DISCUSIÓN DE RESULTADOS
CON LOS REFERENTES BIBLIOGRÁFICOS
5.2. APORTE CIENTÍFICO
The 1919 Housing Act was strongly influenced by pressure from the working class during the war years. Indeed the primary force behind the Act’s enactm ent was w orking class unrest and general social instability. Nevertheless, according to Melling it cannot be taken as a "watershed" of State i n t e r v e n t i o n . 4 2 While undoubtedly the first Act to deal effectively with
housing provision for the working class, it was nonetheless the result of a gradual process of State intervention from the 1860s onwards. Despite the gradual evolution in housing and welfare policies, legislation in housing prior to 1919, even the Acts of 1890 and 1909 had little effect in Scotland. As stated earlier local authorities were either reluctant or unable to use their statutory powers until the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909 extended their obligation to inspect housing. According to Orbach,
"left to their own devices local authorities would do as little as possible although the various pieces of legislation concerning housing were consolidated and even broadened in the 1890s and the first decade of the twentieth century, they remained largely ignored and successive governments appeared disinclined to initiate effective new approaches."43
42 Melling, J., (1980) Housing Social Policy and the State, Croom Helm, London p. 41.
It can equally be asserted that if the social unrest of the war years had not intervened, it is unlikely that such dramatic legislation as the 1919 Act would have resulted from the gradual evolution in social welfare policy. With the Housing Act of 1919, the government conceded the principle of State subsidy for local authority housing. The Act's origins lay in the report of the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland, working class unrest over housing during the war years and in Lloyd George's awareness of the need for "insurance against revolution" as exemplified in his "homes fit for heroes to live in" post-w ar election campaign of 1 9 1 8 . 4 4 The Russian
Revolution in 1917 and fear of the spread of Bolshevism concentrated the Government's mind on controlling social disturbances at home. One means of appeasing a dissatisfied workforce was to dispense largesse through the provision of better standards of living accommodation. As Lloyd George stated in a cabinet meeting following the George Square riots in 1919; "Even if it cost a hundred million pounds, what was that compared to the stability of the State".45
Working Class dwellings erected following the 1919 Housing Act were of a very liigh standard. Accommodation was arcliitect designed and spacious; brick built or erected with the use of concrete blocks; all had bathrooms and running water. There one drawback was that they were expensive. High inflation following the First World War had led to an escalation of building costs. Demobbing of soldiers took two years causing a crisis in the supply of skilled labour. Cheaper methods of construction were inevitably resorted to. 44 Smout, T.C., Op. cit. p. 52 and "Lloyd George, The Great Campaign" in The Times, 05 11 1918.
45 Swenerton, M., (1981) Homes Fit for Heroes, The Politics and
The 1919 Housing Act laid the foundation for effective government intervention and control of housing provision and regulation and was followed by six other acts between 1923 and 1938. Each of these effectively wliittled away at the major concessions and commitment to State support of housing provision for the working classes made in the original act. Most of the housing acts of the 1920s were concerned with housing management; consolidating the power of local authorities, in view of their responsibility for provision, allocation and administration of working class properties. Several of these were also attempts to reduce costs of working class housing provision for the state. The principle act of 1919 was followed in the same year by a Housing (Additional Powers) Act which provided a treasury subsidy to private building wisliing to erect housing for the working c l a s s . 4 5
Even in the first year of enactment of the principle act the government recognised that it was futile to expect the exchequer to fund the entire housing programme. One solution was to encourage private enterprise to once again play a prominent role in house building by aiding their recovery from war time set-backs through the provision of central treasury subsidies. This was effectively the begiiming of a cost cutting exercise by the State and the attempts to return to their pre-war position of non-intervention.
The 1920 Housing (Scotland) Act gave local authorities power to compulsory purchase land needed for working class h o u s i n g . 4 7 This provided local
government with access to quality sites without liigh costs associated with market competition. The 1921 Housing Act, again concerning Scotland alone, limited exchequer commitment, in the form of grants legislated for in 45 10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 99.
the 1919 Act, to £1.65 million.48 Chamberlain's 1923 Housing Act provided for the payment of a lump sum to private builders by local councils, again as an incentive to private enterprise and a means of reducing central funding of local authority schemes.49 Local govermnent housing schemes were only undertaken if the Scottish Board of Health regarded them as "more appropriate" than private enterprise schemes. Despite generous incentives tliis act failed to generate private enterprise commitment to the erection of working class housing. The 1924 Housing (Financial Provision) Act introduced by Wheatley under the Labour government, removed from local authorities the burden of proof concerning the superiority of their schemes over private sector plans.^o This act aimed to encourage and support both private and public housing schemes by extending and increasing the subsidy for house building. The 1925 Housing Scotland Act consolidated the position of local authorities and granted them a greater degree of independence by perm itting local governm ent to fix local rents independently of central government.5^
The importance of all these acts to the story of miners housing is that in the aftermath of the Housing Act of 1919 Scottish coal companies had at their disposal government subsidies in the form of local authority grants to aid building programmes. Coal companies were treated as private enterprise and received the same commitment from the State as speculative builders.
48 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 33. 49 13 & 14 Geo. 5 c. 24. 50 14 & 15 Geo. 5 c. 35. 5^ 15 & 16 Geo. 5 c. 20.
Even after 1919 the government displayed great reluctance to take control of housing for employees in specific industries. The post war position on housing for miners was that the govermnent was prepared as an emergency provision to make grants available to local authorities undertaking approved housing schemes. Local authorities had to contribute only Id. per pound on the rates. However as far as the government was concerned it was not the business of local authorities to provide houses for particular industries. In the case of coal-mining it was feared that provision of houses for miners would effectively act as a subsidy to the industry. It was nonetheless incumbent upon local authorities to provide houses for the working class following the 1919 Act.
"There should be no special class of workers who are to be subjected to different conditions of housing from others. Proper housing is a human requisite of general application no matter where the person may be located. It is not right, therefore, to seek to deal with special classes of the com m unity, and by means of the particular nature of their vocation to deny them the privileges wliich are enjoyed by other c l a s s e s " . 5 2
Scottish local authorities were therefore in a difficult and awkward position. Until 1919 it was national housing policy to leave the supply of housing for the working class to private enterprise, subject to building regulation under the 1890 and 1909 housing acts. Because of the special circumstances of the coal-mining industry however private enterprise was reluctant to remain involved in housing provision after 1919 (see Chapters 8-10). In any event private investment focused upon new buildings with the prospect of an economic return in rent and not on the renovation and improvement of old stock.
52 SRO WRH DD6/1171 Letter of June 1919 from W.E. Whyte, Clerk to the District Committee of the Middle Ward in Lanarkshire, to the LGB,
Although coal owners were averse to making such "radical" improvements to their workers houses as the introduction of proper sewage and water systems in view of their "temporary interest" in the workings, it was acknowledged that some coal-owners attempted to improve their houses in the years leading up to the war. All such efforts ceased during the war. Where improvements were made by coal-owners rents were naturally increased. Miners were accustomed to paying low rent. But apart from the tradition of paying little rent, their houses were often so old, of such poor standard and so isolated that they did not warrant liigh rent. It was therefore not surprising that miners paid between £6 and £12 per annum for company homes (see Chapters 8 and 10 for details on rent).
It was repeatedly asserted that many of these houses were in an unsatisfactory state. The principle causes were; (l) that many miners houses were not intended to be, or regarded as, permanent fixtures. They were either erected with a short life expectancy or they had been in use for so long (often eighty to a hundred years after they were built) that they were not expected to last much longer; (2) that the life expectancy and profitable working of the mines led to the coal owners "indisposition" to improve workers houses; (3) that the local authorities were unable to enforce "remedial" public health improvements because of difficulty in proving that conditions were a "nuisance" and the prohibitive cost of introducing water and drainage services; (4) and lastly, that local authorities were greatly handicapped in their efforts to improve the situation by the absence of appropriate statutory powers.
Even in the aftermath of the Royal Commission of 1917 there was a general assumption that coal miners houses would continue to be financed at least
in part, by coal-owners. In a letter to the Local Government Board in 1918 the Clerk to the District Committee of the Middle W ard in Lanarkshire, W.E. Whyte, proposed that while local authorities should be responsible for building and providing miners houses as near as possible to centres of population, coal employers should contribute to the capital costs of building projects and make arrangement for the transport of the colliers to their work.53
Whyte suggested that the State, local authorities and coal-owners should each pay one third towards the capital costs of improvement schemes in mining areas. But, he recognised that;
"One of the chief difficulties effecting the sanitary improvements most required is due to the fact that adequate means of drainage and sewage disposal camiot be provided on account of the small valuation of the mining village and the very costly schemes of sewage purification wliicli are now d e m a n d e d . " 5 4
Efforts to effect improvement to sanitary conditions were then hampered by two problems; firstly, as a result of the location of many miners houses, in communities close to the colliery, expensive schemes would have to be introduced to improve their sanitation and secondly, such houses were often of insufficient rateable valuation to w arrant the introduction of expensive sanitation schemes by the local authorities. Local government was as concerned about investment in housing and adequate return as the
53 SRO WRH DD6/1171 Letter of June 1919 from W.E. Whyte, Clerk to the District Committee of the Middle Ward in Lanarkshire, to the LGB,
Edinburgh.
54 SRO WRH DD 6/1171/7255/30 Letter of June 1919 from W.E. Whyte, Clerk to the District Committee of the Middle Ward in LanarksMre, to the LGB, Edinburgh.
coal owners. Local authorities had to concern themselves w ith overall benefit to the majority of rate-payers under their jurisdiction.
The wheel had turned full circle. In 1919 local authorities were as reluctant to invest in miners' housing as coal companies, despite the government's commitment to the working class in the 1919 Housing Act. One solution was for local government to erect new houses in accessible and high valuation areas, which indeed they did. For these however miners were in competition with other workers. If houses were to be erected specifically for miners coal companies had to be involved. Throughout the 1920s the government attempted to persuaded coal companies and others to do just this by offering incentives in the form of housing subsidies. These were to a certain extent successful, but the scale of housing erected was never equal to requirements.
3.7. Conclusion
This chapter has introduced the problems associated with housing in coal mining communities. These are (1) the legacy of Scottish local government; (2) lack of local authority jurisdiction and their unwillingness to take full responsibility for mining districts; (3) reluctance on the government's part to take responsibility for providing adequate housing for miners; and (4) coal-owners' unwillingness to improve their housing stock and conditions in mining communities. The government's approach to dealing with the problem of housing conditions in Scottish coal-mining communities was to encourage coal-owners to retain full responsibility and increase investment in housing.
The advantage was therefore entirely on the side of Scottish coal-owners. Their "reasonable" right to property and its use, their right to maintain profit in a free capitalist market and not to have "unreasonable" demands made upon them, were always to be upheld. That it was equally unreasonable to expect people to live in bad housing was upheld only when it did not interfere with the rights of private enterprise. The government approach was one of persuasion rather than coercion. It wished and would have preferred the coal companies themselves to take the initiative and improve conditions and provide more and better quality housing. In the years leading up to the First World War it became clear that coal-owners while not refusing outright were increasingly reluctant to increase investm ent in workers housing (see Chapters 7, 8 and 10). While coal companies continued to provide housing for their workers during the War and after, and wMle these houses were often of liigh standard and acceded to government regulation, they were never erected on the scale needed to accommodate all of the colliers and their families requiring homes.
The net result of pre- and post-First World War housing legislation was that local authorities either provided housing schemes in mining districts or they authorised coal companies to do so with the aid of exchequer subsidy, but took full responsibility for sewage, water supply and scavenging. In the inter-war years it was abundantly clear that coal companies were willing to erect good quality new houses, and indeed were often eager to do so in view of the findings of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry in 1919, but were reluctant to provide the infrastructure to support such housing or to improve older stock (see Chapter 10).
The concerns and obligations of coal-owners with regard to the provision and upkeep of m iners' housing are dealt with in the next Chapter.
Responsibility for the condition and upkeep of coal company housing lay with them only for the duration of the mineral lease. The next chapter explains how houses for miners were provided under mineral leases and demonstrates how housing legislation affected leases and encouraged coal companies in their increasing reluctance to house their workers.