HC Deb 14 February 1945 vol 408 cc217-9
56. Sir Richard Acland

asked the Minister of Works what offer has been made by the Swedish Government to this country in relation to prefabricated houses; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Sandys

I am exploring the possibility of obtaining permanent, prefabricated timber houses from Sweden. Certain discussions on this subject have taken place with Swedish representatives. Meanwhile, I should prefer not to make any detailed statement on the subject.

Miss Rathbone

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered getting from Sweden prefabricated open air shelters in order to extend accommodation in existing houses in London?

Mr. Sandys

Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me have particulars of what she has in mind.

Mr. Loftus

Has my right hon. Friend sent a mission to Sweden to investigate the question and publish a report on their return and, if not, will he consider doing so?

Mr. Sandys

While the discussions are going on I should prefer not to be pressed further on this point.

57. Mr. Evelyn Walkden

asked the Minister of Works how many man-power hours were expended in laying the 9½-inch brick foundations for the prefabricated houses at the L.C.C. estate at Matting-ham, Kent, built by or for his Ministry; why it is considered necessary to put in 14 courses of 9½-inch brickwork with similar foundations to carry a prefabricated coal shed; and if this type of substantial foundation is to be the standard for all similar structures.

Mr. Sandys

The site in question comprises 11 temporary bungalows. The man-hours expended on laying the brick-work for the foundations were 683, an average of 62 for each house. In the case of two houses where the ground falls away below road level, a more than normal amount of brick-work has had to be undertaken.

Mr. Walkden

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the actual foundations in this case, measured in terms of bricks and man-power, are equal to one-fifth of an ordinary permanent brick-built house? Is not that appalling waste?

Mr. Sandys

I cannot on the spur of the moment comment on the hon. Member's mathematical calculations. We are obliged, particularly in London, to accept from local authorities sites which we should reject in other parts of the country. The available space is so limited that we have to put down small numbers of temporary bungalows on blitzed sites, often very uneven. In other parts of the country we should insist on a flatter site capable of accommodating not less than about 50 houses. In the case in question we had to take a site for only 11 houses. I see no way out of this difficulty in London.