§ 35. Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Works if men engaged on bomb repair work are paid for travelling time to and from their job.
§ Mr. SandysMen employed on bomb repair work are paid for travelling time in accordance with the conditions laid down in the National Joint Agreement for the Building Industry.
§ Mr. GallacherIs it not the case that there are others who are not paid travelling time; and is he aware that there is very strong feeling among them since the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the workmen doing repairs in his room were paid travelling time?
§ Mr. SandysI do not know of cases where the official rates are not being paid. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know of any case I will look into it. So far as I know, workmen engaged on bomb repairs are being paid in accordance with the national agreement.
§ 36. Sir William Davisonasked the Minister of Works whether any steps have been taken to appoint inspectors who are empowered to visit the various premises where bomb damage repair work is in progress and will report to him as to any dilatoriness or unnecessary delays by the contractor or his employees in carrying out the work.
§ 41. Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Works what action he proposes to take to stop waste of the taxpayers' money, as evidenced by two typical cases of bomb damage repairs, at Ashford, in Kent and Ilford, in Essex, particulars of which have been sent to him.
§ Mr. SandysInspections of the work of contractors and their men are being continually made by building inspectors of the Ministry of Labour as well as by officers of the local authorities and the Ministry of Works. We are all the time taking new steps to tighten up the organisation. Nevertheless, having regard both to the pressing nature of the work and the shortage of experienced supervisory staff, there will, I am afraid, always be 786 individual cases of waste or inefficiency. I have reason to believe that these cases are becoming progressively fewer. I should, however, be misleading the House it I were to hold out the slightest hope that in so vast an enterprise they can be eliminated altogether.
§ Sir W. DavisonIs my right hon. Friend aware that these cases of dilatoriness, about which Members get many letters from observers, are greatly resented by the great majority of the men, who are doing splendid work? Could he not strengthen up his inspectorate to enable him to get to know of things which ordinary members of the public see when they pass the houses?
§ Mr. SandysWe do what we can in the way of inspection, but this bomb damage repair work is an enormous undertaking. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that in any one week there is liable to be work going on in as many as 100,000 houses. We can only carry out "spot checks" and sample inspections.
§ Sir W. SmithersArising out of Question 41, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these cases are only typical and that there are many others? Would it not be better to give the money to the householder who has been bombed out, and let him make his own arrangements for the repair of his house?
§ Mr. SandysI dealt with the second point, which is quite a different question, in an answer last week. In regard to the first point the hon. Member sent me these "two typical cases" as he calls them. One was an anonymous letter to a newspaper. The other I only received yesterday and have not yet had time to investigate.
§ Lieut.-Colonel DowerIs this cause of complaint not due to the removal of personal responsibility and direct initiative from the thousands of builders who have previously supervised this work, and would it not be wise, when possible, to employ small builders in London who are now idle in many cases?
§ Mr. SandysAs I explained in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend last week, thousands of these small builders are, in fact, being employed on this very job.