Housing without Profit

DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1965.tb01606.x
Date01 June 1965
Published date01 June 1965
Housing
without
Profit
H
.I).
C:
I
A
M
ON
D
‘I-tiis
article is a shortened version
of
the essay which
won
the Haldane Silver
Medal for
1964.
The author is a Principal in the Scottish Development
Uetartment. Much
of
the
basic
material
for
the essay
was
gathered
during
visits
to
Scandinavia which were Jinanced
by
the author’s tenure
of
the
Sir
John
Mactaggart Fellowship in the Economics
of
Housing at the University
of
Gla.Sgou1.
With the virtual demise
of
private building for letting, consumer choice in
housing
in
Britain
is
very limited. Local authorities build houses for letting
at subsidized rents; private enterprise builds houses for sale without
subsidy; no agency provides modern houses on any scale for occupation
at cost rents.
The reasons for this increasing division of the British housing market
into
two
mutually exclusive sectors, and the potential advantages
of
having
a
‘Third Force’ in housing have been canvassed many times, and
it
is now officially accepted that housing choice in Britain should be
widened; two successive White Papers
and
three Acts of Parliament have
contained proposals for encouraging non-profit housing societies on the
Scandinavian model.
Institutions which have grown in one country may not, however, easily
tramplant to foreign soil. Would study
of
the framework
of
policy within
which non-profit housing has flourished in the post-war years in, say,
Sweden reveal the factors
-
other than sheer habit
of
mind
-
which would
be essential to their success elsewhere?
Could
non-profit housing associa-
tions become in Britain what they are
in
Sweden and other Scandinavian
countries
:
an essential part of an integrated housing policy designed to
cater for and raise the housing standards
of
all classes in the community?
In Britain there are houses rented at subsidized
or
controlled rents; there
are houses
sold
or let for profit; could there
also
be houses occupied at cost,
without either subsidy or profit?
HOUSING
POLICY
IN
SWEDEN
In Sweden government assistance to housing between the wars had a
limited, social basis: loam and rent subsidies ware made available only
to
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
certain groups of people with low incomes
-
pensioners, farm workers and
families with at least three children.
During the Second World War, however, an entirely new and compre-
hensive national housing policy was adopted, which went well beyond the
basis of poor relief, and aimed at
a
general increase in housing standards
for all income groups. The specific objects of post-war housing policy
included the elimination of overcrowding
and
in
particular of the use
oi'
one-room
flats
as family dwellings
;
the improvement of housing standards,
especially in rural areas; the provision of houses of good standards of space
and equipment at rents which would not take more than
20
per
cent
of
the
income
of
an average family; and the encouragement of non-profit house
building.
Housing policy is administered at three levels. The responsible central
government department was formerly the Ministry for Social Affairs, but
now
-
from
I
July
1963
-is the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry
prepares legislation and acts as the highest tribunal for appeals. The actual
administration of the housing laws is carried out by the National Housing
Board, a central agency which has
a
branch
-
known as the County Board
of Housing
-
in each of the twenty-four administrative districts. These
County Boards are directly responsible for the granting of government
loans and subsidies in their areas. In the localities the primary responsi-
bility for planning and initiating house building rests with the local
authorities, who draw up housing programmes for their districts, supervise
house building and management, assist in granting state loans and
suh-
sidies, and have power to grant subsidies themselves.
The chief source of municipal strength in housing lies in the ownership
of
land. Many towns have
for
years bought up great tracts
of
land
in
advance of requirements, and have leased them for agricultural use until
they were needed for development. In Stockholm almost
all
of the land
now being developed is owned by the city in this way and is leased to the
developers. The Swedes see this as
a
means of planning and controlling
development, preventing land speculation, and keeping down the cost
ol'
house building in urban areas. The provision of adequate reserves
of
land
is still, however, one of the biggest problems which face expanding com-
munities.
The Swedes are a nation
of
flat dwellers. Eighty per cent. of all
com-
pletions from the end of the war to
1960
were in blocks containing more than
two flats or houses? The proportion is even higher in the big cities. Again,
they have no slum problem as we know it. The industrial revolution came
late to Sweden
so
that even in
1870
only
10
per cent.
of
the population
lived in urban areas. By
1956
the figure had risen to
66
per cent. and more
than half of the dwellings in urban areas have been built in the last quarter
of
a
century.
As
so
large
a
proportion of their houses are relatively new, the
proportion of slums is low, and their redevelopment projects are inspired
'Housing
in
thc
North
Countries,
Copenhagen,
1960.
1.1
0
US
IN
G
WITHOUT
P
R
0
P
l'r
more by the need to open up obsolete, cramped layouts and to cater for
the motor car than by the need to demolish insanitary houses.
But Swedish houses are small and overcrowded. Even as late as
1941
no
less than
47
per cent. of all new dwellings built in Sweden consisted of
single
rooms
or
of one room and kitchen? Admittedly the Swedish
room
and kitchen flats built in this century have
a
high standard of amenity
and equipment, but the existence
of
so
many
of
these very small flats
has
resulted in severe overcrowding. People who are reputed to have the
highest standard of living in Western Europe have to accept in Stockholm
a
degree
of
overcrowding similar to that in Glasgow. Indeed
a
survey of
European cities carried out by the International Institute of Statistics at
The Hague showed that while the number of persons per dwelling was higher
in Glasgow than in Swedish cities, the number
of
persons per room was
actually higher in Stockholm and Malmo than in Glasgow.2
The Swedes explain that the small size of the flats is at least partly the
result of the small average size of the Swedish household, and they point
to the continuing demand for one
room
flats by single persons. They also
say that very few Swedish families share houses, and that teenagers in
Sweden do not wait until they are married before they leave their parents:
they are anxious to set up house on their own as soon as they are old
enough. The foreign observer may, however, wonder which is cause
and
which is effect. Before the war rents were
so
high in relation to income,
and rose
so
steeply
for
extra space, that many simply could not afford to
rent anything bigger than
a
one room flat,3 and large numbers of flats
were built which are too small for family life. When adolescents cannot
hope to have bedrooms to themselves in their parents' houses they have
to seek privacy by splitting away from their families, if they can afford
it
-
and
in
Sweden they do seem to be able to afford it. Small households
may demand small houses, but small houses may also create small
households.
Swedish housing policy has accordingly been dominated by the need
to
encourage the building of bigger flats to relieve overcrowding,
and
this is why state assistance to housing in Sweden has been broadly based.
If the object of housing policy
is
as much to improve housing standards
generally as to give financial help to particular social groups, then it
becomes logical to extend state aid to all who build houses of the required
standard, regardless of means.
IBostadsbyggandet
i
Sverige,
1956
Table
R,
quoted
by
Wendt, Paul
F.,
in
Housing
*The figures are: Glasgow Stockholm Malmo
Polky
-
The
Search
for
Solutions.
persons
per
dwelling 3.58 2.65 2.81
persons
per
room
I
.27
I
.33
1
.2g
Source
:-A
survey
by
the
International Institute
of
Statistics, reported
in
Bau-forum,
No.
2.
1957, Goteborg.
SIn rg30 the rent
for
a
modem two
room
flat was cquivalent
to
40
percent.
of
an indus-
trial worker's wages (Per
Holm,
Swcdish
Housing,
The Swedish Institute, Stockholm, 1956).
'37
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Government assistance has therefore taken two forms. Anyone,
without
any test of means, has been able to obtain long-term loans at
low
and
guaranteed rates of interest to build new houses or improve old ones,
while special subsidies and rent allowances have been available to particular
groups of people, subject to
a
means test.
Subsidised
Loans
There are three main building agencies
:
‘public utility’
conip;iriir:s,
co-operatives, and private contractors building for individual clients
I
)I’
on a speculative basis.
Local authorities can and do build
on
their own land
-
usually
fi)r
old
people
-
but generally promote building through their ‘public utilit).
companies’, which are limited companies sponsored and controlled
I)y
the local authorities which appoint more than
50
per cent.
of
the directors.
Stockholm has four such companies. The actual building work
is
usu,dl~.
done by private contractors, but one
of
the Stockholm conipanics
~
‘Svenska Bostader’, which built much of the ‘satellite town’
of
VBl1ingt)y
has its own building organization and labour force. These public
utility
companies build just under
30
per cent. of all new Swedish houses.
The co-operative agencies are non-profit-making companies
\vhi(:Ii
build blocks
of
flats and housing estates for their members to occu1jy
arid
manage on a joint-ownership basis. They account for nearly
a
ttiirtl
of
recent output.
Private enterprise
-
which builds houses for sale and flats for
Iettilig
and is for the most part financed by government loans-accounts for
about
40
per cent. of total output. The most notable single achievemerit
of
private enterprise in Swedish housing is probably the conception,
planning and building of the entire town centre for the new ‘srttellitr
town’ of Farsta, planned to have
30,000
inhabitants, by
a
consortium
r~f
six big building contractors.
All
these agencies can obtain first and second mortgage loans in
the
private market, from savings banks, mortgage banks and insurancr
companies to cover normally
70
per cent. of the total cost. The County
Board then make
a
third loan, carrying the greatest risk,
so
that in theory
private builders can borrow a total
of
85
per cent., co-operative!,
95
per cent. and local authorities and public utility companies
IOO
per cejit.
In practice the loans are often less than these proportions, because
tllr
government has laid down maximum figures of cost for different types
of‘
houses in different parts of the country. If the actual cost exceeds the
approved limit, the loan will be calculated on the lower figure, so tliat
the prospective builder has to find the balance himself, as an increase
~i‘
his deposit.
The interest rate on the government’s third loan
is
4
per cent., whic:li
represents
a
considerable subsidy, because the govement has
to
pa):
I
I0
U
S
I
N
0
WITH
0
U
T
PROP
IT
more than thL5 for its own borrowing. Moreover, to prevent temporary
fluctuations of interest rates from discouraging building and increasing
rents, the government has undertaken to cover any interest payments in
excess
of
certain limits. For houses started since January
1958
these limits
are
34
per cent. on first mortgage loans and
4
per cent. on second mortgage.
In the early post-war years the rates
of
interest on the first and second
mortgage loans corresponded to the rates guaranteed by the government,
so
that the guarantee did not result in any charge to public funds. In
recent years, however, rates of interest have been high,
so
that the
government have been paying an indirect subsidy which amounted
in
July
1963
to the equivalent of
12
to
24
per cent. on loans from private
sources,
as
well as the difference between
4
per cent. and the goverment
credit rate on their own third mortgage loans.
Far some years during and after the war there were also ‘supplementary
loans’ for house building which were intended
to
cancel out what were
regarded
as
temporarily excessive building costs and
so
to equalize the
costs
of
houses built in different years. Repayment of interest and capital
on
these ‘loans’ was to be made only if rents rose to a point where the
return
011
the builder’s investment exceeded the level originally agreed.
These ‘supplementary loans’ were particularly important when the
Korean crisis led to
a
sharp increase in the cost
of
building materials,
but they were gradually reduced
and
finally discontinued in
1959.
State subsidized loans have thus been available to all builders and
building agencies without any test of financial need, and the great majority
of
all
new
dwellings built since the war have been financed in this way.l
For non-profit housing
-
whether by local authorities, public utility
companies or co-operatives
-
the loans do not carry any restrictions
as
to
the rent that may be charged, but a private builder who is helped by
a
government loan is bound to charge a rent no higher than a limit fixed
by the County Board. The limit is calculated to cover the running costs
and
the average annual cost of repayment
of
capital and interest and to
provide the builder with
a
return
on
the share
of
the total capital which
ivas
invested by him
-
normally
15
per cent.
of
total approved building
costs,
as
he can get total loans of up to
85
per cent.
of
this cost. The return
on his investment works out at
5
per cent. in the first year, but as the
years pass the interest which he has to pay decreases and,
as
rents remain
the same, the yield
011
his invested capital will increase.
Kent
AllowanceJ
The general financial assistance to all forms
of
new house building by
subsidized loans is supplemented by rent allowances and specific subsidies
to special groups
of
the population. The main form of assistance is by rent
rebates which are available
-
subject to
a
means test
-
to families with
‘In
1957
no
less
than
97
per cent.
of
the
total
housing
output
received
public
financial
assisfance.
See
Financing
of
Homing
in
Europe,
United
Nations,
1958.
‘39
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
children. Families with low incomes and with two or more children under
sixteen years old can get a rebate of rent equal to
180
kronor (about
Ex2)
per year for each child, together with
a
basic allowance which varies from
330
kronor
(E23)
to
390
kronor
(ic;27)
according to the part of the country
in which the family lives. Families with very low incomes are eligible for
an additional allowance which has the effect of doubling the basic
allowance. Families with slightly higher incomes may receive
a
reduced
basic allowance. The income limit for normal allowances is fixed at such
a level that about half of all families with two or more children are eligible.
The allowances are paid for by the central government, but are
administered by the local authorities. They are paid direct to landlords,
who pass them on to tenants in the form of lower rents.
A
rent allowance can be paid only if the dwelling satisfies certain
minimum standards
of
space and equipment. This condition is interided
to discourage the letting of substandard houses. It can be criticized
on
the grounds that the very poorest families, who are living in the worst
conditions, may be denied help which they need more than anyone else.
But the official attitude of the Swedish Government is that the purpose
of these rent allowances is not simply to decrease rents, but to enable
people to get better houses; they are intended to raise housing standards
and not to make
slums
cheaper.’
Despite these rent allowances, overcrowding of large families persists,
partly because there just are not enough large flats, partly because the
demand for more space is inhibited by the practice of relating rent to
floor space. When the total cost of
a
block of flats is known, the total
rental is calculated, and is apportioned over the whole block at flat rates
per square metre.
As
the main cost of any dwelling is in the kitchen,
bathroom and common services, the rent of a small flat is charged
at
a
higher rate per square metre than the rent of
a
large flat
in
the same
block, but nevertheless tenants have to pay fairly heavily for extra space.
The rent allowances do not fully compensate for this extra cost.
For
example,
a
family with four children will get something like
E25
a
year
more in allowances than a family with two children, but
an
extra rooin,
at
an
average rent of
&3
10s.
to
E4
per square metre, will cost
E5o
to
&‘Go
a year.
So
there is considerable financial incentive to accept
a
degree
of overcrowding while the children are growing up rather than to
Inow
to
a
larger flat.
Other special assistance to particular groups includes subsidies
LO
reduce the rents
of
houses for old age pensioners, the disabled and the
chronic sick.
Housing
Co-operatives
While many aspects of Swedish housing finance are of interest to
us,
the
‘Since slums are not an acute problem
in
Sweden it
is
easier
for
the
Swedes
to
take
this
attitude than
it
would be in Britain.
140
I1
OU
SIN
0
WITH0
UT PRO FIT
success of co-operative building is of particular current relevance because
of the government schemes of loans for building for joint ownership under
the Housing Act
1961,
the Housing (Scotland) Act
1962
and the Housing
Act
I
964.
The impetus to set up housing co-operatives came in Sweden at least
partly from the fact that the Swedes mostly live in flats and, under Swedish
law, it is not possible to own outright an individual flat
in
a
block of flats.
The flat cannot be divorced from the ground over which it was built,
and
so
the whole block must be in single ownership with the ground on
which it stands.
To get round this difficulty, blocks
of‘
flats were built which were
collectively in the single ownership of a co-operative society, but in which
each individual flat was assigned to
a
family with a permanent legal title,
under a law passed in
1930,
to
a
‘right of occupancy’-a legal concept
which does not exist in Britain. This is the closest approximation to owner-
occupation of a flat which can be attained in Sweden, and each tenant!
owner has in practice security of tenure virtually equivalent to owner-
occupation as long as he can keep up his payments, and he can bequeath
his ‘right of occupancy’ to his heirs or transfer it to his nominee. Once
co-operative housing started, however, the idea was extended to the
building of terraced and other houses where the legal difficulties did not
obtain.
Co-operative societies were also found to have practical advantages,
in that when a block of flats or group of houses is in single ownership it
is much easier to arrange for efficient communal heating, washing, refuse
disposal
and
other services. The boilerhouseilaundry with resident
boilerman/caretaker is a common feature of Swedish housing estates.
Central heating
is
provided
in
all new houses in Sweden, and it is often
more practical,
as
well as cheaper, to provide it from
a
communal
boilerhouse than from individual small boilers in each house.
Despite these advantages, however, and despite the official encourage-
ment of the government, as evidenced by the granting of high percentage
loans, it may be doubted whether co-operative housing in Sweden would
have expanded as fast and as successfully without the two strong, national
agencies which were founded to supply a financial, architectural, planning
and legal service to the local co-operative associations. These are the
‘Hyresgasternas Sparkasse-och Byggnadsforening’ (Tenants’ Savings and
Building Association), commonly called ‘H.S.B.’, and the ‘Svenska
Riksbyggen’ (‘S.R.’).l
‘It is also, however, possible for a group of people
to
start a co-operative association, or
for a private contractor
to
build a block of flats and transfcr it to a co-operative society,
without working through either the
H.S.B.
or
S.R.
For
example,
a
builder may acquire
land and prepare contract documents.
A
co-operative housing society is then formed.
If the society want to have a
95
per cent. state loan
(as
opposed to the
85
per cent. limit for
purely private enterprise schemes) there must be a representative
of
the municipality on
the provisional management committee. The builder then
sells
the land
to
the society, and
the parties enter into a contract for the housebuilding, whose terms must
be
approved by
the municipality.
141
PUB
1.1
C
AD
M
IN
IST
R
A
T
I0
N
Co-operatives in the H.S.B. network are organized at three levels
~
national, local and estate. The national body, which was founded
in
1923,
has its head office in Stockholm and has a staff of just
over
600,
including architects, engineers, town planners, surveyors, accountants,
lawyers and administrators. It does all the actual work of acquiring sites
and planning, designing, financing, and organizing the building
of
individual estates.
There are about
200
local associations of the
H.S.B.
scattered throughout
Sweden. They maintain registers of applicants, sponsor schemes when
there are enough applicants in any area, and form the holding company
to which the national body hands over ownership of the estate when the
building is completed.
Finally there are the ‘daughter’ societies, each of which manages and
maintains one individual estate, and consists of all the tenantlowners
of
the houses in that estate.
The procedure
is
that anyone who wants
a
co-operative house joins
the local H.S.B. association, taking out an initial share
of
50
kronor
(E3
10s.)
as
a
membership fee, and putting his name and requirements
on the waiting list. While waiting, he takes part in a Savings Fund, run
by the H.S.B., to save up for his own down payment and to build
up
capital for 1I.S.B. operations. When his house is completed, he signs an
agreement with the local association, makes his down payment
(in
theory
5
per cent.
as
co-operatives can obtain
95
per cent. loans), moves in
ant]
pays
a
yearly contribution to the ‘daughter’ society, which consists of his
flat’s
share
of
the total loan repayment,
plus
amounts
to
cover running
costs and repairs.
The management board
of
the ‘daughter’ society is elected from
the
tenantlowners in each scheme, and each original applicant is then
a
member both
of
the main local association and
of
the ‘daughter’ society
ivhich manages the houses.
The Svenska Riksbyggen is based on the
same
ideas
as
the
H.S.B.,
ht
has
a
different historical background. It was formed in the early years
of the Second World War in an attempt to reduce the severe unemployment
in the building industry by enabling the building workers themselves
to
take
the initiative in house construction. The building trade unions
accordingly founded an organization to employ architects and to set
UI)
in
business
as
building contractors. There are now twelve such trade
union contracting organizations in Sweden, which build about
60
per cent.
of
the total housing output of the
S.R.,
the remainder being let to private
contractors. Circumstances have changed since the
S.R.
was founded,
Imt it continues to act as a building agency on
a
large
scale
for local
co-operative societies, in much the same way
as
the
H.S.B.
The
main
practical difficulty which has been experienced by Swedish
co-operatives seems to be
in
the payments made for transfer of the ‘right
of occupancy’.
A
member of
a
Swedish co-operative is regarded more
as
142
IIOUSING \VITtlOUT
PROFIT
an owner than a tenant,
so
that when he moves he is entitled to receive
from the incomer not only his original
5
per cent. deposit (plus the
assessed value of any improvements and minus the cost
of
any necessary
repairs) but also the amount of the loan capital which
he
has repaid.
This
might work smoothly in times
of
stable costs, but in periods
of
inflation
and housing scarcity the market value of the right of occupancy may
well be greater than the approved transfer payment,
so
that there is
a
strong incentive for the incomer
to
offer a premium. The Swedes try
to
prevent this by ruling that the Society must supervise the agreement
between the outgoing and the incoming tenant/owner, and also by
attaching fairly severe penalties
to
accepting premiums, but not
to
offering
them, on the reasoning that this will discourage people from accepting
a premium, for fear of being blackmailed later.
How
far this device has
been successful is not known, but there seems
to
be some suspicion that
premiums are still being paid in areas of the most acute housing scarcity.
APPLICATION
OF
NON-PROFIT
HOUSING
To
BRITAIPU
The Housing Act
1961,
and the Housing (Scotlancl) Act
1962,
made
available Exchequer loans within
a
total of
g251n.
in England and Wales
and
E3m.
in Scotland for unsubsidized houses built by approved housing
societies for letting at economic rents or for joint ownership,l and in
May
1963
the government announced proposals
to
encourage the housing
association movement further by inviting the building societies to lend
up to two-thirds of the cost of schemes by approved housing associations,
and
by
setting up
a
Housing Corporation
to
advance the balance on
second mortgage, and to give housing societies legal and technical advice
and help?
Non-profit housing associations already exist in Britain, but they
operate on
a
much smaller scale than in S~eden.~ Up
to
the present
they have almost always built with the aid of Exchequer subsidy, and-
unlike the societies in the new government schemes
-
have in effect catered
for much the same range of income groups as the local authorities. There
are charitable associations which build for the old or the disabled or
for other special groups; associations which build for employees
of
particular companies or nationalized industries
;
'self-build' societies where
the members reduce costs by contributing their
own
labour; and some
general associations, which have built relatively little since the last war.
Houses
built with the help
of
government subsidy by all these different
types
of
association are usually let on normal tenancies, and are not
'See
for
example
Housing
in
Scoflund,
Cmnd.
1520,
H.M.S.O., 1961.
PHoILEing,
Cmnd.
2050,
H.M.S.O.,
1963. The proposals are
now
ernbodicd
in
the
Housing
SFor
a
full
description
of
British
Housing
.%sociatiom
see L.E.Waddilove,
Housing
Act
1964.
.4ssoci~tiOnr,
P.E.P.,
I
962.
'43
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
owned jointly by the occupiers. It
is
possible for an association to sell a
house to a sitting tenant, but the terms of sale would be governed by
the agreement approved by the appropriate Minister, and subsidy would
cease to be paid.
Apart from a few experiments1 with the co-partnership principle
-
usually within the Garden City idea
-
we have really very little previous
experience
to
guide the new, unsubsidized co-operative housing
asso-
ciatiom which are being founded to take advantage of the government
schemes, and indeed the whole contribution of housing associations
of
whatever description to the solution of housing problems in Britain has
up to now been quantitatively very small: they have provided only
a
little more than
I
per cent. of all houses built in England and Wales
since the war and only about one-third of
I
per cent. of
all
the houses
built in Scotland.
A housing association is defined in the Housing Acts in very broad
terms, to include almost any group of people who join in
a
society,
company, trust
or
registered charity
to
provide houses on
a
non-profit
making basis.2 To qualify for Exchequer loans under the
1961
or
1962
Acts,
a
housing association must be registered under the Industrial and
Provident Societies Act
1893,
but this can very simply be done by any
eight people who adopt a set of rules (of which models are supplied by
the National Federation of Housing Societies) and register
as
a non-profit
making body with the Registrar
of
Friendly Societies. The cost can be
less
than
E50.
But
then many difficulties face the fledgling society. Some
of
these are
practical. It is difficult
for
a
group of amateurs to find a site and to buy
it in the face of competition by speculative builders and local authorities;
they cannot bid without being sure of getting
a
loan, and
if
they have
applied
for
an Exchequer loan they cannot make an offer higher than
the maximum value fixed for loan approval. They have neither the
commercial resources and freedom of action of the speculative builders
nor the reserve powers
of
compulsory purchase which are available to
local authorities3
Even if they somehow acquire land, they then need
a
wide variety
of
specialized knowledge
-
legal, financial and technical
-
in order
to
design
the houses, estimate their cost, negotiate the loan, invite tenders, and
'Some early examples are described in the
Report
oJ
the Royal
Commission
on
the
Houing
nf
the Industrial Population
of
Scotland, Rural and Urban,
Cd.
8371,
H.M.S.O.,
1917.
*The definition is, 'any society, body of trustees
or
company established for the purpose
of, or amongst whose objects
or
powers are included those of, constructing, improving or
managing,
or
facilitating
or
encouraging the construction
or
improvement of, housing
accommodation, being
a
society, company,
or
body of trustees who do not trade
for
profit
or whose constitution
or
rules prohibit the issue of any capital with interest
or
dividend
exceeding the rate for the time being fixed by the
Treasury,
whether with
or
without
differentiation
as
between share and loan capital'. (Section
184(1)
of the Housing (Scot-
land) Act,
1950.)
3Local authorities may acquire land, either by agreement
or
by compulsion, and makr
it
available to housing associations, but this power
is
not widely exercised.
'44
li
0
U
S
I
N
0
W
I
TH
0
UT
I'
R
0
FIT
supervise the actual building work. For this reason many associations
(other than the charitable or industrial ones) have included in their
membership architects, surveyors and lawyers.
Local authorities have wide powers to help housing associations: under
section
119
of the Housing Act
1957,
and section
79
of the Housing
(Scotland) Act
1950,
they can make grants or loans to housing associations,
subscribe to their share capital and stand guarantors against loss. Some
local authorities have welcomed the efforts of housing associations and
have made use of these powers. Others are opposed in principle to housing
associations, on the grounds that they offer a way of by-passing the waiting
list to those who can afford the associations' rents. Others again argue
that while they would like
to
help, they need all the land and all the
houses they can get for their own housing programme and their own
applicants. This is in strong contrast to the attitude of local authorities
in Sweden who, because they do not normally build houses except for
special groups such as pensioners, do riot look on housing associatiom as
competitors, but are willing and able
to
provide them with both land
and capital for their building programmes, and even to encourage and
sponsor the formation of new societies.
Finally, one of the reasons for the growth of housing associations in
Sweden and other Scandinavian countries does not obtain here.
In
Scandinavia
-
and especially in Denmark'
-
it
is difficult for an individual
borrower to raise a big loan, whereas
in
this country we have building
societies who, as long as they have the funds, are willing to make loans
of
80
per cent. and even
95
per cent. of the value of suitable properties.
This comparative ease of obtaining money for home ownership is
a
strong
incentive to the individual buyer
to
act on his own and take what the
speculative builder offers, instead of troubling to join with others to build
a
housing estate, wrestle with the problems outlined above and wait years
before his house is ready. It is significant that even in Denmark, with its
long tradition of co-operative housing, there was
a
great increase in
private unassisted house building when the Danish Housing Act of
1958
set
up
a private third mortgage market which made
it
possible for
individuals to obtain high percentage loans without resorting to the
co-operatives; output
in
that sector increased from
7,700
houses in
1959
to
22,150
in
1962,
and the Danish government are currently trying
to
redress the balance by
a
kind
of
building licensing which in effect gives
priority to housing associations.
Potential Advantages
of
Non-ProJit Housing
Given these major differences in housing finance and in the role
of
local
'Loans on
first
and second mortgage from privatc financial institutions in Denmark
raise
only
about
30
per cent
of
the cost
of
a new house: the Danish government has had
to
offer state loans on third mortgage,
or
morr recently, statc guarantees of privatr loans,
to
help
bridge
the
gap.
'45
PUBLIC
ADMINI5TRATION
authorities,
is
it worth trying to overcome the practical difficulties and
to stimulate co-operative housing associations in Britain? What are thr
advantages, particularly as compared with owner-occupation?
In the first place, loans are secured on the corporate life of the association
and not on any individual's life. This means that loan repayments can
be spread over longer periods than in
a
normal mortgage, and weekly
outgoings are correspondingly lower, although total cost over the years,
of course, increases greatly. (If
a
go
per cent. loan at
6
per cent. interest
on
a
house costing
&3,500
were spread over
sixty
years instead of twenty
years, the annual repayments would drop from over
&274
to
under
;C;195
approximately: a reduction of about
30s.
a
week.)
Moreover deposits will be very low, or perhaps even non-existent.
Housing associations which wish to build houses for letting at economic
rents may be able to borrow the full cost of the project from
a
local
authority, from the Exchequer under the
1961
and
1962
Acts, or from
the building societies and the Housing Corporation under the provisions
of the
1964
Act. In theory, associations which proposed to build for joint
ownership would also be able to borrow the full cost, but
in
practice
95
per cent. loans seem more likely, as the White Paper
Housing
envisages
that each member
of
a co-ownership society would make
a
5
per cent.
initial deposit. It
is
true that some building societies offer loans for owner-
occupation
as
high as
95
per cent. when their funds permit, but the normal
advance is lower,
and
the society would usually seek some security for
so
high
a
loan, perhaps in the form of insurance against the extra
risk.
Freeing the loan risk from dependence
on
the life
of
one person has
a
very special advantage for old people. The older
a
person is, the greater
his difficulty in getting
a
loan. Yet few privately rented dwellings are
really suitable for old people and local authorities are going to be very
hard pressed indeed if they are left as the sole agencies to cater for the
rapidly increasing number of old people. Several of our existing housing
associations already have
a
special interest in housing old people, and
there is little doubt that this work will have
to
be greatly expanded
if
we are to have any chance of providing enough suitable houses for our
ageing population over the next twenty years. With improvement
of'
pension schemes there should be increasing numbers of retired people
who could afford to pay a fairly substantial, even if not fully economic,
rent
;l
and while local authorities will always have to cater for the remainder,
this in itself will be
a
big enough task without their having
also
to
take
on people who could be housed by other non-profit agencies.
Apart from the favourable loan terms, the houses themselves should
cost
less than the products of speculative builders, since their price will
cover only the normal contractor's building profit and will not have
to
'Housing associations which build
for
letting with the aid
of
a loan under the
1961
and
1962
Acts will not normally obtain subsidy, except when the houses are intended for old
people,
when the normal subsidy for houses built by housing associations
outside
thr
government
loaiis
scheme will be payable.
146
11
0
US
I
N
G
WITH
0
UT
P
R0
F
I
'I'
include
a
margin for the speculator's
risk
or for overheads such as
advertising, sales staff, etc.l
Moreover the ability of the association to arrange centrally for repairs,
decoration and maintenance reduces the running costs per house
by
securing the economies of bulk contracts.
Co-operatives are also said to perform
il
socially valuable fimction in
giving practical lessons
in
democratic co-operation and civic responsibility.
This
is
not the place to pass judgment on that claim, but the need to
co-operate with one's neighbours in the control of the local housing
environment does
look
of potential value.'
Whatever their social value, co-operatives offer tangible advantages in
the high standard of layout, landscaping and general amenity which is
achieved by the principle of single ownership and unified management
of
the development and by the common interest of the members in
improving housing standards and in making the whole estate
-
or block
of flats -as attractive
to
live in as possible. This has probably been the
biggest single factor in giving Swedish housing its present high reputation
for architectural achievement and social and environmental success.
A
group of people can jointly afford better professional services than they
could separately, and the whole estate can be designed to high standards
and maintained as
a
unity.
No
individual house is built out
of
keeping
with the others or is allowed to deteriorate, and
so
lower the amenity-
and value-of the rest, and the communal pound does not become
wasteland. The importance of good landscaping and maintenance of
common areas is increasingly being recognized
:
some contractors who
are building for owner-occupiers now sponsor special proprietors' compnnies
to
manage common landscaped areas. Several examples already exist
in
London and south-east England.
Joint
ownexship
is
particularly applicable to blocks
of
flats, whether
newly built or
in
conversions, as it can give individual security of tenure
equivalent to owner-occupation while retaining the advantages of single
ownenhip for arranging
and
financing repairs and maintenance and for
looking after the common services and the ground attached
to
the block.
Potential
Market
Jbr
Non-Projt
Housing
Financial, social and environmental advantages can thus
bc
claimed for
housing co-operatives, but they can never hope, within the existing
administrative structure
of
housing, to offer
a
serious challenge
in
this
'Experience suggests, however, that members
of
non-profit societies tcnd in practice
to
spend the same money
as
iT
they were buying
from
a speculative builder,
but
to get a
htter
house:
the
advantage
is
taken in higher standards rather than cash saving.
Ser
report
01'
talk by Mr.Norrnan Dunhill, Serretary
of
the
Adam Housing Society, in
Housing
Recieic,,
May-June
1963.
2Thr social advantagra
of
housing
ro-operatives
arc'
can\.nsscd in,
for
rxaniplr,
\Vaddilovr.
iip.
cit.
'17
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
country either to individual owner-occupation
or
to subsidized council
housing. Their appeal is essentially to certain groups in the middle income
bracket whose housing desires cannot be satisfied by the present
alternatives. Elderly people with good pensions but no desire to lock up
capital
in
a house; business women and others with small households;'
young men moving around, gaining experience as they climb in their
profession
or
industry; design-conscious citizens whose housing aspirations
are in advance both of their means and
of
the speculative builders'
judgment of current public taste
-
all these could find
a
solution to their
problem in
a
non-profit housing association
if
they were willing and able
to pay the rents of
&5
to
&7
a week which would be required at current
costs and interest rates.
At one time some of them might have settled for a good quality privately
rented house, but these are now scarce, their rents are decontrolled and
there is no security of tenure. It
is
many years since private enterprise
last built to let on any scale and, apart from some luxury building, it
shows no signs
of
revival; there are more attractive ways of investing
capital than
in
building houses to let at cheap rents. Housing choice in
Britain
is
becoming very narrow; more
so
than in other countries where
there are generally a number of different outlets for consumer demand
in housing.
Housing co-operatives
in
this country thus seem likely to find their
members from people in the same income ranges
as
in
Sweden and the
other Scandinavian countries; the better paid skilled workers, young
professional people, lower managerial grades and small traders! Without
an adequate social survey, it is impossible to hazard
a
guess
as
to the
size of
this
potential market. But the proof that such
a
market exists is
the speed with which the government loans under the
1961
and
1962
Acts have been taken up.
Lessons
from
Scandinavian Experience
Local societies need comprehensive guidance and technical help. The
movement in Sweden has built up large and efficient central organizations
to provide this service. Few laymen have the time, the ability or the
energy to deal at weekends and in the evenings with all the complexities
of
a
building project. It is a job
for
experts. Indeed the trend in Scandinavia
-
as
evidenced especially in Denmark3
-
is towards even bigger associations,
even more centralized services and even greater pooling of technical
'Most speculative developers build family sized houses: few build small houses
or
flats
specially designed for single persons or working couples.
lSee
Housing Through Non-Profit Organizations,
United Nations,
I
956, especially pp. 76
and
79.
Curiously enough the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland came
to
much thc
same conclusion
as
long ago
as
1917,
instancing well-paid artisans and clerical workers
as
amongst those for whom co-operative housing associations were best adapted.
*See Niels Salicath,
Fra
Enkeltuirke ti1 Faelles Indsats,
Copenhagen,
I
962.
148
HOUSING
WITHOUT
PROFIT
resources. All the main problems of site acquisition, financing, design
and building are handled by permanent, central building agencies
:
the
consumers simply manage the houses after they are completed.
The
I
963
White Paper envisages ‘strongly organized societies’ operating
‘in the main centres of population’. But
it
is not clear who is going to
sponsor such societies, or pay their staff, especially in the transitional
period before large numbers of houses are completed, and start to supply
a regular income from rents. However, the
1964
Act gives the Housing
Corporation power to acquire land and prepare sites for housing societies
and to give them legal, architectural and other technical advice. (In
Scotland the Corporation will work through the Scottish Special Housing
Association.) Although, therefore, the Corporation will not actually build
the houses, it will be able to give societies much greater practical assistance
than they have ever before had in this country. The previous schemes
under the
1961
and
1962
Acts virtually stopped short at
loans:
the
acceptance of the need for a strong central agency to provide housing
societies with land and with legal and architectural help as well as finance
is
a
landmark in British housing policy.
If
the Corporation is led well,
and attracts good staff, it could help create an entirely new market in
good quality housing.
Swedish co-operatives have had assured access to land. They have
been able to buy or lease land on reasonable terms from local authorities
without competing in the open market with speculative developers. In
Britain, however, it is very difficult for a housing association to obtain
an undeveloped site
in
or
near the big cities. The situation is easier
elsewhere, but by and large the greater the population density and
therefore the greater the potential market for housing associations, the
more difficult it is
to
obtain land and the more acute is the competition
from other potential developers. This is probably the biggest single obstacle
to
the
spread of housing societies in Britain.
Under the
1964
Act the proposed Housing Corporation is to have
power to acquire land by agreement in order to make it available to
housing societies, and is also to have
a
reserve power to buy land
compulsorily. This will not of itself make more land available, but the
White Paper
Housing
stated that local planning authorities have been
asked to ensure that more land will be forthcoming.
If
it is, the Housing
Corporation should be in
a
stronger position
to
bid for some of
it
than
would small local societies. To this extent one of the major difficulties
which at present face housing associations may be removed.
Other possibilities are for local authorities themselves to make available
some of their own limited store of building land, or to invite housing
associations to take part in schemes for redevelopment or area improvement.
For example, the local authority could acquire a block of suitable
properties and hand them over to
a
housing association for conversion
or
improvement. Improvement grants would be available and the
‘49
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
modernized houses or flats, managed by non-profit associations, would
add
a
useful variant to the housing stock
in
the locality.
The third lesson from Sweden is the need to enlist the full support
of
bodies such as trade unions and local authorities, which have the public
conscience, the funds, and the corporate influence to sponsor associations,
to
appoint persons of standing to the executive of the ‘parent societies’,
to guarantee them against loss, and to invest in their shares. Any public
or private body whose aims include promoting the welfare
of
all or part
of the community must recognize the great social value of good housing
and should be willing to support any agency which offers to build
gnotl
houses on a non-profit-making basis.
Finally
-
and most obviously
-
the terms must be financially attractivc.
Unsubsidized co-operative housing will have a very limited appeal if
it
costs too much. The main factors are the cost of borrowing, tax lialditv
and capital appreciation.
The prerequisitc of the growth of Swedish co-operdves
-
a11
,usulctl
and continuing flow of capital
-
seems now for the first time
to
bc
rnadc.
available to associations in this country by the government schemes undt~
the
1961,
1962
and
I964
Acts.
The loans are to be at rates
of
interest
comparable
to
those available
to
owner-occupiers, but they will be spread
over at least forty years,
as
compared with the twenty-year tcrni
of
most
building society loans. ‘This might reduce outgoings by something likv
25s.
a
week on
a
house costing
&3,500.
‘The initial deposits might
also
I)c
lower than an individual could readily obtain.
But difficulties may arise when members leave
a
society, as capital
bvill
have
to
be found
to
pay them their share of the net paid-up value
of’
tlic
project. Unless these payments can be recovered in full from the incomer.;
-
and this may become increasingly difficult in later years when
;I
substantial part of the original loan capital has
been
repaid
-
there
\lilt
have to be provision for varying the amount
of
the loan during
its
currency.
The members
of‘
approved co-operative associations have recently been
put on the same tax basis
as
owner-occupiers. Under the
1963
Financc
Act
the associations will benefit from the abolition
of
Schedule
A
tax, and
tvill
not be liable
to
tax on the ‘rents’ which they receive from their
menilxrs.
Moreover the members will receive income tax relief on their share
ol‘
the loan interest paid by the association. These concessions seem
cruci;il
to
the success
of
co-operative associations, because loss
of
tax
allowance
on interest could easily cost an extra
&40
a
year
(15s.
a
week)
or
cvcn
more in the early years of the loan. Moreover associations would fi~rnierly
have had
to
pay
tax
under Schedule
A
and on ‘excess rents’
on
an
assessment which was based on actual rent and not,
as
for owner-occupiers,
on
a
much lower figure of notional rent based on assessed value.
Thc
associations would have had
to
recover this tax from their members in
increased rents which, in turn, would have attracted increased tax,
so
that tax would have become payable on
a
rent which
was
already
Iwing
‘50
11
0
ITS
IN
G
\V
IT
I1
0
U'I'
P
R
0
PIT
c.hnrgecl to pay tax, and a 'tax on tax' spiral would have set in. The failure
to
extend these benefits to societies which let houses on normal tenancies
at
cost rents may prove the greatest obstacle
to
their success.l
A
joint
owner in a co-operative will expect
to
have his capital as well
protected
as
an owner-occupier's. It is sometimes argued that since housing
co-operatives are non-profit-making bodies, their members should not
participate in capital gain: they should not be able to obtain houses
under relatively favourable terms and then 'exploit' this shortly afterwards
by moving away with
a
share of any increased value. But the terms
available
to
co-operatives will not be all that much more favourable
than to owner-occupiers. Virtually the only financial advantage will be
the longer duration of the loan, and this in itself would probably count
for
little beside the increase in capital value Ivhich was attributable solely
to
housing shortage, and which would be attracted equally to houses
held by other forms of tenure. Not many owner-occupiers can treat buying
and selling their own house as
a
business: each time they sell on a rising
market they
must
pay legal and removal costs and then buy a replacement
in the same market.
So
the capital gain represented by an increase in
the value of one's own house cannot normally be realized
-
even in part
-
except
by
a
reduction in housing standards. If this is accepted for owner-
occupiers
-
who may have borrowed from public sources (the local
authorities) or from private funds with a public guarantee (under the
scheme for state and municipal guarantees of building society loans)
-
it
seems equally acceptable for co-operative housing associations, who
borrow at market rates of interest from part private, part public sources.
There
is,
in any case, a precedent. Privately owned houses which have
been improved with the aid of an Exchequer grant may be sold
at
the
resultant enhanced value three ycars after the date of the improvement
without repayment of grant.2
Many people now assume that house prices will continue
to
rise and
the value of money to fall. (Whether they will or not
is
beside the point:
what niatters is what people have come to expect.) They will therefore
reason that if, when a man moves from
a
co-operative society's house,
he gets back only his original down payment, he may find it insufficient
for
a
deposit on his next house.
He
will be much worse
off
in real terms
than an owner-occupier, who does not have
to
fear rising values
so
long
as
his
own house keeps pace with the market. If therefore co-operatives
are
tlcnied this built-in protection against inflation and rising property
values Lvhich accrues
to
owner-occupation, many people will
look
at them
lBut
5inrc this
txay
\\as
written
it
has
IK-CII
announccd (Budget, April
1965)
that
it
is
proposed
to give
thr
Housing Ministers
po\ver
to
rrpay
to cost-rent assoriations the amounts
of'tax
for
which
thy
arr
liable. This will
put
the cost-rrnt associations on
the
same footing
as
co-operatives, althoiigh
the
individual tenants
will
still not get the 'owner-occupiers'
tax
rrlicf on
the
intrrrst elemrnt in their rent
Tor
which mcn1l)rrs
of
co-operatiLm
are
eligiblr.
'Housiiig
.\ct
I$.+,
Sections
54(1)
and
s~)(I).
'5'
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
askance. People
in
this country have become accustomed to the assumptiou
that they should benefit from any increase in the market price of the
house they buy, if only to safeguard the real value of their savings and
to enable them to move house.
Significantly the Norwegians, who originally allowed outgoing 'tenant\'
to claim back only their original deposits, have now had to allow them
to share in any increase in value which
is
caused by a fall in the value
of money. They have a formula which regulates the payment to
an
outgoing tenant in such a way as to allow him to recover, not only, a\
in Sweden, his deposit plus the loan capital which he has repaid, but
also
a
share of any capital appreciation of the property which is attributahlr
to a fall in the value of money.' Some similar formula seems an essential
minimum here.
Unless it is decided simply to let the outgoer make the best bargain
he can on the open market, there are obvious problems in working
out
a
formula to govern payments on transfer of tenancy. Trends in propert!
values, the expected life of the particular house, any improvements
ti
it, any repairs necessary, an allowance for depreciation (presumably
lo\\
in the early years), an allowance for
a
fall
(or
rise) in the value of money,
the value of the paid-up capital (either actual, or expressed
as
a function
of the number of years of repayment), the value
of
the initial stock
or
shares purchased: all these might have to come into the reckoning.
However, as the Norwegians have shown,
it
is not impossible to arrivc.
at some formula and provision for
a
right of pre-emption in an area
of
housing shortage might be the answer to any fear
of
speculation.
CONCLUSION
These, then, are some pointers from Scandinavian experience
:
the
valuc
of an agency which can build for local societies
01'
at least offer technical
help
as
well as loans; the need for access to building land; the support
of influential bodies such as local authorities and trade unions; and thr
need for costs to be
at
least as attractive as owner-occupation. Some
at
least of these will now be available to housing associations here, but
we
have much stronger traditions of local authority building and
of
owner-
occupation.
These are formidable competitors and, although there is
a
need for
it
Third Force, joint ownership societies will find it difficult to makc
up
I'I'he original cost
of
the whole block,
of
which the outgoing tenant's flat
is
a
part,
I\
calculated, and a deduction made
for
depreciation. This givcs the theoretical value
of
thr
block, which
is
then adjusted to present money values by increasing
(or
decreasing)
it
ill
the same proportion
as
the
fall
(or
risc) in the value of money since the schemr was built.
From this adjusted present net value is deducted the outstanding amount of loan debt,
tat
give a notional capital valur, adjusted to present money values, and allowing
for
th1,
discharge of debt. Thr outgoing trnant is thcn entitled to a payment
of
the same proportion
of
this notional capital valur as his original deposit
Imrr
to
the whole original down
pa\
-
ment on the scheme.
f
52
€1
0
US
IN
C
WITH
0
UT
P
R
0
FIT
lost ground after their late start
in
this country, unless they get really
energetic and practical help from the Housing Corporation.
However, the chief difficulties
-
the availability of land and the
technicalities of the building work
-
apply primarily to new building.
‘The
land
problem disappears if housing associations can be brought into
redevelopment or area improvement in co-operation with local authorities
and the technical difficulties also largely disappear if existing houses of
yood quality, which need little improvement
or
which have already been
improved, are taken over.
Public discussion has hitherto assumed that housing societies under the
‘964
Act will compete with local authorities for open sites on which to
build rather expensive new houses of advanced architectural design.’ But
since the objects
of
a housing society which
is
assisted under the
1964
Act can include ‘constructing, improving
or
managing houses’,2 it should
not be assumed that housing societies need necessarily operate solely by
building new houses on open sites. They might make a great practical
contribution to solving our housing problems
-
for a lower range of income
groups
-
by taking over the management of existing houses.
Indeed the advantages of housing societies are even more apparent in
the ownership of
old
than
of
new houses since the most serious problem
which faces the individual owner-occupier of an old house is the risk of
sudden, heavy repair bills.3 Membership
of
a
housing association minimizes
this risk by securing the economies of regular contracts for maintenance
and repair, by spreading the cost over
a
large number of houses, and by
converting the bills into small, regular, weekly payments instead of large,
unexpected demands.
Basically, the problem which the government schemes are designed to
solve-
the lack of choice in the housing market-is being created by
slum clearance and by the transfer
of
existing houses from private landlords
to owner-occupiers,
so
decreasing the present stock of privately rented
houses. One answer is certainly to compensate by building new houses
which will be available for letting. But another answer would be to
modernize those houses that are worth modernizing, and then to ensure
that they remain in the letting ‘pool’. Local authorities have wide new
powers under Part
I1
of the
1964
Act to secure the improvement
of
substandard houses on an area basis, and, where the existing owners are
unwilling or unable
to
carry out the work, these powers could be combined
with the scheme of assistance to housing societies under Part
I
of the
Act,
so
that the modernized houses would be retained for letting at rents
which included neither profit nor subsidy (other than the element of
improvement grant).
*See
for
example
the reports
of
the
Parliamentary procccdings on Part
I
of
thc
1964
2Housing Act
1964,
section 1(7)(c).
Housing Bill.
J.B.Cidlingworth,
Housinz
in
Trawilion,
Hcinernann
1963.
*
53
P
U
B
I,
I
C
AD
M
I
N
I
S'I'
R
AT
I0
N
No
one can be happy about a situation in which
our
oldcr,
cheaply
rented houses are steadily disappearing, although some at leiut
of
them
could, with some modernization, provide satisfactory homes at reasonalde
rents, within easy distance
of
our town centres, and at less cost than
new
council building
-
which
is
at present the only remedy.
In
the
long
run
thererore it might well be in the interests
of
local housing authoritics
to
co-operate with the Housing Corporation and the housing socirtirs
in
this
way.
To
sum
up, housing co-operatives and
-
if the tax difliculty
c'an
Ix
resolved
-
cost-rent societies could potentially
fill
the gap betwccn
rcyilctl
council housing and owner-occupation. They could do this
cithcr,
as
previously assumed, by new building (provided that the
Housing
Corporation can obtain land for them and can give them adcquatr:
technical assistance)
or,
as
suggested above, by taking over the managcrrieii
t
of existing houses (provided local authorities recognize the potential
v;rluc
of
housing societies in schemes
of
area redevelopmcnt
or
improvement).
They could thus, as in Sweden,
form
an essential part
of
an
iritegrrrtecl
housing policy designed
to
raise housing standards generally and
to
o
tTc:r
a
wider housing choice, provided enough people
-
inside
and
outsiclc
pl)liv
authorities
-
can discard accepted attitudes
to
housing.
The Association
of
Industrial and Commercial Executive
Accountants Ltd. (By guarantee). A professional body
ol'
Accountants engaged in Commerce, Industry and the Public
Service.
Full
details
of
membership as an Incorporated
Executive Accountant from
:
The Secretary
(PA),
126,
Great
Cambridge Road, London,
N.17.
'54

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT