THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1929. HOUSING IN BRITAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20309, 17 July 1929, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1929. HOUSING IN BRITAIN.

As an indication, presumably, that the housing policy of the Labour Party will be pushed vigorously at the earliest possible moment, the new Minister of Health has had passed a resolution postponing any reduction in the housing subsidies until a comprehensive slum-clearing scheme has been evolved. The history of those subsidies means also the history of most that has been done since the war to stimulate house building in England, Scotland and Wales. To put it most briefly, Mr. Neville Chamberlain devised, in 10-23, a scheme of subsidies. It was pursued until 1021, when, under the Labour Government, the Wheatley plan, with higher subsidies and the co-operation of local authorities, extended its scope considerably. In 1927, the earliest date legally possible, Mr. Chamberlain reduced the rate of the 1024 subsidy, and proposed a subsequent reduction to become effective in October of this year. That is the action which has now been postponed by resolution of the House of Commons. The basis of the Labour policy is that under absolutely normal conditions Britain needs 100,000 new houses every year to make good losses and provide for a growing population. On the grounds that this rate was never achieved by unaided private enterprise, that the leeway in wartime, prolonged by high building costs immediately after the war, had left huge arrears to be overtaken, the 1921 policy aimed at the building of 2,500,000 houses in 15 years. Before the election the Labour Party claimed that if the Wheatley plan had been allowed to continue in operation this result would actually have been achieved by 1039. There was bitter complaint from the party when Mr. Neville Chamberlain began to reduce the subsidies, and now that a fresh opportunity offers a return to Labour's former scheme is practically certain. To recapitulate recent housing history, Labour was not alone in recognising a shortage after the war. In 1010, after an official inquiry, it. was reported that there was in Great Britain a deficiency of 900,000 houses for occupation by wage-workers. The first scheme to meet the position was sponsored by Dr. Addison as Minister of Health in the Coalition Government. It resulted in the provision of some 200,000 houses. They established a higher standard of accommodation than had existed previously, but proved for the most part too costly for those they were intended to benefit. The scheme, therefore, was dropped. Next came the Chamberlain policy of 1923. It provided a subsidy of £6 a year for 20 years on houses built in accordance with it. The Chamberlain scheme was intended, in the main, to stimulate building, by private enterprise, for sale to the ultimate occupier. It has worked mostly in that direction, though there has been some municipal building in accordance with its provisions. The Wheatley Act of 1924 did not eliminate this subsidy system, but extended it in a different form. It was framed to encourage local authorities to build houses to let at what were regarded as reasonable rentals. The State subsidy was increased to £9 a year for 40 years on each house, with an annual contribution of £4 10s a year from the local authority for the same period. The Act provided for a revision of the subsidy after each period of two years. Under this provision there was a review in 1927. The Chamberlain subsidy was reduced from £6 a year to £4. That on the Wheatley houses was reduced to £7 10s from the State and £3 15s from the local authority. Next came a decision to make the further reductions, to become effective in October, but now postponed. By this the Chamberlain subsidy was to be abolished altogether, the Wheatley subsidy reduced to £6 a year. The reason,given for these actions was that the subsidies had inflated building costs, and it has to be admitted that these rosts have fallen since the reductions were announced.

The Labour Party officially attacked the subsidy reduction policy pursued by Mr. Chamberlain, denying that the fall in building costs was caused by it. This, it claimed, was the result of better methods and economy in material and labour. It also urged that as the prices of materials had fallen and the wages of building trade workers had been reduced by a halfpenny an hour, the lower subsidy could riot be credited with the fall in building costs. In any event, it affirmed its intention of pursuing "at any cost" its policy of house-build-ing with assistance from public funds. It still adheres to its ideal of having 2,500,000 new houses built by 1030. If that pledge is to be carried out, it will certainly be at considerable cost to the public funds. No estimate of the actual outlay involved is given in an official account of Labour's housing policy. It is stated that the capital value of the. original Chamberlain subsidy, .EG a year for 20 years, was about ,£75. It follows, therefore, that to pay £9 on 2,500,000 houses for 10 years would run into many hundreds of millions, with half as much again contributed from lotjal body funda.. In the cable message

dealing with this subject, there is mention of a slum-clearing scheme. The Labour Party claims that the chief agency in abolishing slums will bo the provision of alternative accommodation by its house-building programme. It has in mind, howover, much more ambitious projects for town-planning and regional planning with the idea of preventing slums from creeping back again. It, will be seen, therefore, that behind this move to have existent subsidies maintained there is an elaborate policy, involving not only extensive planning, but very serious questions of ways and means.