§ 29. Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Corporation of Sheffield was granted the subsidy on 472 houses after it had been decided that no more subsidy was to be paid under 1091 the 1924 Act, and that this was the result of representations made by the Sheffield Estates Committee through the town clerk; and whether, in view of this precedent, he will reconsider his decision not to extend the period of the subsidy to include the houses in Scotland which owing to a trade dispute could not be completed within the higher subsidy period?
§ Mr. SKELTONNo, Sir. My right hon. Friend is informed that the houses referred to were not approved for subsidy after the date when it was decided that no more subsidy was to be paid under the 1924 Act. With regard to the second part of the question my right hon. Friend is informed that no subsidy will be paid in respect of any of the Sheffield houses if completed after 30th June, 1934. The instance referred to in the question is accordingly not a precedent for extending the date after Which the £9 subsidy can be earned in Scotland beyond 30th June, 1934.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs the hon. Member not aware that members of the Sheffield Corporation have admitted that they were being refused a subsidy, but that, after representations had been made to the Department of Health, the subsidy was extended to cover the extra period required to build the houses?
§ Mr. SKELTONThe point which is of importance is that the subsidy will not be paid on houses completed after 30th June, 1934. I have given the hon. Member the information at my command, and I would recommend him to ask the Minister of Health if he wants further details.
§ Mr. MACLEANAre we to understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland considers that Scotland is a separate entity in this House, and, that there is to be no communication between the Department of Health for Scotland and the Department of Health for England? In other words, is he under the impression that Scotland has got Home Rule?
§ Mr. SKELTONThat seems to be rather a large deduction. I am merely referring to the ordinary practice that Ministers should be responsible for matters connected with their own Department.