From W. Deacon (chairman BFCTA)
Following an open letter sent to the Mayor of Brent in September last, on behalf of the Brent Federation cf Council Tenents' Associations, there arpeared in the local press, a statement issued by the Housing Chairman, Alderman Philip Hartley, to the effect that no rents or rates would be increased in the immediste future, There followed certain criticisms of the letter and allegations that it contained many inaccuracies and misapprehensions., Whilst welcoming his assurance about rents and rates, we were concerned to be informed about the cherges,of inaccurséies, i etc, Our attempt to obtain such information from the Town Clerk was met with a reply full of evasions. We were informed that the correspondence was to be referred to Alderman Hartley for his attention. A letter from the Housing Chair-— man contained a staterent to the effect that our letter was written under the assumption that rents would be increased in Brent, and that our criticism of the "rebate scheme" was inaccurate. This was followed by an invitation to meet him and other interested members of the Housing Committee. My organisation decided to avail oursleves cf the opportunity and arranred for the meeting to take plece at Brent Town Hall, llth December, at ©.00 p.m. 12 delegates were elected to form our delegation. On the evening of the meeting we gathered ‘together at the Town Hall, in a rcom allocated for this purpose. Sharply at eight o'clock there appeared Alderman Hartley end his committee clerk. After the meeting had been in progress for some time two cther interested Councillors, Mrs. Lousie Dunbar and James Goudie, came in. No doubt the most vocal elements responsible for the unjustified accusations made in the nress theught discretion was the better part of valour and found reasons for being conspicuous by their absence, The poor attendance by the Housing Committee members, is to be denlored in the circumstances after the press publicity given to their unsubstantiated charges. Asked in view of the 8% bank rate imposed alongside devaluation, whether his public statement on rents and retes still held good, Alderman Hartley replied that this was so, and should rents be increased he weuld probably resign. It was pointed out that the councils are big borrowers and almost all their maior projects were financed by loans on which interest is paid. Would this not mean that putting up interest rates means putting up the cost of essential jobs? Further, the councils are big buyers of commodities, and will not the extra burden of increased costs of eccds and services be another burden on the rates? Is it not a fact that the housing account will have to face extra costs and ‘would this mean that any deficit would have to be met from the general rate fund? Alderman Hartely did not disagree about the conse:i¢ uences cf devaluation.
Arising from the Government's economic measures do the council leaders expect the Government to order a cut in spending? If cuts are to be made could we be told what schemes are likely to be halted? Would housing schemes go chead? We were told that it was not possible to specify where the cuts would be mede at that juncture, but he thought housing schemes would not be effected. Questioned whether the Finance Committee had yet evaluated the full effect on the borough of the increased bank rate alongside devaluation, he replied that this had not yet been calculated, we told him that in tho neighbouring Camden, this had been put at about £200,000 in a full year. The Housing Chariran's attention was drawn to a memoranda from the Borough Treasurers! Incomes ‘ Expenditure Account for 1966/7 in which he had included in incomings to finance expenditure a sum of £400,540, this being the rates payments of tenants. It was pointed out that these rates are the payments of tenants for the services they receive from the council. They have nothing to do with them being tenants. ThuS/fipgures should have shown housing accounts excluding rates. And the the proportion of lom to running costs should be 31% running costs, 69 Interest & Loan Repayment, Not
as his figures show: 26% running costs as against 58% Loan and Interest
Repayment.
After two and half hours of hard-hitting auestions and proposals vut
forward by delegates, Alderman Hartley promised to reply in writing with
the information asked in many of the questions raised, and which was not
available at the time of the meeting.
In conclusion it was apparent that no case cculd be made by the Housing
Chairman to substantiate the many inaccuracies with «hich the open letter
had been cherged with via the press. When asked if the council would
assume the duty and responsibility for leading a public campaign to force
the Government to increase its assistance to council housing costs, to end
the vast sms being made out of interest retes paid by councils, and to
use their powers to curb those of the District Auditor, he was not willing
to advocate such a course of action. We reminded Mr. Hartley of the Prime
Minister's recent statement that the Government will not hesitate to act if
local authorities impose intolerable rent burdens on council tenants. We
pointed out that if the Prime Minister meant what he said he will hesitete
no longer in using the powers the Government has to reduce the rates of
interest. In our view the certain fall in the standard of living at a time
of wage restraint, short-time working and rising unemployment, makes rents
increases indefensible.
+ This article wes delayed because of the Christmas holidays.