THE HOUSING PROBLEM.
WE are delighted to note that a group of Unionist Members of Parliament are taking up the question of housing, for housing still remains one of the vital problems of the day—nay, of the hour—for every hour the misery, the inefficiency, and so the waste and the evil caused by the scarcity of houses for working men increase. The late Government made in the matter of housing perhaps the most appalling bureaucratic blunder ever achieved under official rules and regulations in loans and subsidies. The City of London, generally a business- like body enough, actually contrived to put up houses which, when the final account was taken, cost some- thing like £18,000 per house. No doubt, as Mr. Winkle said of Mr. Pickwick's conduct on a famous occasion, the figures can be easily explained, but the fact remains that if the expenditure incurred to produce the number of houses actually built is divided by that number the result is £13,000. It was the same story all over England. The Government scheme failed, and there was little or nothing to show in any way comparable to the vast expenditure incurred. The whole incident, indeed, reminds one of the Irish lodging-house keeper and his couple of ducks. The lodgers only had two small helpings from the birds and naturally wanted more. When, however, they asked for them they were told that there was nothing left of them—" Nothing whatever, your Honour—except the bills." But the head of the late Government does not even wish to draw attention to the bills. He has of late been careful to treat housing as a kind of Blue- beard's cupboard. It is shut up tight and nobody is allowed to look into it.
But in spite of the fiasco, and in spite of the need for economy, the housing problem must be faced. It cannot be solved by the policy of the open cheque-book, for that would do more harm than good. Still, something must be done, and if it comes to a choice of expenditure— immensely important as we view the question of edu- cation—we would as a temporary measure, and except in regard to the teachers' salaries, give the preference to housing.
In a letter signed by Sir sF. E; Freemantle, Sir Samuel Chapman, Colonel H. H. Spender-Clay, and Lord Eustace Percy, publishcil in the Times of December 19th, a good specific suggestion is made as to building. To begin with, they draw attention to the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act of 1899, amended by the Housing Act of 1919. The Act in question empowers local authorities to advance money for enabling persons to acquire the ownership of the small house in which they reside, and its provisions extend to cases where the borrower intends to begin residence within six months. But though the Act exists, it is practically unknown. Governments—in the words of Mr. Kipling—" do not advertise," and so people do not know about the wares they put on the market. Yet cases have been discovered where working men, unable to find premises to let, have actually borrowed money from moneylenders at exorbitant rates in order to purchase houses. In view of this fact the signatories think—and we think so too—that there are many cases where if the existence of the Act were known advantage would be taken of its provisions in connexion with new building. In other words, if there are a willing purchaser and a willing builder the local authority (which in small areas will know a good deal about the builder, and very likely something about the would-be purchaser) can bring them together and finance the transaction on reasonable terms. To make this scheme work, however, some amendment in the Act is required in the matter of promising advances on houses not yet built. The signatories go on to say very properly that the Act will never be amended or used unless its provisions become more widely known.
In this matter the Government should adopt methods of advertisement which would cost them comparatively little. When an amending Act is passed, a precis of its provisions in simple language, and fortified by a specific and model example, should be sent to every small jobbing builder throughout England and Scotland telling them exactly how houses can be acquired. Similar information should be supplied to all trades unions, the co-operative societies, and every form of organization not only for working men, but also for what we may call the poorer professional classes.
There remains a point which must be noted, though it is one which we know will give offence to the labour world. Though the trade union leaders do not like to face the fact, there is no doubt whatever that a great deal of the misery from which the working classes are suffering to-day, owing to the lack of houses, the high rents and the impossible home conditions, is due to the ill-starred policy of the trade unions which control the building trade. In the last resort, what has made building impossible has been the low pro- ductivity of the men employed in the building trades. The high wages would not have mattered if they had been coupled with good work. But, alas ! just the-reverse is the case. High wages are coupled with low output and with waste and inefficiency. The bricklayers, for example, have adopted the maniacal policy that the fewer bricks they lay the better it will be for them. They have even persuaded themselves that it will be better for the country at large. We know that this will be fiercely denied, but we are not speaking without knowledge. For example, the present writer built a post-War labourer's cottage, and in the course of the work one of the bricklayers engaged for the moment on the roof one day boasted that he had only put in place five ridged tiles on the day in question 1 When asked whether. he did not think that running the thing a bit too strong, he < said in reply : " I know our firm hasn't got any other job in view just now, and so I'm not going to be such a fool as to put myself out of work. The longer this job is kept going the better for me I " And so the tiling proceeded with a kind of monumental dignity till it became a standing joke. In a lesser, or at any rate less spectacular degree, this sort of dishonesty was practised throughout the country and is still practised to some extent. Even now the men in the Bricklayers' Union lay many fewer bricks than they could lay if they were not possessed of the idea that the fewer bricks they lay the longer their jobs will last. That they see, or think they see. What they do not see is the huge mass of jobs that never come to anything because of their famine policy. Remember, also, that the Union enforces the policy of the small against the big brick day, and if anyone dares to lay as many bricks as he can he is liable to be chased off the job as a blackleg and a traitor to his class and calling.
We are well aware that it is often asserted that this view is entirely erroneous. The Trade Union rules, we are told, do not interfere with the output, and we are alleged. to be repeating falsehoods. Well, in that case, is it not essential that there should be a judicial inquiry which shall put the matter at rest for ever and decide once and for all whether there exist any Trade Union rules or Trade Union policies which limit production ? Need- less to say we do not want to arouse any prejudice against Trade Unions. We shall be delighted beyond words to find our view utterly disproved, and to learn, on authority, that no such thing as a deliberate and conscious lowering of their output is practised by any of our manual workers, At the same time, there ought to be a similar inquiry as to whether there are any combinations of employers and manufacturers which are intended to limit pro- duction. Further, and this is a very important point, we should like to inquire whether there have been any joint agreements between employers and employed either intended to lessen production, or having, as a result, the reduction of output, in order to maintain high prices.
We firmly believe, though we know it is not a fashion- able doctrine just now, that the earthly paradise of which we dream, and which we ardently desire, of more houses, better houses and cheaper houses and more of everything man needs and demands will never be reached by the roads of scarcity and waste. Over-production or, rather, under-demand, which is the same thing, is no doubt some- times the symptom of a diseased society just as loss of appetite is a symptom of famine. Save in this respect the cry that the workers are producing more than they ought is a folly, a falsehood, or a fraud. High wages, and hours short enough to prevent fatigue, are, of course, legitimate impediments to high output, but they, in truth, are benevolent obstacles, and are soon the cause of labour-saving devices and anti-waste systems. It is the deliberate and conscious lowering of output which does the harm, and a capital example is the policy pre- scribing the maximum number of bricks which a man may lay per day. This is a safe and sure way to deprive the poor man of a decent home.
Previous page
