HC Deb 24 April 1929 vol 227 cc885-6W
Mr. WHEATLEY

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the condition of the Parkhead Employment Exchange; that the covered accommodation provided for persons signing is very limited; that large numbers have to wait outside in all kinds of weather; that the waiting-room provided has no covering and is without any heat during the winter months; that at busy hours inside the Exchange the overcrowding is a serious problem to the manager; that little or no accommodation is available for the interviewing of children leaving school; that the accommodation provided for the male and female staff is very limited and dangerous to their health; if he proposes to take any steps to have this state of affairs remedied; and, if so, what action he proposes to take, and when?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I am aware that the accommodation at this Exchange is not in all respects satisfactory, but it is not the case that large numbers of applicants have to wait outside the building. Such waiting as does occur is caused by attendance in advance of proper times. There is no reason to suppose that the premises are dangerous to the health of the staff. The question of re-housing is already under consideration, but no suitable scheme has so far been found. The matter is being actively pursued.

Mr. WHEATLEY

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Com- missioner of Works, with regard to the proposal for the purchase of a portion of the offices of Messrs. Beardmore and Company, Parkhead, for conversion into an Employment Exchange, if he can state the result; what was the price asked and the price offered; if any attempt was made to have the buildings valued by an independent person; if so, with what result; and, if not, will he take steps to see that an independent valuer be appointed to give his opinion?

Sir V. HENDERSON

The proposal referred to was dropped as it was considered that the price asked was prohibitive, having regard to the use proposed to be made of the premises. The price asked could not be disclosed without the vendor's consent. In the circumstances, an independent valuation was unnecessary, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.

Back to