RATIO INCREASED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27384, 9 May 1950, Page 7

RATIO INCREASED

Private House-building In Britain LITTLE ENTHUSIASM NZPA—Copyright Rec. 8 p.m. LONDON, May 8. More people will be able to buy their own homes in Britain as a result of a decision by the Minister of Health, Mr Aneurin Bevan. At present only one house in ten may bd built privately for sale, the other nine being built to rent by local authorities with the help of Government subsidies. Mr Bevan has now doubled tlie number that may be privately built, making the ratio one in five. Mr Bevan fixed the number of homes to be built in the next three years at 200.000 a year. Private builders did not receive the news with any great enthusiasm. The general view seemed to be that the ratio system was quite unecessary and should be completely abolished. An official of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers said: “There is not the slightest justification for forcing those who prefer to have houses built for them at no cost to public funds to become tenants of heavily-subsidised municipal houses.” Sir Charles Davies, chairman of the Building Societies’ Association, said: “ It is simply playing with the situation. It is not a realistic attack upon the problem.” Theoretically the change means that, instead of only 20,000 privately-built houses being licensed this year, double that number will be permitted. The total number of houses which will be built during that period will be 200,000. Conditions in the building trade are such, however, that there is no guarantee that the permitted maximum will be reached. Labour is short . and builders contend that restrictions are’ so hampering that they can give no guarantees about output. Conditions in America

Simultaneously with the official announcement that the ratio of private to municipal house-building would be increased, the British building trades productivity team which recently visited the United States issued its report. In this it is stated that American output per man hour is at least 50 per cent, higher than that in Britain. This is due primarily to the greater speed at which American operatives work and to the fact that materials are more readily available. The report states that the American craftsman has some advantages over his British counterpart but that the large part of the difference in productivity is due to the ’fact that the American workman has never acquired the habit of doing less than he is capable of doing. “The whole American way of life is a challenge to the individual to give of his best,” says the report. “ Having secured employment in a highly-competitive industry that offers a high standard of living, the worker is prepared to make a real effort to retain it.” The report also emphasises that in the United States there is a reserve pool of unskilled labour, and it expresses the opinion that if full employment continues to be the accepted policy in Britain, some new incentives will have to be found, possibly in the shape of a system of payment by results.

The report agrees that the present building costs in America are roughly 50 to 80 per cent, more than they are in Britain, and that the average hourly rate of wages paid to building workers Is four times greater in the United States than in this country.