HOUSING, CLYDEBANK (Hansard, 28 May 1952)

§ Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)
The matter I wish to discuss is one of grave urgency. As hon. Members probably know, the Burgh of Clydebank was heavily bombed in March, 1941. The damage was such that of 11,800 houses 4,050 were destroyed. With the exception of 259, those 11,800 houses were privately owned. The Burgh of Clydebank was compelled as quickly as possible to replace those 4,050 houses because in the area was an ordnance factory, a large shipyard and an important factory engaged upon war work. It was imperative that the people should be rehoused quickly because of the contribution they were making in the war against Nazi Germany.
Those 4,000 houses have been built, but the replacement has resulted in the Burgh of Clydebank being left with an annual deficit on housing of £61,000 for the next 60 years, and not one house has yet been built to provide for the natural increase in population and the overcrowding that existed between the wars. The years between 1942 and 1951 have been occupied in the replacement of that bomb damage.
Clydebank suffered that damage because it was making such a great contribution to the national effort. It was obviously singled out by the enemy, and its people suffered tremendous hardship. The scars still remain, not only in the burgh itself but amongst its people. Many of my constituents are cripples, and there are a great number who lost wives, husbands or children in the blitz, and yet the people of the burgh are burdened increasingly by the annual debt charge on the replacement of those houses, which in all justice should have been a national charge and not a local charge upon the people.
Furthermore, as the result of that loss of 4,000 privately owned houses, the burgh lost an aggregate rateable value of £313,000. The previous Government made a grant in aid of £213,000, but that has now ended and Clydebank is left with the charge of £61,000 a year for the next 60 years. In addition, the destructor 1628 In Clydebank was seriously damaged and has to be replaced. Its cost of replacement, as a result partly of the increase in the Bank rate and the increased interest rates on local loan charges, will be an extra £564 per annum.
Then we are compelled to move out of the burgh, to extend the boundary, and to build houses to take the over-spill population and the overcrowding. We are forced to go out to the Faifley area and to build there. The cost of services for housing and the increased interest rates resulting from the policy of the Government are leading to such a problem that the rate contribution of the burgh next year, when the Faifley scheme is in operation to provide housing apart from the war damage replacement, will be 5s. 8d. in the £. In 1954 it will be 7s. 2d. in the £, and by 1955 the figure, which is for the housing deficit alone, will be 8s. 8d.
All this is the consequence of the bombing of Clydebank in 1941. Not for the life of me can I understand why the local residents who suffered the bombing not only in Clydebank but in other areas that were heavily bombed, should be burdened for the rest of their lives with such a heavy charge upon them because of the high replacement cost of the capital loss in the form of houses.
The development area in the central part of Clydebank, which was heavily blitzed, is to be used as a re-development area. If we were to build in that central area the kind of huge tenements that were there before the war, Clydebank could claim from the War Damage Commission, but we cannot build in that area. We have to go further afield, and instead of building houses for £900, which we could claim from the War Damage Commission, we are faced with building houses that are costing on the average £2,000.
Again, to get the War Damage claim in the central area that has been completely flattened, rebuilding must take place within a certain period of time. That cannot be done, because there is too much to be done. The grant received would decrease as time went on, because it is impossible to complete the task in the period laid down by the conditions of the War Damage Commission.
We do not ask for a complete financial rehabilitation, but at least the capital 1629 cost that we have incurred in replacing these 4,000 houses should be provided by the national Exchequer. It could come within the conditions that have applied in the past; we have had grants in Clydebank from the Exchequer, but they have ceased. The time is opportune—and I speak particularly for Clydebank but also for other cities—;that something should be granted.
I was in Clydebank the other week and the people there are remarkable. I have been there only 12 months, but it is wonderful what they have done in spite of their difficulties. They had an exhibition of arts and crafts and I was amazed at what they had done in their own homes. Many of them who were painting china or making gloves were injured in the blitz. It is tragic to think that for 60 years the people of Clydebank now have to carry the burden of interest charges for the service of the debt to replace what was destroyed while they were serving their country, just as the men in the Forces were. It is a gross injustice that that, or any other burgh in the same circumstances, should have to bear this burden all those years, simply because they were the centre of an important war industry.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith)
I have the very greatest sympathy with the case that the hon. Gentleman has deployed before the House, and with the Town Council of Clydebank. I met the Provost of Clydebank with certain members of his council and his officials on 25th April. when they laid their difficulties before me, and we had a considerable discussion upon them. Since then I have felt it my duty to go carefully into the situation.
I find that I am not wholly in agreement with certain of the figures submitted to the House, although approximately I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. For example, I find that we can say that roughly 4,000 houses were destroyed; the figure the hon. Gentleman gave was 4,050. But 3,600 were owned by private persons, and 400 belonged to the Town Council of Clydebank.
As a result of the War Damage Commission's settlement of the damage, when they made value payments to 3,200 of the private owners and cost of works pay- 1630 ments to 400 of those owners, and to the town council in respect of their 400 houses, the town council has had to replace 3,200 houses to make good the damage. In addition, they have had to provide—as have all other local authorities—for the normal housing requirements of their population.
I want to join with the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Town Council of Clydebank on the very great effort and progress they have made in their reconstruction. After all, it is a very great achievement when we recall that the population of Clydebank today is practically the same as it was before the blitz, and also that the rateable value has increased by some 18 per cent.
The Council have themselves built 3,594 houses, and they have another 823 under construction. In addition, they have provided 203 temporary houses and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish Special Housing Association has come to their aid; so I discovered from my inquiries into the situation that in fact, all agencies taken into account, they have completed some 4,500 houses. This is equal to the astonishing figure of 87½ houses per thousand of the population, and is an extraordinary achievement in all the circumstances.
That record naturally involves a very heavy financial commitment. The hon. Gentleman has given us the housing rate for next year and for 1954. I have not worked this out, but I know that last year the housing rate was 4s. 1d. and the total rate was 19s. 7d. If we use the conventional fraction of 25 per cent. and measure the difference between valuation for rating in England and Scotland, that is equivalent to a rate of 24s. 6d. in England; but I think it is fair to point out that other Scottish burghs have a comparable rate. In Airdrie the rate last year was 19s. 9d. and in Coatbridge it was 19s. 7d.
In all the circumstances of which the hon. Gentleman has told us, I can well understand that the Town Council of Clydebank would be very grateful for further financial help, and it is with very great regret that I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no possibility of a special grant being made. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's comments in relation to other blitzed towns, I would say that Clydebank has been treated in exactly the same way as the others. 1631 While the result of the war damage they suffered resulted in a loss of rateable value, they received yearly a Treasury grant which, as the hon. Gentleman said, came to an end in 1950-51. There is only one exception to that general rule, and that is in the case of West Ham, where there are very special circumstances, because the rateable value last year was still only some 79 per cent. of the rateable value before the war.
I would point out that Clydebank has had other special assistance from the Scottish Special Housing Association, which have built at no cost whatever to the ratepayers, 650 houses, and which is building, at the present time, 150 more. It has been mentioned to me that Clydebank would like the Scottish Special Housing Association to assume complete responsibility for some of the local authority's houses. The hon. Gentleman put it in another way and said that they would like the Exchequer to assume responsibility for the refund of the capital cost of making good the damage.
Either of those methods would give very substantial relief to the ratepayers, but I am sorry to say that the proposal that the Scottish Special Housing Association should take over responsibility for any of the existing houses is quite out of the question. I hope that in view of the special circumstances in Clydebank, the Scottish Special Housing Association will begin the building of another 400 houses within the next year or two. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are at present considering what additional houses will be built by the association throughout Scotland. When that programme is approved, Clydebank will not be overlooked.

§ Mr. Bence
The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the special case of West Ham which only had 79 per cent. of its pre-war rateable value. I would like to point out that the grant in aid for rates to Clydebank for 1927-1928 was £1,763, and the loss from the equalisation grant was nil in that period. In 1951-1952 the loss in rates—and we have some big industrial plants there—was £103,000.

Commander Galbraith
The blitz grant was given to make up the loss in rateable value. Clydebank's rateable value is now almost one-fifth more than 1632 it was before the blitz, and it is for that reason the grant was stopped. In essence the difficulties in Clydebank are the same as in any other area in which a high proportion of the houses has been built by the local authority. The position is not unique, because the percentage of houses owned by the authority in Clydebank was 49 in 1951–52: in Ayr the local authority owned 58.9 per cent., in Hamilton 48.6 per cent. and in other areas the proportion was also high.

§ Mr. Bence
What percentage of the houses owned by the local authority was built before the war and what percentage were built in the post war period?

Commander Galbraith
A certain number were built before the war.

§ Mr. Bence
How many?

Commander Galbraith
The position turns very largely on the proportion of the houses that are actually owned by the local authority. I am aware that Clydebank is trying to ease the burden on the rates in every possible way. I am told, for example, they are giving as many licences as possible to private persons so that they may build their own houses. Those who are doing so are, indeed, public benefactors, because they are easing the burden on their fellow citizens.

§ Mr. Bence
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to private persons getting licences to build in Clydebank, and private builders building there. They have got one; that is mine, for I am having a bungalow built. But there is no room there to build.

Commander Galbraith
The hon. Gentleman's information would not appear to be as good as mine which I may say was given to me by the highest authority in the affairs of Clydebank. They did not tell me how many licences were being given. They said they were giving every single licence they could to ease the burden on the ratepayers.

§ Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)
How many did they give?

Commander Galbraith
They did not tell me.

§ Mr. Delargy
Why not?

Commander Galbraith
The hon. Gentleman can go and discover the number for himself.
1633 I want further to say that this difficulty which has arisen in Clydebank is an example of difficulties arising elsewhere, and is one which has to be examined in its general and overall aspects. At the present moment, as the hon. Gentleman may know, there is a working party going into the operation of the equalisation grants, and I hope that that working party, and its examination, will provide the opportunity for inquiring into the general aspects of the matter. I cannot say whether this review of the situation will result in our finding that something can be done to ease the position of authorities like Clydebank and others in the same position. But, I can assure him, and the House, that the position will be very carefully examined in relation to existing grants. I am sorry that I cannot give a clearer or more satisfactory answer. This is a matter of general concern, and one which will have the general review of which I have already spoken.

§ Mr. James H. Hoy (Leith)
Could we be told anything more about examination of the equalisation grant? It will be recalled that, when first brought into being, it was on the understanding that there was to be a revision of the rateable values in England. May we be told if that is going to be taken into account in this review?

Commander Galbraith:
Before one could give any useful answer one would have to see the result of the review. The hon. Member refers to the revision of rateable values in England, but that appears to be a matter still somewhat ahead in time.

§ Mr. Hoy
It is extremely important, so far as Scotland is concerned, and what we should like to know is if Clydebank is being taken into consideration.

Commander Galbraith
The point now being raised is a particular and specific point of the equalisation grant, whereas I am required to answer a debate on housing in Clydebank. I have given the best answer I can at this hour.

§ Sir William Darling
(Edinburgh, South): Is it not the case that Scotland has been disappointed with the equalisation grant, not only in Clydebank, but elsewhere in the country?

Commander Galbraith
A great number of anomalies have been found, which are now the subject of inquiry.

§ Mr. Hoy
It was agreed that this revaluation should take place so far as England was concerned. In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), the Joint Under-Secretary said we should have to reconsider revaluation with a reconsideration of the equalisation grant; and he said that might help Clydebank. Would he be prepared to go so far as to say that the revaluation in England would be taken into account, because on that depends Scotland's share of what the grant would be in future?

Commander Galbraith
I said that, as a result of this review, ways and means might appear; but that it was too early for me to say whether or not that would be the result of the review.

§ Sir W. Darling
Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell us how far it is true to say that Scotland has, unfortunately, been tied to the English "tail" in these matters?

Commander Galbraith
I do not think that I can deal with that point now.