The Press WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1975. State house policy

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33778, 26 February 1975, Page 16

The Press WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1975. State house policy

When the State began building rental houses in the 19305, its main purpose was to ensure that families on low incomes were not denied living quarters decently suited to raising a family. Forty years later good grounds can still be found for the State’s continuing to have a stock of houses to let, if necessary for rents below those of private landlords, to families which are unable to buy their own houses. In spite of the few people who take unjustifiable advantage of the State rental system, many are being assisted to maintain a sound family life.

In the last five years, applications to rent State houses rose from just over 6500 to just over 15,000. Rents for privately-owned houses have increased greatly in that time; but the main reason for the dramatic increase in the number of applications is probably that the Government removed the income limit on qualification for a State tenancy. The Government has wisely decided to prune the list of applicants. This “ purge ” will almost certainly not eliminate anyone who is in great need of assistance. The pruning of the list will relieve the Housing Corporation, and the committees which allocate State rental houses, of a considerable administrative burden and it will enable the Government to make a more accurate estimate of the number of houses it should aim to offer for rent. Even those who are struck from the list may not regret the purge, for it will enable them to plan more realistically. The Government has also decided to eliminate almost completely the practice, introduced in 1950, of allowing State tenants to purchase the houses they occupy. Since 1950 some 24,000 State tenants have taken this step — more than 3000 in the last four years. About one-third of all the State houses that have been built have been bought by tenants. State tenants never possessed an automatic right to buy their dwellings, but the terms and conditions were not onerous. This decision will probably not be greeted as warmly as the decision to prune the roll of applicants. Giving tenants an opportunity to buy helped to ensure that good care was taken of the properties and that funds flowed back into the Government’s hands to build more houses. Some may also argue that not allowing State tenants to purchase their houses is a serious breach of the policy of making home ownership as easy as possible. The State should aim to own only sufficient houses to meet special needs. But as long as the State does not own enough houses to meet these needs, a measure to maintain its stock of houses makes some sense. But it makes good sense only if all the houses have tenants whose needs are those that the Government wants to meet.