HC Deb 18 December 1970 vol 808 cc1710-32
Mr. Speaker

Order. May I remind the House that I have had put on the Order Paper not only the topics for debate but the length of each debate. The times must be rigorously adhered to, otherwise hon. Members at the end of the day will not get in.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone (Glasgow, Gorbals)

If I am asked in later years what was my best opportunity in 1970, I must certainly say that it was my opportunity today to raise in the House the very serious problem of Glasgow's housing. I and many thousands of Glasgow families are deeply indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, for providing this opportunity. First, I should like to pay my tribute to you, Sir, on your last day of service in the House, and to wish you a very happy and healthy retirement.

A few years ago on a visit to Glasgow the then Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, having a look at Glasgow's slums, described them as the worst slums in Western Europe. Only in June the present Prime Minister went on record as saying that Glasgow's slums are four times worse than any other city's, and that special aid must be given to the City of Glasgow. This was repeated in an editorial in the Glasgow Herald of 11th June, which said that Glasgow's housing problem was a special issue, and continued: And for the thousands of people still living in condemned or dilapidated property … there is no problem more real than that,…". At this Christmas period many thousands of Glasgow's families will spend a most unhappy time, because they will be sharing the festive season with dampness, rats and other forms of infestation. When we consider this to be a democratic society, that must rank as the most modern example of man's inhumanity to man. Christmas is a special time for children, but for many hundreds of Glasgow children this will be a very bleak period.

In last Wednesday's Glasgow Herald, Dr. Peter McKenzie, a consultant physician at Belvidere Hospital, was quoted as saying: During the winter there is a high admission rate of acute respiratory infections in young children and many of these have to be nursed in humidified oxygen tents. As a facet of poor housing conditions in the city, infantile gastro-enteritis and dysentery are responsible for nearly 1,000 admissions. Glasgow's medical officer of health said only yesterday: There are too many children in overcrowded conditions.… He also said that these atrocious conditions in Glasgow were a major cause of dysentery, and that one type, Fhexner dysentery, could also be called the "Glasgow disease" because it was quite peculiar to that city. The majority of victims lived in tenements with outside toilets and no wash hand basins or baths, and school children from homes lacking good hygiene standards were carriers of the disease. It must concern each and every one of us that in the latter part of the twentieth century people are still living in such appalling conditions.

The Prime Minister, to whom I did the courtesy of sending a letter asking him to be present this morning—although I appreciate the reason for his absence—is quoted as saying on 1st June: The people of this country deserve a better life and that is the only reason I am in politics. I am sure that that is a sentiment we all share and a principle we would all accept. The only difference is that as Prime Minister he now has an opportunity to do something about it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say: I promise you one thing and I will stand by that promise. I promise I will do everything in my power to make sure that for all the people in this country tomorrow will be a better day. I have grave doubts, as have most people in Glasgow. I fear that the Prime Minister's golden halo is somewhat tarnished by the actions and reactions of the Government since June.

Why have we so many slums? Why have we this shocking position in Glasgow? One of the main reasons is that a hundred years or more ago it was the attitude of the employers to cram in as many workers as possible as close to the factories as possible. We had a combination of property owners and industrialists—I would say the "ancestors" of the present Government—who were interested only in getting a return of 20s. in the pound and who had no regard for human dignity or the conditions in which those people had to live. There were thousands of single apartments with outside toilets which sometimes had to serve a dozen people. These apartments were known as "single ends", and it is my opinion that the single end was a slum as soon as it was built. The single end is one of the reasons why my constituency had such a high rate of tuberculosis and the unenviable record of the worst infantile mortality rate in Western Europe.

The Labour council, which was in power for a considerable number of years, achieved a record of 150,000 houses. The recent five and a half years of Labour Government, during which subsidies were increased, helped to make serious inroads into the problem. It is worth quoting the difference between the subsidies under the Tory Government of 1962 and those under the Labour Government, particularly in 1968. In 1962 Glasgow was receiving only £32 per house per year. But there was an astonishing difference in 1968, when the city was receiving £150 per house, with an extra £30 for difficult site building. I quote those figures because we are anxious about the present Government's assistance to Glasgow, and especially the attitude as shown by the new rate support grant.

Unfortunately in 1968, through misguided nationalism, Glasgow suffered a severe setback, when we had a Tory council and this tragedy was compounded by the return of a Tory Government in June last. We did not have long to wait to see the results of local Tory policy. In 1969 we had a record increase in rates, a rapidity of rent increases and a cutting back of a very effective direct labour department set up by a Labour council in 1937 which had achieved a very high standard of workmanship in house building.

It is worth mentioning here the amount of financial assistance by way of rate support grant received by the city from the Labour Government. In 1967–68 Glasgow received £26 million; in 1968–69, £29 million, and in 1969–70, £33½ million. When considering these figures we must remember the serious financial crisis we had in those years, yet the Labour Government tried to meet their promises to the city as far as possible.

In spite of that very generous assistance from the Labour Government, the City Treasurer of 1968 set about reducing the housing estimates by £700,000 in 1969. He was quoted as saying in March of that year: I think there must be a slowing up in the rate of redevelopment in this city. I would suggest that serious consideration should be given to the advisability of restricting the programme of redevelopment up to 1980 to the 14 comprehensive development areas at present in course of execution or preparation, and of postponing the remaining 15 until 1980–2000. How could anyone in such a senior position talk about keeping slums until the year 2000?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hesitate to intervene, but so far this seems to be Glasgow's responsibility. The hon. Member must come to something he wants the Minister to do.

Mr. McElhone

I accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Glasgow's tragedy is that the enthusiasm and drive of the previous Labour Government and the previous Labour council have been replaced by the apathy and indifference of the present Government.

Because of the inability of the Tory council to do anything about the problem the Labour Government set up the Glasgow housing programme working party in January last, the remit being to consider how best to cure this atrocious problem. After meetings between the Glasgow Corporation and the Scottish Development Department officials it was realised that Glasgow's programme was for only 3,000 houses a year when the actual need was for about 7,000 a year. Yet we have the appalling situation of £11½ million being underspent on the housing account. That shows a highly irresponsible attitude. This is where I press the Government to take serious action on Glasgow's behalf. Glasgow's housing problem must be a national responsibility. The cold indifference shown is resulting in a great deal of unnecessary misery.

The new indicative cost procedure has been blamed for the delay in building but this is not true. In 1968, plans for only 1,420 houses were submitted for approval and that figure determines completions in 1969–70. The Minister must take urgent action, because if the present situation continues any longer there could be a breakdown of many families as units.

The present Secretary of State recently said: We must clear our slums, especially Glasgow slums.… How can he reconcile that statement with the Government's decision to cut back housing subsidies in order to save £100 million or £200 million while at the same time announcing income tax and corporation tax rebates amounting to £350 million—I suppose as a means of repaying the political paymasters of the Conservative Party.

The situation cannot be adequately described by statistics. Professor Cullingworth, who was responsible for an investigation into Glasgow's housing problem, said that we should be shouting from the rooftops because Glasgow's slums were unique—"thank God"—in Great Britain. I urge the Government to take immediate action, for they appear to be frozen in the ice of their own indifference. I hope to take some action which my colleagues in Glasgow and the rest of my Scottish colleagues to keep shouting from the rooftops, and, as long as I am privileged to be a Member for Glasgow, to hope that the city, and particularly my constituency, will enjoy a standard of housing equal to that of the rest of the country.

11.21 a.m.

Mr. James White (Glasgow, Pollok)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I have waited so long because I wanted to speak on a Scottish subject, and preferably a subject concerning Glasgow. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) on raising this subject on the Adjournment and so allowing me to do so.

It will be recollected that in 1964 Labour made political history by winning Pollok and overturning a Tory majority of nearly 8,000. It was said at that time that the late Alex Garrow was in for life. Unfortunately, we did not know that life for him would be only two and a half years. It is exactly four years today, the Friday before Christmas, that Scottish Members gathered to pay our last respects to Alex Garrow.

At the by-election, because of the intervention of the Scottish Nationalist Party, Esmond Wright, a well-known figure in Glasgow, an academic, television and radio personality, well respected not only in his own party but in other political parties in Scotland, won the seat for the Conservative Party. Had he been returned in this election I am sure that he would have been gracing the Government Front Bench, and on that account at any rate I am sorry that he is not here.

Pollok is a constituency in Glasgow which is half residential and half council housing. If anything, the balance is on the council housing side. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals spoke about slums and I am acutely concerned about slums ill the housing schemes. We do not have housing problems in Pollok, although we have something of a traffic problem which I have discussed with the Under-Secretary, and about which, even at this late date, I hope to have something done. Pollok is one of the oldest burghs in Scotland, but it has been completely redeveloped by the construction of multi-storey flats. I am sorry to say that after spending nearly £1 million on these multi-storey flats, Glasgow Corporation has walked away leaving large dumps of materials in the vicinity.

This is the start of modern slums at House Hill Wood and Priesthill. These flats cannot be adequately described. I have heard them called a jungle. Let me make it crystal clear that I do not blame the present Government or the present corporation. The fault lies with consecutive town councils in Glasgow. Instead of going around the world, councillors in Glasgow would do well to wander around their own city at times to see for themselves exactly what is happening.

Priesthill has been described as a place of total despair. Headmasters and their schoolteachers tell me the children suffer if they come from these areas. The scheme was built before the war and no drains were laid. The result is that in 1970 people have to walk to their dustbins through six inches or nine inches of mud. The cleansing department is not very efficient with this scheme and gradually the whole environment is worsened.

Above and beyond all others, the great tragedy is that children are being brought up here. I am often conscious of the fact that this is one of the reasons why Glasgow has become such a violent city. Wives and mothers living in these areas find that for them the cost of living is higher than it is in the rest of the town, for their bus fares are higher and they have to go by bus to do their shopping. Pollok has no amenities of any kind, no place for the children to go, and so they have nothing to do but go in the streets.

I hope that this is something which the Minister will consider as soon as possible and that this great estate will be provided with the community services which it needs. As the bulldozers pull down the Gorbals and Bridgeton and Govan, people move into Pollok, and we have a wonderful opportunity to make life for the people moving from the slums much better instead of allowing them simply to move into new modern slums. We already have an acute problem with people who do not want to leave houses which have no toilets and bathrooms to move into houses in Priesthill. This is freely admitted in Glasgow, and it is a shocking reflection on the lack of energy displayed by the corporation.

In 1952 the Toothill Report on the Scottish economy criticised the amenities of Scottish council housing and described the new estates as bleak areas of concrete boxes. Discussing schemes without community centres and without anything for children to do, a report published in 1935 said: Neglect of this principle and the prevailing tendency to regard working-class houses as mere units of accommodation unrelated to each other and to their environment we regard as a fundamental defect in the majority of Scottish housing schemes. Thirty-five years later conditions have got worse.

One of the peculiarities of Pollok is that five hon. Members live there—I do not mean to suggest that they are peculiar. They are losing constituents into my con-constituency. I am now serving them by doing my best to ensure that life is a little better for the people who move into Pollok.

11.29 a.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hillhead)

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. James White) on an able and calmly delivered maiden speech on a matter which often excites, and rightly excites, great emotion. I have a particular interest in Pollok, because, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the constituency was represented for many years by my father. Clearly, in my view Pollok is not now quite the same. Nevertheless, I was delighted by the hon. Gentleman's speech and I hope that he will continue, not only in the House but in the Scottish Committee, to make speeches in that same calm manner and not become contaminated by some of his hon. Friends.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) chose an important subject for this debate. His constituency is somewhat different from mine, but in parts of mine I have similar problems. It is easy to excite sympathy and stir up emotion by describing the appalling conditions of certain parts of Glasgow, but that is not nearly enough.

It was unworthy of the hon. Member for Gorbals to suggest that the slums were there because 100 years ago factory owners wished their workers to live close to the factory. Where else did he expect them to live? He seems to have forgotten that in those days there were no trains or cars, and if the workers did not live near their work, they did not have any work to do. The hon. Gentleman should do his research before producing that sort of red herring.

I get sick and tired of hearing people talk these days about man's inhumanity to man. I saw a photograph recently in the Ayr Advertiser of a row of miners' cottages in the constituency of the Under-Secretary which had been built just over 100 years ago. These houses are today condemned as utterly appalling. However, the article recalled that when they were originally built they were regarded as the best possible modern dwellings that could be provided.

Mr. James White

rose—

Mr. Galbraith

I will not give way. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman and I wish to be brief.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite forget that there is no point in criticising what was done 100 years ago if, at the same time, they compare those days with the conditions and standards that exist today.

It ill becomes the hon. Member for Gorbals, who was a member of the Town Council of Glasgow for many years, to criticise the Conservative Party for the conditions which he and his hon. Friend the Member for Pollok rightly condemn. In the last 40 years there has been, with two short exceptions, a Socialist administration running the City of Glasgow. If there is anything wrong with housing in Glasgow, and heaven knows there is, they are the guilty men. I am sorry to have to say that so close to Christmas, but unfortunately it is true.

The hon. Member for Pollok rightly referred to housing estates where people feel they are living in what the late Aneurin Bevan described as "units of accommodation". That is the trouble. They are called units instead of homes. I remember that during the 1945 election Mr. Churchill, as he then was, spoke of three important factors; food, work and homes. What did we get? We got "units of accommodation" from the Socialists, and they are responsible for the present housing conditions in Glasgow. I have written to my hon. Friend on the question of multi-storey dwellings saying that this type of development has gone too far, and I join with the hon. Member for Pollok in this matter.

Three points must be borne in mind when considering housing conditions in Glasgow, and none of them has anything to do with man's inhumanity to man. First—and the Labour party is responsible in this matter—the rents of local authority houses have been far too low. I see the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) sharpening his pencil—or is he getting his gun ready?—because of this remark. Unfortunately I will not be in my place to listen to his protestations because owing to the air troubles I shall have to leave shortly to get to Scotland.

Because of the low rents that have been charged, there has been no incentive to those who are able to afford a little more to help themselves. A few years ago a notorious case arose in my constituency. It was found that a gentleman earning well over £3,000 a year, which is probably equivalent to £4,000 today, was residing in a local authority house and paying a very low rent.

The second factor which is causing bad housing conditions in Glasgow is that rent restriction has meant that insufficient money has been going to maintain private housing. This was recognised by hon. Gentlemen opposite because, as a death-bed repentance, they introduced the fair rent structure. We had been pressing for it for years.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

Oh dear.

Mr. Galbraith

We do not want any hypocrisy from the hon. Member for Greenock. He knows that there would have been a tremendous uproar from his hon Friends, with shouting from the house-tops, if we had attempted to introduce such a Measure.

Thirdly, I am concerned about the maintenance of private property in multiple ownership. There are many good tenement flats that were built 50 to 60 years ago, but the occupants of many of them tend to take a short-term view of maintenance. If they were living in their own bungalows they would know that any money spent on maintenance would be well worth the expenditure because they would more than get it back when they sold. However, those who own only one part of a block and who have neighbours above and below them take a different attitude.

I hope that the Minister will look into this problem. This may sound rather strange coming from a Conservative, but I suggest that the Government examine whether they have powers to ensure that private property is maintained to an adequate standard. I am not referring simply to safety standards. Unless this is done, I fear that there will be a constant decline in this property. There are good houses in my constituency which are lacking adequate maintenance.

If we look at local authority rents—and the Government have promised to introduce a Measure about this—and fairer rents are charged for private property, so that there is an incentive and an ability to maintain it—it cannot be done without the money—and if this question of the maintenance of property in multiple private ownership is examined. I am sure that we shall achieve more for the citizens of Glasgow than all the shouting from the housetops on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite will achieve.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. James Bennett (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I wish, at the outset, to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. James White) on his excellent maiden speech. I have known him for many years and I have no doubt that, having got his first speech in this House under his belt, we will be hearing from him frequently.

I am glad of this opportunity to speak about Glasgow's housing conditions. I do not propose to comment on the many points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), except to wonder about what he as to complain over the attitude of the Socialist Administration towards Glasgow. If anything, I have more to complain about than he has.

As a result of the efforts of the previous Administration, my distinguished constituency of Bridgeton will disappear after the May redistribution. This will happen because of the successful record of the Socialist Administration in rehousing so many families from my area. It is, of course, a source of regret to me that Bridgeton will disappear. On the other hand it gives me a sense of satisfaction to know that so many families have been removed to better homes.

The hon. Member for Hillhead said that it was easy to become emotional on the subject of housing conditions. I get not only emotional but impatient because, unlike him, I am not prepared to dwell on the past. I have no doubt that when the historians come to write about our actions, they will have an equal portion of blame and praise to give.

Nor is it any good to quote statistics. How many houses were built in one year compared with another is meaningless to families waiting for homes. Statistics do not convey the degradation and vile conditions which still exist in the City of Glasgow. It is ironic that we hear so much about environmental pollution and its effect on the countryside and the air when for so many years we have had in the midst of one of Britain's greatest cities areas which can be classed only as cesspits. In my constituency there is one ward in which nothing has been built for over 20 years by either private builders or by the local authority. Yet in this area are some of the poorest and worst housing conditions which can be found anywhere.

I am not demanding immediate action, but I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Development to find time to pay a visit to Glasgow to see the problem for himself and to realise how urgent it is. If he made such a visit, it would create a good deal of hope—and in my area hope is a commodity which is running out. A visit by the Minister would put him in a better position to decide what should be done. I do not propose to remind him of the assurances given prior to the election; many things are said prior to an election. But I imagine that no one would disagree that Glasgow is in a unique position.

Reference has been made to the report of the medical officer of health in which such terms as "atrocious housing and living conditions" are used. They are strong words, but they fit the conditions in Glasgow. Gastroenteritis and dysentery are commonplace, especially in my constituency where back courts are back courts in name only at this time of the year. Throughout the winter these are areas of green slime. Dustbin shelters are non-existent. These conditions are accepted as normal.

If the Housing Acts were made to operate in my area—and we should bear in mind the standards laid down in the last Housing Act in respect of which there was talk of tolerable standards for the first time—90 per cent. of the houses would be shut. It is nothing short of tragic that we can pass Acts with the declared intention of righting certain evils and yet nothing is done to improve the housing conditions.

We require more than simply the passing of legislation. The intimate attention of Ministers whose responsibility is to provide decent housing is required. Local authorities should face up to their responsibilities and provide the necessary houses.

The conditions in an area like Glasgow transcend all political boundaries. If we spent less time slanging each other for what has been done or what should have been done and united in a common purpose to achieve better standards in areas of bad housing conditions, possibly many more people living in atrocious conditions would live in them for only a very short time longer and would be removed to much better areas.

I ask the Minister to find time to visit the City of Glasgow—not the town centre but areas of bad housing conditions—so that he may fully appreciate the urgency of the situation, although I do not dispute that he knows that it is urgent. He would then be able to see for himself what is needed. I ask him not to say that this is purely a matter for the local authority. I have no doubt that if he makes a visit he will come away armed with the information he needs and imbued with a sense of urgency to do whatever is necessary.

Words are just words; they contribute nothing. Facts speak much louder than words, and the facts in Glasgow are there for anyone to see.

11.45 a.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. James White) on his excellent maiden speech. My hon. Friend kept very calm in a situation which perhaps could have engendered a bit more heat, which the hon. Member for Hillhead did. He counselled us to keep calm but did not keep calm himself. Like Simon Marley, in his warning to old Scrooge, he told us of the wickedness of what will happen if we do not behave. The hon. Gentleman is a convert when he talks about insufficient money being put into old tenements. That is quite right. The only major repair and renovation carried out recently in the private sector in Glasgow was with Government money as a consequence of an act of God and an Act of Parliament. The act of God was the storm of 1968 and the Act of Parliament was, among others, the 1969 housing Measure which provided for the giving of money to owners of properties in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland.

I agree that the social value of these buildings is more properly gauged in the atmosphere of Dickensian times, about which the hon. Member for Hillhead is an authority, when the present tenements were built than by looking at them nowadays. But no one can deny that the state of private housing, particularly of rented accommodation, in Glasgow is deplorable. A great deal of action, not talk, is required to improve the situation. All that we have had from the Government so far has been talk.

What are the facts? We are not to have a Bill for another year. Then it probably will not be in process of translation into fact until the summer of 1972. That will be two years after the Prime Minister promised on 11th June, 1970, that special aid for Glasgow was on the way. It will be two years, if the Government stick to their declared timetable, before they help Glasgow in some unspecified way. I emphasise that. We do not know what the promise to Glasgow means, nor do the Glaswegians. Not even the loyal Tory followers of the Prime Minister have the foggiest idea what the "special aid" represents. No city treasurer of Glasgow can calculate the budget estimates for the next few years based on an arithmetical appreciation of the Prime Minister's promise.

We have no facts and no figures. The Government have almost a terror of committing themselves to figures. Let me remind them of a few figures which they cannot run away from. First, they are on record as saying that they intend to build 50,000 houses every year in Scotland. That has never been repudiated. We can therefore take it that the Government's target remains what they declared it to be. We hope that they will achieve it. Certainly it is a target which we would have liked to achieve.

When the Prime Minister talks about the situation in our country being worse in 1970 than it was in 1964 in terms of new houses built, that is not true of Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State for Development, on any recital of the figures—and perhaps he had better stay away from figures—will have to admit that this year more houses are being built than in 1964, when 37,000 houses were built. We have surpassed that figure this year and are well on the way to sustaining the 40,000 plus which the Labour Government secured in 1967, 1968 and 1969. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he intends to go beyond the figure of 50,000 completions in Scotland in the time that he and his colleagues are at the Scottish Office.

There is also the commitment by the present Secretary of State for Scotland that he will secure the Cullingworth target of 30,000 slum houses cleared annually. If the Secretary of State is not committed to this—and in my opinion he is—then certainly the Under-Secretary of State for Development is committed, as witness his past speeches in favour of the Cullingworth Report and its consequential legislative provisions.

I touch on this because we hope that the present Government will use the 1969 Act to the full. Without that, this report which is the basis of our debate this morning, the report of the working party on the Glasgow housing programme, 1970, will be meaningless. I should like to highlight some of the facts in this report and ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us, which so far they have not done, what the Government intend to do about this report.

I remind the House that it was my duty in the days when I held the hon. Gentleman's office and then later as Minister of State to look regularly at this matter on a working party basis between officials and elected Members, and we did process for five years the housing programme of the city. It was a joint effort between the Government and the Corporation—to see that we could achieve better figures of housebuilding in the city and in figures of improvements and, of course, of the slums. In 1965 to 1969 inclusive we set ourselves a target of 25,000 new houses and we achieved that target, give or take a score, of houses here and there, depending on circumstances. That was for those five years. There was then a successor working party set up by Lord Hughes, my colleague as Minister of State, and the Corporation to lay out the strategy for the next 10 years—not five, but 10 years.

I am afraid that I was very disappointed at the paucity of information which the Under-Secretary of State gave us when he went to Glasgow this autumn and discussed the report with the Corporation. Therefore I would ask him a few questions which, I hope, will be answered, because my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone), my other colleagues and I have discussed these matters and we want answers. We think that the city, and both major parties in the city, are entitled to answers.

Do the Government accept the targets here? Do they expect the city to build, in that 10-year period, the same number of houses as we built in the five-year period, namely, 25,000? Does the hon. Gentleman expect that? Will his Department work closely with the Corporation to secure that the figure will be achieved by 1981? Can he tell us what has happened this year? That has not been quantified in this report. Or will we have to wait till January or February next year before we know how many houses have been completed in the city in 1970 and whether 1970 was as bad as or even worse than 1969? Much more important for the future of this programme, what is the figure of approvals and starts in 1970 in the city, and what has been done to increase it? I think that by that we can measure whether or not there is any sincerity in this declaration that 25,000 will be built in Glasgow in the next 10 years.

More important still, I would suggest, particularly in view of what the Select Committee said about the slow rate of house improvement grants both under Labour and Conservative Governments, there was, for example, in one year a rate of 140 applications for improvements—and that when there are literally thousands, tens of thousands, of houses which fall into this category in the city. Can we know, therefore, if it is the intention of the Government to try to secure 1,000 improved houses per annum over the 10 years? That would give us the 35,000 houses mentioned in the report here as necessary to be improved and freshly constructed within the city.

Then there is the strategic figure of 100,000 families to be rehoused, 10,000 a year, over the decade, with 65,000 outside the city. I can remember the long and difficult negotiations with the Conservatives in Glasgow over the contributions to Erskine and how at the end of the day we had to give in to the city's claim that it should get a very preferential rate and it should get such consideration for its houses and tenancies as its special situation merited. I personally would have liked Glasgow to have been given the entire and exclusive use of these houses on a tighter arrangement, but the Conservatives did not want that and wanted them cheaper. I warn the hon. Gentleman that there will be trouble if he gives less to other areas than has been given Glasgow. I warn him to be careful about it, because there are other places, little Glasgows, whose social and construction problems are as much in need of special aid, as the Prime Minister called it, as Glasgow claims to have.

On this question of overspill, the figure of 65,000 houses is given in the report. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this is endorsed by the Conservative Government? If it is, will he give us some information about the discrepancy between the numbers that we committed ourselves to when we were in office, and which I estimate to be some 17,000 fewer than that figure? This means, therefore, that there will be some reassessment of the various places and numbers outside the city that were chosen by the last Government for discussion and consideration—Erskine, Cumbernauld, East Kilbride, and, most controversial of all, the development of Larkhall and Stonehouse. The arrangement here was that the overall plan would be designed—not financed, but designed—by the East Kilbride New Town Development Corporation. After that 2,000 houses would be built by the S.S.H.A. and further houses would be allocated to the Larkhall-Stonehouse area. The intention was to review the situation in the light of reports like this. Is there not need to look at the Larkhall-Stonehouse area to see whether perhaps there should be a new town here—knowing that the Treasury has always a firm voice in these things, of course, under Government by either party? Irvine was envisaged for development in 1964 by the party opposite but it took two and a half years of statutory procedures and inquiries before the order was laid before the House and the start on building the houses for Irvine new town as such was made. If that was the case—and that was pretty good going—surely it is now time to start discussing the prospect of a new town in the Larkhall-Stonehouse area?

These are things of great moment to the people of Scotland, particularly west central Scotland, and the Scottish Office, so far, has been very reticent about saying anything about them. Indeed, the only noises we hear from the Scottish Office these days are snores. The somnolence is almost insufferable. The Government have grasped the housing finance nettle, as the hon. Gentleman said on one memorable occasion; let them grasp the nettle of these housing developments. Why is it that we hear so little about their future? We do not know what Government policy is. Perhaps the Government do not know themselves. Let us be fair—perhaps they have not made up their minds. But I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals has today fired the first shot in a campaign to get the Government to come clean and to say what they intend to do, and what they intend to do about that 50,000. lf, as I understand it, this is an agreed working party report, then these are questions which, I suggest, the Minister must answer. I hope that he will answer them today.

11.58 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger)

I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) on his extreme good fortune not only in getting, the Adjournment debate today and upon raising this very important subject, but also upon getting in first and upon confining his speech to a length which will make his and other hon. Members' arrangements easier for the rest of the day.

Having done that I should like particularly to say what a pleasure it was to hear the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. James White). He did what many others would be well advised to do. He waited to make his maiden speech for an occasion which is thoroughly suitable, and a subject thoroughly right in the interests of his constituency, and he talked of what he most believes in, and I thought it shone all through his speech that he was talking from his heart about a constituency which he knows well, and about a situation which matters to him and to his constituents very much indeed. I enjoyed the hon. Member's speech very much indeed, and I hope that it will be but the first of many which he will make in this House during this Parliament and, no doubt, in Committee upstairs.

No one needs—although I have no regrets about having this debate—to have a debate to convince me, or indeed this Government, that Glasgow faces a highly exceptional difficulty in its housing situation. That is why we went out of our way in our General Election manifesto to specify that we intended to give special aid to Glasgow in recognition of its special and most difficult problems. I reaffirm that we intend to keep this pledge, and I will explain how we shall go about it.

I do not need to be persuaded that there is a difficult housing problem in Glasgow. I know it, and I am glad that hon. Members have debated it today. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said that he would embark on a campaign. He had better get a move on with that campaign, because it will be a very short one. Before long the Government will be able to announce, I hope, the whole details of the special help which we intend to give Glasgow.

The situation in Glasgow goes back for many years. I much appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett), who made an interesting and statesmanlike speech. I agree with him that hon. Members on both sides of the House know about the problem. It is not a question of whose fault it was in the past; there is more than one opinion on who bears the blame. The question is what we can do to put it right. I thoroughly welcome the realistic and sensible way in which he addressed himself to the problems.

The most encouraging thing which I have seen in Scottish housing for a long time is the joint working party report which has been referred to. The working party was set up following the radical reappraisal of the Glasgow housing situation embarked upon by the administration in Glasgow Corporation on coming to power in May, 1968. It was embarked upon as a deliberate act. The corporation felt that there was a crying need for a reappraisal of the whole planning and housing situation in the city, to see how it would shape in the next 10 years. Following that initiative, I must also record, as the hon. Gentleman did, my appreciation to the noble Lord Lord Hughes who, during his term at the Scottish Office, got together with the Corporation, as a result of which the working party was appointed and produced the report which we are debating today.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

That is not true. The report is a consequence of a working party meeting this year. Working parties have been set up before, and the first one was established in March, 1965, at the behest of the then Glasgow Labour administration in agreement with the Government. The hon. Gentleman should ask his officials about this; they have worked very hard on these working parties.

Mr. Younger

The hon. Gentleman is not understanding what I am saying. I am not saying that this working party was started in May, 1968. I am saying that, as a consequence of the radical reappraisal which started then, it became clear at the beginning of this year that a joint working party could produce a useful report. So it has done. I very much welcome it, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his part in it.

The report gives the administration in Glasgow and the Government a set of figures and guidelines, upon which to base a reappraisal of the housing programme in Glasgow for the next ten years. The Corporation has accepted the report, and so has the opposition in the Corporation. As I said in Glasgow on 25th August, the Government also accept the working party report as a realistic aim for the next ten years. We shall be working with the Corporation on these lines.

The problem is basically one for the Corporation. I have been at pains during the last few months to emphasise that this is Glasgow Corporation's problem, and that my rôle and that of the Scottish Office is to help the Corporation in every way we can. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals that our rôle is to lake over the housing programme from the Corporation. I have no intention of doing that, and if I did, it would not be welcomed by anyone in the City.

Following the working party report, I have been in the closest touch with the Corporation during the last few months, and my officials have been in even closer touch. Not for a long time have we had such a close and fruitful working relationship, and we are well on the way to formulating details of the form of the special help which we intend to give to Glasgow with the agreement of the Corporation as a whole.

Mr. James Bennett

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the figure for overspill of 65,000, and what are his views on that figure?

Mr. Younger

I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by "accept". I accept it as a realistic estimate of what is needed. Together with the Corporation, I am putting all my energy and consideration into working out how we are to achieve this aim. At this stage all I can do is to accept it as a realistic aim, and to work out how best to achieve it.

The hon. Member for Gorbals referred to the cut-back in housing subsidies as being a matter of grave concern to him. I hope that he will look with a great deal more care at the local effect of the new housing policies as they are spelt out. He will find that the main aim of the new policies is to concentrate the help which the Government can give particularly on areas of greatest need. I can think of no general principle which would act more to the benefit of Glasgow than that, and I hope that he will look at the new housing policies in that light.

The hon. Member for Gorbals also described very movingly some of the slums in his constituency. No one denies that those slums exist, and I look forward as much as he does to the day when they are removed. The problem is to decide how we can remove them, and that is why the emphasis of the new policy must be not merely on the building of houses within the city, but on improving older houses and looking at the whole planning picture to see how we can make the best use of the ground and our resources. This matter must be looked at as a whole and that is why I welcome the way in which the Corporation has tackled this problem by getting the working party to look at it as a whole.

The hon. Member for Pollok spoke about the condition of some of the existing Corporation schemes, which is perhaps the greatest justification for a complete reappraisal of the City's housing. I agree that more resources must be devoted to upgrading the environment of some of these older developments. The condition of some of the older schemes should restrain us from rushing ahead, irrespective of the facts and figures contained in the report, and building anything, anywhere, at any cost. By doing this we should be building tomorrow's slums yet again. No hasty action taken by me without careful planning and without taking the Corporation's officials and members with me, would be in any way helpful in alleviating the conditions which have been so movingly described. This matter must and is being considered very carefully. That is why I must resist the idea of going for a quick, slick glamorous solution which would read well in HANSARD but would not solve, or even go a substantial way towards solving, the exceptional problems of Glasgow's housing.

The hon. Member for Greenock asked whether we accept the working party's report. We certainly do. But, rather remarkably, he asked whether we accepted the target generally for Scotland of building 50,000 houses a year. In the first place, if parties are to be committed to fulfilling their last election manifesto but one—and it was in our last election manifesto but one that this figure was mentioned—then the hon. Gentleman should look back at some of the Labour Party's past election manifestoes and see what hon. Members opposite are committed to thereby.

We have never disguised the fact that we regard the failure of the last Government to get anywhere near the 50,000 target as being the main signpost in the change of housing policy for future years. The present Government are not going to base the housing programme on a set of targets plucked out of the air which we would have no chance of fulfilling. I hope that is a clear answer. It is meant to be. The question is whether we can build houses when and where they are needed and at the right cost. That is what we are addressing ourselves to at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was our aim to achieve the 1,000 houses to be improved each year over the next ten years. That is our aim. I shall devote particular emphasis towards house improvement because, for various reasons, this aspect has not received sufficient attention in the past. Indeed, the last Government's Act, which would help and is a very good one, has not been used as much as it should have been. It is important that we should make as much use as we can of that Act.

In considering this problem, we can all take the words of the hon. Member for Bridgeton very much to heart. This matter vitally affects everyone in Glasgow during the next 10 years. We now have a joint working relationship between the Corporation and the Government which is working extremely well. It is very close and I believe that it can produce very shortly now a blueprint for housing over the next ten years in Glasgow which can produce results which can go at least a long way to cutting down the conditions which hon. Members have talked about today.

I was accused in the debate of having sat and done nothing. I may be accused of many things that are wrong and of making mistakes, and no doubt will be. But what I have not done, as the Minister responsible to the Secretary of State for housing in Glasgow and Scotland generally, is sit down and do nothing. I have paid tribute in the past to the energy and enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Greenock when he was responsible for housing in the Scottish Office. I hope that he will not be too embarrassed when I say that I aim to emulate that enthusiasm in getting the next stage of Scotland's housing going forward.

But we will not get the houses built and we will not help the homeless by going back into the past and arguing about whether conditions in Glasgow today are the responsibility of the last Socialist administration in Glasgow, which lasted for 30 years, or of the Tory Government, which has been in for six months, or the present administration in Glasgow, which has been in for two years. Our aim is to look to the future and we have a unique opportunity to do so in the facts and figures of the joint working party report.

I hope that we can have the support of both sides of the House for a new deal for Glasgow's housing, which is being worked out at the moment. If we can have the support of all hon. Members, it will be a great improvement on the party warfare we have sometimes had in the past.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this debate finishes at 12.15.

Mr. Younger

I assumed that you would call me to order when necessary, Mr. Speaker. If the debate has now finished, that is fine.