attendance and by a careful reading of the OFFICIAL REPORT each day, there is no doubt about the brains being in the minority party in this House.
  A further point I want to make is this. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are really as genuine in their desire to serve the people as in their speeches here they say they are—I am not disputing their genuineness—let them produce a better Bill than this. It is not sufficient for them to say, "There is a lot to be said for your case, but this is not the way to deal with it." Let them show us a better way to deal with it. We are sent here from the shops, the pits, the mines, and the factories to sit at the feet of people who have generations of traditions of government behind them. The grandfathers and great-grandfathers of hon. Members opposite were ruling the Country [HON. MEMBERS: "Some of them !"] when we were almost chattels. I am trying to face the case put up by the more aristocratic party in the House.
  One of the chief points made on behalf of hon. Members opposite is that they have traditions, and that they come from families which are used to Government. I am not going into their pedigrees, but here is an opportunity for them to show the value of their traditions. If they say this is not a properly drafted Bill, let them agree to the Second Beading and on the Committee stage let them show us how to turn this crude Measure into an effective weapon to stop profiteering—the existence of which they cannot. deny. I hope the House will approach the Bill in that spirit and will not be content to quibble about it. If it is felt that there is reasonable grounds for suspicion that private interests arc intervening between the people and suitable housing accommodation, then we should give the Bill a Second Reading, and when it reaches Committee hon. Members opposite should devote that energy which has hitherto been devoted to picking holes in it, to an attempt to make this Bill a suitable instrument for its purpose. If hon. Members do not give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, but turn it down for the second time, although they cannot prove that the evidence on which the Bill is based is wrong, then I suggest it is their duty and the Government's duty to see that a Bill- of their own is brought in to prevent excessive profits being made out

  765
  of building materials at a time when the country is in such great need of cheap houses.
  Mr. WINDSOR: I beg to second the Motion.
  I am not so much concerned with the m3ie question of prices as such, as with the question of providing houses for the people. I come from one of the London areas whore the housing conditions are among the most demoralising to be found in the whole of London. It has been reported by the Medical Officer of Health that 80 per cent, of the houses in Bethnal Green are unfit for human habitation. That is a condition of things which as Member for that Division I cannot allow to continue without taking some effective step in order to deal with this matter. I quite agree that we cannot deal with, the whole question solely by means of this Bill, but this Bill does provide one method of helping to remedy the conditions prevailing in places like Bethnal Green. During the Debate of last year many hon. Members talked a lot about the wicked bricklayers who were drawing such high wages, although those workers were merely getting the wages for the work they did. Nothing was said, however, about the high profits which were being made by various companies out of the necessities of the people. We do not want to go to Socialist sources for information to place before the House in support of our case in that respect. The financial columns of the "Times" of 9th March of the present year contain the following:
  "A further substantial increase in earnings is reported by the large brick manufacturing company, London Brick Company, and Forders. For 1925, net profits amounted to £257,277, by far the largest total ever reported by the company."
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: On what capital is this based?
  Mr. WINDSOR: I do not know, but it is quite immaterial to me. Whatever the capital may be, what I am concerned about is the amount of profit. That profit is obviously derivable from house construction, and must come from the persons who pay the rents for the houses.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the hon. Member state the dividend?
  Mr. WINDSOR: If the hon. and gallant Member will wait, I am coming to that point—
  "In addition to the distribution of £70,000 of these profits in the form of a capital bonus—the fourth within six years—the directors have raised the dividend to 20 per cent. for the year against 15 per cent, for 1924 and 10 per cent. for 1923, while the balance carried forward is increased by £49,862 to £87,212. Evidently the company has benefited greatly from the keen demand for houses which has naturally permitted a basic selling price for bricks sufficiently high to yield the more modern brick manufacturers very handsome profits."
  That is the evidence in support of the case which we make from these benches that certain people—not bricklayers—are getting big profits out of the necessities of the poor in the matter of housing. According to an article in the "Weekly Dispatch"—
  "Since the beginning of the year the ordinary shares of the London Brick Company and Forders, Ltd., have shown remarkable activity, the price having risen from 40s. to 49s. in the 10 business days on the Stock Exchange."
  That is how some people get a living—on the Stock Exchange rather than by working. This is not the evidence of a Socialist—
  "The buying of the shares, I am told, is based upon dividend hopes, although the probable amount of the final distribution is difficult to ascertain owing to the capital bonus distributions in October and March of last year. Between 1913 and 1919 the profits were very meagre and no ordinary dividends were paid, but the company's record since then has been: In 1920, £40,211 profit, a dividend of 8 per cent., with 100 per cent. bonus; in 1921, £30,666 profit, 10 per cent. dividend; in 1922, £39,149 profit, 10 per cent. dividend; in 1928, £139,453 profit, 10 per cent. dividend and 50 per cent. bonus; in 1924, £181,784 profit, 15 per cent. dividend and 2() per cent. bonus."
  If we total these figures together—and the capital at that date was 440,000—we find they have received in the last five years a total return on their capital, in profits, of £431,263, and their capital now stands just a trifle higher than it did in the last five years. Can it now he said that it is the bricklayer who is getting the money? It seems to me that on the other hand, these figures explain why some of them are going to the Employment Exchange for the dole, or to the parish for Poor Law relief. The people who get these profits are not under any such necessity. The London Brick Company and Forders, Ltd., was registered in May,

  767
  1900, as B. J. Forder and Son, Ltd., to acquire the lime, cement and brick works of the firm of the same name. The name was changed in September, 1923, on amalgamation with the London Brick Co., Ltd., and other concerns. It has acquired the Dogathorpe Star Brick Co., the New Peterborough Brick Co., the Northam Brick Co., the Saxon Brick Co., the Star Presser Brick Company and others. This firm since 1921 has made an average dividend of 10 per cent. I will let the "Times" make the comment on it—
  "The 1925 net profits were by far the largest total ever reported by the company. The report states that the satisfactory results are due to increased output of bricks, the productive capacity having been brought up to 600,000,000 per annum.'"
  The "Times" correspondent further comments
  "Evidently the company has benefited greatly from the keen demand for houses, which has naturally permitted a basic selling price for bricks sufficiently high to yield the more modern brick manufacturers very handsome profits."
  That is, as I say, not the comment of the Socialists. One has to go to the leading Tory organ to provide the arguments that the Socialists require. But I want to come more directly home, as this question particularly concerns our local authorities, and perhaps in the buying and selling of bricks the local authorities are pressed more than anybody else. In 1921 a Mr. A. G. Shearing, of Fortess Road, Kentish Town, who was a builder and afterwards became Chairman of the works department of the St. Pancras Borough Council, who certainly knew something about this business, in an interview, again in the "Times," produced documentary evidence to show that for some years past the whole of the contracts for building materials for the municipal councils in London, and no doubt elsewhere, had been fixed, not in London, but at the head offices of the builders' merchants' combine in the Midlands. With regard to the local authorities, I find this observation in this interview with the "Times":
  "Mr. Shearing also produced examples of the instructions sent by the Midland Pipe Association to its members who contemplated tendering for borough council contracts in London. These documents cover a series of years, and refer to tenders advertised for by the borough councils of Islington, Woolwich, Bethnal Green, Southwark and
  768
  Acton. The instruction relating to Bethnal Green bears the following footnote: No maker or merchant mast give to the council any alternative tender in any way or shape whatever, neither is it allowable for a maker or merchant to accompany his tender with a letter or ally other document showing the corporation any other way of buying than that specified in their tender.' The members of the Association were also told that the Islington Borough Council tender must be quoted for at the standard list.'"
  That brings the whole question of tenders to the front, and shows that the local authorities are tied up by the combines and that they have to adhere to prices made and determined by the combines. Anybody who has had any association with any work by a borough council in London knows very well that that is precisely what occurs when they send out tenders for building materials. They get a uniform list from various firms, but there is no deviation in the prices submitted. It is perfectly obvious that the companies arc controlling the prices of these materials, and always to the detriment of the local authority and, therefore, to the detriment of the local ratepayers. This, to my mind, despite all the derision which it received ten months ago from hon. Members opposite, is one of the most important Bills that has been placed before this House in the last few years. It does get down to the real problem of the building industry, and I hope House, for its own good, will pass the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now", and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months".
  My reasons for so doing are various. First of all, I hold that such a Bill as this is totally unnecessary, and secondly, I feel that, as this is a Socialistic Measure, its effect would not only be harmful to the country as a whole, but it would not give those benefits, by reducing prices or preventing their increase, which I presume are at the back of the minds of the hon. Members introducing the Bill. It is rather regrettable that we have not a more up-to-date report than the one that was issued by the Chairman of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to survey the prices of building materials, which gave certain figures up to the end of July of last year. As I think the intro-

  769
  ductory note to this document is rather interesting, I will read a portion of it. It says:
  "It will be seen that, with the exception of light castings and lead, the level of prices has remained steady, and while there have been a number of local variations, there have been no fluctuations of general application, apart from those mentioned, to which attention now need be drawn."
  I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. J. Beckett), and I must congratulate him upon placing his views before the House in such a very moderate manner. He referred to the fact that in any case the price of building materials had not increased during the past year, and I would like to remind the House that also during the last year there was another very notable event so far as housing was concerned. It happened to be the year during which the very largest number of horses was constructed in any year in the whole history of the country, so that, in spite of the fact that through the endeavours of the Ministry of Health anal other authorities we have had a very large number of houses constructed, still the prices of building materials have not increased. The hon. Member also referred to a local authority in which, I think, he himself was interested, and said it had been found necessary to make purchases of certain building materials from foreign countries, not ably from France. I can quite appreciate the fact that at the present moment the price of building materials or of any manufactured commodity in France is cheaper than here, and I think that is purely and simply due to the depreciation in the exchange that has taken place in that country recently. It is very simple, but I think it is an explanation which it would be impossible to contradict.
  In the report which I have already mentioned it was, as I said, stated that Only two classes of materials had increased in price, namely, light castings and lead. With regard to light castings, I believe that an association known as the Light Castings Association has been demanding for a very long time that the figures of the different concerns who make these castings shall be investigated, because there have been charges of profiteering made against them, and it has been said that their articles are sold at excessive profits. I think it is, to a
  770
  certain extent, a matter of common knowledge that the figures of the Light Castings Association have been investigated, and that it has been found that all the accusations made against them have been entirely false.
  Mr. MACKINDER: When was it made clear that the charges were not proved?
  Mr. RAMSDEN: No report has been published, but it is a matter of common knowledge that the investigations show that the accusations made against these manufacturers have been proved to be untrue.
  Mr. MACKINDER: The latest reports of the biggest firms in the Association show a profit in 1925 of 15 per cent.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: That does not prove they have been selling at an excessive price. I hope to deal a little later with the question of dividends. With regard to lead, which is the other material used in building, and which was referred to in this report, I am perfectly convinced that not even the most enthusiastic supporter and backer of this Bill can possibly hope that anything in this Bill would be able to alter the prices at which lead is sold. I was rather interested to examine in this report the accounts of trade and navigation for the month of February last. In February, 1924, we imported 18,746 tons of the value of £601,945. In February, 1926, we imported 22,623 tons of the value of £773,583. In the first illustration I have mentioned, that of February, 1924, the average cost per ton was £32·11, but the average cost in February, 1926, was £34·18.
  Mr. BECKETT: What kind of lead?
  Mr. RAMSDEN: Lead and sheet lead are mentioned in the accounts, which show that during the interval of time—that is, between February, 1924, and February, 1926—there has been an increase of £2 per ton on these materials. It is not a price we can control in this country.
  Mr. BECKETT: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to mislead the House, but in the "Times" report the figures were, in 1914, £22; in 1923, £35 10s.; and in February this year, £47 10s. That is an increase of nearly 120 per cent.
  12 N.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: I have gone into this, and I think my figures are correct regarding the prices of these various products coining from different countries. I might be wrong, possibly, in one decimal point or so, but it works out, roughly speaking, to the average price I have given. As a matter of fact, the price this year, I believe, is slightly lower than it was in the corresponding month of February, 1923. These materials came from such different countries as Spain, Mexico, Australia, and other places, and I am convinced that nothing that is contained in this Bill could possibly affect the prices of this particular material which is used in the construction of houses. There seems to be an impression in the minds of a large number of people that the cost of building materials is really the most important part of the cost in the construction of houses. I think that is an impression which is quite wrong. Taking bricks, which have been referred to to-day, I may say that I do not happen to be in the building trade, and that I have no interest whatsoever in any firms connected with the manufacture of building materials or anything relating to them. I understand, however, that in the construction of brick houses bricks amount to about 10 per cent. of their value. We have heard during the course of the speeches that have already been made, references to certain brick companies and the profits they make. It seems to be a rather curious thing that they should be able to sell at any price they like if there happens to he, as there is at the present moment, quite a large stock of bricks in this country. I believe, on the 31st January last, there were about 260,000,000 bricks in stock in different parts of the country, and we have also heard that the import of bricks is taking place at the present moment. It is rather interesting to notice haw the import of bricks is increasing very considerably. In February, 1924, we imported 1,296,000 bricks, to the value of £2,722, and in February of this year we imported 11,262,000 bricks to the value of £33,744. To give other figures showing how they are coming into this country in ever increasing quantities, while the value of the imports in 1923 was less than £18,000, last year we imported £450,000 worth.
  772
  It seems to me that when you are faced with the fact that you have stocks of bricks in the country at the present moment, and also foreign bricks coming in in ever increasing quantities, it is going to be very difficult for any firm to sell at the price they would like, and make the profit we are given to understand is being made.
  The question of profits, which has been referred to, is a very interesting one, indeed. When I hear of the profits that have been made by some of these firms, I only wish I were a shareholder in them. But we must not judge by the question of profits alone. The reason why brick companies and those supplying building materials are making profits at the present moment—and we must remember they have suffered from very lean years in the past—is that they are right up to the hilt in the limit of production of their works, and it is this great production which enables them to make profits. Personally, I am very glad they are making profits. I should like every industry in the country to be in such a happy position as the brick and other building industries are, because then we should see very different figures with regard to unemployment.
  With regard to the second reason I gave for opposing this Bill, namely, that it was a Socialistic Measure and would not carry out the idea of the backers in reducing prices of building materials, or preventing their increase, we must not forget we have already had in this country the control of building materials, When Dr. Addison was at the head of the Ministry of Health, there was a certain Department connected with that Ministry which dealt with the control of building materials. I understand the methods of that Department were far from businesslike, and were not successful. I know of one case in which bricks in the neighbourhood of Peterborough were sent right up to Edinburgh, and the actual cost of the carriage exceeded the value of the bricks Such control, or such interference with business, is certainly not going to reduce the cost of production. The effect of any control is going to make expenses heavier and consequently to make the sale price higher. We already have—I am talking purely and simply as a business man—sufficient interference by the State in our affairs. We already have more than

  773
  enough returns to make, and more than enough forms to fill up. It is not going to be of any benefit to the industry nor any benefit to employment if you are going to make business conditions more difficult.
  Supposing the logical conclusion of this Bill is carried out, and the State either fixes prices or assumes control of businesses, does anyone imagine for one single moment that with State management, and with the additional expense of Government officials, we shall be able to sell bricks or any other building material cheaper than at the present time? I feel very strongly indeed that the effect would be extremely harmful and that the only people that would get any benefit from such a system of control would be the foreigner, who would find it very much easier to sell building materials in this country than he does now. If this had been a Bill to prevent the importation of foreign building materials and to find employment for our own people in this country, I should have been delighted to back it up, but the contrary effect, in my opinion, will he the result. Another thing, in embarking upon such Socialist Measures such as this, where you propose to take hold and control a man's trade or business, you would tend to drive capital out of the country.
  An HON. MEMBER: No!
  Mr. RAMSDEN: Hon. Members opposite would not like that to happen. Such measures as this would tend to drive capital out of the country, or, at all events, would place such restriction upon business as to make it impossible for a man to make a profit. If a man knows that he is liable to such interference in his business it does not encourage him to invest money in either actual undertakings or to commence new ones. That is another reason why I think the operations of this Bill would be harmful. I do hope that the House, for the reasons which I have given, and for many others, which, no doubt, will he given by subsequent speakers, will reject this Bill which will be extremely harmful not only to one trade but to the whole country.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  774
  As I did last year, I again second the rejection of this Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member who seconded the Second Reading of the Bill is not here now. He gave us such a mass of figures, and if I may say so with great respect, at such a rapid rate that even those of us who rather specialise in the study of statistics found it a little difficult to follow him. Because we found it difficult to follow him quite, naturally, it is quite impossible for us to deal with the great mass of statistics he put forward because we were not able to obtain any record. I am saying that quite definitely in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) said that there was no reply to the figures of last year. I shall show in a few minutes that there was a reply, and an adequate reply, but the figures quoted this morning were put forward in such mass, and with such rapidity, that it was really impossible for us to appreciate them.
  I believe, however, that I correctly gathered one figure from the hon. Gentleman in the course of his argument. I believe he then stated that the actual profit of the London Brick Company for a period of five years amounted to £461,000. I believe that is the correct figure. I hold in my hand a copy of last year's OFFICIAL REPORT. I see the Motion was seconded by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Middlesbrough. In this the hon. Member also made reference to that company and stated that the production was at the rate of 500,000,000 bricks per annum. Then, presumably, the production for the five years would be in the neighbourhood of 2,500,000,000. On this production a profit of £461,000 was made. If my arithmetic is not at fault that works out at 3s. 8d. per thousand. I do not know whether that figure is right or wrong; I am merely making the calculation on the basis of the two statements supplied by hon. Members opposite, one statement having been supplied this year, and the other having been supplied last year.
  Mr. BECKETT: If the hon. Gentleman turns up the report of the company he will also see that each year they have given a substantial bonus, and that in April of last year they gave an extra bonus of 20 per cent.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, the figures quoted showed the total profit distributed

  775
  to be £461,000, and that would include the percentage of profit and the bonus. But a calculation of the profits does not seem to me really to show a rate of profit in respect of the commodity sold—I do not know the precise price, but, I think, it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50s. or 60s. per thousand—that one would use the word "profiteering" in connection with it. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are 60s. per thousand."] Then 3s. 8d. on 60s. is less than 1-15th, and that is about 6 per cent, on the selling price. I do not think we are going to upset the world on a 6 per cent. profit on the turnover! So much for the figures of hon. Members, and so far as I have understood them. I cannot guarantee my calculation as correct, because I am basing it on figures supplied by hon. Members. The Mover also made a reference to the high profits and the percentages in the relation to capital. I do not think that is any bearing whatever on the matter. The real test is the unit rate of profit, that is the profit per article, and not in comparison with the capital employed. It may be that in some companies that, as the business extends, the capital, the real economic capital, is increased, though the legal capital may remain unaltered. Percentages of profit in relation to capital are very seldom trustworthy measures of whether any profiteering—if we may so call it—is taking place or not.
  The hon. Member for Gateshead quoted something which I said last year, but he did not quote it quite correctly. He said that I had said it did not matter so long as the rise in price of the commodity under discussion was not different from the rise in commodity prices. I did not really say that. What I did point out was this, that a great many statistics have been quoted in regard to the prices of various building materials. The hon. Member gave the 1914 figures and the figures current at the time of our Debate. That was 15th May, 1925. I took the trouble, while he was speaking, to calculate the percentage of increase and I discovered that with one exception—stock bricks—the percentage increases were nearly all less than the percentage of increase in the cost of living in respect to those commodities which we produce
  776
  in this country. As my hon. Friend who has moved the rejection of the Bill to-day pointed out, in the cases where high prices have prevailed, it is in respect of raw materials which, in the circumstances of the case, must be imported.
  I do not think it is of much value merely to state the general increase of these prices unless some pains are taken to analyse them. While on the question of quotation, may I just refer to one misquotation which the hon. Member for Gateshead made, not in this Debate, but in the Debate of a year ago, when he accused me of basing my economics on what I read in the "Daily Mail"?
  Mr. BECKETT: Does the hon. Gentleman not read the "Daily Mail"?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I read the "Daily Mail," but I do not base my economics upon it. What I quoted last year was an article in the "Daily Mail Year Book," which was written by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The position in the brick trade before the War was that there had been a. long period of depression, the result of many causes, the result, as some of us think, of the unwise land legislation of 1910. The rates of wages paid in the brick trade were, in my opinion, definitely on the low side in 1914. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why 1914?"] Let us consider 1914 before we proceed to 1920. I have not in my possession information as to the rate of wages. I have in my possession information as to earnings. In the March number of the "Labour Gazette" of 1914 there is the usual monthly table giving the number of people at work in certain brickworks during a selected week in February, and the total amount paid to them in wages, and dividing the one with the other we get an average rate of wage of 23s. 10d. I made a similar calculation with the similar table relating to a selected week in February, 1926, which appears in the "Labour Gazette" for March, 1926, and I find the average is £2 16s. 4d.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Can the hon. Member give the number of days worked?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: These figures cut out the question of unemployment, because they include only people at work during the week. This £2 16s. 4d. is an increase

  777
  of 133 per cent., and I think, having regard to the low rate of wages which prevailed in pre-War days that this is a reasonable rate of increase. It is quite possible that the rate of wages ought to be higher than it is, and as a matter of fact there was a 5 per cent. increase from the first pay day in February this year.
  Mr. KELLY: Was that a national increase or an increase in certain yards? Is the hon. Member comparing like with like? In comparing February, 1914, with February, 1926, is he comparing the same number of hours in each month?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: There are two points I must clear up arising out of that interruption. The 5 per cent. increase in February relates only to the Peterborough district. I should have mentioned that; it was an omission on my part not to do so. But the general earnings referred to are calculated upon the statistics which have been supplied for many years past by certain selected firms in the brickmaking industry to the Ministry of Labour, and, before the War, to the Board of Trade. Those statistics take into account the people actually at work during the week under consideration in all the yards from which they obtain reports, and they take the same yards in order that the comparison may be a fair one, and it really is a fair comparison, and, no doubt, those brickyards are spread all over the country. It is the only comparison which is fair—a comparison based on a table of statistics compiled over the years on the same basis throughout. That increase of 133 per cent. still leaves wages not on the high side, but on the low side; but if with wages costs 133 per cent. higher we have at the same time, as I think is the case in the brickworks, a reduction in the hours of labour over the same period, I think it is probable—I am not certain—that there will have been some decline in the weekly productive efficiency as the result of the lessened hours of labour. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the wages costs per 1,000 bricks have probably increased in the ratio of 133 per cent., or, it may be, more.
  Mr. KELLY: Certainly not.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member says, "Certainly not." If it is not so, I shall be very grateful, should he take
  778
  part in the Debate, if he will supply me with precise statistics, because I am seeking for information, as I am sure he is.
  The hon. Member for Gateshead told us something about the wonderful doings of the cement manufacturers during the war, and how they made vast profits by sending immense quantities of cement to Holland. I have not had time to obtain a copy of the Annual Statement of Trade and Navigation. The document I hold in my hand is the Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom, which gives information as to the total exports of cement from this country, but does not specify to which countries it went. In 1913, the last clear pre-war year, 747,000 tons were exported. During the years of the war the quantity exported never exceeded 424,000 tons in any one year.
  Mr. BECKETT: Are you dealing with the whole of the exports?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am dealing with the whole of the exports. For the reasons mentioned, I have not had time to get hold of the Annual Statement of Trade and Navigation. Let us take the value. In 1913, £1,273,000 worth of cement was exported, a substantial export. In no year during the war was the value of the cement exported above £841,000. I do not know where it went to; I am just pointing out that the total of our exports was on a lower scale both in quantity and value; and the total value of the exports is relatively so small that nobody could have made a very fat thing out of it. I wish I had had time to consult the more exhaustive document which deals with the countries of consignment, and, for my own information, I will take an opportunity of consulting the Annual Statement of Trade and Navigation, so that I can find out whether there was this vast export of cement to Holland for the purpose, apparently, of assisting the Germans to build "pill-boxes."
  The hon. Member for Gateshead tells us that the issue to-day is not whether Socialism is good or bad, but in what direction we shall apply it. Up to a point that statement is perfectly true. The moment a community abandons the principle of anarchy, the principle of no organised Government at all, no organised community life, from the moment it abandons the principle of undiluted liberty and introduces some element of

  779
  order we have an approach to Socialism. Most of us have come to the conclusion that we should apply Socialism only to those specific services where, quite clearly, the community is better able to organise than is the individual. Defence is the outstanding service which in every country of the world, ever since organised Government came into being, has been Socialist. War is the most outstanding example of socialism in action. It is the one case where a community applies the whole of its forces collectively for the purpose of doing something which is regarded, rightly or wrongly, as in the common interest. The only other aspect of life which we should seek to socialise is that aspect which is allied to defence, namely, the administration of justice. [An HON. MEMBER "Sewers."] It is perfectly true that it is applied to sewers, and it seems a very appropriate place for Socialism to go along. I quite agree that the drain man is a very important man. It was recognised first of all by Disraeli that the drain-man was vitally important, and we have obtained a higher standard of health services than any other country. In respect of drains and water supply, however, what we very largely seek to do is to encourage people to be extravagant. The more generous the use made of the drains and the water supply, the better for the public health, and, therefore, the normal considerations which apply to every other commodity do not apply there. One can establish a perfectly sound case for socialising drains, though we should not apply the same principle to the case of socialising bricks. The National Debt is the obligation which the Socialist State, if I may so call it, imposed upon the country in carrying out a Socialist enterprise
  Mr. RICHARDSON: You know that is not true.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not wish to pursue that argument, which is a little outside this Bill. The hon. Gentleman says it is not true, but surely he agrees that Socialism is action by the State, as distinct from action by the individual, and surely he believes that war is action by the State, and therefore is socialistic in character. If he does not agree with that, then, quite clearly, he has never worked out the fundamental principles of the theory to which he adheres.
  780
  Let us look at the case for this Bill to-day as compared with what it was when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) first introduced it. He introduced it because he was of the opinion that something should be done to prevent increases in the cost of building materials, and if he feared there was a grave danger of that, I do not blame him in the slightest degree for having had this Bill drafted in the Ministry of Health. I would like to underline that, because the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading was rather apologetic for the Bill on the ground that a party in opposition had not got the same facilities for draftsmanship as a party in power. As the Bill was drafted by the party in office with all the facilities of the Ministry of Health at the disposal of the draftsman, if it was badly drafted it must have been because the objects of the. Bill were so vague that even the Government draftsman could not make a good job of it.
  Mr. BECKETT: I did not say it was badly drafted.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: No, but the hon. Member was defending the had draftsmanship on the ground that those who drafted the Measure would not be quite so skilled as those who carried out these duties at the Ministry of Health. The hon. Member referred to negotiations with the trade which he said appeared to have been carried out on a friendly basis, and that there was some agreement about stabilisation which, I believe, has been given effect to. It was what might be called a gentleman's bargain, which has been respected ever since.
  The hon. Member who proposed the Second Reading of this Bill said that prices soared up in 1924. That remark is an unjust reflection on the then Minister of Health (Mr. Wheatley), because it did not happen during his regime, and has not happened since, although the price of houses soared up during that time, and the price of materials has not gone up. Therefore there must be some other reason for the rise in the price of houses. All I am anxious to have is sonic adequate explanation of this point. The hon. Member for Gateshead, in defending his Bill from the allegations of imperfection that might be brought against it, said that his party

  781
  had not the great traditions in regard to these matters that we on this side and our grandfathers had. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not your grandfather."] No, my grandfather was engaged in getting slate out of the Penrhyn Slate Quarry, a perfectly respectable occupation, and I believe it was very good slate.
  That was the position when the right hon. Gentleman opposite first introduced this Bill. It may be that he did not push it through on to the Statute Book because a General Election deprived him of the opportunity, but I do not think he showed mach eagerness to place it on the Statute Book. When this Measure was introduced last year the reasons for its introduction were clearly less than in the year before, and they are still less to-day. As a matter of fact, there has been a large increase in the production of building materials, and a great increase in the rate of building houses, more especially brick houses, and at no time in recent months has building been interfered with by the shortage of materials. I know there may have been isolated instances to the contrary on account of difficulties of transport and other matters, but, generally, it has not been alleged that the building of houses, which is of such vital importance, has been held up in recent months through any shortage of building material.
  In 1913, according to an answer to a question given by the Minister of Health, the number of bricks produced was in the neighbourhood of 3,000,000,000. At the beginning of last year the total was 5,000,000,000, and the latest figures show that the production has now gone up to 5,500,000,000. That is a satisfactory rate of growth, but that could not have continued if this Bill had been in operation. I happen to have had a peculiar experience in the matter of control of industry, because I was invited by the gentleman w ho became the controller of machine tools in the Ministry of Munitions during tae War to assist him in his work in regard to which I had had a great deal of experience. We started with a. small Department of four persons controlling an industry which employed 30,000 people. We possessed not only the powers given under this Bill, but all the powers of D.O.R.A., and practically we could do what we liked so long as we framed Regulations to conform to the Act
  782
  of Parliament. We could order people and say what they had to make, and we did so. We could tell them to whom they had to sell and the price was fixed by us. We controlled their supply of labour and raw materials and we also controlled their transport, and there never was a more complete measure of control than that which was exercised by the Department of the Ministry of Munitions on which I served at the time.
  Of course, there was some justification for it. The State by its action in making war had clearly limited the supply of labour and materials, and had reduced manufacturers' facilities, and quite clearly under those conditions a rise in price could not bring a large increase in the volume of production which would be the case under normal conditions. The State had cut off one important aspect of the law of supply and demand, and under these circumstances it was right for the State to interfere in order to prevent difficulties which might otherwise arise, and we did our work very successfully. Towards the end of the War we had 200 persons employed in our Department regulating these matters, and there were others in different Departments of the Ministry of Munitions looking after labour and material. We had a large number of inspectors travelling up and down the country, and in the end we employed over 500 persons doing precisely what this Bill seeks to do, and they all had to be paid for. In that case, although there was a justification for it during the War, I suggest that there is no justification for such a policy at the present time.
  As one who has experienced all this, I say that the result was the creation of a thoroughly dissatisfied and disgruntled body of people because their liberty of action was impeded by one instruction after another, and there was no question in regard to a loss of profit. We had certain intimations as to the requirements of the State, and we gave instructions which were often bad ones because we could not adequately appreciate the situation in the works of those to whom we were to issue instructions. The industry was loyal and it had moral fervour behind it, and what was true of the managers was equally trus of the workers, because there was an immense desire to carry out every instruction the State gave. But even

  783
  under those conditions we produced a state of great dissatisfaction throughout the industry, and the results we achieved were accomplished at an appalling cost. The same is quite true of many other Departments of the Ministry of Munitions. I am not going to argue whether this Bill is Socialistic or not, although I believe it goes a good deal in that direction. I think, however, at this juncture it would be a mistake to go into that question, and probably other speakers will be able to answer the more general argument. For these reasons I shall support the rejection of this Measure.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The experience of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) at the Ministry of Munitions was exceptional, because the Minister of Munitions himself, after the Armistice at the end of the War, stated that his experience had nearly converted him to Socialism, and it is well-known that the costings undertaken by the Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Food saved this country scores of millions and was used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were the majority in the Coalition, for keeping on these Departments so long after the Armistice. They produced figures proving what I am saying now, that the costings undertaken by them saved the country scores of millions. This Debate. I thought, was in danger of degenerating into simply a game of tennis, the balls being represented by figures. I do not want to help that degeneration, but. I am tempted by the hon. Member for Reading to quote certain figures. I hope that I may have the attention of the hon. Member. I listened to him with attention and pleasure, and I hope he will listen to me with attention, if not with pleasure. He said that the hon. Member who seconded the Motion had given his figures so quickly that he could not follow them, and he wanted to challenge particular figures.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: No; I accepted them.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am going to challenge the hon. Gentleman's calculations, and, if I go too fast, I hope he will tell me. I am not going to quote the whole of the figures. The particular company referred to was the
  784
  London Brick Company. I only quote these figures because they are illuminating. Their profits were: in 1923, £139,000 odd; 1924 2221,000 odd; and 1925, £297,277. Those are the last figures that I have. The bon. Member worked out their profits, I think, at 10d. per 1,000 bricks, or was it 1s. 10d.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I accepted the figure of £461,000. I have had the opportunity of asking one or two hon. Members, and they confirm that figure. My arithmetic was based on that figure. If it is not accurate, it is not my fault, and, of course, my calculation requires revision.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, the hon. Member's miscalculation is greater. I have given the actual figures. The "Times" was quoted, and their financial correspondent is the authority. He says that the productive capacity of the company has been brought up to 600,000,000 bricks per annum. I have taken their profits this year as being round about £300,000, because I presume that their output is increasing. If I divide 600,000,000 by 300,000, I make out a profit of £3 for every 6,000 bricks, or 10s. per 1,000, and I say that is much too high a profit. Look at the dividends distributed: In 1920, 150 per cent. bonus shares; 1922, 150 per cent. bonus shares, and further bonus shares since. Look at their ordinary dividends, some of them paid on this watered capital: 1921, 10 per cent.; 1922, 10 per cent.; 1923, 10 per cent.; 1924, 15 per cent.; 1925, 20 per cent. As their profit apparently is 10s. per 1,000 bricks, I wonder they did not make bigger profits, even on their watered capital. That shows that far too big profits are made in this trade, in view of the fact that prices like everything else in the building trade are not coining down as are the prices of goods in other trades. There are many other figures which I could quote, showing the enormous dividends paid. The Maidenhead Brick Company last year paid 37½ per cent. The Sussex Brick Company—I prefer to quote from the South of England, as I represent a Yorkshire constituency—is another case in point. Does not this make the mouth of the hon. Member for Reading water' They paid 15 per cent. in 1921, and in each succeeding year 15 per cent., 22½ per cent., 15 per cent., 15 per cent., and in 1923 a. bonus of 100 per cent. on the capital.

  785
  Look how delicious that is for those who hold these shares. I have many other instances which I could quote.
  That is one side of the picture. Let us look at the other side. We need houses very badly. I always used to advocate, in the time of Dr. Addison and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Prime Minister, the taking over of the whole of the building by the State, just as the production of munitions had to be taken over. I always said that that was the only way to do it, both with regard to labour difficulties and materials. It was not carried out, and the result is that there are people still living in slums, and we are not overtaking the natural waste in housing, in spite of the increased building. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has left the House, because there was an Inter-departmental Committee set up by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health under his Chairmanship, and one of the members of it was the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade in the last Parliament (Mr. A. V. Alexander). I have, their last report, of July, 1925, and what is extraordinary is not that prices have gone up very much, although they have gone up, but that they have not come down. They have not come down from the price of 1924, and they should have come down because prices have come down in all other businesses.
  Take, for example, sand, which does not need any manufacture at all, but only labour and transport. Why should sand at Manchester, for example, which in April, 1914, cost 4s. 6d., in August 1924, cost 8s., and in July last year 7s. 6d.? What justification is there for that, increase? At Leeds, it is exactly double for river sand, though there is plenty of sand available in Leeds. There is no justification for that high price, comparing the cost of labour and materials in other trades. My case is that prices ought to have come down, and they have not done so. Would the hon. gentleman who represents the Ministry when he comes to reply explain to Its if he is satisfied about the cost of kitchen grates, one of the highest-priced single articles that comes into a working-class house. The engineering
  786
  trade has suffered probably more than any other trade. They have gone through a dreadful period of depression and wages are low and are being cut. I know, because I have the misfortune to be connected with an engineering company. Why, in this particular trade should the price of kitchen ranges be artificially inflated? Why should a kitchen range which cost £5 in April. 1914, rise steadily in price until last year it was £8 6s. 8d.? The same is the case at Leeds, and in nearly all the other centres. Even in Glasgow, that great engineering centre, where there is tremendous unemployment, where men are prepared to work for almost nothing and metal can be bought very cheaply to-day, kitchen ranges have gone up from £5 4s. 6d. in April, 1914, to £8 19s. 6d. in July, 1925, and since 1924 have risen by 17s. 6d. per range. I cannot see where the justification for that comes in. It is the same in the case of linseed oil. turpentine, and many other materials.
  Even if the prices have not gone up, they have kept up when they should have fallen, because prices have fallen in practically every other branch of industry. They are being kept up because of the demand for houses, and because of the rings that have been formed and the artificial restrictions that have been put upon the natural movement of prices. We on these benches—my hon. Friends are not here at the moment, but I have consulted them—are going to support this Bill. That is not because we like interference with private enterprise; we do not. We are not like hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden), who moved the rejection of the Bill, said that if only it had contained a few Protectionist Clauses he would have supported it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite love to interfere with ordinary trade and private commerce and industry, and they are always advocating tariffs. We want to leave private industry, until it becomes a monopoly, severely alone, but in this case we think the situation is such that our supporting this Bill is fully justified, and I, personally, feel that it is overwhelmingly justified.
  I will only give one more quotation. It is from the Report of the Committee that was set up by the Labour Government in

  787
  1924 to inquire into the position of the building industry. The Committee, whose Report is well worth reading, included a strong section of employers and merchants, and they submitted that the Government should by Act of Parliament take such steps as might be considered necessary to prevent any individual organisation from seeking to exploit the situation. That is on page 23 of the Report, which is Command Paper No. 2104. In view of that recommendation, by a Committee on which the building trade was very strongly represented, and in view of the fact that the Government have done nothing, I think we should support this Bill, in the absence of something better. I do not know what hon. Members can find to object to in it. If I criticised the Bill, I should say it was much too meek and mild. It is only after investigation, and when it, is found that certain articles are being unreasonably withheld or restricted, that the Government can take over and intervene and commandeer, and in that case compensation has to be paid. In fact, it is really a very milk-and-water Bill for dealing with a very horrible problem, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), whose name is on the back, is astonished at his own moderation; I certainly am, and should be prepared to support a much stronger Bill. Whether all my hon. Friends would, I do not know, but they will be here to vote for the Second Reading.
  Major TASKER: This Bill is practically the same Bill as was introduced last year. I do not propose to follow last year's Debate, or to enter into argument with hon. Gentlemen opposite with reference to the cost of materials, because I dealt with that subject last year, but the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Bill referred to the case of at least one material which is of importance in the building industry generally, though of comparatively insignificant importance in the case of houses for the working classes, to which this Bill relates. I refer to Portland cement. In 1914, the price of Portland cement was 36s. per tons. In 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926, the price has been 58s. That is an increase of 61·11 per cent. I propose to show the House why that 61·11 per cent. is not an
  788
  extravagant increase. It is due to a variety of causes. The House will agree with me that the original materials in their raw state, namely, the clay and chalk, cost nothing, but the cost of labour for working those raw materials increased between the years 1914 and 1923 by 120 per cent. Coast freight and barge rate increased by 100 per cent., road transport by 75 per cent., coal by 50 to 75 per cent., and machinery and spare parts by 100 per cent. The coal is important, because it takes half a ton of coal to burn a ton of cement. I think it would convey a better idea to the House to consider what were the profits made by the combine. I agree with the statement that it is a large combine, and that it controls about 75 per cent. of the total output of Portland cement in this country. It is an old combine; it is not a new experience. It was started in the year 1900, and combined some of the largest firms in the industry. I will, with the permission of the House, state the dividends that have been paid by this combine, which is supposed to have exercised such evil influences on the production of houses for the working classes.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask which combine this is?
  Major TASKER: It is the Portland Cement Combine. I am only referring, to it because the Mover and the Seconder regarded it as of paramount importance. In 1912–13, it paid its first dividend of 5 per cent. Between the years 1913 and 1919—the period of the War—when I rather gathered we were to infer that huge profits were made on Portland cement for building emplacements for German guns and other purposes—in those five years the total dividend paid was 4 per cent.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I am not quite clear to which company he is referring. There is the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers' Association, and there is also the British Portland Cement Manufacturers' Association. I presume these are different companies. To which of them is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring?
  Major TASKER: I am not referring to the second one. I am not referring to insignificant companies, but am talking

  789
  about the Combine, and, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows anything about Portland cement, he will understand what I mean.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me, but I only want to be clear. I see that the one has a capital of £9,000,000, and the other a capital of £4,1300,000, so that neither of them can be insignificant.
  Major TASKER: Yes, but my hon. and gallant Friend does not seem to appreciate that the firms amalgamated years ago. In 1920 they paid a dividend of 10 per cent., in 1921 five per cent., in 1922 five per cent., and in 1923 six per cent. In six years, therefore, they have paid 35 per cent. I do not regard that as extravagant. I have no share or interest in any firm supplying any building material. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about the price of turpentine. The very best turpentine comes from America and I should be glad if he would get one of his Liberal friends to explain how the Board of Trade is to control the prices and profits of firms in America producing turpentine. That is one of the difficulties which I think will be experienced.
  This Bill is a freak of the imagination. It is quite impracticable. The building trade is composed of many trades. You can think of one trade alone, whichever you like. I will give hon. Members opposite an opportunity of naming a trade and I will deal with it. There is no response. The seductive speculation set out in the Bill is absolute rubbish. It is impossible to carry out. By the time you have dug the soil, laid the foundations, put on the roofs and floors, nearly every trade involved in what is known as the building trade has taken part, and each of them again is subdivided into sections.
  I believe the authors of the Bill have one wish in mind. It is to provide more houses for the working classes, and that must command the sympathy of every decent man and woman in the country because of the atrocious and appalling conditions under which they are condemned to live. Those who have backed the Bill are attacking the wrong thing. They should point out to Labour that there are between 200,000 and 400,000
  790
  men less engaged in the building industry than before the War. Unfortunately the last Census and the one before were made up in different form, and there are no actuarial figures, trade by trade, to determine the number of men engaged in each separate trade going to form the building industry. If they will ask their friends in the Labour movement lo observe the bargains they enter into, and to regard an agreement as something that ought to be observed by honourable men, many of our troubles will vanish. A short while ago there was a long Debate upon housing in Scotland. A solemn agreement was entered into by the building trade operatives on the one hand and the master builders on the other. It deals with hours of labour, prices of labour, non-victimisation, arid concludes with two paragraphs, the last but one of which I ask leave to read:—
  "It is hereby expressly agreed between the parties that no dispute affecting workmen who are members of the trade societies concerned herein, but who are employed in other industries than the building trade, shall be allowed to affect in any way the due observance in every respect of the agreement."
  1.0 P.M.
  What happened? There was an attempt by operatives in the building trade to interfere with another trade. This was signed by the President and Secretary of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, London district, and by the President, Director, and Secretary of the London Master Builders' Association. It relates to London, but it is common to the building industry throughout the country. No contractor can give a price to-day, because he does not know whether the operatives are going to carry, out their bargain. Here is a letter sent 10 days ago to an architect:
  "A working rule agreement as between the London master plasterers and the London branch of the National Association of Operative Plasterers has been agreed and signed, and will become operative and binding on all employers of plasterers in the London area on and from 15th February.
  "On and from 15th February an expenses allowance of 2s. per day for five days and 1s. for Saturday in addition to the standard rate of 1s. 9½d. per hour has been agreed between the two Associations. The country expenses are increased to 4s. per night. We hereby notify you officially of this increase, the account for which will be rendered in due course as an extra on the uncompleted parts of the contracts we have in hand for you."

  791
  The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) last year said he would very much like to know where men were getting 28. 4d. an hour. They were getting 2s. 4d. an hour in the plasterers' trade last year, and in the bricklayers' trade they are getting it to-day. I reffiarm all I said last year. I have no objection to men getting 2s. 4d. an hour if they earn it. There has been a diminished output, and there is no man in the building industry who can deny it. If he does, he is stating something which he knows is untrue.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I am only a layman. Not many minutes ago, the hon. Member told us there were fewer people engaged in the building trade, but the output is greater. How does he make out that there is a diminished output?
  Major TASKER: That is a very old argument.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: It is your own.
  Major TASKER: If the hon. Member will try to visualise the whole of the building trade and not imagine that the whole of the operatives are engaged in building houses for the working classes, and will realise that factories, workshops, and all kinds of buildings have been greatly reduced because of the increase in the housing of the working classes, he will see that my argument is quite consistent.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: I still do not see it, because the hon. Member has said more materials are being used by fewer men and more houses are being built.
  Major TASKER: I did not say anything about more materials being used.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: There are far bricks being used.
  Major TASKER: I am afraid the hon. Member has proved pretty conclusively, to me at all events, that he is not engaged in the building trade, and never has been.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: I am taking your own word.
  Major TASKER: And I hope for the sake of the building trade he never will be. The fact is, that all parties in this House are a little timid of saying anything which appears to attack the bigger combine, the combine of trade unions. If
  792
  all these imaginary profits are made by combines of manufacturers, so far as building materials are concerned, I would ask the representatives of trade unions in this House, as I have frequently asked them outside this House, why do not they turn manufacturers themselves and make the profits for themselves? The answer is not forthcoming. The real reason is that they have not the knowledge and they have not the capacity. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear !"] I am glad that at least one hon. Member agrees with me. This Bill will, no doubt, receive a like fate to that which came before the House last year, nothing more nor less than that which it deserves, and that is, it will he sent into the region of oblivion.
  Mr. VIANT: If I were to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down I should get somewhat outside the range of the Bill. I am not going to attempt to reply to the extracts which he read from the agreement entered into between representatives of the operatives and representatives of the employers in the building industry. It is sufficient to say that, having got something like 60,000 houses more than we anticipated, and building materials used in excess of anything we have experienced in this country before, with a less number of operatives in the industry, proves that the cases of ca?canny are not as prevalent as stated by the Press and some hon. Members opposite. It would be safe to say, looking at the large buildings that are being erected to-day, that three operatives in the industry to-day are doing work equivalent to five in pre-War days; but that is not the subject of the Bill that we are here to discuss to-day.
  We are concerned with what we feel to be the undue amount of profit that is being made by the building material merchants. I have had supplied to me a reply to the statements made by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. He said that lead to-day costs £47 10s. 0d. per ton. I have had the facts looked up. He said that the bulk of the lead was imported from other countries. With that statement I am in entire agreement. The prices work out as follows: in July 1914, the import price was £18 16s. 0d. per ton arid the sale price £22 15s. 0d. per ton, an increase of 21 per cent. In January-, 1925, the import price

  793
  was £26 6s. 0d. per ton, and the price charged £35 10s, 0d., an increase in price of 35 per cent. In January 1926, the import price was £35 1s. 0d. and it was sold for £47 10s. 0d., an increase of 35 per cent. over the import price. It is no excuse to say that because these materials are imported these prices could not be kept down. Where you have a margin of 35 per cent. increase in the price we feel, at least I feel, that there is ample justification for a Bill of this kind in order that such an immense price might be kept down.
  The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) made reference to the fact that wages had increased in the brick producing industry by 133 per cent. It is possible that that statement is true. I am not going to argue that it is not true, but we have to take into consideration that in view of the improved methods of production that have taken place in brickmaking, the 133 per cent. increase in wages, when all the factors are taken into consideration, would give no justification for the increased profits that are being made and enjoyed by those who are engaged in manufacturing bricks to-lay. The hon. Member for East Islington (Major Tasker) quoted the profits of the British Portland Cement Co exceedingly low. I have an extract which shows that the profits in 1921 we.e 10 per cent., in 1923 10 per cent., in 1925 15 per cent.
  Major TASKER: I am willing to send the hon. Member the actual letter from the company, which gives me information confirming my figures.
  Mr. VIANT: It is extraordinary that the hon. and gallant Member should have a letter of that kind, and yet in the public press different figures are given which could be refuted by the company. I find that Francois paid a first dividend of 50 per cent., Aberthaw and Bristol paid in 1921 15 per cent., in 1923 18¾ per cent. and in 1925 12½ per cent.
  Major TASKER: That is not the same company.
  Mr. VIANT: No, I have given the name of the company. Take timber. Bort, Boulton and Heywood, Limited, made in 1921, 7½ per cent.; in 1923, 8 per cent.; in 1925, 10 per cent., and in 1919 they paid a 50 per cent. bonus share. The hon.
  794
  Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden), in moving the rejection of the Bill, said that of the cost of a house only 10 per cent. was accounted for by the price of bricks. That statement is wide of the mark. Personal observation of a house should convey to the hon. Member the fact that the major portion of a house is composed of bricks, and the price of bricks being what they are to-day it should have been evident to him that far more than 10 per cent. of the cost of the house is represented by the price of the brickwork. One can safely say anything from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the price. Eastwoods, Limited., paid in 1921, 6 per cent.; in 1923, 7½ per cent,; and in 1925, 15 per cent. When I seconded the Bill of last year the hon. Member for Reading told me that I should have pre pared my case by quoting the percentages of profit. To-day I have prepared my case on the percentages of profit, and he says that is not the correct way of stating it; that what they want to know is the amount of profit per unit. By that I assume he means how much profit is made per 1,000 bricks and how much profit is made per ton of cement. If we are going to get at the actual facts we must rely on the percentage of profit; then you are giving due allowance for the inflated value of money. The amount of profit per unit will not give the facts as they are.
  I have quoted up to now the profits made per cent. The Maidenhead Brick and Tile Company, in 1923, paid 10 per cent.; in 1925, 37½ per cent. The Glenboig, Ltd., a fireclay company, paid in 1921, 20 per cent.; in 1923, 15 per cent., and in 1925, 20 per cent., and the Sussex Brick Company in 1923, paid 22½ per cent., and in 1925, 15 per cent., with a bonus of 100 per cent. One must take into account these bonus shares which have been distributed they are a form of watered capital, and the percentages given in these returns do not convey the whole of the truth. By the subterfuge of watering their capital by giving bonus shares, companies are able to keep the percentage of profits down. The workpeople engaged in the industries do not only have to earn this 15 per cent. on the original capital, but have to put increased energy and effort into the industry in order to produce these profits on the watered capital. That is grossly unfair. Is any hon.

  795
  Member who is opposed to this Bill, with whatever imperfections it may possess, going to defend profits at the rates of which I have spoken'? Are they going to defend 20 per cent. as being justified? Is any hon. Member going to do that, and thus justify the immoral act, it is nothing less, of watering capital by giving bonus shares. It is simply a device for robbing the public, and, what is more, for robbing those who are engaged in the industry and responsible for producing the profits the shareholders enjoy. It cannot be justified on moral grounds. It might be justified on commercial grounds, but ethics do not enter business at all. This Bill seeks for nothing but an opportunity to place this industry on a moral basis. It is in keeping with the requirements of the country.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask the hon. Member whether he knows of any cases where bonus shares have been given except where profits have been made which the company did not wish to pay out in cash?
  Mr. VIANT: Does not that amount to watering capital? If I put £1, or £100, into a business concern and I am given at some later date a bonus share amounting to £100 I draw dividends on the two shares. Is not that watering the original capital? The money has never been put into the concern, at all, and a large amount of this profit is being made upon watered capital, so that, instead of paying a dividend of 20 per cent., as is shown now, it would be more true to say that they are paying a dividend of 40 per cent. That is how it works out in practice. If I am informed that these statements are incorrect, that this is not the effect of these bonus shares, I shall be pleased to hear it, and will apologise for my mistake. But up to now my experience has taught me that the statements I have made are in keeping with the facts. We have to judge this Bill by the requirements of to-day. No doubt profiteering is taking place.
  The Bill may not be perfect from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, and I am not apologising for the Bill. But at least it is an attempt to get at the real facts of the case, and until we do so
  796
  we shall not be able to take any steps which will give the people of this country houses at a reasonable price. That is imperative if we are going to bring the rents down to a basis that the wage earners of this country can afford to pay. There has been a lull in respect of the increase in prices due to the fact that a Bill of this kind has undoubtedly had a moral effect upon those engaged in the industry. The passing of a Bill like this would mean that the building material merchants in this country would see the need for holding their hand, and would not attempt to exploit the community as they have in the past. The hon. Member for Reading fears that a large number of officials would be employed, but I am not of that opinion. I am convinced that a Bill of this kind would have the moral effect which is desired, and enable us to keep the prices of building materials within reasonable bounds.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I am glad that the Debate has been conducted quietly from the start. The last speaker challenged the statement of the Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) that 10 per cent. was approximately the value of the bricks in a working-man's house. If I understood him correctly, he stated that from 25 to 30 per cent. was the value. Is that so?
  Mr. VIANT indicated assent.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: The cost of a working-man's house to-day is approximately £450. If the hon. Member reckons 30 per cent. as the value of the bricks, that is £150 for bricks alone. Surely that is absurd, and the lion. Member must know it. The number of bricks in a dwelling-house I know something about. Before the War I was a builder of this particular class of house, and I was for a long number of years engaged in the making of bricks. I have long since given that. up, but, according to the statements we have heard this morning, I ought to get back into the business quickly. The statement made by the hon. Member for North Bradford as to the 10 per cent. works out like this, and I challenge anyone opposite to contradict my statement. Approximately 15,000 bricks are used in the erection of a working-man's house. 15,000 at £3 per 1,000 is £45.
  Mr. VIANT: Would the hon. Member inform us to what height he is taking his ceilings?
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: What is usually allowed by the Government for the ground floor 8 ft, 9 in.; a bungalow 9 ft. 6 ins. inside. I could go into special cases if the hon. Member wished, but I do not think the House would be interested in the matter. I say frankly, that whether it be a two-storeyed house, a cottage house under the subsidy, or a bungalow, the number of bricks used is approximately 15,000, and at £3 a 1,0110 that is £45. The hon. Member still persists in his 30 per cent. statement, I understand. That is the kind of argument we are getting, and if such statements are persisted in, everything that hon. Members opposite say must fall to the ground. The hon. Member mentioned lead as £18 10s. before the War and now sold at £35.
  Mr. VIANT: This Bill will enable the Ministry to get down the price. At the present time the price is £47 10s.—an increase of 35 per cent. We want to deal with that undue profit of 35 per cent.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: We are talking about imported lead. If the importer can get a certain profit, and this particular body says that the price is to be kept down, who is to find the balance?
  Mr. VIANT: The price of imported lead to-day is £35 1s. The merchant does nothing whatever to the lead, but charges £47 10s. for it.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I see what the hon. Member is getting at; he is getting at the middleman. His statement, I believe, is not true, but for the sake of argument we will assume that it is true.
  Mr. VIANT: I obtained from the Library the figures that I quoted.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: Very well I will take it that the statement is true. To how much does that amount per house? How many tons of lead are there in a house? None at all. It is so many hundredweights of lead. Hon. Members opposite are trying to raise a bogey, although on inquiry they must know that
  798
  this point cannot affect the price of a dwelling house one bit. The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that he represented himself and his friends of the Liberal party. I notice that the Liberal party are in their usual place; they are not here to hear a single word of argument against this Bill, although the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull said that they intended to support the Bill. If that is the way the business of the House is carried on usually—
  Mr. SEXTON:All round. Look at your own empty benches!
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) said he hoped that the Bill would be passed. He would penalise new methods of production. That means that if a brickyard by new methods of production makes more profit than its neighbour, that particular brickyard will be penalised to the extent that the Government will take it over if it does not come down to his figure. The hon. Member spoke of watered capital. I can tell the House of brickyards that reduced their capital before the War. There was then no attempt on the part of the Government to pass a Bill that would make up the difference. Those brickyards may have watered their capital since in order to get back the authorised capital of the company. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. The greater the profits made on these yards, because of the greater use of machinery, the better it is for the country. I could speak of brickyards which this year have paid 6 per cent. on their preference shares and 3 per cent. on their ordinary shares. That is not a big profit. But if this Bill were passed you would leave such a yard to carry on, and the other, where 20 per cent. profit is shown, you would take—
  Mr. VIANT: Can we have the names of those brickyards?
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: There is one in my own city. The Bradford Brick and Tile Company. That is true. There ought to be a penalty in this House for people who make mistatements without being sure of their facts.
  Mr. VIANT: The figures I have given are from published documents.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: Apparently the hon. Member does not know exactly what brickmaking means. You take the clay out of the ground and the finished brick is simply burnt clay. What are, the figures? We have first to get the clay by digging it out of the surface. Before the War that cost about 9d. per 1,000 bricks. Nowadays it is 3s. 6d. to 4s. per 1,000 bricks. Then there is the taking from the machine to the kiln. That was about 1s. before the War, and now I think it is 2s. and something. Next there is the setting in the kiln. Before the War that cost 1s. 10d., and now it is 4s. Drawing from the kiln was 1s. 2d. before the War, and is now 2s. The cast of the small coal used in the burning of the brick was before the War approximately 5s. 6d., and to-day it is anything from 10s. to 14s. 6d. The contract price for carting materials before the War was 8s., and it is now 19s. 6d. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull referred particularly to sand in his argument, but he did not point out that the gretest cost in river sand is the cost of carting, which has gone up in the manner I have described.
  If this Bill really tended to make the building of workmen's houses cheaper, there is not a Member on this side who would not vote for it. We should be ready and willing to do so. But hon. Members opposite do not want to know how house building can be made cheaper. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull gave the price of bricks at £3, but I would prefer to call it 65s. The same bricks before the War cost 25s.—that is a difference of £2 per thousand, or £30 per house. That is the whole increase in the price of the bricks in a working man's dwelling house. The total increase in the price of cement is not more than 50s., and for certain special qualities is not more than The figures on which has been based the argument for this Bill are very much beside the question. If you are going to single out this one particular trade for this treatment, I contend you are not going to help building at all, but arc rather going to put it back. If this were a Bill to deal with rings which are taking excessive profits, doing injury to trade and not producing the goods, but cutting down supplies, something might be said for it.
  800
  I will tell hon. Members opposite something which may not be palatable to them, or, perhaps, to the majority of Members, There is a. way of getting more houses without doing injury to the working men of this country. If the leaders of the trade unions would agree on some kind of co-operation among the different trades and some system of payment by results, you get a much higher wage for the working man and a greater output of dwellings. But they do not appear to like that suggestion, and they will not have it. They say that it may lead to what was mentioned the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), namely, that the higher wages rise, the more concerned will the masters be to reduce on piece-work. There may be some force in that argument, but surely it is not beyond the power of Members of this House on both the masters' side and the workmen's side to arrange a basic rate for piece-work and a system of cooperative management between the two sides, taking the present rate as a basis. I do not understand the strong opposition to that proposal by certain trade union leaders who wish to kill all forms of piece-work, when, during the period of the War, the engineers fought strongly for piece-work, and came out on strike because the masters wanted day work in certain cases instead of piece-work.
  There are six different trades in the building industry. There is the cost of land; there is the cost of making drains. If hon. Members opposite study the cost of making a sewer—which is a very small item in relation to the whole cost of a dwelling—they will find that the actual cost of digging a sewer to-day when compared with the cost of the same work before the War shows an increase which is much greater pro rata than the increase in the cost on the house itself. A pre-War dwelling which cost £250 can now be built at £450. If that statement be correct, the figures adduced this morning are very wide of the mark, There are things over which the building trade have no control, such as doors made in this country, which are now three times the pre-War price. There are also joists and floor timbers, which are mostly made either in America or in Norway and Sweden. This Bill does not give any control over articles imported into this country. There is no excessive profit on

  801
  the timber used in dwellings, or on the slating, or the tiles, because they have to bear competition with materials supplied from other countries. If this Bill would help in the erection of dwellings, and cut down the cost, I, at any rate, would promise to assist it, but I may be pardoned for saying that I think it a piece of camouflage. If the figures which I have quoted obtain any publicity, I think the man outside will agree that the arguments for this Bill have been based on a wrong principle.
  Mr. HARDIE: If one were to deal with all the points raised by the last speaker, one would exhaust the patience of the House, because he said there is no real increase in this item or in that item, but he did not explain away the fact that when one comes to put down the cash for a house, one finds the increase is there, and that is the real test of the question. The hon. arid gallant Member, when referring to the number of bricks in a house, gave us the height of the walls, but he did not tell us the extent of the walls or the number of rooms in the house or the size of the rooms.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: The ordinary subsidy size.
  Mr. HARDIE: That is just it. We are discussion houses for people to live in. While the hon. and gallant Member may have owned a brickworks, he did not seem to know the history of the War period in connection with piece-work in the engineering trade.
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I hope I did not give the impression that I ever owned a brickworks. I was employed in one.
  Mr. HARDIE: That is better still. If the hon. and gallant Member was employed in it, he would require to know more about it than if he owned it. Seeing that he was employed in a brickworks. I think he should have had more interest in his colleagues in another section of industry, and should have known better what happened during the War in regard to the engineers. That, however, is: not the subject of our discussion. The Mover of the rejection of the Bill seemed to be well-read in the history of housing but his reference to the Addison scheme was wrong. He suggested that it was a scheme for the control of building material in this country generally; but as
  802
  a matter of fact it only controlled materials for domestic houses. As references have been made to the necessity for correct statements in this House, it is well to point out that mistake. The Addison scheme did not control the whole of the building materials, but related to housing and to nothing else. You had the D.B.M.A., an organisation dealing entirely with and through the builders of domestic houses. The D.B.M.A. had the power to control certain materials for domestic houses, and they had the power of saying that where a public work was being built, and might have been offering more even in wages: "You cannot do it, because just as you do that, you are withdrawing men from domestic house building" and it is a great pity that that Addison scheme was not continued.
  There has been no argument used to-day against the principle of this Bill. There has been no argument used to say that monopoly is either a moral or a good thing. Those who have been trying to oppose this Bill have been going off at various tangents and up small culs-de-sac, but that is no method of dealing with the principle brought forward in this Bill. Either the principle of control is good or it is bad. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bad!"] It was not bad during the War, because you have the present Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech still to be quoted, in which he showed. a saving of £12 on certain shells. It. was good during the War, and it would he even better now, because you do not have the same rush in peace production as you have in war production, but, as I say, there has been no argument to-day to show that monopoly is a good thing. All those who are in the hands of a monopoly know that it is a very bad thing, and those who own a monopoly know that it is a good thing for themselves individually. Every time there is a monopoly, it means an increase. You are having just now in this country the instance of a certain industry, not the building industry, that became a monopoly in November last, and 25 per cent. has gone on to the prices of what that industry produces. That is an instance of what is taking place.
  Now I come to the hon. Member for East Islington (Major Tasker), who told us that he was a builder. A builder, if he does not know a-bout his trade, ought to be ashamed of himself, and it is no

  803
  credit to a man who has been trained all his life in a thing to come along and boast to other people, who have been trained in other occupations, that he and those on that side with him can do this and that, and that those on the opposite side have neither the capacity nor the technique to do it. A man who talks like that talks without thinking of his own business, because it was quite evident from his speech—I am sorry he is not here to hear this—that he himself has neither the capacity nor the technique to deal with the things with which he had to deal, because when he was challenged, he had to show that his information was secondhand and that he had no personal technique. He made one statement to the effect that it took half a ton of coal to give the heat necessary for the manufacture of one ton of cement. If he had known anything about the technique of heat and coal in the manufacture of cement, he would have known that that process is 50 years old and 50 years behind scientific knowledge. This is the hon. Gentleman who slings the statement across the floor, that if we had only the capacity and technique, we could do things.
  We have both the capacity and the technique, but we want, not to enter into business as individuals, seeking whom we may devour, as is the case to-day in the building trade, but to get the results of all labour from God's materials in the earth, and to give the best accommodation to the people who are producing that by which we live. For any hon. Member to come along and make a statement like that made by the hon. Member for East Islington spells this, as far as I am concerned, that he does not know how to conduct himself properly among other gentlemen when he makes such a general remark. It might have been pardonable if he had been dealing with a particular individual, but what he said was that we, on these benches, had neither capacity nor technique, and to talk in that way is to talk without knowing those who are on these benches, and if this were a place for challenging anybody, I would be willing to challenge him now. He did not in his arguments give, from his great experience, any facts to go against what is contained in the Bill and what is asked for by the Bill. He merely
  804
  went away up little culs-de-sac and came back again without bringing anything with him, and that is no way of dealing intelligently with a Bill that brings forward a principle.
  The question of timber has been brought into the Debate to-day, but we have had no-one pointing out what has really happened, so far as timber is concerned. Those who are in the timber trade in this country know that the action of the Government has operated very heavily against that trade, and that the timber that we might have been having from the real source, Russia, is coming through America and through other countries who have got concessions that we- might have had. For the timber that we use as Russian timber we are paying a profit to America or the other countries through which it is being obtained, and it seems to me that, if the word "incapacity" could be applied, it could be said to be a- measure of incapacity to buy through two or three hands what you might be able to buy direct. If the technique of timber were understood by the general public, there would have been such representations made to this House that the. Government would have been forced to deal direct, so far as our timber supply is concerned. We are getting catalogues, Canadian and American catalogues, into this country by the hundred, showing, with full plans and technical details, houses built from Russian timber—timber that we could have had direct—sent here in sections, giving the whole price in absolute detail, and these catalogues are being sent right round Great Britain, yet the hon. Member opposite talks about the capacity of hon. Members on this side.
  It seems to me that if the present Government, which claims to be the representative of the great business capacity of this country, had had that great business intelligence, they would not have let the chance of buying timber direct slip through their hands. Why should they not keep this essential of house building directly under their own control, as they could have done if they had wished? Instead of that, however, they allowed some little side issue about something that happened many years ago to be a reason why they should not act in a businesslike way. That does not strike me as being a basis upon which any

  805
  Government can face the question of building materials. First of all, you do your best to close the best markets, and when you get them closed, you begin by forming monopolies, and then you begin to form a ring, which is bigger than a monopoly. Every class of building material has had the ring price put upon it.
  To-day we have had sand mentioned but, there is no need to stick at sand. What has happened in relation to lime? Why is it to-day, when it comes to a question of building, that the cement price is quoted as the price of the mortar to go between the bricks? Why is it, for instance, that when you had cement selling, as you did in 1914, at £1 18s., and now it is £2 18s., you had an enormous increase in the use of concrete for small jobs? It was because the cement at that time bore a relation to the aggregate in making up the concrete, but when the cement combine got into its stride, it began raising prices during the War to £7 a ton. In every way the combine and ring have been acting against the building of houses in this country. If it had not been for the ring and combine we would have no real housing question to-day. I can remember in Glasgow being bombarded with builders, some of the biggest and best in Scotland, to see if I could do anything about the release of certain materials to let them get on with the work. The rings and combines had said that here was a certain number of bricks to be delivered, but they could not get them until a certain time had elapsed, because there were so many orders. Where was the efficiency of the business men then? Why was not an immediate extension made of the brickworks, and efficient machinery put in? There is never any answer to these questions.
  2.0 P.M.
  The housing question to-day is more a question of monopoly in building materials than anything else. We have been held hack at a time when we should have been going forward, simply by these rings and combines. It is not only a question of their being able to increase the price, but of the power, which they exercise, to keep back the supply of materials, and to-day we are being asked simply to do an act to save ourselves from the commercial system under which we live. That is really what this Bill
  806
  is asking. It becomes necessary, under the present commercial system, to seek legal protection against the forces that put up prices as soon as demand increases. That is the constant bugbear of consumers under the present commercial system; they are always having to fight to protect themselves against the power of the combine to raise prices and extract from them a little more. Not only has the combine had these evils of which I am speaking, but it has been responsible for the reduction in the size a the houses that we ought to have been building. If we had had normal standards of material at normal prices, we could have afforded to build bigger houses. What has been the argument in this House? They say, "Yes, but you have got to think of the costs." The costs are made chiefly by this ring and combine, and we are not pleading for very much when we are asking for simple protection because of the urgent public necessity for housing, and we hope even on the other side of the House there will be those who will realise the great necessity, that if we are to he able to deal with the housing question in reality, we have got to grapple with these fundamentals called raw materials, and we have to see to it that no power inside the commercial system is going to stand between the nation and the houses required.
  Mr. STEPHEN MITCHELL: I venture to say a few words on this Bill, chiefly for the reason that I am not directly or indirectly in any way financially connected with the industries which produce building materials. This Bill touches on a subject of vital importance to the happiness, welfare and health of millions of British people, and I doubt if there are any Members in this House who would oppose this Bill either by act, deed or word, if they thought for a moment it would delay the houses for which the working people are so earnestly and anxiously waiting, which they so urgently require and which, I think, we all agree, they so richly deserve. If, on the other hand, the Members of this House thought that this Bill would expedite the building of houses for the working people, I feel certain they would welcome it with open arms, and the Bill would have been received with loud acclamation. As I have said before, I have no interest in the

  807
  building trade whatsoever, but, during the last few years, I have had some experience in the building of dwellings for those whom I employ. I have watched most carefully this building process. The work has been extremely well executed. The materials have always been delivered up to schedule time, and at a reasonable price, but the job has taken a, very considerable period to complete, owing to one reason, and one reason alone, not, as possibly some of the diehards would suggest, owing to a ca? canny policy; that has been entirely absent, as the men work in the most conscientious and zealous manner. It is owing to one reason alone, and that is an insufficient quantity of skilled labour.
  To say the least of it, in my humble opinion, this Bill is an unjust Bill. The man who is going to risk his capital is, apparently, to be the scapegoat, and all the other parties who are interested in the erection of the houses are to be unhampered and unfettered in every possible way. To my mind, this Bill does not seem consistent with the code of British justice and British equity. So far as I can see, the landowner, the contractor, the operator, the lawyers who draw out the deeds for the sale of the house, and the printers who re-produces the deeds, are to have entirely a free hand, and not to be hampered in any way whatsoever.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: The lawyer's fees have been fixed by statute.
  Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, and they are much too high. Since, however, I have been interrupted, I would remind the House that while the timber merchant, the quarry owner, the owner of brick works, the owner of the plant which produces the electric fittings, the fittings for the plumbing work, and so on, may have to undergo searching examination and may, necessarily, have to have their prices regulated by this Bill, by those foreigner to and unfamiliar with the trade, there is nothing in this Bill, so far as I can see, to prevent the master carpenter, the master plumber, the master slater, or the master electrician charging any price that he likes for the time of himself and the men which he employs. Supposing this Bill passes the
  808
  House, what is going to be the result? It is certainly going to stifle private enterprise and competition, and it is going to throw a wet blanket around every producer of building materials.
  Surely the promoters of this Bill realise that any trade which is unduly profitable is only unduly profitable for a short time, for it soon rights itself. We all know that the Britisher is too enterprising to allow the grass to grow under his feet. He immediately starts in competition with his successful fellow-citizens, and, therefore, the prices of the articles and the various materials will drop automatically. As the promoters of this Bill know perfectly well, it is only by competition that we can maintain a high standard, and if you restrict, and hamper, and harass industry with undue legislation abhorent to every free-born British subject you will undoubtedly lower the quality of the article, and raise the price of it.
  If, then, what I have said be the case, why is it that foreign building material is not rushed into this country in ever-increasing quantities? I wonder if the promoters of this Bill have seriously thought what would be the result if this Bill were placed upon the Statute Book? I suppose that they do not realise that either such tragedy or such calamity as I have suggested is likely to take place? Suppose that we were to pass this Bill into law, suppose that the quarry owner or the owner of a brickworks were then to say: "The profit which I am allowed does not justify the risk which my capital is running, and I am going to close down?" There is nothing in the Bill so far as I can see to compel the owner of the quarry, or the owner of the brickworks to carry on. What is going to be the position of the unfortunate employer? He is not safeguarded in the Bill in any shape or form. Apparently the promoters of this Bill have absolutely disregarded or forgotten all about him. Suppose, again, that the owner of the quarry or the brickworks, restricted in price, informs his workmen that he cannot continue his present scale of wages and there must be a reduction? Do the promoters of this Bill think for a moment that they are helping the British worker in any way by that?
  This House and this country have had a bitter lesson in stifling private enter-

  809
  prise. It is entirely owing to the high taxation imposed many years ago on house property which prevented the private individual from building dwellings suitable for a British working man, and it was the high taxation on house property which prevented the private individual keeping those dwellings of the work-people in a suitable condition. I do not for a moment refer to the Rent Restrictions Act. That was absolutely right. That was absolutely proper. It was brought in at an abnormal time to protect British people, but I affirm that the high rate of taxation which was imposed on house property many years ago—I think by the Liberal party, whose ranks, as I look across, I see are sadly depleted, and which, apparently, are not reinforced at any of the by-elections—is responsible. There is only another point which I wish to raise, and that is this; in Scotland and in England there are many small quarries and small brickworks which are carried on by men of humble origin, and humble means. Very often in these concerns the plant is not up-to-date, but by energy and enterprise the owners hope to bring them up to a state suitable for modern requirements. I would remind the House that many of these smaller concerns are run entirely on a profit-sharing system. I sincerely hope that this House will reject the Bill in order that they will be able to protect the smaller men in every way they possibly can.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Debates such as this on a Friday afternoon are recognised to be occasions when we may look into the principles which underlie proposals similar to that of this Bill, so that we may not be tied to questions of cement or building material, or any of those concrete questions which will be discussed by persons more competent to speak on such matters than I am. But I have heard references which have turned upon the question of the sanctity of private enterprise, the inequity of Socialism, and such like abstract observations by which it is sought to impeach the value of this particular Bill. I have only intervened in this Debate to say that it appears to me that many of these arguments are entirely beside the point. The merit or the demerit of this Bill can have no relation to the value or the absence of value of Socialism. Socialism is a conception of
  810
  society which, whether it be right or wrong, can have little or nothing to do with a question of the value of restraining a monopoly, a combine or a. ring. I hope to bring the House back to the real matter which we are discussing.
  What I have noticed so frequently in these discussions, and in particular in the speech of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, is the complete absence of any historical knowledge of the way in which these evils were regarded in the past. The hon. Member seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that in the past, before the rise of plutocracy, industrialism, and commercialism, the law of this and other nations of the world was based upon principles embodied in this Bill: they were the common morality of the whole of Europe. In the Middle Ages, and in later times, there prevailed in Europe and in this country a doctrine known as the doctrine of the Just Price. That doctrine I agree, did not need to he enforced by legislation. It was the common morality of the civilised nations of Christians that it was a social song for people to endeavour, out of their monopoly or out of their possessions, to make more than a fair and reasonable. profit.
  Commander WILLIAMS: May I ask whether that applies to lawyers as well?
  Sir H. SLESSER: The doctrine did apply to lawyers. In the case of the solicitor, who is chiefly concerned with the work which might be done under this Bill, the law has thought fit to regulate and fix his charges either at a high or low level, which ever we may think; so the case of the lawyers is an argument in favour of State intervention.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): What is to occur in regard to counsel?
  Sir H. SLESSER: Counsel have always been so reasonable in their charges, in contrast with the vendors of building materials, that there has been no necessity for State intervention. But may I get back to the point on which I was addressing the House? I was saying that it was the universal view, and no one who has any historical knowledge can traverse this for a moment, that the doctrine of the Just Price required that per

  811
  sons should not make more than a reasonable profit out of their labour or out of their money. In its extreme aspect that took the form of the condemnation of usury of all kinds, but the doctrine which is so often preached by hon. Members opposite, who, though they may be good commercialists, are not very good Conservatives: this doctrine of modern commercialism, is always pointing out that there should be no restriction on the freedom of enterprise to make monopolies, as I understand it, or to make combines and to get possession of raw materials in such a way that they can charge any price they wish for their products. That is a social iniquity. It was condemned by the early Church as avarice: it was, described as one of the deadly sins, though now it seems to have become a considerable virtue. If we look through mediaeval Statutes we shall find instance after instance of legislation being directed to forestalling, against the obtaining of monopolies, as this Bill endeavours to do; so this Measure, so far from being a new and revolutionary interference with the right of people to take building material or any other commodity of which they can get a monopoly and charge what they can for it is a reversion to the old Conservative principle that people should not make a profit out of other people's necessities; and I hope therefore, if there he any real old Conservatives left in the House, and not mere followers of individualism and the Manchester School, that they will accept this Bill.
  I can never follow these gibes at the old Liberal party. As I see the party opposite, it is the Liberal party. The Liberal party is opposite me at this moment. They are infected and eaten up, as I think, with the notions of the. Manchester School and individualism. The last speech might have been made by Cobden or Bright, or any of the "Manchester bagmen," as Carlyle so properly called them. They are commercialists and industrialists, and the appeal I am making is that in order to get back to a saner commercial morality we should encourage legislation which interferes with the right of people to make profits out of combines and rings and monopolies. The Profiteering Act, if I may use that as an illustration, was bad in two ways; bad, first of all, because it is a detestable
  812
  neologism—this word "profiteering," which I hope will rapidly disappear from the language, because it is neither good English nor good sense—and bad because the Act itself was quite unworkable, because it had no sanctions and no rights; but the principle was recognised, and we were beginning, there, to get away from the doctrine uttered by the last hon. Member who addressed the House that people have a right to make any profits they can out of other people's necessities. This Bill goes but a little further in the same direction. To begin with, it only gives the Board of Trade power to investigate, where they have reason to suspect that profits at monopoly values are being made out of the necessities of the people by building rings. That is not very drastic. Then there is to be an investigation—the parties are to take part in a full inquiry; it is not an investigation which is in any sense contrary to natural justice; next there is to be a consultation between the Ministry of Health and the Board of Trade; and finally, and this, I should have thought, would have satisfied any hon. Member opposite, compensation is to be paid. Therefore, this is a mild Bill, not a Bill of any very drastic character. It only goes as far as this—that where there is a suspicion of a monopoly an investigation is to be made, and in the end compensation is to be payable for direct loss or damage suffered by reason of direct interference with the property or the business. Only in that case will the Bill operate.
  I have had occasion to study some of the anti-trust legislation in the United States of America. That legislation, which has not been introduced by a Labour Government is far more drastic than anything we have here. It provides for the compulsory dissolution of monopolies and combinations, and if such a Bill as this were introduced at Washington, I think the criticism would be that it was far too mild. Believing as I do that the great peril of the age is the growth of monopolies and combines, and that it is impossible to recreate suddenly that sane and sound moral opinion that existed when the world was more civilised 500 or 600 years ago, I say the only way to tackle these monopolies and combines is by legislation such as this. The Labour party are definitely committed to this Bill. We all know that this is a Bill

  813
  which, had the Labour party remained in power, would have been introduced into this House. There is no doubt about that at all. We stand by this Bill and, speaking for myself, I think it would be a good thing if the Government were not only g yen the power to legislate where there are monopolies in building materials, but were given a general power by so that they could investigate all combines and monopolies of every kind whatsoever. This Bill is a practical proposal for dealing with such a situation, and that being the case, I hope the House will give it very serious consideration.
  Major HILLS: I should dearly like to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into some of his inquiries, and on a good many points I do not think we should he hi disagreement: but time is going on, and I must not keep the House for too long. I agree with him, as I think every sensible man would agree, that where a Monopoly is anti-social any means to break it are permissible. When he says the party to which I have the honour to belong have accepted all the doctrines of the Manchester School, surely in his studies of the Middle Ages he has neglected the study of recent history. The history of my party for the last 20 years has largely consisted in a contest against the very principles of that school. Dealing with the general point, may I just put my finger upon what I think is a distinction between hon. Members on this ride and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). He believes that in cases of this sort, the State should step in and produce, but we think that if a monopoly is hurting the country, control of that monopoly is sufficient. I should like to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that his description of this Bill fell short of the most important Clause. He quoted Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which permit an investigation into prices and other investigations, but he did not refer o Clause 3, which enables the Minister of Health to requisition stocks and output, and to carry on the business where supply is unreasonably withheld, and surely that is the cardinal point of this Measure. Where prices are excessive or the output is restricted, under Clause 3 the Minister of Health can take possession of the land, buildings and machinery, and carry on the
  814
  business or make provisions for other people to carry it on under the direction of the Ministry. That goes a long way beyond mere investigation.
  I rose for the purpose of putting before the House some other considerations. A short time ago I had the honour of being appointed Chairman of the Inter-departmental Committee on Building Prices and our business is to watch those prices and to issue a periodical report upon them. We have a distinguished Committee on which all interests are represented. We have builders and the. producers of building material, and we have the trade unions and Members of Parliament represented on that Committee. We have to keep our eye on the prices of different materials and since I have been in the Chair we have published one report in July last, a second report is in course of production now, and will be published very shortly. I propose to issue those Reports every six months. When I was appointed Chairman, I was informed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) when he was the Minister of Health, had come to a bargain with the parties concerned that a certain date should be taken as the date of the basis of prices, and that date was the 1st January, 1924.
  All the parties concerned agreed that that date should be taken, and that increases in prices should not be made except on two conditions. The first, condition was if the cost of labour and material have gone up since that date, and the second was where the producer could show that for special reasons he was manufacturing at a loss, on 1st January, 1924. Our last Report states that there has not been a general increase in prices, and the only exceptions are three cases. First of all, bricks: secondly, light castings; and thirdly, lead. Owing to an increase of wages and an increase in the cost of fuel in the spring of 1924, bricks have increased in price since the 1st January, but they have shown no change for two years. The cost of lead has gone up because the world price is higher.
  I would like to say a few words about light castings. When I took the Chairmanship of this Committee last spring I found that the increase in price of light castings was considerable. They include grates, baths, soil pipes, and rain pipes,

  815
  and a large number of other articles essential to the construction of a house. I at once proceeded to investigate the matter, and I approached the National Light Castings Association, and suggested an inquiry into the books. I saw the chairman of that association, and he agreed to an inquiry. We appointed our accountants, and they examined the books, and I received their report a short time ago. The matter is now before the Committee, and I cannot say what view they will take. The Building Materials Committee have not yet issued their Report upon the price of light castings. I mention this case in order to show the very close attention we are giving to all these matters. All these prices are reviewed periodically, and we publish this document. The information we give goes into all the papers, and all the world can see the prices and the changes in those prices.
  This particular document has four columns of prices, one for April, 1914, which gives the pre-War price. Then there is the price in January, 1924, which is the price at which we start our arrangement. We also give the last two prices of the current list, in the list issued in July last those of August, 1924, and July, 1925, and from now onwards, I hope to issue the report every six months. That being so, and when I think of the admirable Committee I have got and how well all parties are represented, the question arises, what opinion do I take in regard to this Measure? The first Clause of this Bill gives stronger powers of investigation than my Committee have got. The first Clause gives the Minister compulsory power to investigate, and the Building Materials Committee have not got compulsory powers. It may be that we shall want them. If we find a case where there is an increase in price, and the employers refuse to show their books, I should certainly represent that fact to the Minister and press for compulsory powers, and I have no doubt we should get them. In the only case of this kind we have had to consider we experienced no difficulty at all, and I think, in justice to the National Light Castings Association, I ought to say that all the prices of materials and all the accounts required by our accountants were placed at their disposal. Consequently, I do not consider
  816
  that we want any more power, but, at the same time, I reserve the right, should we meet with a case of obstinacy on the part of some employer or group of employers, to ask for further powers.
  I now come to the second charge which is that there is some combine, and that although there has been no increase of price generally since January 1924, still there is, or was, some group or some ring or some monopoly which keeps up prices. On that I cannot speak, because I, as chairman of the Committee, am bound by the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. I cannot go behind that. That was a gentleman's bargain, and I have to observe it. I cannot say whether prices were or were not too high in January 1924. Still, looking at the prices generally, and using the best intelligence that I have got, they do not seem to me to be excessively high compared to pre-War prices and compared with other commodities. In some cases they are double, in other cases they are less than double, and, as I say, as far as the Committee are concerned, we arc bound to make our starting point the 1st January, 1924. That being so, supposing there were a combine or a monopoly, how could you meet it?
  There are two ways of meeting it. Either the way of the Bill, whereby the Minister, or the State, can come in and produce the article in which the monopoly is existent, or the plan that is open to any Government. of opening our ports to free imports. I am reinforced in the belief that there is no excessive profiteering by the fact that Our harts are open and that large imports of building materials are taking place. I know that the London County Council are importing millions of Belgian bricks, and, as long as you have free imports, I do not think you need fear a monopoly. In fact, it seems to me, speaking generally and not specially as Chairman of this Committee, that you do have a very good safety valve there. I do not think it is suggested that the rings go beyond this country. I do not think it is suggested that there is an international ring that controls prices of bricks, timber, lead, or cement, and, that being so, you do have a complete means of judging if prices are excessive in this country and of defeating any excessive increase in price.

  817
  That is all I have got to say, but I do want again to impress upon hon. Members that I recognise as fully as they do the evil which would arise from an undue increase in price, and, if there were some ring or monopoly which either restricted output or unduly raised the cost of building materials, I should be tin: first to join with them in combating it; but I do not and I cannot see it. Perhaps they will let me assure them of this. I am deeply interested in the matter, I have the assistance of an able Committee, I shall watch the position extremely closely, and, if I find that that Committee are hampered by the want of powers, I shall not hesitate to ask for extended powers.
  Mr. MARCH: This Bill to-day has been treated quite differently from the way it was treated last year. Last year it was ridiculed to a very large extent, but to-day the speeches have been a great deal more moderate. I believe that some hon. Members, even on the other side of the House, are beginning to realise that prices of building materials are higher than they ought to be. Having listened to the last speaker, I am glad to learn that the Committee are taking such a deep interest in all the materials required for building. I do not think the last speaker could have been in the House when hon. Members on this side of the House gave particulars of the profits that were being made by some of the combines arid companies which are concerned in building materials.
  Major HILLS: Yes, I heard those speeches. I heard the Mover and Sec order of the Bill.
  Mr. MARCH: I am speaking of two hon. Members on this side of the House who spoke after the Mover and Seconder, and who enumerated a number of companies who are supplying bricks and other materials for building purposes, and whose profits have increased. Not only have, their profits increased from 5 and 10 to 20 per cent. and even to 37 per cent., but some of them have gone so far as to give 100 per cent. bonus, and in other instances 50 per cent. bonus. The interest goes on that watered capital, of which we get no notice taken, and which is misleading to the public. I think that the Chairman of the Building Materials Committee might take that fact a little more into
  818
  consideration. We were told that there were plenty of materials in this country, and that bricks were being made fast enough to supply all needs. The production, it is said, has gone up from 3,000,000,000 in 1913 to 5,500,000,000 in 1925. Therefore, there was no need to give powers to the Minister to provide further materials. But when hon. Members mentioned that fact they did not say that, even with that increased production, the price of bricks has gone down.
  The Chairman of the Committee has just told us that there has been no material change in the cost of bricks during the last two years. I think that it is nearly time there was. In 1914 bricks were being sold at 36s. 6d. per 1,000, and now they are 83s. 6d. per 1,000. That is an increase of vastly more than 100 per cent. Wages, however, have not gone up to that, extent. We contend that we do require a Bill of this kind. The question of roofing tiles must also he borne in mind. Roofing tiles, in 1924, were 30s. per ton, and now they are 90s. That is an increase of 200 per cent. Surely, it is nearly time something was done to get the prices altered, because the manufacturers must be making good profits. When the Government were having some houses built at Well Hall, they had to take the job of tiling in hand themselves, because of the enormous prices which were being charged, and that, surely, proves that they considered that they were paying a great deal more than they ought to have paid. If we can get the production of bricks and cement that it is claimed can be obtained, it is time the prices went clown, and the Government ought to look to it and see that they do go down.
  Sir K. WOOD: I am sure that every one who has listened to the Debate to-day will agree that we have had a most useful discussion on this proposal, and, if I may say so, I think the speeches in all parts of the House have, at any rate, indicated that there is anxiety in every quarter that nothing should be permitted which would interfere with the undoubted progress that is being made in house-building in this country. The hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Windsor) who so ably seconded the Motion for Second Reading, stated that in his opinion this was the most important Bill which had been introduced during

  819
  the last two years. I think that, if one recollects what has been said about this Bill in the past, one might put it even higher still. In the first place, the Bill has a very important authorship. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) can, I think, rightly claim the credit of putting these proposals before the House, and I remember very well—and I have verified it since—that so impressed was he with the importance of these proposals that, at the time of the last General Election, he stated that the Campbell case was not the excuse for the defeat of the late Government, but rather the Building Materials Supply Bill, which dealt with profiteers, and would have been the first Measure to be discussed when Parliament resumed. Therefore, I think we may take it that the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, attaches very high importance to these proposals.
  Something has been said about not only the authorship but the draftsmanship of this Bill. This Bill was drafted by a very eminent Member of this House, the late Attorney-General, and I was very interested to hear the historical reference which the late Solicitor-General made to this Bill and that it was really following out principles which had been put forward in this country for so long that the late Attorney-General, in making a statement on the Bill in the country and rather proudly claiming its authorship, said, on 27th July, 1924, that there was going to be a great fight over the Bill, in fact, such a fight over the Bill as the House of Commons had never seen, and, if it was passed, they would begin to see written on the wall the first letters of Socialism. I do not think, therefore, that we can quite accept the late Solicitor-General's explanation of the origin of this Bill.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I said mediaeval Socialism.
  Sir K. WOOD: I think the attention of the House ought to be called to what exactly these proposals are, because the hon. Gentleman who certainly made a very able speech in moving the Second Reading was very careful. In fact, I do not know that any Member on the other side of the House has told the House
  820
  exactly what it is that the House of Commons is being asked to pass this after noon, and, after all, it is rather important to know what we are doing, however good our object may be. I venture to say that these are most extraordinary proposals. I doubt if any Bill has ever contained such suggestions before. They certainly throw a very great burden upon two Ministers of State, the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Trade; and I would remind the House, in that connection, that, of course, this is proposed as a permanent Measure, always to remain on the Statute Book, and the particular personal views of the holders of those two offices are not particularly material, because, of course, if the Bill be passed, it will be administered by successive Ministers of State.
  What does this Bill really suggest? It suggests, in the first place, that the Minister of Health should apply his mind to the question of prices, and, if they appear to him to be excessive, if he is satisfied that they are unreasonable, he is to report the matter to the President of the Board of Trade. I cannot conceive of anything more difficult, and I would invite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston to apply his mind to this matter, and to consider how he can expect any Minister of State without any guidance whatever in the without even a suggestion that he should have, say, a Committee to advise him, to come to the conclusion that certain prices are excessive or otherwise. Then, when that has been done, the President of the Board of Trade is to step in, and. if he comes to the conclusion, after some inquiry on his part, that prices are unreasonably high—again a very vague phrase indeed—he is to take certain very drastic steps in connection with building materials in this country. What is he to do? He has himself to fix the prices, and to prohibit or restrict the imposition of conditions of supply or charging or seeking to charge prices in excess of the maximum prices fixed by the order.
  I want to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I do not think that they themselves have realised it, that there is not a single provision in this Bill by which of necessity the parties have a right to be heard. Orders can be made without any reference or any hearing whatever, and, apparently, if one looks

  821
  at the further Clauses of the Bill, these two respective Ministers of State could not only fix these prices, but, in certain circumstances, they could take possession of the stocks and the business of the particular manufacturer concerned. What this Bill really means is very well summed up—though I think, myself, it goes a little too far—in an explanation given by the late Attorney-General. He said:
  "He and Mr. Wheatley had drafted in a night a Bill under which the Minister took power to fix a fair price for material and labour, and any person who charged toe much would be tried, and, if convicted, sent to prison. Furthermore, if a manufacturer was displeased with the price, and closed his yard, the Minister took power to step in and work the yard, without a penny of compensation being paid to the manufacturer."
  That certainly goes very much too far, I think, even as a description of the Bill itself, because what apparently the Attorney-General was referring to was Clause 4, which certainly does not permit a manufacturer whose stocks have been taken to receive anything in relation to loss of profits, benefits or advantages which might have accrued, and no compensation shall be paid in respect of stocks and matters of that kind. Appareatly under this Bill it is expected that the Minister is to run this particular business. I must say I have seldom read such impracticable proposals, and I think the Bill excels itself—what you may call a super Clause—if you look at Clause 1, Sub-section (4),because it actually says:
  "Wherever it appears to the Board that an Order so made"—
  that is an order to fix prices—
  "is ineffective to prevent the excessive charges which have been the subject of the representation, the Board may make an Order extending the first-mentioned Order to all or any persons whose business is carried on in any specified area, or so as to apply universally."
  That is a very large order even from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. How he proposes to universally apply these orders to every person who may be affected in connection with excessive prices I do not know. I am surprised at these proposals coming from him because he told the manufacturers of building materials, when he had a series of negotiations with them, that he would avoid as far as possible bureaucratic control and that he wanted
  822
  to put the control as far as possible in the industry itself. I am afraid he has not got very far so far as these proposals arc concerned.
  Then I must point out that there is a very serious omission in the Bill. The late Minister of Health made an agreement with the trade. He said he would take the prices ruling in January, 1924, and he laid it down that these should be regarded as reasonable prices. The manufacturers agreed with him that they would not alter prices except in so far as they might be necessitated by increased or decreased costs over which they had no control, and the right hon. Gentleman undertook—I have seen the shorthand transcript of the interview—to insert that in any investigation as to what prices were reasonable or unreasonable, prices ruling in January, 1924, would not be considered unreasonable.
  3.0 P.M.
  That is a very complete answer to the hon. Member who has been questioning the prices in January, 1924. The right hon. Gentleman certainly thought he made a very good bargain indeed because he told the House of Commons that when he received this offer from the manufacturers of materials and accepted it, he did not think the nation could get a more generous offer from any section of people. So I do not think anyone to-day can complain when we compare prices to-day with what they were in January, 1924, because at any rate, according to the late Minister of Health, they made a most generous offer in agreeing that these prices should be accepted as reasonable, and he accepted it and therefore everything was right. It is a very material omission from the Bill because I see the right hon. Gentleman is one of the principle backers, and there is not a word in it that carries out the agreement the right hon. Gentleman himself made with the manufacturers of material.
  It is right also to ask in commenting on these proposals why it is that the Bill deals with materials only. How is it that the right hon. Gentleman has singled out as the subject of restrictive and punitive legislation the people who have made a most generous offer to him? The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-

  823
  worthy), I believe, advocated that you ought to make the whole thing open—not only questions of material, but wages and all the other matters that go to make up the price of a house.
  Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that wages in the production of building material are regulated by the Joint Industrial Council between employers and employed?
  Sir K. WOOD: That may be so, but I do not think it is a very material interruption. I can appreciate the point that has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is a case for dealing with the situation as a whole because by far the greatest amount that goes to the making up the price of a house is wages. It is calculated that the wages paid to artisans and labourers actually engaged upon the building of an ordinary house, and to those engaged in the manufacture and transport of the necessary materials, amount to no less than 72 per cent. of the total cost.
  Mr. JONES: On a point of Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: These are not points of Order; they are arguments.
  Sir K. WOOD: Which leaves only 28 per cent. for plant, machinery, warehouse charges and profit. During the last two years wages have risen—I am making no comment about it—by a penny or two pence an hour, which represents an increase in the cost per house of anything from £10 to £20. Therefore it is a material matter to put to the right hon. Gentleman, who is really the author of these proposals, and must have credit for them, how it is that he is only dealing with this one particular section of a very difficult and big problem. We have heard a great deal during the course of the Debate, quite properly, from the Mover and Seconder of the Bill about rings and combines, and the general behaviour of manufacturers of material. That is not the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think I am putting it too high if I say he has a certain regard, not only for the rings and combines, nut for the manufacturers themselves, because in June, 1924, in dealing with this matter, he not only acknowledged that he had been met in a very generous spirit by the manufacturers of material, but said he
  824
  had been driven to the conclusion during the past few weeks that it would be much easier to deal with a ring than with unfettered private enterprise.
  He goes on to say later in his remarks that he would sooner see people in the ring than out of it, because he could deal with them so much more easily. As far as the manufacturers of materials are concerned, he was very pleased with them. He said that they had made this bargain with him and that it was a very generous bargain. He went further and said that they had kept their word, not only in the letter, but in the spirit as to the prices they fixed in January, 1924. Why, therefore, should he come to the House this afternoon fathering a Bill which, I suppose, is the most drastic Bill that has been brought forward in relation to a matter of this kind, affecting the very people of whom he said that they were very generous and that they had kept their word faithfully? That requires a little explanation.
  I am the more emboldened to say that, because of the surprising admission made by the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, that there had been no rise in prices—I think he went too far—during the last 12 months. Therefore, there is something to be said in support of the complaint which has been communicated to hon. Members of this House, that these people think they have been rather badly treated in a. proposal of this kind being made, when they have, on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, kept their word in the letter and in the spirit. The reward they get is a Bill of this kind, which provides that, without trial, without being heard, if a, Minister thinks that prices are unreasonable he will be able to fix a price and if they do not observe that price they are to lose their stock and business and the Ministry is to run their business for them.
  If, apart from the opinion of the right hon. Member the late Minister of Health (Mr. Wheatley) the manufacturers of building materials have kept the bargain which they made with him with regard to prices in January, 1924, and I think hen. Members will agree with me that, generally speaking, they have kept the bargain which they made with the right hon. Gentleman, good or ill as we may regard

  825
  it—then there is certainly no reason to come to the House of Commons and ask for this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who occupies the important position of Chairman of the Building Materials Committee who, with his colleagues, has done such excellent work and such difficult work, will agree with me when I say that the reports of the Budding Materials Committee show that since January, 1924, materials have not generally advanced in price—the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill confirmed that—except in the ease of certain classes of bricks, light castings and lead. As far as my information goes, I can say on the authority of my Department that the price of lead is governed by the world shortage and is not controlled by the home industry. Therefore, there can be no case against the manufacturers, in this connection in this Bill.
  The hon. Member has referred to the case of the National Light Castings Association. It is true that they announced an increase of varying amounts, ranging from 10 per cent, to 2½ per cent. The matter is now under investigation. If you go into the merits of the matter and see how far that is going to help you in a matter of this kind the total increase in connection with light castings amounts only to 28s. per house. There is no serious risk to the community in that.
  Then there is the question of bricks. It is true that in the spring and summer of 1924 there was a general advance in price by amounts ranging from 5s. to 20s. per thousand, but prices have since remained at about the same level. No general change has occurred, and the increase—not a big one—is due to the increase of wages conceded to the clay workers. The seven companies who have by far the biggest output have not increased their prices at all. That does not show any case for bringing forward the proposals now before the House. After careful examination by the Department, apart from the three things I have mentioned, there has been no appreciable advance in the price of building materials. In fact, in all fairness to the manufacturers, it should be stated that there has been a fall in some commodities. Timber has fallen in some districts by £5 a standard. Bricks in 1924, when the right hon. Gentleman
  826
  opposite made his bargain, were 53s. 3d. per 1,000. In 1926, they are 53s. 3d.—no change; Portland cement was 58s. per ton in 1924; to-day it is 58s. per ton; timber was 25s. per standard in 1924; to-day it is 20s. per standard; a decrease of 5s. Lead I have already dealt with. Linseed oil in 1924 was 4s. 1d. per gallon; in 1926 it is 3s. 4d.; a decrease of 9d. per gallon. There is no change in the price of slates at all.
  I want to be fair, and I think these facts should be stated. I hope the House will consider that certainly no case has been made out for these proposals as far as our information is concerned, and I suppose the Ministry of Health ought to have the best information on the matter. I have heard no statement in the House to-day of any real grounds for bringing forward drastic proposals like this. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading said the proposals might he badly drafted—he was rather apologetic—and that he did not attach much importance to the exact proposals. He said, in effect, "Show us the way." That was his expression, I think. It was rather Biblical. Having regard to all the facts of the case, hon. Members should be well content with the present position. What is the policy of the Government? We have got the Building Materials' Prices Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. and gallant Friend.
  As the late Solicitor-General expressed his satisfaction with it, I will not say any more about him. This Committee has been sitting and doing its work regularly for some time, and it gives what I think is one of the best checks on profiteering, and that is publicity. Every time its reports are issued, they are closely scrutinised and are subject to public opinion. The Committee has done its work well, and, as I have demonstrated, it has done it very effectively indeed so far as prices are concerned. But I would add that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will not hesitate to ask for powers from Parliament—not such proposals as have been somewhat apologetically put before the House this afternoon—if they were demonstrated to be necessary, and were so represented to him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Committee mentioned.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Considering what the action of the Government has been in dealing with prices of other commodities, what reason have we to suppose that their action would be different in this connection?
  Sir K. WOOD: No one, has more interest in keeping down prices than the Minister of Health. The whole of our housing programme depends upon reasonable prices. If we had a repetition of the undoubted ramp that occurred in connection with the Addison scheme, in which everybody apparently shared, when prices went sky-high in London from £250 before the War to something like £1,300 or £1,400, of course we should intervene, and we should come to the House, if necessary, to deal with the situation. As the House knows, in connection with every contract which is entered into by local authorities, the approval of the Minister of Health has to be received, and in sanctioning such proposals we do have regard to the supply of skilled labour available, and that certainly has an effect in keeping prices within reasonable limits. It was only a few weeks ago that two hon. Members, representing very important constituencies, came with a -deputation, which I received, and complained that the Minister would not sanction certain contracts. When we looked into the question, we found that the tenders which had been accepted by that particular local authority were far in excess of what they ought to be, and far in excess of the prices for building in a neighbouring town. In the circumstances we said to the two Members particularly concerned—they agreed with us—that it would be very wrong indeed to sanction proposals of that character. We declined to do so. In many eases we have been able to effect a very necessary limitation in that particular connection.
  I believe a Bill of this kind introduced at this time, when we are building at a rate higher than ever was known in the history of the country and when these people on the whole have kept the spirit and the letter of the bargain which they made with the right hon. Gentleman would shake the confidence of the building industry and discourage the investment of further capital in the business which the Minister of Health in the last
  828
  Government admitted to be necessary. The building industry is very sensitive. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull will recollect that we lost in this country 200,000 houses which are very badly needed at the present time, owing to what some people call the "People's Budget" and its proposals in relation to the land. Perhaps that fear was unfounded; perhaps there was undue apprehension but we cannot afford to risk a repetition of that kind of thing. The policy of the Government in this matter has been fully justified. The best safeguard against exploitation is publicity but, otherwise, the Government take the view that it is the business of a Government to interfere as little as possible in trade and industry while doing all they can to promote stability and confidence.
  The results of the Government policy at this time are plain for everyone to see. The building materials position, instead of showing a continuous state of shortage, as it did under the Addison scheme, has enormously improved. The manufacturers of the country have begun to develop and extend their resources, with the result that supplies are greatly increased, and there is no hampering of building construction by reason of the non-availability of material. The supply of material has kept pace with the largest production of houses which the country has ever known in one year, and the prospects for the future in this connection are very good indeed. At the same time the price, even in the face of a greatly increased demand, has changed very little. We have turned the corner so far as the housing shortage is concerned. We are now beginning to eat into the shortage itself, and we owe that position very largely to private enterprise. Out of 576,000 new houses which have been built since the War, no fewer than 360,000 have been built by private enterprise.
  Mr. BECKETT: Were they built with a public subsidy or not?
  Sir K. WOOD: Some were built with a subsidy, and a considerable number without one. It would be a thousand pities if we did anything to interfere with the present position, and this Bill, so far from doing good, would seriously prejudice the present state of things. Without giving any sort of advantage, it would undermine confidence, it would tend to restrict and not to improve supplies, and, in the

  829
  long run, would be most likely not to lower but to increase prices. For all those reasons, so far as any advice of mine is useful to the House, I advise the rejection of the Bill.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, in opening his criticism of the Bill, referred to the extra burden that it would place on the Ministry of Health, and he seemed to regard that as a powerful reason for its rejection. I have no doubt at all that had the Government of which I was a member had an opportunity of placing this Bill on the Statute Book, and had it been the lot of the hon. Member to administer it to-day, then, with that admirable adaptability with which we are familiar, he might have been expected to be found administering it more- successfully than he has criticised it this afternoon. The Bill, like other measures that are brought before this House or passed by this House aims not at the general public, but at the evil-doer, but the hon. Member talks as if this were a Bill which aimed at penalising people who were rendering useful, honest service to the community, and he says that the evildoer has no opportunity of exploiting the public because of the policy that has already been adopted by the Government which he represents. He says that all you want is publicity. The Government have appointed a Committee, the Committee explores the field anti gives its views and opinions, which are published broadcast to the community, and in that way the evil-doer is kept in subjection. That is not the policy that you adopt when you are dealing with communists. You do not say then that publicity is sufficient and that Communism will disappear when you expose it in the Press. You say: "No, we want powers, and if we have riot got them we will take the powers," if I might quote the words of the Attorney-General:
  "to suppress this which we believe to be an evil and injurious element in the community."
  Bat when you come to deal with profiteering, the Government, through its spokesman, says: "You do not require to take power to deal with these people, but all that you want is to give publicity to their misdeeds, and in this wonderful
  830
  atmosphere in which we live in this England of ours this profiteering will disappear with the appearance of the statement in the columns of the Press." I submit that that is not an argument of very much substance against- the Bill that we are now discussing.
  I do not want to follow the hon. Member into the details that he introduced into his speech. We are dealing here with the Second Reading of a Bill, and on the Second Reading of a Bill we ought to deal with general policy rather than with the details of the Measure or of the alternative policy that is being pursued by the Government, but may I answer one question of his before I proceed to analyse the other parts of his speech? He said: "Why single out materials only for control? Why leave out of account the building contractor, the operator who draws wages?" I would have thought that the hon. Member would be quite familiar with the reason. If a building contractor is charging you an unreasonable price, you have a method of escape through the adoption of direct labour in the building of your house. I would have thought that the recent paragraph in the Press which stated that in nine and a-half working days the Corporation of Middlesbrough, by the employment of direct labour, had erected 200 houses, would have so impressed itself en the mind of the hon. Member that he would have known that there is no need of statutory powers to deal with exploitation by building contractors.
  I have repeatedly stated to the House that I regard it as unfortunate that local authorities do not make more use of direct labour than they do. Certainly, if they are being exploited, they have only themselves to blame, or, perhaps, I would put it more properly if I said the electors are themselves to blame in electing to those local authorities men of the political views of the hon. Member who see that the local authority is not used to prevent profit-making by the private enterprisers. I think I might put this to the House: that if on a question of general policy it can be shown that the exercise of their powers by those who control building materials has been injurious to the people of this country, there is, at any rate, a primâ facie case for the Measure that is now before us.

  831
  I want the House to remember—and I can only refer to it briefly—the history of our housing difficulties in this country. I stand here to charge the people who control the supply of building materials with direct responsibility for the housing shortage, for the human misery that accrue from it, and for the national expenditure which it has necessitated.
  The hon. Member said that the shortage of houses was due to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1909. I have heard that statement frequently, but made always by people who have never analysed the housing situation of this country. Reference has been made frequently in the course of the Debate to the light castings and other building materials combine. The Light Castings Association, in its earliest form, came into existence about the years 1909 or 1910. Between 1909 and 1913 there had been such an increase in the price of building materials, that the cost of building a working-class house in the city of Glasgow, with which I am most familiar, had gone up by no less than 30 per cent., and what applied to the city of Glasgow applied to the country in general. I put this, then, to business people on the other side. Have they considered housing from this point of view: that you always require a surplus, however small, of unoccupied houses, if for no other reason than the ordinary necessities of removal You do require a certain surplus of unoccupied houses.
  In 1909 and 1910 we had in this country more empty houses than were required for national and economic purposes When builders were asked to erect new houses which were going to cost them 30 per cent. more than the existing empty houses, it will be seen at once they recognised that it was economically unwise to erect houses, because they could not get rents for them that would give them a return on the new capital while the houses that had been erected with cheaper materials were still available in the market. And so building stopped, or almost stopped, and remained in that position, awaiting the day when the cheaper houses would be occupied, and rents had been raised to a standard that would enable new houses at the higher cost to be erected and let at an economic rent. We had just reached that stage at
  832
  the outbreak of the War, and rents would have gone up but for the Rent Restriction Acts. My charge against those who form these combines, and who, put up prices for light castings 60 per cent. within a few months, the people who made it economically unprofitable to erect new houses for the people of this country are the people who are directly responsible for the housing shortage and all that that shortage has meant to the country.
  Follow up the history of this matter. When Dr. Addison and the Coalition Government set about to solve the housing problem, what did we find? We found again that immediately the Government proceeded to satisfy one of the greatest of public needs that these people got into their stride and boosted the cost of housing until the Government were compelled to drop the whole of their policy, even in this great national need and emergency. Houses that had been costing £220 or £250 to put up in 1913 went up to four figures, to £1,000, £1,100 and up to £1,500, and, again, when the public, through their representatives in the Government, endeavoured to put up houses at rents which people could pay, we were defeated by the groups of people who controlled the materials with which these houses were built. The hon. Gentleman opposite proceeded to elaborate the agreement that I made with the building materials people in 1924. I wish he had kept to the point of how much credit is due to the Labour Government for having succeeded in putting a stop to the policy of the people in all these increases of prices immediately we proceeded to the erection of houses.
  May I remind the hon. Gentleman why I was able to make that agreement? Why did not Dr. Addison make it? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health make that agreement in 1923 Why was not that agreement made by any former Minister? Why did not the manufacturers of bricks, of light castings, and other materials come to the Minister of Health, or other right hon. Gentleman in control, and say to him "No matter how progressive you are in the housing problem, no matter how much you increase the demand for building materials, we will undertake that no increase will take place in the price of those building materials"? They considered or found it unnecessary ! They came to

  833
  me because I had a Bill in my hands. They came to me for the first time as the spokesman of the nation, and because I sail this thing had to stop! "We require houses," I said, "and we will have those houses, even though you go down in the process." I said we wanted to be reasonable, but unless you are reasonable we are going to take these powers to compel you to be honest in your treatment of the nation while we are in office."
  Then, as the hon. Gentleman says, I had that interview with them, and they offered to stereotype prices. I said it was a generous offer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I was speaking relatively. It was relatively a generous offer, because they were the only people of the various groups which came and said: "We will suspend the operation of the law of supply and demand in regard to our commodities. We shall not put up prices, no matter how the demand may grow." In that sense, they were better than the other people whom I do not wish to name. Hence I said they had made quite a generous offer. When I referred to the value of trusts, I was referring to the value of collective bargaining. In the same way as employers find it easier to negotiate with a trade union representing all their workmen rather than make agreements with workmen individually, so I found it easier to treat with a committee representing all the manufacturers than with each manufacturer. It was in that sense that I made the statement which has been quoted. I want to emphasise this point, which I have already made, that the Bill which has been so much criticised to-day has already done more to protect the people of this country than scores of Bills which have been placed on the Statute Book. But for the existence of that Bill, the prices of building materials would undoubtedly have followed the course they followed in every year previous to the introduction of that Bill. I am putting it to the hon. Member that the powers of the Ministry of Health would he vastly increased if he had in his hand a bargaining weapon of that kind. Even in the condition in which it is to-day, it is the weapon which is most feared by the people who control the materials that are required.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who is the Chairman of a
  834
  Committee which was set up by my predecessor in 1923, referred to the excellent work of the Committee over which he presides. The hon. and gallant Member been said, the policy of watching. The Committee was a watch dog, if I may say so, which had no teeth and no power to bite; the dog might bark in the hope that someone else, the Ministry of Health, would do the biting. At any rate that was the policy of the Committee over which the hon. Member now so creditably presides. The hon. and gallant Member said that if they felt those powers to be necessary he would advise the Government to take them, and the hon. Member who speaks for the Government said if they had had that advice they would have sought powers. It may be news to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon when I tell him that the Committee over which he presides told me in July, 1924, that they required these powers. I quote from a Report issued in July, 1924. I believe the hon. and gallant Member was not then a Member of the Committee.
  Major HILLS: No.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I suppose the majority of the people whose names are attached to this Report are amongst those people to whom he paid a generous tribute in the course of his speech, and I take it they are just as honest in 1926 as in 1924, no more and no less. Here is what they said in 1924:
  "Our function is at present limited to reporting on the basis of such information as may voluntarily be submitted to us, and as a result of our experience we feel bound to report that we find ourselves inadequately equipped to ascertain the facts in regard to the reasonableness of prices."
  Major HILLS: I am quite aware that that was the decision of the Committee, and the first step I took when I had the honour of being appointed chairman was to inform the Committee that if we were held up in any way whatever, and if it were found that we could not get information, I would make and would press an application for additional powers, but that until that time came I did not see that we needed them, and we have got along without them.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member would do that, but even then he would only be doing what his colleague did in 1924, because

  835
  they reported to me that they were inadequately equipped for their task, and appealed to me to see that they got the powers which they considered necessary. They did not get those powers because of political accidents, but I believe if the hon. Member opposite had been a member of that committee he would have signed that report because it was unanimous. I would like to say that if he presented such a request to the present Government I feel sure they would make no response to his appeal for further powers. A question has been raised as to the bargain of 1924 with the people who control materials. There was a provision in that agreement that if an increase in price was made necessary by an increase of wages, or in the cost of raw materials that that would not be taken into account, and it contemplated that there was no other way of meeting the increase of wages or the increase in the cost of raw materials except by putting it on to the price of the commodity. The price of coal fell during the interval and the manufacturers were getting their materials cheaper, and by the additional outlet for production which the State provided they were able to get a bigger production and consequently a reduction in overhead charges in which case they were not to be justified in any attempt to increase prices.
  We understood that they were limited to the rate of profit they were getting in 1924 and that was the kernel of the understanding arrived at. I do not want to go into the details in regard to prices, but I have here another Report signed by the hon. Member for Ripon in which it is pointed out that the price of bricks had gone up by l0s. per thousand over the price of 1924. I notice there is a tendency to make the comparison between to-day and August, 1924, but I want to recall what happened. We must remember that the prices were soaring in July, 1924, until I introduced my Bill and pushed them back to the January standard. Therefore it is that standard we should take for comparison and on the basis of the January prices the price of bricks has gone up by 10a per thousand, and the price of light castings has also gone up. Therefore it is no use the Parliamentary Secretary contending that these figures do net matter. When the
  836
  cost of materials is going up, the contractor estimates for a job which may take him two years to perform, and he makes his estimate allowing for the probability of any increase in the price of material that may take place during those two years.
  The object of the Labour policy was to assure the building contractor that he could give an estimate for the job on the basis of the prices of his materials being maintained as they were at the moment when he made his contract. When you put £10 or £20 on a house for extra cost of materials the increase does not stop there. We all know that the contractor puts something on for putting on this extra £10 or £20, and by the time it has run its course the increase in the cost of the house might he something in the neighbourhood of £100. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to bear me out in that statement. You have already stated, or your chief has stated, that the cost of one of these small subsidised houses has gone up within the past 12 or 18 months by £100. It begins with the cost of materials, and it is then added to by everyone through whose hands these materials pass, because 10 per cent, on a 30s. article is not the same as 10 per cent. on a 20s. article.
  Sir K. WOOD: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman there?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry, but my time is limited. I stand subject to correction if he states that the cost of house-building has not been going up more than £10 or £20 per house. He acquiesces in my statement, because the returns have been made public. I put it that you are not to estimate the effect on housing by the immediate increase that is put on by the people who control the building materials, and that the damage which the public suffer is the total additional cost of the house, which has increased step by step from the moment when these increases were put on. We have been told that control failed under the Addison scheme. Control failed under the Addison scheme because it was only materials for house building that were controlled, and, if people who were going to erect a cinema were prepared to pay 5s. a 1,000 more for bricks than the controlled price

  837
  for houses, then there was nothing to prevent the brick manufacturer from disposing of the whole of his output to the people Who were going to erect those unnecessary premises.
  A statement has been made, I think by the Parliamentary Secretary, about the wonderful increase in the output of build-nil; materials due to the stabilisation that was produced by the agreement to which I came in 1921 May I remind the hon. Member of the almost sensational increase which has taken place in the import of building materials in recent times. That does not bear out his statement about the superabundance of materials that we are getting in this country. As a matter of fact, I am going to put this down to the policy of the hon. Member. The Labour party rely on the policy that is outlined in this Bill to keep down the price of materials in this country. The present Government rely on the importation of foreign materials to keep down prices in this country. That is rather a strange policy for a Conservative Government that in its soul believes in protection. But one hon. Member after another on the other side has said that there can be no real effective combine of materials in this country as long as you keep the gates open as wide as they are to-day to the flow into our market of these foreign materials. Let us see what the gates have admitted, In 1923, £18,000 worth of bricks were imported into this country from abroad; in 1925, £40,000 worth of bricks were imported from abroad. In the same year, £93,000 worth of tiles were imported from abroad, while, in 1925, £430,000 worth were imported from abroad. In the whole of the year 1920, the value of the slates imported into this country was only £1,100. In the last quarter alone of 1925, that £1,000 for the whole of 1920 had become £85,000. An hon. Member opposite asks, "Why not?" Because you ought to buy British goods!
  As I have said, this is a question of general policy. May I submit, on the grounds of general policy, that it is not good, sound sense to be spending, say, £2,000,000 of national credit in developing a Kent coalfield which you do not require,
  838
  when you could spend the same national credit in the production of things which you do need, and which your own people could be engaged in producing. There is subject-matter for a whole debate on the theme of what could be done in our own country to produce the building materials that are described in the statistics I have submitted, but, where you have a Government which fails to take a comprehensive view of the housing problem, and, indeed, a comprehensive view of our national difficulties, and deals with them from day to day in a hand-to-mouth fashion, you will always get the anomalies that are outlined in the present situation.
  We, on the other hand, do not want to injure the manufacturers of building materials. I quite agree that I want to establish Socialism in this country, because I believe it is for the country's good. I made it quite clear, however, in connection with this policy, that I felt that. I could not introduce Socialism, and that we did not aim at penalising the manufacturers or merchants of this country. I was going to produce a state of affairs that would make their capital more secure than it had been at any former time in the history of the industry of this country. Instead of having the fluctuations that are taking place in the industry, I wanted to stabilise it; I wanted to say to these people, "We are going to keep you down to a reasonable standard, we are not going to allow you to take advantage of the increased public demand that our policy will provide, but we want you to put more and more capital into your industry because of the outlet for all your goods that will be needed under this Bill". When hon. Members opposite ask, "Why did you not take steps to prevent the import of these materials into this country?" I say that you cannot take that step until you have taken the essential preliminary step of ensuring to the people of this country that they will not be exploited by profiteers when the foreign materials are excluded.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 196.

  Division

  AYES

  [4 0 p.m.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayes, John Henry

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiltery)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Barnes, A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Barr, J.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Snell, Harry

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowa)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Broad, F. A.

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Bromley, J.

  Lee, F.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Thorne, G. R, (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Buchanan, G.

  Lowth, T.

  Thurtle, E.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Charleton, H. C.

  Mackinder, W.

  Trevelyan, t. Hon. C. P.

  Cluse, W. S.

  March, S.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Morris, R. H.

  Viant, S. P.

  Connolly, M.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Cove, W. G.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Oliver, George Harold

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Palin, John Henry

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Paling, W.

  Whiteley, W.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Dennison, R.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Duncan, C.

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Dunnico, H

  Purcell, A. A.

  Williams, T (York, Don Valley)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Riley, Ben

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Gillett, George M.

  Ritson, J.

  Windsor, Walter

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Wright, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Sexton, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Groves, T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Hardle, George D.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Charles Edwards.

  NOES.

  Albery, Irving James

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Apsley, Lord

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Balniel, Lord

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Bird, E R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Elveden, Viscount

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Blundell, F. N.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Lamb, J. O.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Finburgh, S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Forrest, W.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Maclntyre, Ian

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Gates, Percy

  McLean, Major A.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  MacMillan, Captain H.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D

  Goff, Sir Park

  McNeill Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Maitland Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Harland, A.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Charters, Brigadier-General J

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Meller, R. J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Cope, Major William

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Couper, J. B.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

  840

  841

  Nield, Ht. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Simms, Dr. John M, (Co. Down)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Oakley, T.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wells, S. R.

  Perring, Sir William George

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Philipson, Mabel

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Plicher, G.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  St orry-Deans, R.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Remnant, Sir James

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Withers, John James

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Mr. Ramsden and Mr. Herbert

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Williams.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

  INDIAN AFFAIRS.
  Ordered,
  "That the Lords Message [16th March] communicating the Resolution, 'That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider, with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon, any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India,' be now considered."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved:
  "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at Ten Minutes after Four o'Clock until Monday next (22nd March).

AFFORESTATION.
  CORSICAN PINE.
  CORSICAN PINE.
  ACREAGE PLANTED.
  ACREAGE PLANTED.
POST OFFICE.
  PART-TIME EMPLOYÉS.
  PART-TIME EMPLOYÉS.
  SUB-OFFICE ASSISTANTS.
  SUB-OFFICE ASSISTANTS.
  AUXILIARY SORTERS,
  AUXILIARY SORTERS,
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE (WRITING ASSISTANTS).
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE (WRITING ASSISTANTS).
  WIRELESS APPARATUS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  WIRELESS APPARATUS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (UNDERGROUND HANGARS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (UNDERGROUND HANGARS).
  SHEEP WORRYING (SCOTLAND).
  SHEEP WORRYING (SCOTLAND).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL CLASS, WOMEN).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL CLASS, WOMEN).