MASTER BUILDER
0 NE of the main objects of the Rent Act is to provide. a pool of houses into which people can go; to stimu- late mobility in order that people may be able to find the type of accommodation suited to their needs—instead of, as at present, clinging on desperately to what they have got, however unsuitable it may be, simply because the controlled rent makes it so much cheaper to stay than to move. Yet the Government, the Minister, and the party as a whole—though only one small group of Conservatives is really agitated about the subject—agree that the landlord must offer 'fair' rents : that he ought not to evict tenants in order to gain vacant possession with a view to selling the property. As a result, a curious situation has arisen. If the Minister's advice— which has recently been couched in the form of a stern warn- ing—is accepted by landlords there can be few evictions in October because they will have all come to a 'fair' agreement with their tenants. But this will inevitably mean that no pool of empty houses and flats is created, so that in fact there will be little increase in mobility; and the Act's object will be thwarted.
This contradiction was well brought out in Monday's debate by a Conservative back-bencher, Mr. Robert Jenkins. Significantly, Mr. Jenkins did not go on to criticise the Minis- ter for reneging on an essential part of the Act; on the con- trary, he blamed him for clinging to it so long. 'This appears,' he said, 'to be the only Act brought in by the present Govern- ment which has caused fear . . . and on the present facts it now becomes apparent that these fears are going to be justi- fied.' Mr. Jenkins felt strongly enough about the subject to abstain, along with three other Conservatives, in the division which followed the debate; and the number would probably have been larger if the Minister had not earlier made it clear that he is on the look-out for landlords who take an 'unfair' advantage of this kind—even though he has so far failed to make it clear how he proposes to punish them if they do.
Mr. Jenkins's view is one that is probably shared by the great bulk of the uncommitted electorate today—which, as by-elections are indicating, is becoming a sizeable bloc. The arguments run thus : the Englishman's home is traditionally his castle; a tenancy held for a long period gives the tenant a right in equity, if not in law, to continue possession of it (provided he is willing to pay a fair rent); and to evict old people or families who have offered to pay a reasonable rent, or who cannot find alternative accommodation • is cruel. Added to this is a further argument which has become par- ticularly effective among Conservatives : that the real blame should be put on Labour's threat to municipalise housing, which is encouraging landlords to evict tenants in order to gain the vacant possession necessary to sell out. Such land- lords (this argument runs) are not wicked; they are behaving with exemplary common sense. Nevertheless, it would be unfair for their tenants to suffer for the sins of the Labour Party; and some modification of the Act or of its enforcement is desirable to prevent evictions taking place for this reason.
These arguments are reasonable, but they make nonsense of the Rent Act. The Act arose as a direct consequence of the Conservative Government's success as a Master Builder making the problem not to provide but to divide accommoda- tion : to ensure that all the space available is fully utilised. It is all very well to say that 'old people should not have to move'; but one of the chief reasons why the Rent Act was needed was precisely that so many old people are living in houses and flats far larger than they need, or even want, while their children—who have grown up, got married, and begun to produce children—are crammed into tiny flats, or compelled to stay with their parents and in-laws.
One object of the Act, therefore, was to enable an exchange to be made which would satisfy both. The grandparents, in theory, would move to the small flat; the growing families would go to the larger house. There was never any doubt that this process would cause some hardship, because old people, however much they may prefer a small flat to a relatively large house, may not want to move, for sentimental or social reasons. All that the Act could fairly promise was that the exchange would on balance benefit the community : that when the reshuffle was complete the housing situation would be far easier than it has been at any time since the war— indeed, at any time in history.
Yet the success of the reshuffle depended, and still depends, on the existence of .a fair-sized pool of empty accommodation. For it is not simply a matter of grandparents exchanging with parents and children, but of a General ,Post, in which every- body can move to the type of accommodation which suits his needs. This mobility can only be secured by the departure of tenants who are squatting in property not because it suits them•but because its rent has been controlled.
Only by the creation of this pool, too, can rents be brought down and kept down. If tenants move out of flats or houses which are larger than they need there will be, in effect, more accommodation chasing the same number of prospective buyers—and rents will accordingly fall. In other words, the Minister was right to resist Labour pressure to modify the Act. The Master Builder has made his tower, and climbed it: to give way at this stage to giddiness because of the shouts of the crowd below would be to risk destruction. Yet Mr. Brooke will be wise if he finds some way to deal with the landlord who refuses even to try to come to terms with his tenants, not from greed but simply for fear of what Labour may do if they win the next General Election. Such landlords are in fact doing their best to ensure that Labour will win the next General Election, by creating the hardship and resentment that will convert a good Bill into a hated Act. If Mr. Brooke can find a way to secure the necessary pool without evictions of this kind, and if the pool can be kept large enough to ensure mobility and to keep rents down, the Government will find that its courage in pressing the Act through will be amply rewarded.
Previous page
