HC Deb 12 December 1922 vol 159 cc2575-7

asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he is aware that the city of Glasgow requires 57,000 new houses, and in that city the number of houses condemned as unfit for habitation is 13,000; and what steps will he take to both urge and help the local authority to solve both of those problems?


My Noble Friend is aware of the estimates on which the figures given are based. As regards the last part of the question, the provision to be made under the State-aided housing scheme includes the building of 4,854 houses by the corporation, 102 houses by public utility societies, and 142 houses by private enterprise. It is understood that the corporation are also preparing a slum clearance scheme in respect of which, if approved, they will be entitled to participate in the annual State grant of £30,000 earmarked for this purpose. The question of further assistance being given by the State to enable local authorities to deal with the housing problem is at present engaging the attention of the Government.


In regard to the slum clearances, which only apply to 400 houses of 13,000, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have it applied to the whole 13,000?


I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.

37. Mr. NICH0L

asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that house factors in Glasgow and the West of Scotland have issued letters to tenants stating that the present Government, through the Prime Minister, has given to the country indication that proprietors will not be called upon to refund rents under the Kerr v. Bryde decision, and demanding continued payment of the increase of rent decreed to be illegal; and whether he will take steps to have the confusion in this matter cleared up?


My Noble Friend has had his attention drawn to a case in which a Glasgow house factor has issued a letter of the kind referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on this subject yesterday.


As the answer given yesterday conveyed nothing, may I ask if the communication referred to has not caused more confusion in Scotland than the original scheme of the Prime-Minister's indication?


I think everybody can form their own opinion upon it.


In view of the answers given to these questions, will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear upon the Prime Minister to have somebody on the Treasury Bench who understands something about Scottish affairs?