Housing
Most people—especially those on the waiting list for a house— will echo the regret expressed by Mr. George Hicks, speaking in Monday's Housing Debate immediately after Mr. Bevan and Mr. Hudson, that so much heat should have been introduced into the question of housing. It has, of course, its political aspect—as what question has not?—but it is its practical and social aspects that are most important. People generally want to see the greatest possible volume of house-production, first of all to give houes to those who have none and then to give better houses to those who have bad houses. Mr. Bevan maintains that the only way of ensuring that houses are built to let to those in greatest need is to concentrate on contract building for local authorities. His critics say that this sort of building cannot produce houses so quickly and successfully as private enterprise (or speculative) house-building, a fact to which striking testimony was paid in the debate by Mr. Marples, speaking as a contract builder for local authorities. What strikes the ordinary individual is that there are two different things
involved. Mr. Bevan is thinking of the allocation of houses, and his critics of the construction of houses. Assumingthat both are right, cannot a system be devised whereby private builders build, and local authorities let? The odd thing is that, though few people seem to realise it, there is just such a scheme, details of which are set -put in Ministry of Health Circular 92/46, which avoids the com- plexities and delays of contract procedure, while giving to local authorities an absolute discretion as to disposal. Mr. Walker-Smith, in opening the debate, alleged that this excellent scheme was not working well, and invited the Minister's attention to it. Neither Mr. Bevan nor Mr. Edwards commented. Surely a moment of Ministerial time might have been spared for discussing a scheme which, at any rate superficially, seems to have so much to commend it?
Previous page
