LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our " News of the Week " paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.]

THE HOUSING ACT, 1930

[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]

Sia,—This Act, which came into force on August 1st, 193o, and has since been colloquially known as " The Slum-Clearance Act," was " An Act to make further and better provision with respect to the clearance or improvement of unhealthy areas, the repair or demolition of insanitary houses and the housing of persons, of the working classes."

Brought in by a Socialist Government, with the avowed object to " down " the bad, grasping, property owners, it obtained the hearty support of most social reformers. Who could but see how desirable it was to abolish slums ? These social reformers, or many of them, did not appreciate the consequences of applying the Act and it is our object to show the other side of the medal, a thankless but necessary task.

First we will give an actual instance of hardship, typical of innumerable similar cases known to Solicitors all over the country, one of whom, referring to the following case, said of the man concerned that as he had no money and could not fight he was not a person to be taken seriously by any Public Body. The Solicitor's sarcastic jibe at Local Authorities was well justified.

A poor old labouring man of 75, who with his wife each had the Old Age Pension of tos. a week, had long enjoyed a legacy of a lease of ground, with 9 years still to run, on which were houses from which he received 12s. 6d. net per week in rents, after paying rates and taxes. This was a " fortune " "for such people.

His houses were included in a Clearance Order and he visited the spot with the Ministry of Health Inspector. Quite unable to negotiate, not acquainted with business, still less with the Law, and unable to afford a solicitor, he tried to tell the Inspector that during the previous five years he had spent some £40 on the property, not including his own labour, and had always carried out all requests made by the Local Authority as to improvements, &c. All with no effect. It seemed such a hardship that we took the question up direct with the Minister of Health, under Section 42 of the Housing Act, 1936, which authorises compensation in respect of well kept houses. He would not go shack on the Report of his Inspector. -

Thus the poor old man's £40 had gone west, plus his 12S. 6d. per week, not to mention arrears of rent. There remained his 9 years' lease, with an annual payment of La Sm. (say Is. a week) to the Local Authority. He could not afford to do anything with the land, even if the Authority had approved, and the £2 tos. was a further prospective trial. Finally, the Anilicifity (the same one which had turned him out) from which he had his lease, considered determining the lease, and that is all that the man will get.

The Authority was told that under Section 16o of the Housing Act, 1936, dealing with leases, a County Court Judge could make an Order, on the application either of the Lessor or the Lessee, giving compensation for the loss of benefit from a lease. The Authority's reply was pleasing, to the effect that if would not apply to the County Court (we had suggested this, as an aid to a poor ratepayer), and that if the man so applied the Authority would fight him !

This "case is typiCal of thousands of others which do not come to the notice of enthusiastic politicians and social reformers.. The Act has been a " Godsend " to the politicians. " Look what we have done for the people," and so on. Let us look into this. We take an actual case and have no reason to doubt that similar facts are almost universal.

Five hundred and fifty-eight persons had to be removed from certain cleared areas, and houses were built for them. Only 386 went into the new houses. That is, no less than 3r per cent. crowded in elsewhere, creating new slums, rather than be moved from the neighbourhood of their present or prospective work and from their friends.

As soon as it becomes known that an,area is to be the subject of a Clearance Order, two things happen. First, those who

do not wish to be sent perhaps to the outskirts of the place. leave and crowd in elsewhere. Secondly, their places arc sometimes taken, until clearance comes, by people willing to endure a slum for a time, in order to get one of the very low rented housei to be built.

In the case quoted, only 37o of the 386 provided with new houses stayed in them, 18 leaving. Why ? The reason is not far to seek. Whether you like it or not, there are poor people able and willing to live decently and cleanly in a single room. What are they faced with when cleared ? A " Palace " of 3 or 4 rooms, with a garden, and no money to buy furniture or garden tools. A rent which, though low, is more than they have been paying, or can afford. An imposition, which may be as much as 3s. a week, for transport costs to and from their work. And, worst of all, the prospect of half-starving themselves and their children in order to meet the increased rent and other outgoings. No doubt many more than the 18 left the new houses, after we got our facts. Which raises a burning question. Who, not being slum-cleared people, get these extraordinarily cheap vacated houses ? This abuse calls for remedy.

And what constructive ideas have we ? The ipse dixit of a Medical Officer, approved by a Council, is sufficient to declare an area for demolition. The innumerable consequent appeals by Solicitors, acting for clients who feel aggrieved through Clearance Orders, is sufficient proof that there is something radically wrong. The appeals are to a Ministry Inspector, who cannot fail to have in his mind that slums must go, come what may ? The adverse fate of so many appeals shows how " brutal " and un-English the whole Act of 193o was.

We would in any case slow down slum clearance, so that it continues, much more slowly, during say the next 20 years. But we would first re-draft the whole Act, so as to protect the working classes, so many of which have suffered and will continue to suffer, unless there is some drastic amendment.

A curious and unforeseen result of slum clearance comes from the police. The criminal classes used to be in well defined areas. Now they are distributed all over the place, are difficult to find, are more free to " work " undetected, and lower the tone of the neighbourhood in which they have been