The Daily Worker Newspaper, March 21, 1925, Page 10

The Housing Situation in England Turner F we need any proof that British capitalism is crumbling, it is quite evident from the fact that it has ut- terly failed to house its workers. Prior to 1914 the situation was pretty bad but has since been aggravated by the lack of building and the terrible over-crowding that has followed. Our mining villages and industrial towns are a standing disgrace to our so-called civilization. A report of an enquiry into the state of the coal industry says: “No one can read the grim story ‘of the squalor, over-crowding, and insanitary conditions in which -a great part of our mining population live today, without a sense of shame. Long rows of* one-roomed houses, built of the stone of the locality, to which sometimes a larder was after- ards added, There was generally no window or door at the back, the only door being that which led into acinder-strewn yard—a quagmire in winter. An open gulley carried away all the slops of the tenants. At in- tervals, in the middle of the yard, huts would be erected, divided into privies, ash-pits, and maybe coal- houses, and these might be, but of- ten were not kept in repair. Water could be drawn from a stand-pipe in the yard, one or two for each row of houses.” OST of the villages consist of “houses of one, or at the most two rooms, and in these, very often, large families have to live. The fol- lowing cases are quite common, In Consett (county Durham) in a house of two rooms, (the upper one being reached by a ladder thru a hole in the floor of the upper room,): there live a man, wife and 6 children, in- cluding two girls of 21 and 23 and a boy of 18. The average room space for the whole county is 0. 77 per person, (1921 censug retumns),.and,.in, the mining and industrial district it is very much less than*that"' ~ >" HE county of Lanark tells a si- milar story. In the north-east corner lives 1,539,000 people, (about one-third of Scotland’s population) and the district is a mass of slag heaps, chimney stacks, blast furnaces, and insanitary houses. There are 321,- |. 471 houses in the country, 61,200 single- roomed, 155,285 two-roomed, i. e., two- third of the houses contain at the most two rooms. The mining villages are clustered round the pit-shafts, and the dust and grime penetrates to every nook and makes the task of the women hope- less. | Their burden is increased by the fact that practically none of the pits have baths attached tothem and the miner, returning home from work, covered from head to foot with grime, and often wet to the skin, has to strip and wash in the room that has to serve for living, dining, often sleep- ing, and sometimes as the only store- house for the coals. The women are incessantly waging war against dirt, working from early morn to late at night, and the position is often ag- gravated by the fact that two or more miners live in the same house, and are employed on different shifts, and this means double work for the wo men. NE of the great evils of most of the mining villages and also many of the agricultural distrist is that the houses are owned by the em- ‘ployers, and so the tenart is com- pelled to leave the house when his work for that employer is finished, whether he has- been stopped or left-of his own accord. In ‘the early days of capitalism, when labor was needed for the mach- ines, small houses were rapidly thrown up without any thot of sanita- tion or health. Many of these are still standing today and although condemned years ago, are still occu- pied. | Birmingham, a center of the iron and steel trades, is typical of our in- dustrial towns. To cite but two cases from this city are quite sufficient. 4. Father, mniother and 4 children all sleep in one bed and live and sleep in one room. ‘2. Father, mother and 9 others of the family, (aged 3 months to 5! years) have one living room, bed- room and an attic. These houses often have no water supply, or sanitary convenience, OR the privilege of existing in these hovels; the workers pay, not only exhorbitant rents, but often with health, and life, as the following shows: The city falls easily into three div- isions, the central wards, which are mainly slums, the inner circle of un- healthy wards, and the outer circle, where the richer classes live. Back-to-back houses Total death rate, 1914-18 (per 1,000 posulationy ae ; Infant mortality: Death rate (per 1,000 births)........ Measles (death rate per 1,000 population).......... Bronchitis and pneumonia (death rate)... Ph ehitahe juss scencit dscancpcatep; Micslnvescecbeanuees Infant summer diarrhoe..........-.+ eunpesencnsaceed Rents Legislation T the beginning of the war, the housing situation began to grow more acute, Thousands of workers flocked into the industrial centers, un- til it was almost impossible to get a room. The authorities erected wooden neeneneereneeenen: eee the key of a small cottage. ITH the fixed rental, the return on property was small compar- ed to those of industry, and much of the property found its way on to the market. Many of the workers bought their own houses, only to find that they had paid a fictitious price for them. Building and Legislation It betame quite apparent, after the conclusion of the war, that there was {no hope of private enterprise supply- ing the* necessary houses, and the government. took action by passing the housing of the people act (1919), Central Middle Outer Pet. Pct. Pct. sadaniphedantone oes «= G57) 27-47 0.1-8 19.3-21.8 13-17.8 9.4-10.9 134-171 94-126 60-78 0.56-0.72 0.39-0.46 0.0-0.12 3.63-2.68 2.32-3.12 1.19-1.62 1.63-2.63 1.17-1.42 0.67-0.89 29-57 19-26 3-9 making it compulsory for the local authorities to supply the shortage. 45,000 houses were built as a result, but on the grounds of economy, the subsidy was curtailed and operations almost seased. The loss on the build. Turning on the Light huts as a tempory expedient, but these were not sufficent to relieve the position, Rents soon soared but as a regult of organized opposition on the part of the workers, the rent restrict- ions act (1915) was passed, forbid- ding the increase of rents. The first legislation, however, was to prevent eviction, for the disloca- tion of industry, that followed the out- break of war had caused, much unem- ployment, and to protect the workers the courts (emergency) powers act forbade evictions for non-payment of rent without the permission of the courts. ; 'HE rent restrictions act (1915) ap- plied to houses of not more than £35 annual rental, i. e. working class houses. No provision was made for furnished houses, with the result that many were let, containing a few in- ferior articles of furniture, and the landlord had complete control, This act remained until six months after the war, when it was replaced by a further act allowing 10 pct, increase in rent and covering houses up to £70. This was amended in 1920 by a bill to last three years and provided for an increase of 40 per cent and also included a clause making profiteering in furnished rooms illegal. The position had now become so keen that “key money” was aften paid for the possession of houses, some- times as much as £20 being paid for . ing, which was being worne by the state, was estimated at £10,000,000 for the year, the cost of the houses being £1,100 each. Where did the Money go! HIS was the natural question which arose out of the situation. The press said, “To the building workers.” This was untrue. The material were under the control of rings who took adventage of the posi- tion to force prices up to the highest possible limit. The following tables are a comparison: 1914 Bricklayers (per hour)......... 10 1-2d. Laborers (per Our)... . 61-2d. Cost of ViVi gs ssssceseeersoyeeentennnnne 100 pet. Bricks (Per 1,000) .scvsssvere 29.0 Iron pipes (per ton). £7 Slates ..... e008 Tron Bars (per ton)... £9 in a new light. Direct Labor The class struggle reflected itself keenly in the administration of the act, and on most of the local councils a keen struggle waged for the use of direct labor in the building of the house, and thereby effect an economy that enable them to let at a cheeper rent. In the cases where this was carried out, the houses were let at a rent of 10 to 16 shillings per week, while those built by private contract- ors were often from 15s to £1-1 per week. The saving thus effected was good. N Bradford, the cost per house was £259 against the contract price of £1,004, In Tonbridge, the cost per house was £876 against the contract price of £1,070. In Newmarket, the cost per house was £761 against the contract price of £1,172. ° The rings, however, did their best to cripple the position, and many of the councils found their building ma- terial held up. The Bradford council tried to solve the problem by purch- asing a brickworks for the making of their own bricks. These were used by the direct labor that they employed and the surplus was sold to the con- tractors who were building for them. The rings, however, were not at all in sympathy with the idea, and com- pelled the contractors, under threat of boycott, to refrain from using the bricks. And at one time, the position was such, that while the« brickyard was stocking its surplus bricks, a contractor, who was building in the next field was waiting for bricks, which, when he received them, had to be carted two miles. Thru the re- actionary element on the council and the action of the rings, the brickworks had to be sold, having proved a fail- ure to solve the problem. In this way private enterprise exploited the posi- tion at every opportunity, and held up - the supply of houses. 'HE excuse that they madefor the: - lack of building was that there was not sufficient labor to carry out the work, but the labor available had never been absorbed by the industry. The ministry oflabor figures show that in December 1924 there were 86,- 025 building trade workers unemploy- ed, and 25,715 of the public works and contracting workers, while in Au- gust when the trade should be at its best, the figures were 78,068 and 22,- 825 respectively. Labor Government and Housing With the advent of a labor govern- ment the workers looked for some re- lief. Mr. Wheatley introduced — his housing bill granting a subsidy of £6 | per year covering a period of 20 years, providing that the houses were let at a rent of about 10s. per. «, Con- ferences were called, both “the workers anid the masters, and each gave their word that they would do all they could to make the scheme a success. The workers agreed to ad- mit others into the trade after an in- tensive training, and the masters promised not to force up the price of the materials. In spite of this, the price of bricks increased almost the next day, and other materials soon followed suit. The threats of the gov- ernment were of no avail, but they took no action. They were too busy 1918 Increase 1920 Increase Pct. Pct, 1-6d. 71 2-4d. 165. 1-2d. 115 2-1d. 176 © 125 176 58.2 81.6 184 £141 £234-6 2382 64.7 222.2 £32 246 Nails, 233 pet., timber 300 pct., baths, stoves, etc,, 291 pet. THER material had risen in a similar manner, and it is clear that the scheme failed because the rings exploited the situation. The re- sult was that the rents of the houses were so high that the workers could not afford to pay them, and most of them were compelled to take in lodg- ers and thus bring the authorities up against the question of over-crowding enslaving the German. workers, to think of the workers at*home, and having accomplished their task, were thrown out of office before any ma- terial improvement had taken place, Tory Government and Steel Houses TORY government followed, and Lord Weir, who is interested in the Clyde shipyards, found a method (Continued on page 5.) heeas tt