asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has intimated to the Dundee Town Council disapproval of amendments to by-laws in which a proposal was made and passed by the sheriff allowing passengers to stand in corporation omnibuses; if he is aware that this involves running the omnibuses at a loss; and whether he would be willing to reconsider such decision in the interests of all concerned?

I refused to confirm the amending by-law referred to on the ground that the declared object of the town council was to authorise a greater number of passengers to be carried on omnibuses than is allowed by the Railway Passenger Duty Act, 1842, and I am not prepared to reconsider my decision. I have no information as to whether the omnibuses owned by the town council of Dundee are run at a loss because of the restrictions imposed by the Act.

Seeing that the Railway Passenger Duty Act of 1842 has, as its main provision, the interests of revenue, and that the interim report of the Minister of Transport in 1922 recommended permission for a few additional passengers, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to a proposal, if the number suggested is within his idea of a fair provision as allowed under the Tramways Act and such like Measures?

All that I can say is that no doubt, when there is further legislation to deal with passenger traffic, this problem may be dealt with.

But for the present, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and put it on the footing of the tramways?

Try private enterprise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might make representations to Dundee on this matter, especially in view of the result of his representations at Battersea?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that private enterprise is allowed to pack the omnibuses in other districts?

This is not private enterprise, but a corporation.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be left out."

The object of leaving out the Clause is. I presume, to enable the right hon. Gentleman to move a new Clause?

Yes.

The new Clause will come after new Clauses put down by private Members, and, as we have exactly half-a-day to discuss all the new Clauses, it is possible that the whole question, in which the city I represent is intensely interested, will never be discussed at all. I not know whether it is possible on a Motion to leave out a Clause for the right hon. Gentleman to give some indication of what he proposes to put in its place? I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us what he intends to substitute for Clause 15.

I ought to point out that the procedure under the Resolution of the House is that where a Government wishes to omit a Clause, only two speakers are allowed, and, if the right hon. Gentleman makes a speech, there will be room for only one more speaker.

My recollection is that the Government's new Clauses are taken first, and not after the proposed new Clauses of private Members.

Is that right? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that Government Clauses have precedence of all private Members Clauses before the Guillotine falls?

Any new Clauses moved by the Government are put first after the Clauses in the text of the Bill have been dispensed with, so that any new Clauses of the Government will come earlier than new Clauses of private Members.

I do not know whether it will be in Order to enter into the details of the new Clause?

I think that the Lord Advocate will be in order in making a statement as to the omission of this Clause, and in saying what he proposes to put in its place.

On a point of Order. Is anything in Order from the other side in view of the Midlothian and Battersea results?

The purpose of the Clause that we are moving to omit is to apply, subject to what I shall mention in a minute, the rules of audit at present applied under the 1889 Act to county councils. Under the county council provisions, there is a means of surcharge, but there is not under the Town Council Act, or, as far as I am aware, under the private Acts of the large burghs. The other important point is that the auditor should be independently appointed by the Secretary of State. That is so under the County Council Act, and I think, subject to certain variations, that is the general effect of the local Acts. Under the Town Council Act of 1900, and the local Acts of large burghs, the usual form of provision for taking objection to the accounts is to permit any ratepayer interested to inspect the accounts, and, if he objects to any items, to appeal to the Sheriff within a limited period. That is the practice in regard to most of the Acts It has been found very difficult to work out, and is not very happily expressed. The Clause proposes that the right of surcharge shall be followed and applied all round as it exists in the 1889 Act, and there will be inserted a right to get a stated case on a point of law for the decision of the Court. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State is not a suitable person to settle such questions of law and there may be many important questions that will arise.

There is a further point in regard to the question of surcharge, and it is right that I should mention it as one of the alterations proposed in the new Clause.

It is quite clear that it was intended by the previous Act that in a case where there was a technical breach of duty, that is, in a case where the act was done bona fide, a surcharge should not be made. On a point of law, it is clear that a member of a town council who has authorised such an expenditure quite innocently, thinking that he was right in law, should not be surcharged.

We have put in the new Clause to show that where there is no real blame surcharge is not to be made. That is an important addition, because people who are willing to become members of such bodies are anxious to know what their possible liabilities are going to be, and therefore we thought it would be a help to have it expressed on the face of the Clause. That is one of the alterations which necessitated the new Clause. In the case of the education accounts, there is retained the departmental supervision of accounts which has existed for a great many years now. There is a special reason for that. I cannot now go into it fully, but I will explain it briefly. A very large part of the moneys handled by education authorities, whether it be the ad hoc authorities or the new authorities, consists of Government grants for particular purposes. These are applied almost entirely under minutes of the Education Department, minutes which are very often altered from time to time and are of a highly technical nature, and no ordinary auditor or accountant could be expected to know the exact implications of those minutes—they are minutes dealing with a variety of things, the grant of bursaries and other matters. It is also very important that these grants should be administered on a uniform basis throughout the country.

The truth is that the ordinary auditor will probably find it a great help to have the check and assistance of the expert of the Education Department, who is and has to be familiar with the mnutes of the Department and with the exact purpose for which the grants are given. That is the reason for retaining that provision. It may be asked why this does not apply to other accounts. It is obvious that education is a specialised subject; the other accounts do not raise such difficult questions of a technical nature. There is a similar retention of central audit in the case of National Health Insurance and for very much the same reason.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is going to be any new form of audit established over the trading accounts?

No.

In their case it will be exactly as it is now?

Except that they are subject to the general provisions for surcharge.

Will the power of the central department be increased,—I mean as regards surcharge?

I thought I had made it clear that what we are doing is to extend the power of surcharge to all the burghs, and that means the extension of it over all the accounts. We must have uniformity right through.

Does it not follow from what you have said, that as far as you are concerned the most reactionary authority will be your guiding line and block the most progressive authority?

I must point out that we are proceeding here under a peculiar and special rule, which allows only one brief explanatory statement from the Minister and one speech against, in cases where the Government propose to leave out a Clause. We cannot have a debate. I am bound to put the Question at the end of those speeches.

On a point of Order. May I ask what is the present position? The Lord Advocate is making the explanatory statement. Have the rights of this side of the Committee been exhausted by the brief speech which has already been made? If that is so, are we to have an opportunity to ask questions of the Lord Advocate when his statement is completed?

Perhaps I had better read the words of the Order of the House.

"A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of either Bill before consideration of any Amendments of the Clause or Clauses in Committee; and the Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of either Bill shall be put forthwith by the Chairman, or Mr. Speaker, after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who opposes the motion.

That is the Rule.

The narrow point I put is whether the rights of this side of the Committee to one speech have already been exhausted?

I am afraid that is so.

When the Lord Advocate has concluded, are we to be at liberty to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions—not to make speeches, but to ask questions arising from his statement?

On a point of Order, it was an interruption to which I gave way in the course of my brief statement.

I do not think there can be any questions after the Lord Advocate has sat down; but, if hon. Members wish to put questions they can do so now, as long as they do not allow them to develop into arguments.

I would like to ask the Lord Advocate if his statement means that the department of the accountant of the Scottish Education Authority is maintained, and that when the duties of the Education Authority are transferred to the town and county council that duty continues. Does it not follow from that, that so far from reducing central control and duplication of audit, which was understood to be a part of this scheme, that system is in fact perpetuated, and indeed strengthened by what the Government proposes?

I thought I had made clear under the new Clause the present position in regard to the Education Audit, that there is a supervising audit, from a totally different angle.

Seeing that the Lord Advocate gave way to me and allowed me to put my question—not in the form of an interruption, as he suggested—may I ask if he will now reply to that question?

I thought I had answered it. But may I say that my right hon. Friend is quite willing to undertake, as I understand he can, to put down this Clause as the first of the new Clauses, so as to make certain of getting a discussion on it if it is desired that there should be one.

May I put a question with reference to the statement of the Lord Advocate that there was a desire for uniformity, particularly in connection with bursaries. In the past the auditor has never objected to legitimate payments being made, though they vary in different parts of the country. Am I to understand that under the proposal of the Government there must be uniformity in connection with the granting of bursaries throughout the length and breadth of Scotland?

I beg to move, in page 21, line 35, to leave out the word "halfpenny," and to insert instead thereof the word "penny."

I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation of this change, and I would like the Government to tell us what they have in mind in making this alteration.

This alteration has been made following the representations which have been submitted to me mainly from the City of Edinburgh, whose representatives pointed out that, owing to the equivalent grant being brought into the pool, the halfpenny rate would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the city in dealing with various parts of their organisation, and particularly with regard to the Heriot-Watt College and the School of Art. Those were two special cases which were brought to my attention, and I conclude that it would be fair that this increase in the rate should be permitted.

I do not complain of the specific decision applied to Edinburgh, but I think this Clause deserves a little more closer consideration. As I understand this Amendment, it limits the power of the new department of a town council and a county council to contribute to any public utility scheme. There is a Sub-section in the Clause which provides that the contribution is not to be paid to any out-and-out public utility enterprise which is apparently open to the town council or the county council under another head. As I understand it, that is in the ordinary way of county or municipal effort. On this side, we recognise that contributions have already been made to certain public utility societies for housing and other schemes, and of course a feature of those societies is the limited distribution. The Secretary of State for. Scotland has mentioned certain cases of that kind, but he has already been driven to increase the rate from one halfpenny to one penny because the produce of the one halfpenny rate was not sufficient. There may be cases in the future where the product of a penny rate may raise the same difficulty, and there are many points likely to arise in the case of a large city where this limit of one penny would be altogether undesirable. For these reasons, I think the Secretary of State might very well delete this limitation from the Bill.

I would like to put a question to the Lord Advocate. Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what Acts this rate can be applied at all? Are there any public utilities in regard to which the local authorities have power to contribute at the present time? This proposal appears to be a sort of permission to levy a penny rate for certain purposes. Surely, there, must be certain powers or special legislation under which the Government are proceeding. There has always been a limitation to the expenditure of local authorities in regard to certain services of one kind and another, and the Members of the Labour party have from time to time introduced an enabling Bill to give local authorities power to undertake municipal enterprises. I take it that the entry of public authorities into these public utilities will he on the same basis as that which applies to municipal undertakings.

In Section 25 of the Education and Local Taxation Accounts (Scotland) Act, 1892, there is a provision which permits local autho- rities to contribute expenditure as follows:

"Under any scheme of public utility framed by them respectively"—

that is, by the county or county burgh—

"subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland."

The amount is to be limited to a penny rate, which will produce more than is now produced under the equivalent grant. There is no doubt that the amount of a penny rate will amply replace what the local authorities are now losing under the present arrangement.

If the Secretary of State for Scotland has this power of approval which is mentioned in the earlier part of the Clause, why restrict the amount to a penny rate?

I have been trying to understand the explanations that have been given. I did not follow quite clearly the explanation of the Secretary of State, but I heard him say something about the support given to the Heriot-Watt College and the School of Art in Edinburgh, and that they are to be maintained out of the product of a penny rate.

At the present moment the Edinburgh Corporation are making substantial payments each year to the School of Art and the Heriot-Watt College under their powers under the Act of 1892, and they desire to be able to continue those payments. We think it is reasonable that they should have that power, and that it should be similarly retained generally for the towns and counties as it exists now under the Act of 1892, and we have made, as we consider, more than ample provision for a similar distribution. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), gave the reasons for retaining the limit on the amount that could be applied to what are really external subjects.

The examples quoted by the Secretary of State seemed to me to be particularly unfortunate ones, because, under the Education Act, the education authorities can, and do, subsidise and maintain out of the Education Fund educational institutions that are not directly under their control. The education authorities arc presently granting considerable sums by way of subsidy to privately-owned schools and privately-owned teaching institutions of one kind and another. I do not know what the extent of the subsidy is. in the City of Glasgow, but I know that such subsidies are given to the School of Art, and we have had many debates here about the subsidies given to the Agricultural College in various Estimates. I want to know if all these subsidies that are presently given are to be met by the town council or the county council, in fulfilling this new function as the education authority, out of the product of a penny rate, or if the statutory provision that is already made under the Education Act will be maintained unchanged. The Under-Secretary nods his head, but, so far as regards this Clause and the explanation of it by the Secretary of State, one would assume that these two specifically teaching institutions which he has mentioned in Edinburgh are going to receive merely the product of a penny rate, and presumably all similar institutions in other parts of Scotland are to be maintained out of what will be a very considerably reduced sum under the de-rating scheme. I do not know how the Lord Advocate can say that this will be a very large sum, more than adequate to meet all the charges, because I am quite sure that the Secretary of State has no very accurate estimate of what the product of a penny rate will be after the de-rating scheme has taken its full effect.

As far as Edinburgh is concerned, I can explain the matter to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). The Edinburgh Corporation have made a report on the Bill, and it includes a paragraph with regard to this particular Clause which, perhaps, I might read to the Committee, as I think it puts the matter very clearly. It says:

"Clause 16 authorises the Corporation to make payments to public utility schemes not otherwise competent to the council. The explanation of this is that the Corporation have power at present to use the equivalent grant in this way. This grant is being abolished, and the provisions of the Clause are in substitution for the existing power. The extent of the power at present is measured by the amount of the grant. In future the expenditure is not to exceed a sum representing the produce of a rate of a halfpenny per £. The expenditure on such purposes hitherto has been well within this limit."

Speaking from memory, I think a penny rate in Edinburgh at the moment raises £20,000, and a halfpenny rate, that is to say £10,000, has been, up to the present moment, found more than sufficient to meet the needs which are now covered by the equivalent grant. Therefore, Edinburgh will be getting, under this arrangement, more than double what it received before. Even under de-rating, a penny rate will raise, instead of £20,000, a sum of £18,400. What is proposed now is that in place of the equivalent grant— I do not know what the exact amount of it is, but, obviously, from this report it is less than a halfpenny rate in Edinburgh —the Government are now proposing to give powers which will enable the Corporation to raise more than double that sum for application to these purposes. The only other point is that which was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who wishes to widen the area, but that, of course, is another point entirely. Having regard to the present situation, it is obvious to me that the present needs of the Corporation for these functions will be more than met by the substitution of a penny rate instead of a halfpenny rate for the equivalent grant.

I am glad to see that this Amendment has the support of a considerable number of Members opposite. With regard to Edinburgh, the increase from a halfpenny to a penny is because the former was not enough to cover the needs of the Corporation under their present powers. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton), I think that in fact the education authorities are at the present time giving grants to the institutions in question. They give very full grants for the purpose of their powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1918, and, of course, in the future, those two sources of grants will be under the some control. We think it right, however, that something equivalent to the powers under the Act of 1892 should be continued to the county and town authorities. I give that merely as an illustration of what exists to some extent in many parts of the county. I was not, perhaps, quite accurate in what I said before as to the total amount. The total amount came to £190,000 for the whole of Scotland, and the penny rate over the whole of Scotland would practically come to the same amount, though, of course, the produce of a penny rate varies in different areas.

What I am concerned about is the use of the term "public utility scheme" with reference to teaching institutions. I do not think that they have usually been considered as coming within that title.

No. The phrase "public utility institutions or objects" does not occur in Section 9 of the Education Act. There the power is to contribute to the maintenance of schools within their areas, and to any educational institution or agency. Clearly therefore, it must be educational. The Heriot-Watt College and the School of Art are educational, and they are institutions, and, therefore, they are within the ambit of the education authority for a different reason from that furnished by the Act of 1892, which refers to public utility schemes.

In what clause do I find that? Sub-section (2) of Clause 16 says:

"Nothing in the foregoing subsection shall apply to any payment made for the purpose of any scheme of public utility in pursuance of any power otherwise competent to the council."

I assume that is the Clause that empowers a town council to pay out of its funds grants to various schemes that it is carrying on. The Lord Advocate tells us of these two teaching institutions as being the type of thing that they would support. He is putting those things under this definition of public utility, and presumably excluding from the definition educational institutions. I cannot see how, on his own statement, the Heriot-Watt College can be a public utility so far as this Clause is concerned and an educational institution so far as some other Clause is concerned. I should like him to direct me to the Clause which empowers a town council carrying out the functions of the present education authority to subsidise the Heriot-Watt College or the Edinburgh School of Art.

May I supplement my hon. friend's question by trying to state the position as we now understand it in this form: There will be a consolidated rate covering the whole area under this Bill. All these duties are linked up. J gather that under the second sub-section there will be provided from public funds and from the local rates the ordinary run of the expenses of education authorities. But in Edinburgh, and I have no doubt in other parts of the country, the separate institutions with their separate boards, like the Heriot-Watt College and the College of Art, remain, and in that connection there is a certain public utility element, and to make a contribution to that element on that narrow basis this Clause is drawn. Is that the state of affairs as it will obtain under the Bill?

Yes.

I beg to move in page 22, line 1, to leave cut Sub-section (1).

I wish to put a question on this, because I understand that in Sub-section (4), which is to be left out, town and county councils come under the new rule about expenses.

I understand the hon. Member is moving to leave out Subsection (1).

Yes. I only referred to Sub-section (4) because county and town councils are referred to as being the bodies concerned in this Clause. Subsection (1) states that the scale of expenses allowed, presumably to town councils—I am concerned only with City councils in my representative capacity—is to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. Is it a fact that the Secretary of State is now taking power to prescribe a scale of expenses for town councils not only for education but for all other purposes, because, if that is so, I am told it is going far in advance of any power which he has at present. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be told so.

It does not apply to a town council.

Sub-section (4) refers to county and town councils.

We are taking out Sub-section (4).

The fact that it was in appeared to suggest that the whole Clause applied to town councils.

No.

I am assured, therefore, that there is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to take any additional powers in prescribing the scale of expenses allowed to the councils of large cities?

Yes.

Then I am perfectly satis-field, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The hon. Member has risen to move it, and I must put it, and have it negatived.

But I ask leave to withdraw.

I think I will put it. Otherwise it would be rather a bad precedent.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in line 4, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 22, line 4, after the word "travelling," to insert the words "time necessarily lost from ordinary employment."

From the point of view of Labour representation this is a very important Amendment. The members of this party who represent it on county councils are in general men belonging to the working class who are engaged in some form of employment, very often with private employers, and they find it a very difficult matter to get the time to go to the council meetings. Some of them are fortunate in their employers and are allowed a certain amount of liberty. They may be such valuable servants that the employer is glad to give them this liberty. Then there is the question of the man's ordinary economic circumstances, and one cannot expect private employers to allow men to go in for some form of public service at their expense. That would be to put an additional rate on the employer who was sufficiently public minded and tolerant to allow an employe an opportunity of taking part in public service. Consequently either the man himself must be prepared to pay for this or else provision must be made. Members of Parliament are given an allowance of £400 a year, and that payment was largely due to the agitation that centred round the right of every section of the community to be represented in the governing body of the nation, and whatever applies to the central body at Westminster applies with no less effect with regard to local authorities as well.

It is quite necessary, if we are going to have real democratic representation, that every section of the community should be allowed representation if they can command a sufficient number of the electors. Possibly the Secretary of State can tell us what was the cost to education authorities last year in respect of this allowance for time lost. It seems to me if you are going to alter your representation in this way, if you are taking so much of the power from the small burghs and generally increasing the powers of the county councils, unless this is going to be an instance of the attempt to get rid of one class, I do not see how in the world the Secretary of State can refuse to accept the Amendment. Unless this Measure is an attempt to deprive the working-classes of their representation, the Government are bound to make this concession. Common-sense and ordinary justice make it quite plain that the concession should be granted.

I desire to support the Amendment. It will be readily admitted that the entry of Labour representatives into the various public bodies has been all to the good of the community in general. I am justified in claiming that those representatives have created a more healthy influence in local government affairs. On that ground, I support the Amendment, believing that it will support and develop the healthy interest that has been created by the advent of Labour members on public bodies. Speaking from my own experience and knowledge, I have been delighted on many occasions to see the wholesome interest which ordinary working people have taken in the varied activities of public bodies, but I would say, quite frankly, that we have been seriously handicapped in the past, more so by the decision of the Government in regard to the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act. That Act has handicapped our organisations considerably, because it has prevented us from giving necessary financial assistance to men who in serving on public bodies are called upon to lose remunerative time, and can ill afford to lose it. That is one of the handicaps which the Act has enforced upon working-men representatives.

12 n.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable that we should ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, which will not only maintain and stimulate that desirable healthy interest in public affairs, but will give to men who have nothing but their employment to depend upon for their livelihood, encouragement to maintain the interest in public affairs which they have displayed in the past It will also enable them to attend the meetings and to apply the knowledge which they have gleaned from attendance at the meetings and from their personal experiences in their workaday lives, to the various problems that come before the public bodies of which they are members. I could give instances where men who have been elected to public bodies have been so handicapped by the fact that they were unable to afford to lose a day's employment, and to suffer the financial strain, that they have been compelled to seek relief or to ignore some of the more important meetings which otherwise they would have attended. For these reasons, I would ask the Government to accede to the proposal in the Amendment, in order that our people may have ample opportunity to devote themselves to the work of public bodies.

In supporting the Amendment I would remind the Secretary of State for Scotland that it is on lines exactly similar to the Amendment which I moved when the Education (Scotland) Act,. 1918, was before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of that Committee and he knows that on that occasion I was fortunate enough to get my Amendment incorporated in the Act. We have had ten years' experience of that provision and, speaking broadly and generally, I think it has given satisfaction in Scotland. I have never heard any complaint of the way in which the provision has been used by the education authorities. It has enabled a considerable number of representatives of the working class to take part in the work of our education authorities, with excellent results as far as education is concerned. As an evidence of the excellent results which have been achieved through the operation of the provision, I need only point out the work: which has been performed by the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood). Moreover, the provision has been very economically worked by our education authorities. Unless the Secretary of State agrees to the Amendment he will be taking away from us something that we already possess in Scotland. I hope that he is not going to make our position worse than it has been since 1918. The working classes and the middle classes, who have taken a very large share in. the work of our local bodies in Scotland, have had difficulties enough to face without having this additional difficulty imposed upon them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the most favourable consideration to the Amendment.

I realise that the question is one which must be examined with very great care, and I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite have expressed the view that they have expressed upon the subject. I would remind them, however, that under this Bill for the first time we are making new provisions in local government work. It is quite true that in 1918, under what were perhaps morn rosy financial circumstances, when everyone's view was that this kind of thing might be met quite readily and easily, such a provision was made in the case of the education authorities. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said that the experience of the working of that provision has been satisfactory, and that so far as he was aware no undue or improper use has been made of the claim under the one head that is in dispute, namely, remuneration for loss of time. The Committee must have clearly in its mind what the position is under the Bill. We are carrying into the larger ambit of the local authority work outside the burghs this question of travelling expenses and per- sonal expenses. The only point in dispute is whether there shall be added to that a payment for loss of time.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that no improper use has been made of the concession for loss of time in the case of the education authorities. I am not going to say that there was improper use made of it, but it is clear that it had to be most carefully supervised, and in fact during the first periods after it came into operation the actual expenditure was very considerable. In the year 1920 the amount was £2,698; in 1920–21 it was £2,550; and in 1921–22 it dropped to £1,785. That I repeat was for the education authorities.

For the whole of Scotland?

Quite so.

Has the right hon. Gentleman an analysis of those figures, showing what proportion was due to loss of wages and how much was due to travelling time and subsistence allowance? I know that in Glasgow there was a very considerable charge and that none of it was due to loss of wages. It was payment to business gentlemen for travelling and subsistence allowance, and there was no single charge for loss of time. I should imagine that the Glasgow amount in any of those years would be about a third of the £2,000 mentioned, but not a halfpenny went for lost wages.

I was giving the figures in answer to a question.

Can you break them up and show the different items?

I have not that information now, and I do not know that it would advance the discussion materially.

There was a case submitted to the Courts and a decision given in a stated case in regard to "time necessarily lost from ordinary employment." Those are the words of the 1918 Act. Is it the fact that payment is now made for loss of remunerative time, or would there be any objection to payment for loss of remunerative time, where it is proved that a man has actually lost wages or remuneration as a result of attending these meetings?

Is it not the case that the total expenses—travelling, and personal, and loss of remunerative time —for the last year for which figures are available, amounted to something like £13,000, and that of that sum only about £700 represented expenses for loss of remunerative time?

I take the last year for which there are definite figures— 1926–27. In that year travelling expenses incurred amounted to £6,768, personal expenses £5,489, and expenses for loss of remunerative time, £571. The figure for loss of remunerative time is admittedly small, and it may be said that it is a mere bagatelle in considering a problem of this kind. Let us compare it, however, with what the figure was in the first stage of the operation of this provision when it amounted to well over £2,000. We must have some sense of proportion, and what I am trying to put to hon. Members opposite and to the Committee is that we are making a fresh departure by introducing this scheme into a very much wider ambit of local government. We are doing so in order to meet what [agree to be the necessity of enabling people to attend these meetings, and in older to meet, so far as we can, the legitimate claims of men and women, to whatever class they may belong, who are at the present time—in my judgment very properly and rightly—in increasing numbers taking an active interest in municipal and local affairs. But it is to be remembered that we are proposing very great changes in this Bill. [Interruption.] I am most anxious to deal fairly with the problem, but if I am to be interrupted constantly I cannot state the case properly.

The Secretary of State has nothing to grumble at and need not be so exacting. The whole amount for all Scotland is not one-third of Lord Birkenhead's pension.

I am anxious so far as I can to place a complete picture before the Committee. We must remember that we are here taking a new step to meet this problem. It may be that the reform is long overdue, but, at the same time, it has to be considered that even today, in face of the proposals which I am making, there are very great differences of opinion among those very local authorities to whom we are giving these powers. I think we should be wise not to spoil a case which we are all anxious to see legitimately made, by trying to force the pace. It is obvious, I think, from the figures which I have just given that the two main features are the actual travelling expenses and the actual personal expenses. The other payment raises very great difficulties, and, when it is extended beyond the ambit of this one particular service, and applied to other big services, then the picture is very much widened. I have every sympathy with the point of view put by hon. Members opposite, but we are going a long way in introducing the system of payment of travelling: expenses and personal expenses in connection with these reformed bodies in Scotland. I hope that by doing so we are meeting the main legitimate claim and providing the necessary opportunity for those whom we all desire to see taking their part on these bodies.

We should ask ourselves here, are we taking any step which is likely to exclude a useful person from these local bodies? I cannot help thinking that if the Amendment be rejected, the result may be the exclusion from the new local bodies of someone who ought to be there; and, if that is to be the result, we on these benches are un hesitatingly in favour of the Amendment. The Secretary of State has said that he is taking a new step. But we must have regard to the new steps which he is causing the members of local bodies to take. He is causing them to take many new steps and he is bound to make provision to meet the requirements of the new centralisation. Much of the work which was done in the districts before, will now be done at headquarters, and much more travelling will be involved. For that reason the right hon. Gentleman has had. to provide for the payment of travelling and subsistence expenses. Those are the major items. I think the figure which he gave me in answer to a question, was that a provision of £40,000 would be required to cover this expense, but the amount involved in the Amendment is a mere trifle. We have had the, figure of £571 given for the education authorities and if this payment were made on the same lines as the payments for travelling and subsistence expenses, it would not mean more than £2,000 or £3,000 for the whole of Scotland. That is a small figure to take if you get even one right man on the local authorities.

The Under-Secretary made a moving appeal the other day in which he said the object of the Bill was to bring all the different streams, in connection with local administration, into one broad river. Surely, then, it would be a mistake to take any action which would exclude any moving power, any elements, any interests in local government from that broad river. It has been said that this payment would introduce a new principle. But we have had it before. We had it in the case of the education authorities. I say it will be introducing a new principle if the right hon. Gentleman takes away, what we already have, just because the duties of education authorities are going to be placed on the newly constituted councils. If the Amendment be not accepted, the right hon. Gentleman will be taking away something which Scotland already has; something which has been proved satisfactory in the past, and which has given us the services on these education bodies of people who otherwise would not have been able to sit there.

I should suggest that this is not a matter which merely concerns the party represented on these benches, because people all over Scotland, in considering this Bill, have been concerned about the aspect of it that is represented in. this Amendment and the fact that it is going to make an alteration of a democratic character in the local bodies in Scotland; and if, as we are very often reminded, hon. Members opposite claim to represent the working classes of Scotland, and it we have still Conservative working men, surely the matter is not one which is confined to the party on these benches. I think it. ought to be remembered, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) has said, that working men have been enabled, especially in the burghs, to take a part in the management of their own towns, for one reason, because the meetings have been held at night. These men have been able to do their ordinary day's work and then go to their town council meeting at night and take a full part in the activities of the management of their burgh. The main functions of these burghs are now to be transferred to the county councils, and these meetings necessarily will be held during the day; and if there is substance in the proposition which was put forward yesterday that the burghal representatives on the county councils will be appropriate representatives of the burghs and will be able to maintain their interest in the county councils, it is obvious that that opportunity should be open to every member of the town council and not merely to those of the leisured class.

There is no doubt that throughout Scotland there is a very general feeling that the result of this Bill will be to exclude working people from these bodies. In the large burghs the work is going to be enormous. There are going to be very many more committees and a great many sub-committees, and it is going to be almost a whole-time job. Apart from political considerations altogether, I think hon. Members opposite will agree that it is very desirable that no efficient individual capable of representing his fellows should be shut out from being their representative on these bodies by economic considerations. That surely is a democratic principle which will appeal to hon. Members opposite and which should have a peculiar appeal to the people of Scotland, because the reason that these burgh councils have arranged to meet at night is obviously that no person should be shut out because of his economic position; and we know very well that some of the ablest members of the local governing bodies in Scotland, irrespective of party altogether, have been men who did a hard day's work and who could not afford to do without the remuneration which they got from that work by attending meetings during the day.

Therefore, I say that whatever the merits of this Bill may be, and even granting all that has been said by the party opposite, if it is going to mean that both in the larger burghs and in the county councils a class is going to be shut out which has done a great deal for local government in Scotland, then the Measure will fail to be approved by public opinion in our country; and I suggest that even in the Government's own interests, in the interests of their own Members in Scotland, who will be met on this point by a great storm of opposition and objec- tion, they should, especially in view of the figures which have been given, which show that the privilege already given has by no means been abused, allow this Amendment to be adopted. After all, we have confidence in the sturdy-character of our people in Scotland. We know that those who elect them would elect men of character and honesty, and there is no fear that this concession would be taken advantage of. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should accept the Amendment in the interests of the whole country.

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but one has been impressed by the arguments which have been made, both from the other side and by the Secretary of State for Scotland. As I understand the position as it is now, the proposal in the Bill is to extend to another section of those who are going to have authority, as members of the county council, a privilege which they did not previously hold, and they are now going to get their travelling allowances and other allowances, though there is to be nothing for loss of remunerative employment. On the other hand, the new education committee is going to be deprived of something which the old education authority had. They used to get both these allowances which are now to be given to the new county council, and, in addition, they got loss of remunerative time. The figures given by the Secretary of State with regard to the expenditure were, to my mind, striking. It is certainly of great interest to realise that the amount spent as compensation for remunerative time on the education authorities bears such a small proportion to the total expenditure, and it appears to me that, if we are going to deprive those who are going to be on the new education committee and the new organisation of something which the education committee had in the past, then we are making a retrograde step. I would, therefore, urge in the first place that anyhow the privileges which were allowed to the education authority in the past should be continued in the new Measure to the education committee on the new county authority.

There remains, of course, the question of the other portion of the county authority who are not members of the education committee. There is a good deal of force in the argument of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels), and also of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), that the new work does undoubtedly bring in new factors and increase the need for the extension of these travelling allowances, but I do not think there is the same case made out for the extension of the privilege of compensation for the loss of remunerative time to those other members of the county council. I feel that their case stands entirely separate. I appeal very strongly to the Government to give to the education committee that compensation for loss of remunerative time which was hitherto given to the old education authority, and I would ask that, as regards the other part of the county authority, they should be content in the meantime with the new allowances which are given them; and in the course of one or two years it may be found perhaps necessary to extend to them also compensation for the loss of remunerative time.

The hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) suggested that we should be content for a year or two with the concession that has been granted by the Government to our fellow countrymen who will be taking part in the administration of this new Measure. There is a saying:

"Live old horse, and you'll get corn,"

but the horse cannot live without the corn; just the same as

"Man shall not live by bread alone,"

which is a perfectly true saying, but it also follows that man shall not live without the bread; and it will be quite impossible for the folk whom I represent in this House to be able to stand for these bodies now, because this Bill, when it comes into force, which I have no doubt it will, will make it quite impossible for working men and women in Scotland to be represented on these bodies directly. They will have to depend on the folk who can afford the time, because this will now be a full-time job. If you have the town council work, the parish council work, and the education authority work all combined into one local authority, it will make it a full-time job.

I would add my support to the appeal that has been made to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Here is a glorious opportunity again for him to prove to the people of Scotland that he is not going to curtail the democratic ideals of Scotland, or to disfranchise our folk, but that he is going to give them ample opportunity. The reason for bringing in this Bill was because of the changed circumstances that have occurred. A revolution is taking place to this extent, that education in the working class is proving that ability to administer the laws in Scotland is no longer a preserve for a certain section of the community, because my class, the working class, have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are as capable of administering the laws of the country as they are of making the laws of the country. Therefore, on their behalf I appeal to the Committee to regard this just as the case of Members of Parliament. It is, in fact, more a full-time job than a Member of Parliament, because we are only here part-time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are months in the year when this House is up, whereas the town council and this new organisation will be sitting all the year round. Therefore, it is the more necessary that they should be compensated to enable them to be free even from a considerate employer who may allow them to be away from work. This will be a job that will occupy all the time of any man who is prepared to take it up and give of his best. Circumstances will arise that will demand all the attention of the men who will take on this job.

I do not often appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I do make this appeal on behalf of the men and women who are anxious to get their class directly represented, because when I cast my eye over what is happening at the present moment, what do I find? Even in our own movement direct working class representation is being made well nigh impossible, because our folk cannot afford the time off their work. This is making it impossible. It was possible for our folk to be on the town council, because it met at night. It was possible for our folk to be on the parish council again, because it met at night, in the country districts in par- ticular. It was possible for our folk to be on the education authority, and so on, because it met at night, and our folk could divide themselves on the three different authorities. Now, instead of it being a three men's job, it is to be a one man's job, so that the men and women for whom I am speaking are to be disfranchised, unless it is made possible for them to do the work by making payment for time lost, and that will be all the time. I want to call the attention of the country to the small amount of expenses that has been paid to Scotland. All put together, it is one-third of Lord Birkenhead's pension. We are not asking anything that is outrageous, but something that will enable the country to get the benefit of all the latent ability that is in the great working class movement. This is a chance to enable expression to be given to that ability, and to provide a safety valve.

I consider that there is a very great principle underlying this Amendment. We must look upon this matter, not from the financial side only, but if we are going to look at it from the financial side, first of all may I remind the Committee once again that this principle was established in the Education Act, 1918, and it has not, in point of fact, I believe, ever been abused. I agree wholeheartedly that a great many of our political opponents have done very good service on local government bodies. I think, further, that if you are going to have an entirely sound local government body, it is necessary to bring into that body all shades of opinion. In my own constituency, for instance, if the voice of the miner could not be heard in the local government body that body would be necessarily weakened in that respect. It is one of the things that we can say in this House of Commons, that whatever question arises, there is somebody or a section of the House, at any rate, that is entirely competent to carry on a debate on the subject, because of firsthand knowledge.

Further, I consider that in this Bill we are not taking a retrograde step as far as any alterations that we are making in the machine are concerned. I beg the Secretary of State for Scotland to see to it most carefully that no retrograde step is taken in manning the machine which at the present time he is seeking to set up. It is not a matter of finance, and I am perfectly certain that, if the Secretary of State for Scotland agrees with the Amendment, and I personally hope that he will, he will have no difficulty in arranging for some scale of remuneration to be given to workers who have to give up some hours of a day's work when attending local government business. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) that we can only continue this so far as education is concerned. If a right principle is involved, it is no use patching it up. You must either go the whole way or not advance one step. I believe it is right to advance.

If there were a large sum involved, I could understand the hesitancy of the Secretary of State in accepting the Amendment, but I have the assurance that in a proper arrangement the increased expense would not amount to more than 5 per cent. of that which he is now prepared to grant. The Secretary of State will agree that perhaps the greatest asset he would like to have on his side when he launches this new scheme is the good will of the people of Scotland, and if he does not assent to the proposition put forward I am afraid that it will militate against the success of the scheme. We are all aware that in England this remunerative time expense has not been granted, but I would point out to the Secretary of State that this is another opportunity for showing very clearly that he is not tied to the chariot wheels of England and that this is a matter which concerns Scotland only. It makes no increased demand on the Treasury. it will be met by Scottish money, by Scottish people, and, though up to the present time the Secretary of State has not been able to give an affirmative answer to this request, I think, in view of the expressions of opinion from all parts of the Committee, he would be well advised to reconsider the matter, and, if he cannot assent now to reconsider it, to see what can be done on the Report stage. I am sure that by so doing he will obtain the good will of the people of Scotland and make a success of the Measure.

The Committee will realise that I agree that this is a matter in which all sides of the Com- mittee are deeply interested, and, as I have already said, I personally do not desire to do anything which will militate against the service upon these bodies of those whom we all desire to see working upon them. We are, in the proposal which we have already made, taking a very big step in giving in all our public local services the opportunity for the payment of travelling and personal expenses. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan), who has just sat down, has made a very fair appeal to me to consider this matter, and all I can say is that of course it does raise a question of first-class importance. Quite obviously, it is of such importance that if any further advance is to be made it must be given very careful consideration. Therefore, it would be impossible to accept the Amendment at the present stage. I have been impressed by the unanimity of the views which have been expressed by my colleagues, and I will undertake very carefully to reconsider the question between now and the Report stage of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will realise that I am anxious to arrive at a settlement which will be in accord with the general views of my countrymen. I have been guided in this matter in the past by the numerous expressions of opinion which I have received. Hon. Members will realise that there are in some cases divisions of opinion in Scotland on this subject. After this Debate, and the expressions of views which have come from all parts of the Committee, we shall have a better idea how the proposal would be received. I have been impressed by the points of view which have been put, and I will undertake to consider, with my colleagues on the Front Bench, the whole of this problem between now and the Report stage.

I rise to a point of Order. Am I right in assuming that, if nothing is put in the Bill now, it will be impossible to amend the Bill on the Report stage by increasing the charge?

It is on record.

I rose on the point, because it is an important one. While fully accepting the good way in which my colleagues have been met, may I suggest that it would be better to accept some Amendment and put it in now on the clear understanding that it is not the final form, but only something which will enable the Government to give- effect to the views expressed when it is reconsidered. That is the only reason. We do not refuse what has been offered, but we wish to safeguard the House when it comes to reconsider the Bill.

I am anxious to avoid any difficulties, but I do not think the Government can commit them selves by having an Amendment put into the Clause at the present time. If the Government find themselves able, on reconsideration, to agree with the views expressed there will net be the slightest difficulty in recommitting the Clause by agreement, or, it could be done by a new Clause.

If the Government will agree to a recommittal, that meets my point.

It is important that this matter on its reconsideration should have the support of the Government. I wish to refer to what has been said by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I agree that this principle should go the whole way; but I do not agree with the proposition which he made as regards the House of Commons that the Members are off work when the House is not sitting. I have a full-time job whether I am in London or in Dundee.

I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland on the promise which he has given to reconsider this matter, and I for one would ask him to reconsider the matter as a whole. The reconstituted county councils are sure to have many committees, and the representatives of burghs are likely to find themselves on many of these committees, with the result that perhaps two or three times a week they may be compelled to attend at considerable expense to themselves. It would absolutely cut them out from the public service, in which we all want to see them taking part. We are a democratic country, and we want to see every section of society taking a fair share and having an equal opportunity in public life. In many burghs there is not a single representative of the working-class or wage-earning class on the councils, and working-men ought to be made enabled to take part in their proceedings. This is a matter of great importance. We would not have the wit and wisdom that we have in this House of Commons if it were not for the fact that so many Members have matriculated in the school of municipal life. This experience opens out to everyone who enjoys it a fresh view of life. When they get into municipal life, they find out its problems, and they learn what are the problems of the wider administration of the country. I believe the insertion of this provision will be good for the administraton of Scotland and good for the people of Scotland, and I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to accept it.

After the very favourable way in which this proposal has been received by all parties in the Committee, and also by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I wish to say that it might be possible to get better words in which to express the principle than those of the Amendment, and we on this side of the Committee will not press the Amendment to a Division but will give the Government the necessary time to consider the proposal.

I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will not yield too readily to this demand, because I am very doubtful if it is at all consistent with the general view of the electors. It is all very well that public men should meet together and put each other in slightly better position than they would otherwise be in; but, if this matter were submitted to the electors of Scot-land, I believe it would not be approved.

I said that I wished to withdraw the Amendment.

The hon. Member did not move the Amendment.

I have some doubt as to whether this Amendment is in order. I am not sure what the effect of it would be, and I will give the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) the opportunity of making a short explanation.

My point is to secure that the apportionment of the money shall be made on the present rateable valuation and not on the rateable valuation minus the deduction which is caused by de-rating. That is the only explanation I can give. When we introduce the word "unreduced" it makes it clear that the apportionment shall not be based upon the valuation after de-rating has taken place.

I am afraid that I must rule the Amendment out of order. In the first place, no unreduced valuation is recognised or defined in the Bill, and in the second place, the Clause provides only for an allocation between certain districts of the rates which are raised over the whole area of which they form part. Therefore, it would be impossible to try to apportion those rates between the two on any other basis than that on which they are paid.

I beg to move, in page 25, to leave out from the Word "of," in line 32, to the second word "expenditure," in line 35, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"a large burgh, expenditure which falls to be met out of rates and grants under Part III of this Act, and in the case of a small burgh."

The point of this Amendment is, briefly, this: The large burghs meet their expenditure not only out of rates but out of grants which they get direct. The small burghs do not get direct grants; the county gets the grant and then allocates it among the different areas. It is a drafting Amendment to make clear the distinction between the large burghs and the small burghs.

I am not clear about what the Lord Advocate said regarding this expenditure in the case of the large burghs. The large burghs have rates and grants, and the small burghs have no grants, because the grant goes to the county. In the allocation of this grant among the burghs there are various services other than that of education to be taken into account, and I wish to know from the Lord Advocate if this will not have an effect upon the portion of the rate involved in the case of education. The county council will have: so much money coming in and will have to allocate so much to education. The education grant is outside the ordinary grant, but, if the amount that is needed for other services will involve increasing the rates, will that not produce a tendency to reduce expenditure upon education, because of the fact that they have tried to put down the education rate in order to balance the other services. With regard to small burghs and their general expenditure, I submit that there will be this tendency in connection with the education rate.

This proposal concerns the education rate. In the case of a large burgh, the education rate goes direct to that burgh, and in the case of a small burgh the grants are deducted from the expenditure. Therefore, we exclude any question of grants in the allocation of the small burgh.

I want to ask a question in connection with the allocation of the Education (Scotland) Grant.

That does not arise on this Clause.

I think it does arise, because, under the allocation of the education grant there is a deduction from the sum that is arrived at which is calculated at so much per head for pupils, so much for teachers, and so much for small schools, and from that total a deduction is made.

This Clause does not fix what the grants and the expenditure are to be. We are now dealing with the machinery for allocation.

I accept that explanation.

I beg to move, in page 25, line 36, at the end, to insert the words:

"The county council annually, and not later than the fifteenth day of July in each year, shall cause a requisition to be sent to the town council of any burgh requiring them to pay the sum or sums which under the provisions of this Act they are liable to contribute to the county fund in aid of the expenditure thereout for the purposes set forth in the requisition, and the town council shall pay to the county council at such intervals as the town council and county Council may agree and, failing agreement, as the Secretary of State may determine, and so far as the amount specified on the certificate has not been paid over by that time shall annually on the first day of May pay over the balance to the county council.

The statutory powers of a town council to borrow temporarily in connection with current annual expenditure in anticipation of the rates applicable to such expenditure shall be deemed to include power to borrow for the purposes of meeting any sum, so far as uncollected, payable, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to a county council and upon the security of the rates leviable by the rating authority for the purposes of Acts of Parliament administered by them, and any sums borrowed under the provisions of this Sub-section shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the limit of the amount that may be borrowed under the aforesaid statutory powers."

This is practically the same Amendment as the proposal of the Government, but there is a slight difference between the two Amendments. I would like to hear the view of the Lord Advocate in regard to the difference between the two Amendments which were placed on the Paper after consultation with the Convention of Royal Burghs who desire the insertion of these provisions.

The difference between the two Amendments is that the hon. Member's proposal includes the words

"and any sums borrowed under the provisions of this Sub-section shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the limit of the amount that may be borrowed under the aforesaid statutory powers."

There is no such limit, and therefore those words are unnecessary.

I accept that explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 26, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:

"and provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the common good of any burgh, or property and revenue of revenue-producing undertakings the property of any town council."

I should be glad if the Lord Advocate would explain to us whether what was done at an earlier stage with regard to the common good covers the provision contained in this Amendment. We axe in a difficulty unless what has already been passed with regard to common good funds covers this also. If, however, the Lord Advocate can say that what has already been done with regard to the common good covers this, there will be no need for the Amendment.

I cannot do more than repeat the undertaking which I gave the other day to look into this matter and make sure that the legitimate common good shall not be affected in any way. What I said then would cover this point also. I do not need to repeat the illustrations that I gave the other day of cases in which the common good might be used for some purpose which would involve the transference of the results to the Department concerned, but the revenue-producing Departments are not included in any of the functions transferred under this part of the Bill.

That was the point that I raised before. There are peculiarities of practice in Scotland with regard to the common good fund. In Glasgow, for instance, we get from the tramways s sum of £47,000 annually, which goes into the common good—

There is no question about that.

That is a revenue-producing undertaking, and it is from sources of that kind that the bulk of the money for the common good fund is obtained. If we are making certain provisions for a new kind of transport, the common good fund is used now for purchases for that Department, and I should like to know how that would be protected. What I have said applies, not only to the annual contribution to the common good, but also to extensions which are undertaken at various times. Would such extensions be covered by the provisions of this Measure, and would they be protected? I could understand it quite well if the common good fund were spent on an undertaking which was not a productive undertaking, but something such as a park, or the clearing away of slums and making open spaces, or something that is really of common value, but what I want be know is whether sums of money taken from the common good and applied for the development of a revenue-producing department within one of these councils would be protected by this Measure, or, if the Lord Advocate has not now at hand details regarding that matter, whether he proposes, in the consideration that he is giving to the whole matter, to include this point.

That is rather a different point. If the hon. Member will look at the Clause, he will see that the first part only applies to future borrowings, and provides that the capital security shall include all the revenues and funds of the council. As regards existing borrowings, which I imagine would include the matters of which the hon. Member has been speaking, the Clause extends the security, and, therefore, makes the position better. It says that:

"All sums borrowed before the commencement of this Act by any such council on the security of any specified rate"—

the common good is not within that—

"shall be deemed to have been borrowed upon the security of all the funds, rates or revenues of the council liable by virtue of this Act in repayment of the sums outstanding."

I should like to ask the Lord Advocate a question on this matter. In the Glasgow? Town Council, before the War, we proposed that a sum of £750,000 should be borrowed free of interest from the common good fund in order to provide houses for the working class. If we had been able to do that at that time, we should have been able to build houses for the working class at a cost of £250, but, because we did not get that money then, those same houses which are built now are costing £800, which makes it almost, impossible for the working class to go into them. I want to know from the Lord Advocate whether our rights are being preserved here, and that this money is not being locked up. Again, when the Prince of Wales visited Glasgow, and we were a power in the Glasgow Corporation, we raised the question of the expenses that were going to be incurred as the result of the visit, and we were informed that those expenses were coming out of the common good fund. At the same time—that was before the distress became so terrible as it eventually did—the Labour members of the council asked for a grant of £50,000 from the common good in order to feed the unemployed. It is true that we did not carry our request, but the result was that we were able to arrest the attention of the citizens of Glasgow, so that, when we did solicit subscriptions on behalf of the unemployed, they contributed handsomely.

I want to know if our rights are being safeguarded here, so that we shall have the right to tap the common good fund in order to protect the interests of people who are not able to defend themselves: that is to say, when the working classes are right up against it. Here is a source of revenue, a fund, a banking account, that we have been able time and again to tap. I want to know if our rights are being safeguarded here, because it has been invaluable to us in the past. We want to retain everything we possibly can, because otherwise the Bill will crush Scotland as it has never been crushed before.

I think I can give the hon. Member the assurance which he desires, for this reason. The Clause in no way settles whether a particular proposed form of borrowing is lawful or not. All it says is that, if you borrow, you shall borrow on the whole assets of the corporation instead of on a particular fund.

I beg to move, in page 26, line 14, to leave out Subsection (2).

In this Sub-section it is declared that a council will not be allowed to borrow unless two-thirds of the members are present. At present, a majority is competent to pass a matter of this kind, and we feel sure that the Lord Advocate will agree, after a moment's reflection, to substitute a bare majority for two-thirds.

At present, in counties, the consent of the standing joint committee is required- The standing joint committee disappears under the Bill, and, therefore, there is no safeguard of that kind. The Government certainly will be quite content, instead of prescribing a two-thirds majority, to provide for the consent of the central department. If that method is preferred, we shall be quite ready to put down the necessary Amendment on Report.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider the point. It is true that the practice in county councils up to now has been that the council requires the consent of the standing joint committee, and I think it would be a good arrangement that it should apply to the central department rather than have two-thirds of the members present and giving their consent. There might be very important work for which a council had to borrow money, and it might be difficult to get a two-thirds majority, but, if the power to borrow could be arranged between the central department and the county council, it would be very much better.

I should like to say how glad I am to have this concession. A two-thirds majority would have been extremely difficult to carry out. Even in Scotland, where we never disagree, we must allow that from time to time there are certain local jealousies, and in my constituency there would, no doubt, have been difficulty in ever getting a two-thirds majority for anything that was required. Therefore, I thoroughly approve of the proposal, and I thank the Government whole-heartedly for their concession.

It is obvious that the Government realise that their proposals make administration very difficult for the newly-constituted authorities. I can see the very greatest difficulty, particularly in connection with the working of the education committees. Up to the present, when we have required capital for building schools, a simple majority has been able to carry through the work. Now the whole question of rating and of the borrowing of capital is handed over to the county council. I can see the very point arising which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned. You might have a fight between two sections of the council and, though you had practically agreed to spend the necessary capital, it would be practically impossible for the majority to carry out its work. Having been met favourably by the Lord Advocate, I, for one, feel, on behalf of the authority I have been representing, that the concession will help to make administration more practicable.

I appreciate the concession which the Lord Advocate ha^* intimated, but I am not quite clear whether the proposed alternative is desirable or would be welcomed by the local authorities. I understand that at present they have power to borrow on a simple majority vote and that the central authority's authorisation is not required. We must not too hastily assume that a simple majority would be of great advantage if it brings in something new in the shape of the necessity of the central authority giving permission. Whether that would be a good or a bad thing depends on the nature of the central authority and the line of policy which it is pursuing. The central authority might, on certain occasions, even though there was a very large majority vote, even more than two-thirds, turn down a proposal. I should like to know if this is a new departure—if at present a local authority has power by a majority to borrow and if the concession the Lord Advocate intimates is really another breach in the power of local authorities. If so, I am afraid I could not, without further consideration, give it my support.

I have a manuscript Amendment to give effect to my undertaking. It will come in at line 37.

It would be a very bad precedent to accept a manuscript Amendment that I have not seen. The right hon. Gentleman can put it down on Report.

Will the Lord Advocate answer my point—if at present there is no central authorisation necessary before the council has power to borrow?

Not in the case of burghs.

I beg to move, in page 27, line 12, to leave out the word "Board," and to insert instead thereof the word "Department."

Can we have some information from the Lord Advocate on these particular Amendments?

These are drafting Amendments, simply providing for the change of title from. "Board" to "Department." The Bill as originally drafted provided for the "Board," but since that time the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill has changed the word "Board" to "Department."