SIR,—With reference to the article 'Master Builder,' in your issue
of March 7, may 1 suggest that the fol- lowing points seems to be worthy of some considera- tion, to say the least :
The district in which I live consists entirely of fairly large, better-type working-class houses whose rateable value places them in the decontrol category. A glance through the voters' list reveals with almost monotonous regularity two pairs of names opposite each house number. Party canvassers up and down the country are made only too well aware of this con- dition by thc 'amount of work involved during an election. The existence of these pairs of families under one roof, tenant and sub-tenant (only a minority have been converted into flats), certainly does not indicate a condition of surplus accommodation in houses which are to be decontrolled.
You take too much for granted the compliance of the landlord in your idyllic picture of an elderly couple in occupation of a large house (which is cer- tainly exceptional!) exchanging with a family at present confined to a small flat. The landlord might quite understandably regard the head of the family in question as a greater security for the payment of the increased rent.
Surely it ought to be morally repugnant to suggest that an elderly couple should give up their' home (which would entail parting with their furniture), to reside with relatives who, in many cases, would not welcome them, and may themselves be in crowded conditions.
I notice that you make no attempt to answer the contradiction pointed out by Mr. Robert Jenkins, himself a Conservative supporter of the Act. The fact is that no answer is possible : the choice is just simply evictions or no housing pool. The majority of landlords have no interest in a housing pool. Why should they? If successful, its object would be to reduce rather than increase their rents, as has been pointed out. They do not want the Act except as a means of getting rid of a dilapidated investment, so as to invest their resources where no responsibility is implied or involved. This should emphasise that the time is ripe for regarding housing as a social service; of course there will be difficulties, but surely it would be better to try to solve these than to support the callous alternative of the present Rent Act.
The general attitude of the press to this matter shows complete ignorance of working-class housing conditions generally; and I have no hesitation in fore- casting that in spite of what you say the Minister will be forced by public opinion to descend from his ivory tower.—Yours faithfully,
F. 0. PENNEY
Previous page
