The Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of his speech, said he felt that any savings made in the cost of house erection by local authorities by the adoption of the system advocated in the motion would not have any appreciable effect on rents. I have information—I am not quite sure whether it was used by Deputy Corish in his opening speech or not—that the use of grants for site development in the case of the John Street site in Wexford resulted in a saving estimated at about £4,080 or of £136 per house. Taking the cost of the average local authority house at about £1,500, I suggest that a saving of £136 is of considerable magnitude which would be reflected in the rent charged. Any use of public money or diversion of public money that would enable local authorities to carry out their commitments at reduced cost to tenants should be welcomed by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I accept and appreciate his remarks to the effect that he believes in the motive behind the motion. He stated publicly that he felt that it was intended as a constructive motion but regretted that it would not be practicable to put it into operation. I suggest to him that there are advantages which should outweigh the disadvantages he enumerated. I suggest that perhaps his Departments are conservative. Departments that have been acting in a certain way for a long time resent change. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to take the initiative in this case, even as an experiment in approved cases. It will not be necessary to make it compulsory on local authorities to use this money for sites development but it should be made permissive, if they so wish or, perhaps, if they can put up a case, the Parliamentary Secretary should seek authority to permit them to carry out site development out of special employment scheme grants.
I can see advantages that would accrue from the channelling of this money into site development for housing. First, there would be a reduction in cost, be it great or small. Then there would be continuity of employment on building work which would retain a unit of direct labour in existence in local authorities. That could be wedded to the idea of clearing derelict sites and at the same time, providing small sites for grouped house building, as is most desirable in the case of local authority housing. The system of large scheme development of outlying parts of corporation or urban areas, cities or large towns, tends to move the workingclass people away from their employment and to impose additional expense on them in bus fares or in providing their own transport to work. Difficulty is created for the tenants and their wives and families who are removed from shops, schools and churches in very many cases.
I suggest that the proposal would have the effect of improving the type of building provided, in so far as it would encourage small sited development. It would also have the desirable effect of improving the position in relation to derelict sites in local authority areas. When a local authority secured permission from the Department of Local Government for a scheme, it would mean speedier erection of the houses because the contractor would enter a prepared site. A good deal of delay in house building is due to the preparation of certain types of sites in many cases. In some cases, of course, sites are ideally situated from the point of view of sewerage and water services and roads. It would be an excellent thing if contractors could enter on sites where these services were already laid on and could start immediately to erect the houses.
I do not think I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary on the question of loss of employment. Site development by direct labour by a local authority would have a much larger employment content than site development by the contractor as part of a housing scheme. The local authority, very likely, would employ manual labour as against machinery. The local authority would not have, and very probably would not trouble to hire, bulldozers or exceptionally heavy machinery to carry out site development, which can be done quite as effectively with a shovel or pickaxe. I instance the excellent work that was done in that way as far back as 40 years ago.
We have gone just a little step too far in the encouragement of mechanisation because of the supposed saving in cost. I wonder if that saving is as real as we think it is, in view of the fact that there is such a vast number of unemployed seeking employment? It is much more important to take men off the dole and to put them to work, even though the time taken may be a little longer. Even if the work is only 95 per cent, as good, the important feature is that men are employed rather than imported machinery. That argument should appeal to the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department.
I suggest that the development of small sites or small groups of sites could be offered to people to encourage them to build under the Small Dwellings Acts and that the preparation of the site and the laying on of sewerage and other services for housing could be regarded as the supplementary grant which local authorities are being encouraged by the Minister for Local Government to give for the purpose of Small Dwellings Act building. In this way, there would be continuity of employment in the building trade, mainly in the labouring class.
We have no intention of making an issue of this motion by demanding a vote. We brought it forward believing it was something which should be discussed. We would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to examine the facets of the question in as favourable a lights as possible and to do the best he can to turn this very desirable employment which has come by his Department into productive employment, in the interests both of his Department and of the local authorities themselves.
