(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the Supplementary Esti- mate discussed last Tuesday, on which reconsideration was promised?

His Majesty's Government have now had an opportunity of reviewing the question of the payments to be made to Irish Loyalists in consequence of the recommendations of the Wood Renton Advisory Committee.

I should like to make it clear at the outset that the Cabinet are collectively responsible for the various decisions taken in this matter during the present Parliament, and that the statements made from time to time on their behalf by various Ministers have at every stage carried with them our united assent and approval.

The Cabinet have never taken the view that these payments are debts of honour. On the contrary, the conditions under which we consented to set up the new Wood Renton inquiry were that the Committee was purely advisory, that the liability of the Government was not to be unlimited, and that payments should be ex gratia. This has been announced to the House repeatedly during the last four years, and the inquiry has throughout proceeded avowedly upon that basis. We therefore repudiate the suggestion that the Government have sought to compound a debt of honour. We recognise, however, that many of our supporters take a different view. We do not wish to use the ordinary machinery of party to enforce our view upon our own supporters and override their sincere convictions upon a matter of this kind which, though in itself not large, has its roots in the grievous controversies of the past.

In these circumstances and in view of all the representations which have been made to me and the feeling expressed in the recent Debate, we shall be prepared to meet in full the awards which have been made, or may subsequently be made by the Wood Renton Committee. There are no doubt serious objections to allowing an Advisory Committee, upon which the Government is not represented, and before which the Crown cannot state its case, to impose indefinite charges upon the taxpayer. But the end of the Committee's work is now so clearly in sight that this objection has in the passage of time lost much of its force. No one has suggested that the Committee have been extravagant in their assessment of the damage and hardship suffered by the claimants. We shall therefore from time to time as may be necessary propose the additional Estimates to the House.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to offer the House of Commons an early opportunity of discussing the very important statement which he has just made; if so, can he give any indication of when that opportunity will be offered?

Of course, it will be discussed when the Estimate upon which I moved to report Progress comes before the House again, and that will be brought before the House on the first convenient day.

As I was responsible for moving the reduction of the Vote, may I be permitted to thank the Prime Minister for the statement which he has made?

May I ask if there is going to be an alteration in the bulk of the Supplementary Estimate?

I cannot say yet what alteration will be necessary, but the House will be in full possession of the facts at the proper time.

I wish to ask the Lord Advocate a question on this Clause. The small burghs will receive their portion of the grants through the county councils. What guarantee have we that the burghs will be able to raise directly with the county councils any point with regard to that money? These burghs have no direct representation on the county councils. Can the Lord Advocate give us some assurance that there will be a direct touch between the burghs, which are to receive the grants, and the county councils, which are to pay them?

This Clause provides for the payment to the small burghs of their portion of the General Exchequer Grants. That is not within the discretion of the county councils; that is a statutory obligation. A small burgh can calculate for itself the money which it ought to receive. This matter is not left to the whim of the county council, and if there were any dispute between a small burgh and the county council the central department and, indeed, the Exchequer itself would come in, since this is not a grant by the county to the small burgh but by the Exchequer to the small burgh.

My point is that the burghs will have difficulty in raising the matter with the county councils in case of a dispute arising. If these burghs had direct representation on the county councils, the matter could be raised directly with the county council. Otherwise, a burgh will have to correspond with a county council as if the county council were a department in itself.

I do not quite grasp the point of the hon. Member as to the burghs having no direct representation. They are represented there.

But surely the hon. and gallant Member knows that there has been a grouping of burghs for representation on the county councils. In our county, for example, three or four burghs are grouped together to send one representative to the county council. That is my point.

That is all very well with regard to the major services, but I understood the hon. Member was discussing the point of the minor services, those which are specifically reserved to the small burghs.

Oh, no.

The point is simply this, that there are some small burghs in Scotland which will have only indirect representation on the county councils, and my hon. Friend is asking about the control which these small burghs will have over the apportionment of their grants from the county council.

Let me point out that the apportionment of the grants to the small burghs is not governed by anything which a county council may do. The county councils are to act as the agent of the Exchequer in transmitting sums from the Exchequer to the small burghs. The amount of the apportionment is laid down by Statute, and the manner in which it is to be transmitted is laid down by Statute, and, therefore, if any dispute arose it is not with the county council that the small burgh would have to correspond. If it had a genuine grievance it would appeal directly to the authorities responsible for interpreting the Statute, and the county council would be called to account for default in agency in transmitting sums which are not its own property, but which are handed to it by the Exchequer for the purpose of handing on to the small burghs. Therefore a small burgh is not affected one way or the other by its representation on the county council. The small burgh is protected by Statute and the Exchequer.

I beg to move, in page 38, line 36, to leave out the word "quinquennium," and to insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period."

Could not we have from the Lord Advocate a brief statement of the precise meaning of the series of Amendments to this effect which he has put down? We understand roughly that the quinquennium has been dropped, and that fixed grant periods of three, four, and five years are to be substituted. Surely, in an important matter of this kind, the original Bill ought not to be amended without explanation.

I am delighted to give an explanation to the best of my ability. This brings the Bill into line with the Amendments that have been made to the English Bill, as the result of a general consultation with the local authorities and others. Instead of the original period divided into three quinquennia, the period is now one of 17 years, divided into a first period of three years, a second period of four years, and then two periods of five years each. Therefore, the expression "quinquennium" is not now appropriate, and we are accordingly inserting the words "fixed grant period" in Its place. It is merely an alteration which is necessary to give effect to the extension that has been agreed upon.

The reason being that it is an attempt to meet the apprehensions of the local governing authorities in Scotland that they may not be so favourably situated under this Bill as they were at first led to expect, and, therefore, they do not want to wait for five years before an adjustment is made.

No, that is hardly correct. One great advantage of the alteration is that these periods will approximate closely to the date of each quinquennial census.

Is it not the case that one reason for the alteration was in order to remove the legitimate apprehensions which existed in the minds of the local authorities?

It was the result of negotiations which were invited. I agree that further financial concessions were given. It was the result of long-continued and entirely amicable negotiations.

The original proposals were based on a certain element of measurement called the quinquennium, and the reason for this change is that it was found that the former arrangement would not apply. Otherwise, there would only have been one period of five years, but it was found that the formula could not be bound by a five-year period, and a second period was added; and, when that was found to be inadequate for the purposes of the formula, a third period was added. Now we have this series of Amendments, which seem to me to wipe out the formula. The object of the formula was to adjust the differences between that which existed already and that which was new owing to the introduction of this Bill.

We were told at the beginning that the formula afforded a system of calculation for the purpose of arriving at the balance, whether minus or plus. Now we see that the formula is not going to work. The Government have found that it cannot work, and that it is necessary to get down to something which, if they had studied the matter at first, they must have seen would he necessary to meet a change in the calculations brought about by a new Measure which changed the period, and, therefore, changed the totals. Therefore, they must have something fixed. When they speak of a fixed grant period, what they are fixing is just the difference between what the Bill displaces and what it leaves as it was. When you come to the question of a fixed point in any calculation, it means something that is measured, not by the formula, but by the conditions, the balancing of which, on the minus or on the plus side, was supposed to be guaranteed by the formula.

If the Bill could have been retained in its original form, it might have been possible to have a fixed period of measurement, whether a quinquennium or some different period which might have been anything from one month up to 10 years. Now that this fixed grant is being given, the position returns simply to what it has been all through, and to speak now of applying the formula on the basis of a measured year is simply to say that you are wiping the whole thing out by giving a fixed grant. We were told in Scotland that 15 years was the period necessary to traverse all the difficulties, and that we were going to have a standard of measurement that could be applied to every little undulation that took place during the application of the Act. It did not take long, when an attempt was made to work it out, to show that a period of 15 years had no relation to the facts, and accordingly another two years were added and the periods are being changed from the three quinquennia to periods of three, four, and five years. If the basis of the formula had any relation at all to the changes which I have mentioned in regard to the local authorities, the measuring period could not have been changed, but it might have been possible to change the value of the factors in making up the formula. This change in measurement is like giving a man a 42-inch yardstick and saying that that is to be the yard. When you change from 36 inches to 42 inches, you know what is going to happen to the man if he is asked to give the same number of yards out of a piece of cloth.

That is just what is happening now. None of these suggestions can be applied in detail as far as the formula is concerned, and Amendments of this kind only show that the Government were in a mess at the start. The Government in these matters are like the man with a concertina who, when asked to play, said that he could not play but he would do his best at the worst.

Before, calling on the next Amendment, may I suggest that we should formally leave out lines 4 to 35 without debate, as we did yesterday, and then proceed to take the discussion on the Question that the proposed words be inserted.

I beg to move, in page 39, to leave out lines 4 to 35, and to insert instead thereof the words:

(2) As respects each subsequent fixed grant period, if in the case of any county the county apportionment falls short of the standard sum increased by the greater of the two following sums, that is to say—

(a) a sum equivalent to one shilling per head of the estimated population of the county for the appropriate year;

(b) a sum equivalent to one-third of the excess of the county apportionment for the period in question over what would have been the county apportionment for the period in question had the General Exchequer Contribution for that period been the same as the General Exchequer Contribution for the first fixed grant period;

there shall in respect of each year of the fixed grant period in question be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the council of the county a sum equal to the deficiency.

(3) For the purposes of this section the standard sum as respects any county shall he the amount of the loss on account of rates and grants of that county, so, however, that—

(a) if, for the fixed grant period in question the General Exchequer Contribution is less than the General Exchequer Contribution for the first fixed grant period, the standard sum shall be the said amount reduced proportionately to such diminution in the General Exchequer Contribution;

(b) if, for the fixed grant period in question the weighted population of the county is less than the weighted population of the county for the first fixed grant period adjusted as regards unemployment, the standard sum shall be the said amount reduced (or if a reduction therein has been made under paragraph (a) of this subsection that reduced amount further reduced) proportionately to such diminution in weighted population.

(4) In this section the expression.

This Amendment embodies further concessions which were made after the conversations to which the Lord Advocate has referred. In the first place, in the Bill as it stands there is the guarantee of the payment of a sum equivalent to 1s. per head of the estimated population of the county in addition to the standard sum. Certain local authorities pointed out that there might be an increase in the new money, and under those circumstances they contended that it was only fair that they should have some share of that money, although they were not legally entitled to it under the terms of the Statute. Consequently, we have inserted words securing that they will get a fair proportion of the excess. That is where Sub-section (2) of the Amendment comes in. It provides for the extra share which the local authorities will have over and above what they receive by the working of the formula. I do not think this proportion will affect very many burghs or counties, because most of them gain considerably in excess of what they are guaranteed under this proposal. Even so, if even three counties should suffer under it we think it would be wrong, and we have made arrangements whereby they will be covered by this guarantee. A proposal of this kind operates more in the case of England than Scotland, but that is no reason why we should miss any chance of favourable financial treatment. There is the guarantee of one shilling per head, and, if the amount grows, each county will have a certain share of it.

Why has it become necessary to fix the sum if the formula works fairly? Why is it that a definite sum is now stated?

This is the minimum sum. The formula will cover the necessities of the counties, but we make it clear that not only will no area lose, but every area will gain by the operation of the scheme and the minimum put in is a gain of one shilling per head. It is clear that we are giving a fixed guarantee to the local authorities that every ratepayer will gain by the working of this proposal and this Sub-section is in addition.

Does the shilling come out of the total sum to be given?

The one shilling per head was specified as far back as the issuing of the White Paper. The new money is going to increase the amount in every area in Scotland.

The new money was supposed to be controlled by the formula, and now I understand that portions of it are to be taken out.

This is the minimum. We say that the formula will cover all that is required and more, but we are now giving an additional guarantee that the expenditure will be covered.

I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 23, to leave out the words "adjusted as regards employment."

I always deal with figures with some hesitation, and, when a formula is recommended that has been worked out by experts, I hesitate to criticise it. There is a point of considerable importance behind this formula. Take the various sums fixed for unemployment. The transferred sum applicable under the formula of weighting for unemployment has not been definitely given, but it has been estimated at about £200,000, and the question has been asked as to whether that sum is sufficient at the present time. If you work out the formula, the decrease of weighting works automatically on the decrease of the multiplication factor in the formula. If unemployment decreases and the factor of multiplication remains at 10, a decrease would automatically follow and would follow on the decrease of unemployment without the further factor being brought in. If, on the other hand, as we hope will not be the case, unemployment should increase or even if it should remain constant, surely then the multiplying factor should be kept constant as at present. If in the third period unemployment remains constant or even increases, the multiplication factor will be five instead of ten as now. I suggest for the consideration of the Committee that in that case the weighting would be entirely and absolutely an excretion. I would like to know what the representative of the Government has to say on the matter.

I am not quite sure that I fully grasp the point of the hon. Member. I take it that he considers that this adjustment with regard to unemployment should not be made.

No, that the adjustment should not be made as proposed—that is, the decreasing multiple in the various fixed periods—but that the multiple should remain constant at the present figure of ten. Then, if employment decreased there would be an automatic decrease by reason of the decrease of unemployment and not by the decrease of the power of the multiplying factor.

But the multiplying factor is at present, as the hon. Member will realise, very high in order to exaggerate the effects of unemployment. It makes a very considerable contribution in the case of the unemployed areas. If the unemployment decreases, as we hope it will, obviously, that will not be nearly so necessary as it is just now.

Then the decrease will follow naturally?

Why would it do that?

I am afraid that I have not made myself clear. If the multiplying factor remains at ten, and you multiply twenty by ten you get two hundred, whereas if unemployment decreases and you multiply ten by ten, you get only one hundred. There, you have the decrease depending on the unemployment alone, but by the Government scheme the decrease depends not only on the decrease of unemployment, because there also is a decreasing multiplying factor.

I apologise to the hon. Member. I think I grasp it now. As a greater and greater proportion of the Exchequer contribution falls to be distributed under the formula, then the tremendous weighting necessary in the first period under the formula will not be necessary. If we continue this enormous exaggeration of the unemployment factor, it will throw quite a disproportionate amount of money in regard to this particular waiting factor. The sum which is already distributed in regard to this is not a sum of £200,000, but a sum of £600,000. The reason for the adjustment is that as the amount distributed according to the formula is increased and the fixed sum decreases the heavy load necessary to give immediate relief for unemployment is by no means so necessary, and will indeed give a wrong result if the factor we are applying to the formula continues for the whole period of the contribution. I hope that I have made myself clear to the hon. Members.

Why in regard to unemployment is there all this trouble taken in finding out by formula and by weighted population? We have Employment Exchanges which can tell the number of unemployed to a man. Why should all this trouble be taken with this mathematical formula, which takes into consideration the question of tarred roads and public roads, children under five per thousand of the population, and rateable value per head? Why are all these things thrown in as if it were some new way of finding a sixpenny puzzle to he sold in millions in order to give people mental calisthenics? Why should all this trouble be taken when the Government has provided Employment Exchanges and are paying large sums in salaries to officials to keep an exact record of the number of people unemployed. The Government cannot make their responsibilities less in this matter through a formula unless it is their intention to "lose" some of the unemployed through weighting. If you were to take a density factor of four, you would have a complication that would make it impossible of application in any period the Government eared to make. Why do we require this mathematical calculation when we know at the Employment Exchanges what is the number of unemployed unless it is the intention of the Government to find a way of not looking after the unemployed financially? This is quite a good way if the Government desire to mystify people in regard to unemployment and to prevent the nation from taking its responsibility in regard to the unemployed. If the Government are going to have any regard at all to unemployment, they cannot get a proper adjustment under the proposals in this Measure.

The hon. Member is quite capable of understanding mental calisthenics, and he should confine his remarks to the particular Amendment, which deals only with the mental calisthenics concerned in the adjustment as regards unemployment.

The real factor in this matter is the one that finds out where the unemployed are with regard to counties, and it is that point I was stressing.

Yes, but the hon. Member is going too far. He must not do that. It is merely a question of the adjustment of unemployment in regard to the fixed grants.

You have to get the number of unemployed before you make the adjustment.

The hon. Member must not now get people unemployed doing that is not the subject of this Amendment.

If we are going to understand what is meant by this Amendment we have to take into consideration the weighted population of a county in the first grant period. It was that factor applying only to counties—the full density factor—to which I was referring, because, according to the Bill, it is the only one which applies to the counties. I may be wrong from the Chairman's point of view and out, of order—I want to keep within the findings of the Chair in this matter—but I want to make it clear that I am dealing with the population of a county from the first fixed grant period with regard to unemployment.

The fourth density factor applies only to counties in that relation. That was why I was pointing out that the means of discovering the factor in the counties is determined by the fourth density factor. We might have an Act of Parliament clearly understood by the people, and even by the meaner intellects, if we endeavoured to make the position clear, instead of having all this talk about formula and weighting. We ought to deal clearly with the question of unemployment wherever we find it.

I have tried to follow the explanation given by the Under Secretary with regard to the decreasing value of the different periods, but I am not quite clear on the point. Supposing that unemployment remains the same and is a constant figure, will the factor which is to be applied in the third period be sufficient to cover the needs of unemployment if the unemployment remains constant?

Yes, the point is not whether the unemployment increases or decreases but whether the amount of money to which this factor applies increases or decreases. That amount of money increases very rapidly because in successive periods a greater and greater proportion comes on the formula and a smaller portion remains on the fixed grant. Whether unemployment falls or rises it does not alter the fact that the major sum of money is coming under the operation of the loading factor which is multiplied by ten. Therefore, as a greater amount of money is dealt with by that formula in later years, there would be a disproportionate amount of loading in those districts which suffer most from unemployment.

May I ask whether in the unemployment calculations it is only male persons who are unemployed who are counted, or whether a count is taken of unemployed women?

There is an Amendment down dealing with that point.

Is it going to be accepted?

To ease the matter in regard to the OFFICIAL REPORT, I might say that there is a certain allowance which is being made for unemployed women, and that will be discussed at the appropriate time.

I beg to move, in page 40, to leave out from the word "area," in line 20, to the second "and," in line 23.

I beg to move, in page 41, line 16, to leave out the word "fifteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "nineteen."

This Amendment is to give effect to the proposal that the special arrangements to be made for spreading the change in the incidence of rates between separately rated districts over a period of 15 years, should be modified. The guarantee against any increase in rate poundage by reason of the scheme for the first year of its operation will be extended for a further period of 4 years. That is a very substantial concession to rating areas which may be hardly hit. There will be no increase in rate poundage in any separately rated area for five years, and any necessary adjustments will be spread by one-fifteenth per year for a period of 14 years. There are similar Amendments in regard to separately rated parts of large burghs. These are proposals similar to the arrangements in the case of annexations between one local authority area and another, where arrangements are made, so I am informed by my legal friend, for differential rating for a particular period. The differential rating gradually shades away, and finally the rate is uniform over all the areas. In this particular case the guarantee has been made for five years, during which no increase in rates will take place in the separately rated areas. That involves a certain extra grant of new money from the Exchequer. It is considered that to continue the guarantee further will amount in the second year to £11,400; iii the third year to £22,800, in the fourth year to £34,200, from the fifth to the sixteenth year £45,600, in the seventeenth year £34,200, in the eighteenth year £20,800 and the nineteenth year £11,400.

It will thus be seen that a substantial additional sum is being found by the Exchequer to make up to the separately rated areas for losses which they may suffer from being merged in the general county rate which is now being established for major services. These are terms fully as favourable as any local authority has been able to offer to another local authority in the case of any annexation or combination. The difference between the case with which we are now dealing and the ordinary annexation or combination is that any sum necessary to carry over the differential rating period has in previous cases been found by the local authority but in this case it is being found by the Treasury to the extent of one half, and no extra expense is falling on the local authority on this account. That is continuing the same procedure that was covered for one year in the previous cases, but the loss is not falling upon the local authority. The loss of continuing is being borne in one form or another by the Treasury.

I beg to move, in page 44, line 25, at the end, to insert the words

"(2) The Central Department may, before the beginning of each fixed grant period, make a scheme providing for the payment by county councils and town councils of large burghs specified in the scheme of such amount as may he specified in the scheme to the central council or committee of an approved organisation which provides services in the nature of general publicity, and educational propaganda in furtherance of the prevention and treatment of venereal diseases."

This Amendment is to add, to the possible schemes already indicated in the Clause, one in regard to venereal disease. Those who are interested in public health are a little apprehensive as to the effect of this Bill on many of the health services, and many are specially anxious about venereal disease. It is an unpopular subject. We feel, therefore, that it is likely to suffer. This Amendment deals with another aspect of the subject. It deals with the position that those suffering from these diseases may from ignorance have no inclination or desire to seek treatment, a treatment which is important for themselves and important also for the community. We feel—in this connection—that the proposal of the Government implied in the omissions of this Bill, to drop the grants which have been previously given for propaganda is very unwise. From the names attached to this Amendment hon. Members will see that it has the approval of Members representing all parties in the House.

Last year we had a Debate in connection with the Edinburgh Bill, a Bill which sought to give power to Edinburgh Corporation to compel those who were suffering from the disease to undergo treatment. The House decided, under the guidance of the Minister of Health, that the voluntary system was sufficient. My own feeling is that a purely voluntary system will not be effective in stamping out these diseases. That is, however, a matter of opinion; but the one thing on which all who understand anything about the treatment of this disease are agreed, is that the voluntary system cannot succeed unless the public generally understand and realise the seriousness of these conditions. They are not only personally serious, but they are socially serious. A great deal of our work in hospitals is really, in origin, related to this subject, because a great many cases, labelled by other names have their beginnings in one or other of these diseases.

Now, a similar Amendment was put forward in connection with the English Bill and the Minister of Health did not find himself able to accept it. We have, however, made a very important alteration in the present Amendment by substituting the word "may" for the word "shall." The Minister of Health felt that lie should not be compelled to make such a scheme if he thought it was unnecessary, and we have altered the Amendment so that it will now be within his discretion to make such a scheme if the attendance at the clinics or the number of defaulters is such as to make it, in his opinion, desirable. A committee in Scotland has been carrying on this propaganda since 1921. It is a Committee of the British Social Hygiene Council, but it is a purely Scottish Committee. It has a number of distinguished members, whose names I will not read, but one name on it which will prove my statement is that of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart). This Committee has been carrying on very important work by giving lectures, advertising, and distributing literature, more particularly in those areas where there has been a lack of interest and where cases were not corning forward to the clinics.

The Scottish Board of Health has been in the habit of giving a grant of £1,000 a year for the work, and in view of the statements that are sometimes made as to the value or otherwise of propaganda, perhaps I may be allowed to quote an extract from the report of the Scottish Board of Health on this subject. The Report for 1927 states this:—

Propagandist and Educational work.—The former of these provisions the Board has left in the hands of the Scottish Committee of the British Social Hygiene Council, being well assured that that body could and would do the work as well as it was possible for it to be done, and content, therefore, to stand by approvingly and render the necessary financial aid. That the work of the Scottish Committee has been effective and of high value is certain, but we learn from time to time with some surprise that information regarding these ailments, their nature and treatment, and regarding the existence of clinics where efficient and confidential treatment is available without charge to all, and, at least to the great majority of city and town dwellers, reasonably acceptable—that this information, actively disseminated as it has been for six or seven years, has not as yet by any means found its way to the whole of the population. At the male venereal disease clinics it is no uncommon experience to hear, in answer to the medical officer's question, 'Why did you not come here sooner?' the remarkable reply, 'I did not know that there was such a place.' In the female clinics such an assertion of ignorance is still more frequent; and at the latter, in addition, there is often revealed an almost incredible ignorance with regard to the manifestations of one or other of the maladies in question, or even as to the nature and significance of general indications of ill-health."

There is more in the Report, but enough has been quoted to show that the Scottish Board of Health, which is very well qualified to judge in this matter, have stated clearly that this propaganda work of the Scottish Council has been effective. Personally, I feel that such work is national work and that it should be done by a national department. I should prefer if it were done by the Board of Health itself. The Government, however, are not likely to agree to that, and therefore, I suggest that this body, a voluntary body, composed of many very able and well-informed people, which has been doing such effective work, should be allowed to carry on, or else that some similar body should have the task of enlightening the public as to the great importance of these diseases. Those who are in charge of the treatment of these diseases in the various cities and counties of Scotland are satisfied that if things are left as they are in the Bill, local authorities will not voluntarily contribute to the funds of such an association. It has been suggested that local authorities would naturally subscribe to a central association of this kind without anything being in the Bill at all, but it is a matter of experience that unless these things are done uniformly, and unless there is a stimulus centrally applied and equally distributed, the desired general effect will not be produced.

I do not think it is necessary to labour the point regarding the importance of this subject, but I suggest that, not only because of the very baneful and serious effect of the diseases themselves, but also because of their great social and economic importance, and the great number of innocent people who suffer from them—for even the cases of blindness and of mentally defectives that we have been considering lately, are very largely linked up with these diseases—surely the Government will consent, especially having regard to the optional nature of this Amendment, to consider central propaganda, I trust that they will look again into the matter and ensure a continuance of the system which has secured at least, an effective method of disseminating information regarding these diseases throughout our country.

I wish to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend. The Government maintain throughout this Bill that there will be better service rendered in every department of public life by their plan of centralised effort. Unless the Amendment is adopted the Government, in this matter, will be leaving the arrangement as a sectional arrangement, against which they have taken up a strong attitude, for their whole policy hitherto has been in favour of centralised areas and effort. Here is a public body that has been set up specifically for giving publicity to methods for getting down to the depths of this almost indescribable disease. I believe that before long there will be compulsory notification of the disease. Some municipal bodies have disappointed and have not done their duty in the matter in the past. Members of all parties are associated with the Amendment. They say in effect, "At any rate let us have this organisation optionally placed under the control of the Ministry to give it the requisite imprimatur." I hope there will be the desired response on the part of the Government. The Under-Secretary of State has personal knowledge of the situation.

It is true, as the hon. Member has stated, that this is a nonparty subject, and that the Amendment is backed by Members in every part of the House. I have done my best to address myself to it from a non-party point of view, because undoubtedly there is much to be said for the arguments which have been advanced, that the propaganda with regard to this disease is of vital importance, and that in many ways it is better exercised from a central body than from a local body. There are difficulties, and, I think, conclusive difficulties against adopting the course of compelling local authorities to contribute subscriptions towards voluntary associations. To begin with, there is an Amendment down in the name of other hon. Members to omit the whole of this Clause, on the ground that these compulsory schemes put forward by the central department are, so to speak, nibbling at the general grant and to that extent detracting from the responsibility which is the essence of the Government's scheme—the responsibility which the great health authorities are being asked to assume now and for the future.

It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) says, that we have brought into existence somewhat more centralised machinery than at present exists, but note where that centralised machinery rests. It rests in the burghs and counties of Scotland. It is centralised for the health areas, but we are attempting to decentralise as far as the central administration is concerned. The particular small grants which have been made from time to time to this or that organisation, to induce it to pursue some particular course, are being swept into a general pool and that general pool is distributed to the local authorities who will then it is hoped—and I confidently believe—take upon themselves all the duties and more than all the duties which the central department has previously stimulated them to carry out. The very fact that many local authorities have sympathetically approached myself and other Members with regard to the proposal, shows that there is a feeling of full responsibility among health authorities as to their duties in connection with propaganda work. It is not, therefore, desired in any way to discourage propaganda, but it is desired to give local authorities a feeling of full responsibility for the whole of the health activities in their area including the responsibility which they have in regard to propaganda. There is great danger of specialising one or two activities or a group of activities concerning which the local authorities must make payments. We have to deal with that in the case of the blind and the mentally defective, but payment to voluntary associations,—subscription by a local authority under the compulsion of the department towards a voluntary association,—is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with present difficulties.

I think the matter would be much more readily met by the method which I am about to propose to the Committee. It is that, in the first place, the present grant from the central authority to this voluntary society should be continued. That runs up to May 1930. I am prepared to recommend that a substantial additional sum should also be obtained from the Treasury, and I do not doubt I shall be able to obtain it, towards the expenses of this voluntary society. That gives a considerable time for those concerned to look round. I am also prepared to say that I will call a meeting of the local authorities who are particularly concerned in this matter and to discuss the subject frankly with them, and I have no doubt that we shall be able to come to an agreement with the local authorities as to the health and propaganda work which they desire to carry on. I do not desire to take upon the central department further powers to compel local authorities by fiat to expend sums out of monies which they rightly regard as their own money and their own responsibility.

The provision that the central department may make a scheme, means that in case the Government decided against making a scheme this provision should be a dead letter. I think it is much more satisfactory to say that we shall call the local authorities together to consider it and that we shall be more than ready, if they so desire, to act as banker for any sums which they may wish to spend on health propaganda including health propaganda of this kind. That will give us the advantages of the centralised control and centralised expenditure which the hon. Member for Dundee has suggested. The only difference is that the local authorities will have themselves contributed freely, and not under the compulsion of the central department. I am pleading here for freedom for the local authorities, as against the very accusations which have been made in the past about compulsion on local authorities, and I am proposing, in addition, a substantial sum to enable the society in question to reconsider its position and to bridge over the transition period. It may be that, in future, local authorities will desire to undertake this work themselves—they are undertaking a considerable proportion of it already—but that is in the future. The position of the society will be safeguarded for this year. It will be safeguarded for a period, and during that time the local authorities will have considered, not so much the position of this society—which, though important, is not the main point—but the position of health propaganda and publicity which it is the desire of all to see continued and extended.

Is it not the duty of the Government to give a lead and guidance to the local authorities in this matter, as much as in the matter of the blind and mentally defective, and to give a constant stimulus?

We think that the point is covered by the general provisions of Clause 50 which provides in the widest possible words that the Secretary of State shall be satisfied that a council have carried out their obligations; that he shall be satisfied that they have not failed to achieve a reasonable standard of efficiency in the discharge of their public health functions arid that the health of the inhabitants, or some of them, has not been or is likely to be endangered. The power of the central authority to call the local authorities together and to ask them what they are doing, and, if the central authority is not satisfied, to intimate to the local authorities that they are not doing enough, meets the point. The matter is completely covered, I suggest, by the general power in Clause 50.

If Clause 48 were to stand as it is, it seems to me that there would be a certain amount of contusion. Certain things are to be done—quite rightly—by voluntary associations. They are to help in tending the blind and the mentally defective, but, as we know, only too many cases of blindness and mental deficiency arise from this very source which we are considering. Why cannot we amplify this provision? Instead of being tagged on to the end of the Clause a provision dealing with this matter ought to be the first Sub-section of the Clause. Why cannot we go to the root of the matter. If it is desirable to draw the attention of local authorities to the means of dealing with the blind and the mentally defective, is it not even more incumbent on the Government to see that attention is drawn and that activities are directed to the cure of a disease which causes so much of the other two diseases that we are tinkering with in this Clause?

Everyone who has had experience of dealing with the dreadful scourge of venereal disease realises that it is necessary to have a central organisation dealing with propaganda and education in this matter. It is obvious that, under the Bill, the funds available for this propaganda will be at the discretion of the local authorities. Are there any funds, outside those which would be provided by voluntary contributions, available for such health propaganda.

The Department of Health in Scotland has no special appropriation for health propaganda or for preventive publicity work. To deal with the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford), I quite agree with him that if it was being left out, it should be inserted as indeed the first of all these paragraphs; but my point is that the differ- ence between this and the blind and mental defectives is that this is so clearly a health activity that it does not require to be specified in the list of things to which the local authorities have to pay attention, whereas the mental defectives and the blind are border-line cases, and it is much more welfare work in these cases than health work. Propaganda against venereal disease is so clearly and distinctly one of the health duties and functions of the local authorities that we claim, first of all, that it is covered by the general activities of the authorities and, secondly, that the very wide words of Clause 50 would give the Secretary of State full power to call the attention of the local authorities to any case of default, if it arose, which I have every hope it will not.

The Under-Secretary said just now that the mental defectives and the blind were borderline cases, and that is true, but it is also true that they are the results in a great degree of venereal disease, and that that disease has arisen mainly out of ignorance. Like the ostrich, we have buried our head in the sand and declined to speak about or to mention venereal disease, and up to the last ten years or so nowhere in decent society were the words "venereal disease" mentioned, and we allowed our young people to move about in ignorance and acquire this disease because of it. Then came the Association for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, now the British Social Hygiene Council, which went to work with the assistance of the Government, with the unlimited monetary aid of the Government, arising out of the revelations made with regard to venereal disease in the Army during the war and the results that accrued therefrom, causing many of our men who ought to have been effective units to be absolutely useless and rather a burden and a hindrance than anything else in the carrying on of that war. So there came this Council, with the support of the Government of that day, and practically unlimited money. They went here and there, and they travelled abroad and throughout this country, setting up local organisations for the purpose of combating this disease; and I believe that one of the most effective ways to prevent this disease is by letting the people know what it means. It means disaster in every direction.

Those of us whose painful duty it has been to visit our asylums know that in every section of them, in every ward, are to be found the results of this disease, the results of ignorance and of the desire to hide the shame of it. Here we are asking that this Council should, in a little way, gain support, for the purpose not of aggrandisement or glorification of any individual, but for the purpose of carrying on this good work. I am glad to say that, so far as my own city is concerned, we have recognised the value of education and have entered into contracts with the education authority dealing with this matter, not caring so much about the expense as about preventing the development of the disease and the continuance of the ignorance that leads to it. We should give the Government credit for the fact that they are going to give an increased grant, though an unstated increase. I would rather the Under-Secretary had indicated what the amount was to be, but it is only to last until 1930, and that is not good enough. That is not giving us very much, and we ask the central authority to take power unto itself to deal with any local authority that is not continuing this work.

The Under-Secretary says they already have this power. Then why refuse to accept this little word "may," that the central authority may in its wisdom do this thing? If they may do this thing, they will be doing what is right, and there may be a local health authority that will refuse to do this work. In fact, I may say that some very considerable health authorities are showing no great enthusiasm in dealing with the disease; and consequently, while I consider that the grant is something, I wish the Under-Secretary would still further consider it and make a better offer that would enable the real preventive work of education to be carried out even more fully than it has been carried out in the past.

All who are concerned over this matter realise that propaganda, properly directed, is absolutely essential to the combating of venereal disease, and, that being the case, we should do nothing to interfere at all with the carrying on of the propaganda which has been started and has been and is being efficiently carried on. I realise the difficulties which the Under-Secretary sees in attempting, as he says, to coerce or interfere with the liberty of local authorities to take such line of action as they may think fit, but I think he relies too much on the power reserved to the Secretary of State in Clause 50, which he would find very considerable difficulty in giving effect to. He admits that there is no fund outside the contributions which might be given by local authorities for the carrying on of this propaganda work. Personally, I should much prefer to see a national fund, controlled by the Board of Health, and that the Board of Health should have the control of this propaganda work, and if we could have some assurance from the Government that that line of action would be taken, and that we should not be in danger of losing the advantages of the propaganda being carried on, I would agree with him that this Amendment should not be inserted, but that the whole of the propaganda work should be left under the control of the Board of Health.

I support the Amendment, or the intention of the Amendment, and I should like to see in a separate Clause the same Amendment put in the place of paragraph (a), for the reason that many hon. Members of this Committee have drawn attention to the fact that venereal disease is very generally the root and source of both the other diseases, of blindness and mental deficiency. I think it would be advisable, and I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland if he would consent, though perhaps not accepting the actual words of the Amendment, at any rate to enter the new Sub-section before paragraphs (a) and (b), drawing attention to this terrible scourge of venereal disease, which, after all, brings these other two diseases in its train and also brings misery into countless homes up and down the country. The Under-Secretary said that Clause 50 will give the Secretary of State full powers of supervision, but I want more. I want the words put into the Bill, so as to spur people on to get right down to the root of the matter. A very earnest desire has been expressed on all sides of the Committee, and I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will accept the sense of the Amendment.

I do hope that the Government will take this power which, I am sure, the Committee is willing to give them. The Under-Secretary spoke of a sort of power he might have under Clause 50, but what does that mean? It means that if one county or large burgh is not taking part in the fight against venereal disease, all that he can do is to say: "Very well, we penalise you by taking a certain amount of money which you are already using for other health services." That does not seem to me to be at all a good weapon for a department of State to use. May I remind him—and I do so with great deference, because I know he is so well aware of these things—that this form of compulsory uniform action to combat disease is really one of the stages that are common to all fights against diseases. It begins, as this began, by some individual, who feels very deeply on the matter, starting to talk about it, and those who have hitherto been ignorant of the existence of such a thing hold up their hands in holy horror. But this gallant soul goes on, and talks, and awakens people's conscience to the existence of the disease and the evils which flow from it. A few gather round, and then become a little society but, first, it is looked at askance, not only by local authorities but by people generally. Then gradually it makes its way, and people become familiar with it. Then the local authority comes in with a donation to the little organisation, the voluntary workers, and then, once it has become interested, the next stage is that the health department says: "We must know the source of this disease; we must find out who has it." Then they ask for compulsory notification, and a great many people in the name of liberty oppose it. Then you have a sort of uniform system of contributions from all the authorities, and eventually you have notification and the elimination of the disease.

Speaking from my own personal experience, I remember precisely the same sort of opposition being offered to steps which were proposed to be taken to eliminate another disease in Glasgow. It was called ophthalmia neonotorum. It was a disease which brought to Glasgow about 150 or 200 blind children every year. It was a constant source of recruitment to the blind population of Glasgow. One or two folk became interested, and then began to talk about it. The public authority, during my own time, became interested in it. They promoted schemes to deal with it, and then they obtained, in face of the opposition of a lot of folk, powers to compel notification of the disease. From the expiry of the first year of compulsory notification and public treatment, there has not been lost in the city of Glasgow one eye through that disease. From having 150 to 200 totally blind children, we reached the stage, in about 15 months, of a complete cessation of the loss even of one eye. I can speak from my own experience of precisely the same development of ideas in the question of dental treatment of children, for I myself proposed in the Town Council of Glasgow that the health department should have regard to the treatment of teeth, and I received no support whatever. But some people began to take an interest in it. Private groups grew up, until it was taken up by the school board and is now compulsory. I hope that the Committee will excuse my being personal, but I do not like to speak on anything unless I have personal experience. It is in the time of my own public experience that the question of phthisis has become a matter for public authorities to deal with. I can remember very well being present at the opening of the first children's clinic in the City of Glasgow by a little group of women who were concerned about child welfare. It has all developed very quickly, and it has all developed along the same lines.

I regard this proposal as another definite stage in the fight against this terrible scourge, because unless you can compel every county and every large area to take, not merely an active bu a financial interest, you may have half of your areas, or even nine-tenths of your areas, doing it, and the tenth of the area not doing it may become a new source of contamination. In political ideas there is a stage when the idea of adherence to personal, individual liberty on the part of an individual or of a county becomes a challenge to social freedom, and the stage does arise, in the development of people's consciousness of the existence of an evil, when they say: "Not merely have we the power, but it is right that we, representing the whole community, shall insist upon all local authorities taking their part in the challenge to, and the conflict with, this disease." Therefore, I hope that the Government will not rest upon this penalising provision of Clause 50 to deprive a local authority of money which is intended for other purposes because it does not do its work, but that they will accept the power which we are willing to give them. Whether they utilise it or not will depend upon circumstances, but, at any rate, they would have that urge upon local authorities by the fact that they had this power in their hands. I hope, therefore, the Government will accept the Amendment.

I hope that the Committee will feel that those hon. Members who may not desire that this Amendment should be accepted are in no way actuated by any hostility to the efforts made by the voluntary associations in the treatment of venereal disease or also in regard to the treatment of the blind and mentally defective. There is 'another point of view from that which was so eloquently expounded by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell). If the Amendment were accepted there would be a real risk from the central authority laying down not only the policy and principles, but from it also specifying the actual amount of the contributions that are to be made. It might act as a sort of chloroform to the local authorities themselves. The tendency and desire of the local authorities to assist might well be reduced by the feeling that the responsibility in the matter is no longer theirs and that it rests with the central authority. That will be particularly the case if they get the feeling that the central authority will in due course order them to take the subscriptions that are necessary.

There is another difficulty and that is the grave objection to this proposal which was stated by the Under-Secretary of State. It would be in contradiction to the whole principle of the Bill if while you were adopting the general policy of giving Government grants to the local authorities to use and administer at their discretion, you do not give to them the full responsibility for the public health. By this Clause and this further Amendment, when you are professing to give discretion and responsibility to local authorities. At the same time you say to them "Out of this sum you shall pay so much, whether you think it right or wrong, for this or that institution, whether you think it is badly run or not." If you do that you will be making a very severe attack on the whole principle which lies at the root of this Bill. I heard with much pleasure the intention of the Under-Secretary that there should be an increased grant during this year and next year. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not give the figure of the grant. It is a. good thing to give this increased grant and far more good also will be done by assembling the representatives and the local authorities and explaining to them their duties and obtaining from them assistance in the effort which the Bill seeks to make toward the prevention of disease. That is more practical and more in accordance with the spirit of the Bill and more likely in the long run to be successful. I therefore hope that the Government will not be swayed in their decision and diverted from their judgment by the speech of the hon. Member for Paisley who so eloquently put the case for the Amendment and the need which we all acknowledge of dealing with this disease the existence of which we all deplore.

While I am glad to hear what the Under-Secretary of State proposes to do in connection with this organisation, I am sorry that I cannot regard it as a satisfactory substitute for the Amendment. I think it is quite obvious that the Secretary of State's Conference with local authorities will be much more likely to be effective if he has behind him the power to make such a scheme in the event of nothing satisfactory coming out of the conference. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary if he will consider this matter before the Report stage. If he agrees to do that, I will withdraw the Amendment; otherwise, I am afraid it is a matter upon which I and my hon. Friend and many hon. Members in the Committee feel so deeply that we must press it to a Division.

This Amendment appears to me to be an improvement, on the Clause. This is an educational Amendment, and it is therefore a thing about which any central authority must be more concerned; it goes to the beginning of the matter. Paragraphs (a) and (b) in the Clause deal with events which follow subsequently, but it is important to get at this business from the start, and you can do that by educational measures more than by subsequent action. It is a very difficult proposition to establish that the central authority is to say that the county councils and the town councils of the large burghs, who, after all, are the local bodies, are to make provision for the other associations mentioned in the paragraphs. One would assume that those bodies would naturally do that on their own account. It is really strongly subversive of the democratic principle that a central body, established far from the local areas in question, should have the right to overrule those associations. This Amendment is on the lines of our general educational principles, namely, that the distribution of information of this kind, which is not localised and does not deal purely with local matters but applies to the whole country, should come from the central bureau or office. When, however, you come to deal with individual cases specified in the various areas, it appears to me to be more a matter for the local people themselves than for the central bodies. I suggest that it is a sounder principle that this Amendment should take the place of Clause 48, and should constitute the whole of that Clause; then, the two paragraphs in Clause 48, which obviously are appropriate to local administration, and the duties of which can be carried out by local people in their own particular areas, should be left to the local people to deal with.

I remember in the course of my professional practice a case where a voluntary institution was concerned, and where very conclusive evidence was put before me that a large part of the money expended had not gone to the beneficiaries. In that case, it was held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Courts, and that these particular concerns could only be dealt with at an annual meeting. I remember being struck at the time by the fact that that particular voluntary association was not functioning exactly in the way we wished it to function. Such an association might not like to be criticised by a central authority situated far from the particular institution. The association might be more easily persuaded by those in the county or the burgh who know the institution and its particular need. Therefore, I think, we may safely leave the dealing with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) to our enlightened county councils and town councils. I am perfectly certain they will do their duty by these particular institutions in their own areas, and do it without being pressed or interfered with by the central authority. It is a very strong proposition to say to the local authorities that another body, not responsible directly to the people of the area or elected by them, should overrule the ratepayers of the particular area, and should go down and say: "You have a local fund collected, but you shall spend it in a particular way which we desire." That will be giving too much power to the central authority. I hope that this Amendment and also the next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris), to omit the Clause, will be dealt with together, and that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) will be accepted in substitution for the Clause.

I think we can scarcely be expected to accept the remarkable proposition which has just been made by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) that we should take out altogether the Clause proposed by the Government. The Committee are asking the Government to consider whether certain services do not require the rather close hand of the central department. We say that all these matters must hang together. Therefore, I will leave over the question as to whether or not the other two paragraphs should be omitted. The Committee this morning have shown a great interest in this matter, and it has been brought to our attention by reasoned speeches from all quarters of the House. We are, unfortuneately, deprived of the presence of the Secretary of State, on whom the official responsibility would have to rest; but it would be unfair that the Committee should be deprived by that reason of the advantage of bringing their views to the notice of the Secretary of State. Therefore, I will undertake to bring this Debate to his notice, and to go over the matter with him, but of course I can give no pledge. But I could not go over it on the somewhat narrow lines suggested by this Amendment, which provides, (a) that payment should be made only to an approved organization, and (b)), that it should be made only in respect to funds to combat venereal disease proper.

I should say that we should consider the question of health and health propaganda not merely in relation to this disease but on a somewhat wider ambit, and, secondly, that we could not in any way guarantee or suggest that these funds should be expended by means of these or any other organisations. It may be that some entirely different method can be found. I will undertake to consider this matter myelf, and, secondly, to bring it to the personal notice of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, it being clearly understood that we are not considering or suggesting that any payment or guarantee of payment should be made to any single voluntary organisation or in respect to any disease, barring the additional sum I have already suggested, namely, the sum in consideration of the change in the operation of the grant which is now taking place.

The Under-Secretary of State has hedged his proposition around with a great deal of Scottish caution, which probably is quite natural in the circumstances; but I think one can see in his remarks a sympathy at any rate with the objects of the Amendment. I think, therefore, it would be the feeling of the Committee that we should suspend our further activities until we see the result of the conference between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The arguments against this Clause have been put by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), and I can only say that I hope consideration will be given to the proposed Amendment, and that the Government will consider whether the terms of Clause 48 should not be in some way altered, so that we should not have a ruling that the central department are to specify not only the institutions but the amounts to be given by the local authorities.

I would add my plea to that. It is a very strong power that is proposed to be given to the Central Department.

I cannot, of course, give any such undertaking as has been suggested, though I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will give his attention to this question. This Clause has been very carefully considered, and has its present form although various points have been brought up with regard to it by representative deputations of local authorities. This morning, the Committee have pressed that the central department should be empowered to specify further organisation rather than to sweep away the safeguards inserted by the Government. No doubt this matter will be reconsidered when the Clause comes up again, but I must not be taken as giving any guarantee whatever.

I beg to move in page 44, line 30, to leave out from the word "thereto" to end of Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"at equal intervals of two months, dating from the beginning of each financial year of such county and town council."

I hope favourable consideration will be given to this Amendment, which I move for the purpose of trying to lift what the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary has described as the rather close hand of the Department. From our previous experience of the Treasury, we are a little suspicious that the close hand of the Department will deal in such a way as will limit the activities of the county and town councils. The insertion of the words proposed would give the county and town councils a freer hand to engage in their activities, with the knowledge that the grants would be available at short intervals.

The words in the Clause are the usual words always found in connection with such payments, and are the words in the English Bill. In the White Paper it was promised that the grants would be paid in six instalments during the year, and I hope my right. hon. Friend will be content with the assurance that that is the Government's intention. It is equivalent to what is asked for in the Amendment.

In the circumstances could not the Lord Advocate meet us, making it statutory by inserting these words in the Bill? He is perfectly well aware of the difficulties with which many local authorities have been faced. On many occasions they have had to borrow and to pay interest on overdrafts while all the time grants were due to them from the central Exchequer. It is quite possible that in the future some Chancellor of the Exchequer may withhold for months from local authorities money which is due to them. He would be saving the central Exchequer's money and compelling the local authorities to borrow. As the Lord Advocate has said that it is the intention of the Government to pay these monies in instalments at intervals of two months, surely there can be no objection to making that a statutory obligation.

Difficulties might arise if we laid down a hard and fast rule, because later it might suit the convenience of local authorities to have these payments at other times. I cannot accept the Amendment.

I hope the Lord Advocate will agree with us over this Amendment, because I am certain that the Scottish Office have had repeated complaints from county councils regarding the delay in paying grants, par- titularly those for housing and roads. On occasions there have been serious delays, and local authorities have had to borrow money at a high rate of interest. It is one thing to say that it is the intention of the Government to pay six times a year, but if this were made an obligation by statute local authorities would know where they were; they would know the money would be coming every two months.

I am quite aware that the words in the Clause are the ordinary words used, but I would like to add my experience to what has been already said. My local authority are constantly complaining of the expense to which they are put in having to go to the bank and pay interest on an overdraft through not being able to get the grants to which they are entitled. I am glad this Amendment has been moved, arid that we have had an opportunity of voicing the experience of local authorities; and even if the Amendment be not pressed to a Division, I hope it will bring the matter to the attention of the Treasury and impress upon them the

I am disappointed with the reply of the Lord Advocate. It seems there is very little between us, because he has pointed out that the White Paper promises that the money will be paid in six instalments, and therefore I do not see why he cannot accept the terms of my Amendment. Delay in the payment of grants has been a great and contiual source of worry to local authorities. In consequence of those delays they have had to pay substantial amounts as interest on overdrafts, charges which have had a certain effect in increasing the burden of rates which have to be paid by the people. My Amendment would make certain of removing that difficulty, and I am disappointed that the Lord Advocate cannot accept it. I feel bound to press it to a Division.

I beg to move, in page 45, line 1, after the word "health," to insert the words

"services (including services relating to maternity and child welfare, lunacy and mental deficiency, and the welfare of the blind)."

This Amendment is proposed in order to make it clear that the Clause applies to welfare services as well as to purely health services.

I beg to move, in page 45, line 8, to leave out paragraph (ii).

This paragraph relates to the expenditure of the council when it is excessive and unreasonable, but there is no definition in the Clause of what is meant by "unreasonable." Something done by the council might be unreasonable in the opinion of the Government, and yet it might be approved of by the local authority. Why should a local authority be subjected to a restriction of this kind without any definite explanation of what the provision really means. This part of the Clause gives an enormous power over the actions of the local authorities, and it may be used in such a way as to prevent them doing many things that they would like to do.

Although the Amendment seeks to remove these words altogether, I appreciate that what the hon. Member desires is an explanation of what is meant. To speak of excessive and unreasonable expenditure is to use a very ordinary phrase, and the position is, if anything, improved by the qualifying words which follow, namely:

"regard being had to the financial resources and other circumstances of the area."

When the financial resources are available for the purpose, the expenditure might be reasonable, although it might not be reasonable in another area where such financial resources were not available. Of course, the power sought is a very important one. The main scheme of the Bill is to pool all the money coming from the central authority and hand it over, leaving a large amount of discretion to the local authorities, without that very close scrutiny which is necessary when there are particular ad hoc grants, if I may use the phrase, as is the case at the present time.

Under the financial provisions of the Bill, the result will be that the money to meet almost 50 per cent. of the total local expenditure in Scotland will come from the central Exchequer, and obviously the central authority must preserve some means of control in order to see that that very large contribution towards local expenditure is properly expended. We do not, of course, want to go into every little individual case; what we want is to make sure that, broadly, the local authorities are carrying out their particular duties in a proper and reasonable way. Although it is the Secretary of State for the time being who has to be satisfied before he seeks to reduce a grant, he must, according to the concluding proviso, make a report to Parliament, so that the attention of Parliament is drawn to it and Parliament itself is the ultimate arbiter. Everyone knows that a, power of this kind is often useful, even although it may never be necessary to put it in operation—it is useful as a deterrent; and in practice it would only be in very extreme and clear cases that such a power would ever be used. There are numerous instances of analogous powers in other Acts, and I suggest that the phrase used here, which is already used elsewhere in the Bill, is the most appropriate phrase to use in the circumstances.

The statement of the Lord Advocate might have been more impressive if he had been dealing with a situation in which the local authorities were receiving percentage grants, but we have been informed that the day of the percentage grant is gradually disappearing, and that a larger proportion of the money paid to local authorities will be in the form of a fixed grant. That being so, there is less reason than ever for interference by a central department in the expenditure of a local authority. If the grant is to be fixed, obviously the central executive wash their hands of it. We have been told that the idea was to form larger areas of administrative control and leave them with greater power, and to abandon pettifogging interference by the central executive.

It is true that Parliament is to confirm the decision of the Secretary of State as to whether expenditure is excessive and unreasonable, but we have all known in our experience of struggles between a local authority and the central department in Edinburgh as to what expenditure was excessive and unreasonable. The payment of a farthing an hour in municipal wages more than the trade union rate could be considered as excessive and unreasonable. It has been held to be excessive and unreasonable by the Minister of Health, who, for that reason, forbids additional loans to Poor Law authorities in England. These wide words "excessive and unreasonable" may be interpreted as meaning almost anything. We are handicapped very badly by the fact that there is a large number of important subjects that we should like to discuss and vote upon later in the afternoon, and, if it were not for that fact, I am certain that we on this side would put up a determined resistance against the retention of these wide and dictatorial powers in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

I beg to move, in page 45, line 16, to leave out the word "whenever."

The effect of this Amendment, together with the three following Amendments in my name—(1), in line 17, to leave out the word "makes," and to insert instead thereof the words "shall not make"; (2), to leave out the words "he shall make and cause," and to insert instead thereof the words "until eighty days have elapsed from the date of his making and causing"; and (3), in line 19, to leave out the first word "the" would be to make the proviso, which now reads:

"Provided that whenever the Secretary of State makes such a reduction, he shall make and cause to he laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of the reduction, and the reasons therefor,"

read as follows:

"Provided that the Secretary of State shall not make such a reduction until eighty days have elapsed from the date of his making and causing to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of reduction and the reasons therefor."

It will be obvious to the Committee that the object is to give Parliament an opportunity of stating its views on any proposed Order by the Secretary of State before the Order takes effect. The Lord Advocate said just now that the ultimate arbiter in these matters must be Parliament. I agree, and I am inclined to think that these Amendments would make Parliament much more effectively the ultimate arbiter than would the Clause as drafted. As the Clause stands, the Secretary of State would have the power to make an Order for a reduction, and then simply lay the Order, with a report thereon, before the House. Under my proposal, before the Order could he made effective, the House would have the opportunity of expressing its opinion. The powers which this Clause reserves to the Secretary of State are very wide indeed, and the Secretary of State relies very largely on this Clause for bringing recalcitrant authorities up to toe the line. But the Committee will realise that these powers are not to be lightly used. They are very important, and it is very desirable that the House of Commons should not part with its authority over the Secretary of State in this matter, and should not leave it entirely to him to make the Order and then come to the House. I propose that he should come to the House and say what he proposes to do, and let the House say whether it approves or otherwise of his proposed action.

I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment, mainly because it is so cumbrous in form and procedure. The question of a reduction of the grant will, of course, have to appear on the Vote of the Secretary of State, and he will have to justify it to Parliament apart altogether from this report. It was, however, thought ad- visable that a special report should be made as to the reasons for the reduction, in order to make sure that it should be fully explained for the information of the House, and should not just stand on the somewhat bare terms of the Estimates. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that this is not a power which is likely to be used lightly, or to be used at all except in very rare cases, and I suggest that to have to wait for 80 days for a reduction, when the Estimates may come on before then, is a most cumbrous and inconvenient procedure. For instance, the grant may be due at the time when the reduction falls to be made. What is to happen? He has to pay out the amount and then get back the reduction. It involves a difficulty of administration. I suggest that we have really made sure that the House of Commons shall be fully informed of particulars which led the Secretary of State in the course of his administration to deal in this, I hope, very unusual way with particular authorities.

I appreciate the value of the Lord Advocate's remarks, but at the same time I should like to say that I am not confined to the particular form of Amendment or to the 80 days. I suggest that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion before an Order is made. Under the Bill as it stands, it will not have an opportunity of doing so until after the Order has been made. That is, I think, a point of very considerable substance.

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) and Coatbridge (Mr. Welsh)—in page 45, line 24, to leave out the words "to large burghs"—is consequental on another proposal which has been rejected.

I beg to move, in page 47, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that the payment of recurring capital expenditure out of revenue shall not be deemed abnormal."

Perhaps the Lord Advocate may be able to meet us in this matter. Many local authorities do their utmost to avoid borrowing. One of the methods which they adopt is to undertake as much work as they can out of recurring capital expenditure. If the Lord Advocate can assure us that there will be no intention whatever on the part of the central executive of having it declared that such capital expenditure would be deemed to be abnormal, thereby militating against the local authorities discharging their duties, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

My difficulty about the actual Amendment is that it would lay down too hard and fast a rule and do a great deal more than might, be intended. I have no difficulty in assuring the hon. Member that we regard the practice of meeting recurring capital expenditure out of income where it is the established practice and regularly done as reasonable, and there is no intention whatever of interfering with that. On the other hand, there might be borderline cases where it might be difficult to decide what is recurring capital expenditure. We are afraid that the acceptance of the Amendment might hamper us with regard to the regulations. As I say, we have no difficulty in assuring the hon. Member and those who support his case that the principle of the Amendment will be observed, and that it is intended to continue to observe the principle of it in cases where the practice is very properly carried on at the present moment.

I beg to move, in page 47, line 4, to leave out Sub-section (2) and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(2) Where in the standard year a rate is leviable in the landward area of a county or in a large burgh by an authority other than the council of the county or burgh regulations under this section may provide for the ascertainment of the loss on account of the rate so leviable in accordance with the rules set out in Part I of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, and for the payment to the authority by the council—

(a) in each year during the first four fixed grant periods of a sum equal to the appropriate percentage of such loss; and

(b) in each year in the first and second fixed grant periods of a sum equal to twenty-five per cent. of such loss, and thereafter of such sum as the council may determine;

and any sum so paid by a council to an authority shall be applied to such purposes, and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the regulations."

This Amendment deals with the case where a rate is levied on a landward area or in a large burgh by an authority other than the council of the county or burgh. For instance, where you have a Water Board under a Local Act it is necessary to have a, special case when the rate will he taken into account in fixing loss on rates under the Bill and be included in the Exchequer payment to the council of the county or larger burgh. It seems not unreasonable that a payment should be made by the council to this separate authority in respect of their loss of rates. In the case of a large burgh, the ratepayers are the same where the water rate is concerned. Without such payment, the Water Board might be in difficulties because they have statutory limits, a sort of graduated scale for the proportion of public water rate and domestic water rate. If they did not get this compensation for loss of rates, they would be put in a difficulty with regard to maintaining the standard which they otherwise ought to be entitled to maintain. Therefore, we thought that it was right to make this Amendment. This is rather an exceptional case.

I beg to move, in page 47, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:

"(3) Regulations made under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of this Section shall make provision for securing that where proposals for the development of institutional treatment in their area were submitted to the Scottish Board of Health by the council of any county or large burgh at such a date that grants in aid of capital expenditure on institutions to be provided thereunder are payable in accordance with the directions of the Treasury, then, if the execution of the proposals was delayed by the directions of the said Board and liabilities in connection with the proposals were incurred by the council with the approval of the said Board before the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, and in consequence of the delay the amount of any grants paid or payable to the council for the standard year is less than the amount thereof which would otherwise have been so payable, the amount of the grants paid or payable to the council in respect of that year shall be estimated and certified as if they had been increased by such amount as may be prescribed."

This Amendment is intended to meet a case where a county council and council of a large burgh have submitted proposals for development of institutional treatment in their area, but, owing to the execution of these proposals having been delayed by the central department, the scheme is not sufficiently far advanced to be entitled to be taken into the standard year for such a large amount as it would have been but for such delay. This Amendment is necessary in order that they shall not suffer in that respect because of delay which cannot be avoided in many cases.

I beg to move, in page 47, line 13, to leave out the word "Section," and to insert instead thereof the words "Part of this Act."

This Amendment secures that all Regulations—not only those under Clause 53—shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

I beg to move, in page 47, line 15, at the end, to add the words:

"and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulations are laid before it praying that the regulations may be annulled they shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of new regulations."

I beg to move, in page 47, line 27, to leave out the word "unreduced," and to insert instead thereof the word "reduced."

Will the Lord Advocate explain what this Amendment means?

It provides for the apportionment being made on the reduced basis, and applying the same basis to the apportionment. It was a slip in the original drafting. Obviously since the basis on which they are to be apportioned in the future will be the reduced value, it ought to be the basis of allocation between the different areas.

I beg to reeve, in page 50, line 11, to leave out the words "means men," and to insert instead thereof the words "and 'unemployed insured women' means respectively men and women."

Before we pass from this Clause, we should like to have from the Lord Advocate a statement regarding the fourth paragraph on page 49, dealing with the water rate. Are we to understand that, henceforth, the domestic water rate is to be borne entirely by tenants and shopkeepers without any assistance from the block grant? Public works and persons who are de-rated are to continue enjoying the domestic water supply, but will pay no rates upon it.

indicated dissent.

I know that that is the opinion of municipal treasurers.

It is provided by a Government Amendment, not yet moved, that the word "rate" is defined as including "water rate," and "water rate" is defined as excluding "domestic water rate." Therefore, whenever the hon. Member finds the word "rate" in the Act, it excludes a rate levied as a domestic water rate.

I beg to move, in page 51, line 22, to leave out the word "Section" and to insert instead thereof the word "Sub-section."

This must be a clerical error. It was never intended to limit to the period 31st December, 1931, anything else but the power to remove difficulties.

I beg to move, in page 51, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (2).

This Amendment raises the same point that was raised on the English Bill; the giving of unlimited power to the Secretary of State to make adaptations or modifications of the provisions of any Act of Parliament. Certain modifications may be necessary in order to bring the Act into force, but it seems to me rather strange that in this Bill we should have a Clause giving more power to the Secretary of State than were given to the Minister of Health under the English Bill. I do not think these powers should be so wide. The first part of this Clause is almost exactly the same as the English Bill, but the English Bill does not contain this Sub-section (2) which says that:

"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for any matters incidental to or consequential on any provision of this Act, including any incidental or consequential adaptations or modifications of the provisions of any Act of Parliament."

I hope the Lord Advocate will give us a promise that there will be some modification of this Sub-section.

I should have thought that this was the most humble and inoffensive power that could be given. It is only where it is "incidental to or consequential on" this Act that this power can be exercised, and, subject to the provisions of Subsection (4), it has to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. This is a very minor matter. The Subsection does not give any general power to alter an Act of Parliament in any shape or form.

I beg to move, in page 51, line at the end, to insert the words:

"or in order to make an equitable adjustment or apportionment of any expenditure or payment under the local Act consequent on the carrying into effect of the provisions of this Act."

This Amendment is necessary in order to meet such a case as occurs in Glasgow, where under the local Acts there is an arrangement whereby Glasgow provides sewerage services in adjoining areas. The authorities in these areas are required to levy a rate of the same amount as that levied in Glasgow, and pay it over to Glasgow. Under the provisions of Clauses 19, in the matter of the consolidated rate, there will in future be no separate rate in these cases and it is necessary to make provision to meet existing conditions. It is thought that Sub-section (3) of this Clause is hardly wide enough to cover that case.

I beg to move, in page 51, line 35, to leave out the word "Section," and to insert instead thereof the word "Act."

I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to accept this Amendment. In Clause 53 he has taken out the word "Section"; that I presume only applies to Part II of the Bill. Apparently Orders made under Part I of the Bill do not require to be laid on the Table of the House of Commons. In Clause 10, Subsection (6) the Secretary of State may:

"by order do anything whatsoever which may be necessary or expedient for the proper carrying into effect of anything done under the foregoing provisions of this Section, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, the making of any consequential adaptation or modification of any statutory enactment"

He may do that by Order, and without laying it before Parliament. Again in Clause 11, Sub-section (2), an Order may be made for the combination of local authorities, but there is no provision that such an Order shall be laid on the Table of the House. If the Secretary of State is going to take powers to combine local authorities compulsorily, it seems to me that such an Order should be laid on the Table of this House. As the Bill stands that does not take place; and I am moving this Amendment in order to provide that these Orders under the first part of this Bill shall be laid on the Table of the House as well as those under Part II. If it is agreed that Orders under Part II of the Bill should be laid before Parliament, surely Orders made under Part I ought to be laid as well. In the English Bill Orders made under the Clause giving power to the Minister to combine local authorities compulsorily have to be laid on the Table of the House, and I think this is also a case where these Orders should be laid before Parliament.

I appreciate, of course, the reasons which prompt my hon. Friend in suggesting this Amendment, but in regard to the particular instance he gave, that is Sub-section (6) of Clause 10, it is an exact repetition of what has been in the Act of 1889 all these years. With regard to the necessity of having some more speedy method of fixing the actual divisions in Clause 8, or the number of councillors, my hon. Friend does not suggest that it is necessary to lay such things before Parliament. I am quite willing to try and meet him, and I will, therefore, go carefully through the Bill again and see whether there are cases of some Orders which ought in fairness to be covered by this particular Clause. Obviously, there are some Orders which do not require to come before Parliament, but I am quite prepared to undertake to go carefully through the Bill again and see whether there are further Orders which ought to be laid before Parliament and, if so, to propose the necessary Amendments.

There is a strong feeling in the Division which I represent with regard to this particular phase of the Bill. The Lord Advocate has pointed out that the system has long been in vogue, but the trouble is that it is now proposed to intensify the process. He has certainly proposed to survey the Bill again and modify in some way these powers, but we should not be doing our duty as Parliamentary representatives if we did not face the situation. Indeed, it is being tackled in another place not usually considered to be very keen on such matters. When an institution like that which is known as "another place," gives a lead in a matter like this, we should be lacking in our duty if we did not support the proposal, especially as it comes from a supporter of the Government. We do not want to have officialism given the powers that they have here, to work this machine and to "work" the Minister.

The hon. Member is now really arguing against the whole of the Clause.

I quite agree that I am against the Clause as a whole, but in the meantime the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has given us an opportunity for saying that these powers should be confined as he has suggested.

In view of what the Lord Advocate has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. It was only the more important Orders which I had in mind.

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

There is no need for such a Motion. The Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," has to be put, and the hon. Member can vote against it. These Motions are put on the Paper under a misapprehension. In Committee, the Question has to be put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and there is no need to put down a Motion for the omission of the Clause. As a matter of fact, I do not know why such Motions appear on the Paper at all. In Committee, a Clause has to be put separately except in the case of a special Order under the Guillotine, and hon. Members can then oppose it, but no precedence can be secured by putting down a Notice of Motion to omit the Clause.

On a point of Order. Do I understand your statement to mean that in future such a Motion will not appear on the Order Paper?

I do not know that it does mean that, because this is one of the anomalies which forms such jewels in the British Constitution. I wanted to point it out, because hon. Members are continually putting down Motions to omit Clauses, and such Motions an unnecessary. On Report, of course, it is different.

In any case, we have made assurance doubly sure that there shall be no chance of the Clause slipping through without an attempt being made to curtail the tremendous powers which the Secretary of State seeks to take in this Bill. We are not arguing about the merits or demerits of the particular Clause. We are dealing with the fact that 57 Clauses of the Bill have now gone through Committee, and that the Secretary of State here takes power, if he chooses, to upset any single Clause or to alter any Clause or to put in any new Clause. He

"may, by order, remove the difficulty, or do any other thing which appears to him necessary—

Surely that is wide enough

"—or expedient for bringing the said provisions into operation, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act—

He is taking powers to modify an Act of Parliament

"—so far as may appear to him necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect."

Then the Secretary of State goes on to say that he will not exercise those powers after December, 1931, but from the date of the passing of this Bill until December, 1931, he proposes to do anything that he jolly well chooses, whatever this Parliament may have decided to enforce his interpretation of what may be necessary under this Bill. Then in Sub-section (2) we find that:

"The Secretary of State may, by order, make provision for any matters incidental to, or consequential on, any provision of this Act, including any incidental or consequential adaptations or provisions of any Act of Parliament."

He is not only concerned with this Act, but any Act of Parliament that he may choose to modify. Then Sub-section (3) says:

"The Secretary of State may, by order, make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act as may seem to him to be necessary in order to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act."

So that local Acts of Parliament, under which contracts involving thousands of pounds may have been entered into, and which have been secured in this House sometimes at very considerable expense, are to be amended at the sweet will and whim of the Secretary of State. Then Sub-section (4) says:

"Every order made under the foregoing provisions of this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat, after any such order is laid before it, praying that the order may be annulled, it shall henceforth he void."

An Order is to lie on the Table of the House for 23 days. We know what that means. We know that many things slip through, because local authorities are unaware of the tremendous consequences which may lie buried in some of these Orders. Subject to that qualification, the Secretary of State under this Clause practically takes power to tear up this Bill or to amend it, and not only to amend it but to amend other Acts of Parliament, and to make Orders to do anything that he chooses, whatever the House may have decided. I am under no delusions as to how far the House of Commons or the people of Scotland have had anything to do with this Bill. I know that the people of Scotland were never consulted about the, Bill. I know that it was never mentioned at the last General Election. I know that there is no Member of Parliament for Scotland who had it in his election address. I know that the local authorities were not consulted. I know that the small burghs, the education authorities and all the rest of them had this thing come on them like a clap of thunder in the night.

The hon. Member seems now to be saying what is more fitting for a Third Reading speech.

With great deference, I am seeking to show that this public Bill has had no public assent, and has been crushed through this House, that it has not received the assent of the local authorities of Scotland, that it has been bitterly opposed by the public boards and authorities which will have to administer the Bill, and that these are the people who know most about it.

The hon. Member is raising a very high constitutional question which is, it seems to me, applicable to any Bill, however acceptable that Bill may be to local authorities and others. It is a question which goes far beyond the particular circumstances of this Bill, and I suggest that he must confine himself to that aspect of the matter.

I accept your 'ruling, Sir, and will confine myself to pointing out that the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking powers to override Acts of Parliament passed by majorities in the House of Commons—however those majorities have been secured. That will be a matter for discussion on some other occasion. But what is the sense in hon. Members of this House sneering at the Spanish system, or the Russian system, or the Italian system, if this kind of thing is to continue? I say nothing about the present Secretary of State for Scotland as an individual. We are all sorry at the cause of his absence from these discussions, but one individual cannot possibly supervise the multitude of departments concerned in the administration of public affairs in Scotland. Poor Law, education, municipal administration, lunacy, and all the rest—one human being cannot possibly supervise these subjects. Therefore, he has a bureaucracy. He has a staff, no doubt a highly-skilled, very capable and very conscientious staff but not responsible to a democracy.

There is a hierarchy of officials and those officers are bound, in the nature of things, to impose upon this one man who cannot defend himself against them, because he has not the time. It would be physically impossible for him to do so. They can impose their will on the Secretary of State, and, therefore, it is not the Secretary of State who is going to amend these Acts of Parliament; it is a bureaucracy installed either at Dover House or at Edinburgh. If the Committee concede powers such as those asked for in the Clause, they should remember that they are giving those powers, not to the Secretary of State, but to a non-responsible and non-elected bureaucracy. Parliament might as well be suspended. This Bill is being crushed through by means of the Guillotine. Clauses of it have never been discussed and can never be discussed. It is being passed in defiance of the express wish and desire, as far as it can be ascertained, of the people of Scotland. And now the Secretary of State asks for power to amend the Bill itself, to amend other Acts of Parliament not specified, and to amend local legislation not specified, at his own sweet will. The Bill never went before the Scottish Grand Committee. It is being put through, as I say, in defiance of the Scottish people, and the last indignity, the last great humiliation imposed upon us is that one individual is to have powers such as are sought for in Clause 58.

I wish the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) had left aside the statement on which you, Sir, very properly stopped him, as to what was in people's election addresses and what was not in them. A great many things were not in election addresses. For example, there was no mention of the general strike in election addresses.

I would remind the hon. and learned Member that it was at that point that I stopped the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I hope it is not necessary to say more.

I have only mentioned that matter because with the rest of the hon. Member's statement I am in hearty concurrence. If this Clause is to become law, why take all the trouble and the time about these other parts of the Bill? Why not have made it the first Clause of the Bill? That would have saved a great deal of trouble. A similar Clause was sought to be imposed on Parliament in the English Bill, and this appears to me to indicate some confusion in regard to the draftsmanship of both the English and the Scottish Bills. It is as much as to say, "We are not satisfied with our job; we feel that these Bills contain many cracks and flaws, and we had better put in a provision enabling us to patch them all up if it turns out in the working that such is the case." But It is an impossible sort of Clause to ask Parliament to pass. You might allow a certain amount of elasticity here and there, but to say, as this Clause says, that the Secretary is to have power to

"make provision for any matters incidental to or consequential on any provision of this Act, including any incidental or consequential adaptations or modifications of any Acts of Parliament."

is going too far. In ordinary law, if you pass a new Act which is inconsistent with an old Act, you take the older Act and examine it and proceed in accordance with the terms of the new one in relation to the old one. There are delicate legal gradations about express or implied intention but to give a power of this kind, not as the hon. Member for Dundee has pointed out to a single individual, but to a department and to some one particular official in a department, is an extraordinary proceeding. Departments do extraordinary things. One of the Scottish departments the other day, did an extraordinary thing which is causing tremendous excitement in Scotland and it has done this thing on its own authority and against the report of one of the Government's own Committees. We never know what a department will do.

It does not know itself.

And when you attempt to raise a matter of this kind you are immediately met by the statement "You must not attack our permanent officials because they cannot defend themselves." Can they not? They can attack the democracy and it is for the people and the representatives of the people to defend themselves against the permanent officials. I can hardly believe that the Secretary of State and his legal advisers can have examined this Clause. Think of the enormous aggregation of local Acts to which it could apply. Think of all this being in the power of some individual in the Scottish Office. It is all very well to say that it has to come up before Parliament and lie for 28 days, but a discussion in Parliament on one of these Orders would be like using a steam hammer to crack a nut. Parliament has not the time for a discussion of that kind unless something very gross in an Order calls for alteration. I would ask the Lord Advocate and those who represent the Secretary of State for Scotland here to take this Clause into serious consideration and to see if it cannot at any rate be modified. I am told that the corresponding English Clause has been modified and this Clause should be modified in the same way if that is the best we can do but my feeling is that it would be much better to drop the Clause altogether.

It is not necessary. There are plenty of regulations and rules giving the Secretary of State power to regulate this and that matter in connection with particular subjects. There should not be this general universal sweeping power to say, "If anybody happens to have made a mistake, we can put it right with our own hands and tell Parliament about it afterwards." The whole Clause is fundamentally unconstitutional. As the hon. Member for Dundee has said, the Spanish dictatorship or the Italian or even the Russian dictatorships would be nothing to this. We have, of course, to remember that Secretaries of State for Scotland are always reasonable, and that the mass of our people are rational, and it is not necessary to paint too bad a picture of the results of a power of this kind being given to the Secretary of State. But if I had the misfortune to be Secretary of State for Scotland, I would certainly deal drastically with the official responsible for the drafting of this Clause, and I would ask him what he meant by such an extraordinary and unconstitutional proposal.

if this Clause had been found in a Chinese Bill, we should have, said, What interesting and amusing people the Chinese are They pass a Bill giving power to a Secretary of State to wave his wand, if he sees, to difficulty, and to make an Order and say, Difficulty, avaunt and the difficulty disappears. They give him every power, if he does not like a Bill, to alter the Bill. How amusing the whole thing is, but then, the Chinese are not free and democratic, and they do not understand things in the same way as we do in this country." But, surely, this is a most impossible Clause to put in any Bill. The Lord Advocate is a lawyer, and I am sure he cannot attempt to defend a power of this sort, giving the Secretary of State power to modify the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and any other Act. I quite realise that in a complicated Bill like this there are great difficulties in bringing it into working order, but there must be some limit to the powers given to the Secretary of State, and I would say to the House of Commons that they would be giving up their powers once and for all if they passed a Clause like this allowing a Secretary of State to modify that which this House has passed.

May I say at once that I am sure the Committee will realise that I am handicapped by the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understood it was his intention to have a modified Clause drafted. It is quite obvious that there are certain things which you must give scope for putting right in a complicated Bill like this, when all the local conditions cannot possibly be ascertained at once. I mean that in minor matters there must be a certain latitude given. I know exactly what my right hon. Friend's mind on the matter was. His mind was very much the mind that I should have expected of any Member of this Committee, and that is that he himself, as Secretary of State, did not want to have the responsibility for anything that could possibly be put on the shoulders of Parliament, but that where they were really matters that could not be referred to Parliament, but ought to be carried out by the Secretary of State—I mean matters of pure administration and not really of legislation, —there ought to be a modified power reserved in order to secure that power to him, so as to see that the Bill could be worked out.

Unfortunately, as the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend was unable to carry on his duties, and I was not called in, and I am afraid it has slipped over, but that undoubtedly is the attitude of my right hon. Friend and what he intended to do. I agree that some modification of this Clause is necessary, although I say at once that some of the statements and some of the readings of this Clause which have been suggested to-day are very exaggerated, because everything is limited in some way or other, and there is no general legislative power given. In fact, it is not as wide as the original English Clause was. It is limited, though it may riot be limited enough. Having told the Committee what the attitude of my right hon. Friend is, I hope they will accept the assurance that my right hon. Friend will certainly attend to the matter and will certainly be aware of what the views of the Committee as a whole are in this matter. Further than that, I am afraid I cannot go.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to withdraw the Clause at this moment?

No, I cannot withdraw it.

Does he not propose to withdraw it now and to see what he can produce on the Report stage?

No, I cannot withdraw it.

I think the Clause is absolutely necessary to the Bill. From the very beginning of the Bill those who were interested in the debates could see that the Clauses could not work and that no part of the Bill hung together. There is no possible way of working this Bill without giving power to the Secretary of State to do anything he likes to make it work, and the Bill as it stands is absolutely unworkable without the powers given in this Clause. I shall vote against such power being given to any man but it shows that we have been imposed upon by the people who call themselves superior people, the Government people, the blue-blooded people, with more brains than we have. We understand that when you bring in a Bill you bring it in with a definite function of some kind, but this Bill is indefinite, both in its statement and in its functions, and you cannot have it worked unless you have some power given to a man to say, "This wheel is too big, and the machine cannot work unless I take it out and put in a new one." We had a formula this morning which was going to be the great driving power in the whole structure of this Measure, and what happened? An Amendment was moved by the Government to leave out part of the formula in the shape of the quinquennium, so that that great essential part of the machine was wiped out, proving conclusively what I say.

You have this other power left, and it simply means that everything that stands in the way of what was in the minds of those who drew up this Bill, any obstacle that comes along that it is possible to wipe out, Will be wiped out. That is not legislation, which, if it means anything, means a clear conception of a Bill and of what you seek to change. Here it is so muddy that no one can see clearly even the meaning of a Clause, and because there is no clarity you have to give this power to the Secretary of State to do anything that may be necessary. That is the best argument that this Bill has been drawn up without a clear understanding, that it is a fake, and there is no wisdom or logic in it. Logic is the outcome of a clear understanding, and there is nothing of that kind in this Bill. I hope the Committee will vote solidly against this Clause.

As an Englishman, I only interfere in a discussion on this Bill because the discussion raises a question that is common to practically all Bills that apply to both England and Scotland. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), who was definitely in favour of preserving the power of this House. The legislative power should be vested in Parliament and nowhere else. I have been in the House a considerable number of years now, and in recent years the Civil Service have been assuming, because they are the people who draft the Bills, power to confer on themselves legislative powers, which are carried out in a hole and corner manner, without publicity, and without knowledge, which might vitally affect the interests of the subjects of this realm. To that, I am entirely opposed, and any Measure that encroaches on the prerogative of Parliament to be the sole legislative power, or any Measure that seeks to curtail that power, will have my unqualified opposition. The Lord Advocate was, as a reasonable man, very reasonable in the speech that he made, and if this Clause did in fact carry out the limitations that he suggested, if it was only to apply to administrative action and not to alter the law, I should be at one with him, but he was, in my opinion, inaccurate when he stated that this Clause did not go as far as the English Clause. In my view, it goes a very great deal further than the English Clause, to which so much objection was taken, in the autocratic powers that it confers on the Department. There is only one limitation—a substantial limitation, no doubt—in the general powers that he is seeking. That is in the first words of Sub-section (1)-

"If any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act,"

That is a very wide provision. The Minister himself is to be the sole judge of whether any difficulty has arisen. He has to say that the difficulty has arisen which enables him to put into force these powers. It is an extraordinary power for this House to delegate to any individual.

"the Secretary of State may by order remove the difficulty or do any other thing which appears to him necessary or expedient for bringing the said provisions into operation, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to him "—

He is to be the sole judge. There is to be no control in the Law Courts or anywhere else.

"as may appear to him necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect."

That is extraordinary, but the matter of this new Clause goes further than the English Bill, for Sub-section (2) says:

"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for any matters incidental to or consequential on any provision of this Act,"—

What on earth the meaning of those words is I cannot imagine. They are the widest possible words.

"including any incidental or consequential adaptations or modifications of the provisions "—

What of

"of any Act of Parliament."

Not of this Act, but of any Act. It is to be left to the sole discretion of the Minister. I make this protest, because I sincerely hope that the Lord Advocate will very seriously consider some modification of this provision, and that in another place, at any rate, the whole question of the attempt to usurp these powers for the Civil Service will be considered, and that some general power—because I am inclined to agree with the Lord Advocate that in bringing in a large Measure of this kind some power to ease the wheels, to deal with minor matters and matters of pure administration, is necessary—shall be given in words to provide that there shall he no alteration in, or diminution of, the legislative power of an Act of Parliament. Subject to that limitation, I agree that some general form of words should be put in, and I hope that another place, at any rate, if we do not do so here, may work out such a Clause.

I was very glad to find, from the Lord Advocate's statement, that the Secretary of State for Scotland himself does not desire to have such a wipe scope. That, I think, is confirmation of a point I made in an earlier discussion, that we had been in Scotland largely led along the lines laid down by an English Minister. I find now that my point is established, although the Under-Secretary was very keen in resenting it, at the time. The Minister of Health, in dealing with the English Bill, has in some degree modified the position, and to some extent there is a modification here. It is satisfactory, however, to hear such a deliverance as that to which we have just listened from the other side of the Committee as regards the momentous importance of this decision, and there should be a very strong expression of opinion, from the representatives of Scotland concerning this particular extension of a power which we recognise as having grown steadily over the years.

A point has been made about the criticism of the House of Commons in regard to carrying through legislation far too readily by, means of the Guillotine, and that criticism has been strengthened by the claim that those who hold the view of our constitutionalism being a bit of a farce are in this connection certainly supported very effectively. If you are going to let this sort of thing go through without strong opposition, then there will be on our part a failure, and a failure we shall have some difficulty in defending against those who are anxious to under mine our constitutional system. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that all parties in the House should sustain the claim that no Secretary of State should have such powers because, for one thing, as has already been pointed out, it is not simply the particular individual who may hold the office, but in reality the departmental system which is getting hold of the Parliamentary machine and controlling it to such a degree that it is really despoiling the true influence of our democatio institutions. There ought to be a frank recognition of the fact that, while we are extending the franchise, and bringing in new elements to control, as far as the franchise does give control of our Parliamentary life, unless we check it the departmental power is steadily gaining hold of the Parliamentary machine to a degree that will make utterly ridiculous even this vast extension of the franchise. We ought rigidly to maintain opposition to anything of this kind.

No one here, I suppose, would for a moment disparage at all those who have the control, as far as that control is legitimate, in the Civil Service. We have an excellent staff doing their duty thoroughly, but if it is the desire, which I maintain has been shown throughout the whole of this Bill, to make a complete upheaval of our local government system, I am thoroughly in agreement with the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), when he argued that in truth the Secretary of State for Scotland would logically require the powers that are given in this Clause, because of the detachment that exists beween several of the Clauses in the Bill and because also of the extraordinary ramifications of the whole Measure. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have the power to say to a town council or a county council: "You are not doing your duty; you ought to be doing this," or: "You must do that," or: "You are pursuing a course or making such an expenditure which I maintain, in view of all the circumstances in your particular area, ought not to be allowed, and you must stop it." Therefore, logically, this power given to the Secretary of State needs to be upheld, but those of us who have been in opposition to the Bill as a whole, and more especially on the issue which we are now considering, are bound —especially in view of the reply of the Lord Advocate—to vote against the Clause.

I am sure that the other Members of the Committee, like myself, were quite pleased to hear the Lord Advocate intimate that the Secretary of State for Scotland and he had talked over this Clause. Evidently, they have come to the conclusion that they will have great difficulty in getting the Committee to consent to give to the Secretary of State the powers which the Clause confers upon him, and they have some idea of modifying those powers. The Lord Advocate, in giving us his opinion, however, did not indicate that any modification that might be made would be of the nature suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). That hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was necessary to have some minor power reserved to the Secretary of state to enable him to overcome difficulties that might arise in the working out of this Act of Parliament. We had no indication of that kind from the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate simply said that he would discuss this matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he gave us no indication that the Amendment to be made between now and the Report stage would be of such a substantial character as to meet with the approval of either side of the Committee. I take it from what has been said by hon. Members supporting the Government, as well as by hon. Members on our own side, that they are of opinion that the powers given here are of far too vital a character to be placed in the hands either of the Secretary of State for Scotland or of any other single individual. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead pointed out some of the powers reserved to the Secretary of State, and I am not going over that ground again. In addition to those powers, the Clause also gives the power to make orders so far as any local Act of Parliament is concerned.

The Government and the Tory party have been claiming that this Bill, if 'it becomes law, will give more power to the local authorities. This Clause justifies our opposition and gives the lie to a statement of that kind, because here you have the Secretary of State reserving to himself the power to deal with and modify any local Act of Parliament, and to take away the power which the local authorities already possess instead of giving them more power. There is only one virtue in this Clause. If it passes in anything like its present form, some future Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to use these powers to wipe out this Act of Parliament altogether. The Act will be found impracticable to work, and the power will be left to some future Secretary of State to wipe out the whole thing.

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and who has told us that this Clause will leave some abiding power in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I would point out that, as I read it, the Clause certainly stops here:

"If any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act."

Therefore, I believe those words will ensure that the Clause only gives certain powers of certain kinds to the Secretary of State, by which he will be able to sweep aside all obstructions to the setting up the machine upon which the House will have decided when the Bill becomes an Act. I am borne out in that view by going a little further on, and seeing the words:

"The powers conferred by this Section shall not be exercised after the thirty-first day of December, 1931."

That is the first Subsection.

That may be. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) that it may be necessary, later on, to recast in a little way the following Sub-sections, but we have had an assurance from the Lord Advocate that he is not quite satisfied with the drafting of this particular Clause. At the same time, I do not think that the Committee can overlook the fact that these are not permanent, powers given to the Secretary of State but are only powers for giving assistance to the local bodies in drawing up their schemes.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the last sentence of Sub-section (1), he will see that only that Sub-section is limited to 1931. The subsequent. Sub-sections are under no limitation at all.

If the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) had given me the honour of his attention a little earlier in my remarks, and had listened to the hon. Member for St. Rollox, he would have' known that I was in agreement with the point which he has raised, and so, obviously, was the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate has told us that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland are going into the matter to make it quite clear. I am in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, but in regard to setting up schemes by local authorities we have already discussed all that in Clause 14. where it definitely lays down the time by which the schemes have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval. We need not go back on Clause 14, but it is obvious that, if the local authorities are going to have full, power to set up proper schemes, the Secretary of State, on his side, must demand certain powers for a limited time to remove obstructions. I believe that that is what this Clause seeks to do. If what I say be the case, then we can leave the matter quite safely in the hands of the Lord Advocate, and we shall find that, after consultation between him and the Secretary of State for Scotland, these first words of the Clause will be made more definite, so as to govern the whole Clause. I think the Committee might give the Secretary of State strong powers of administration, so that the machine which we are setting up may be put into working order without undue delay or friction.

It is quite true that, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just, said, there are certain limitations on this power, particularly in regard to date. But it has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) that this limitation in the matter of dates in the first Sub-section is only up to the end of 1931. But that limitation gives considerable scope to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who can do a great deal of damage between now and the end of 1931, supposing he were to continue as Secretary of State for that time. Secondly, the power is limited in regard to bringing into operation the provision of this Bill and what relates thereto, but beyond that the powers are exceedingly wide. Not only can the Secretary of State modify the provisions of this Act of Parliament but he can also modify any incidental or consequential adaptations and modifications of the provisions of any Act of Parliament. He can interfere with local Acts of Parliament. These are very numerous and they are sure to be effected in a very vital way by the in bringing of the operation of this Act.

Therefore, in that regard, the right hon. Gentleman has powers, as has been already said to-day, that should not be given to any one man or to any one Department. They range over a very wide field and permit of an interference that I think would be disastrous and would be a precedent in the constitutional history of this country. It is because I feel that, that I think we should take steps to-day to secure that these widening powers should not be given to the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the same way as we desire that they should not be given to the Minister of Health in England. I think it was in the reign of George III that a resolution was passed stating that the power of the Crown "has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." I think we can apply that to the Secretary of State for Scotland and say that his power has increased, is increasing, and, in matters of this kind, should be diminished.

"Abated."

I did not intend to use that particular quotation when I rose to speak, and I did not have the advantage of looking it up, but I am pleased to find that I was so accurate that I missed only one word, in my recollection of a quotation travelling back to the time of George III. I will venture upon another quotation, and with that I will resume my seat, and I hope that I will be as nearly accurate this time as I was the last time. I think it was when James VI came to be James I of England that he boasted what he could do by his pen and he said:

"Here I sit and govern Scotland by my pen.…which others could not do by the sword."

I think that in this Clause the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken power to govern Scotland by his pen. We are not content that Scotland should be governed even by the pen of the House of Commons and by the control of these Houses of Parliament and still more do we object to one individual however much we may respect and honour him, attempting to govern Scotland by his pen, or to cancel and alter and, in some cases, practically to obliterate local and general Acts of Parliament.

I do not propose to take up much time as I have already spoken to my Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1), but I should like to say how glad I was to hear from the Lord Advocate that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not entirely pleased with the wording of this Clause. That means that the power's are too wide, and that opinion appears to be shared by the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was for that reason that I put my Amendment down to leave out Subsection (1). As there seems to be some desire to limit the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland I would suggest one way in which I think it might be clone. The second paragraph of Subsection (1) limits these powers in that they can only be used until 1931.I would suggest that that period 1931 should apply not only to Sub-section (1) but also to Sub-section (2) and to Sub-section (3). In that way the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to be able to arrive at what is necessary in the way of amending Acts of Parliament within that time, and I think it would be a very great safeguard that the powers of the Secretary of State should not be unlimited for years to come. I think it would be a good thing if the second paragraph of Sub-section (1) were moved from the bottom of the first paragraph of that Sub-section and put at the end of the third Sub-section, in order that the provisions of that paragraph might also apply to the succeeding paragraphs. In the English Bill the time within which any alteration is allowed to be made is 31st December, 1930, but in this Bill we have up till 1931. If they can amend and make adjustments in the English Bill to the various Acts of Parliament by the end of 1930, I fail to see why that could not be done in the case of Scotland.

The suggestion which has been made by my hon. Friend, who, as we all know, has taken considerable interest in the subject and has raised constitutional points, is a suggestion which certainly merits consideration. I think the suggestion that the date should he added in the case of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) is a reasonable suggestion which might well be considered. Whether it may be the same date as the date which is in Sub-section (1) of course I cannot say; not having the knowledge of my right hon. and learned Friend, it would he improper for me to dogmatise on the subject. But I have been in consultation with our advisers, and I think there is no doubt that the mind of the Secretary of State for Scotland had been moving along that line. It should be quite possible for us to make the limitation in date cover Subsection (2) and Sub-section (3) as well. I do not want to go further than that at the moment, but I throw out these points as showing that, when the Lord Advocate promised to look into the matter with the Secretary of State, he was not merely promising to look into it in a negative kind of way, but with a genuine desire to modify it along the lines which the Committee have pressed upon the Government this morning. In giving that indication, I hope it will be regarded as proof of the bona fides of the Government, and that the Committee will accept the assurance of the Lord Advocate that he will go into it with a genuine desire to modify the Clause in conformity with the principles which the House of Commons have already accepted, and of which the Committee have given an illustration this morning.

Will the Under-Secretary kindly reply to the last part of my question, as to the year?

I am afraid it would not be possible for me to go into that point at present.

One is almost tempted to accept the position as laid down by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) and accepted by the Under-Secretary. It is more than probable that by 1931 a new Secretary of State will be in office. [Interrpution] I said it was more than probable. I do not go further than that. It may be that the outlook of the new Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary may be somewhat different from that of the present Secretary of State and Under-Secretary, but these will have between 1929 and 1931 to make what alterations they think proper in the main Act and in the local Act, and thereby to strengthen the position from their point of view, though very much weakening it from the point of view of us on this side of the House. We on this side of the House, who may then be in office, would then have practically no power to say "yea" or "nay" to the nefarious work which they would have done. I want to protect the House from that possibility. There is one proviso which I think is inequitable and unworkable, and that is the idea of carrying out this work by 31st December, 1931, because no man in the position in which the Under-Secretary is just now nor any Law Officer connected with the Scottish Office, can possibly foresee what will emerge either in connection with the principal Act or any local Act having a bearing on this, the greatest change in local government which has taken place in our time.

I suggest to the powers that be that they should take heed of what they are doing in fulfilment of their claim that they desire to maintain and strengthen democracy and strengthen the power of local government, because if there is one thing in this Bill which strengthens bureaucracy more than anything else it is Clause 58. That nullifies, to an exceptional degree, the powers of the local authorities or even of this House, because although there is a provision in it that an Order is to be laid on the Table of the House we all know what that amounts to in practice. Really the Clause gives to the Secretary of State the most autocratic powers which have existed since the days referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), when Scotland and England were governed by the wisest fool in Christendom. We ought not to allow of the possibility of history repeating itself, and I suggest to the Government that they should withdraw this provision and make a fresh proposal on the Report stage. They ought to withdraw it without reservation, for it is bad in essence, and it is hon. Members opposite who will ultimately discover that to be the case. The Government are making something like a boomerang, something they think will hit and control us; but boomerangs come back again, and it is possible that this one will strike in a direction very different from that which is intended.

I do not wish to speak on this Clause except from the constitutional point of view, and in that respect I wish to say that I am perfectly horrified at the Clause we are discussing. I quite agree that it is immaterial whether on this question we are dealing with the present Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State who has been foreshadowed in two or three years' time. We are responsible for legislation, and we have no right to put temptation in the way of any Minister to be guided by officials who are no doubt very well meaning and well intentioned, but who might be so misguided as to suggest certain methods in the carrying out of this Bill which might be entirely contrary to anything which hon. Members would wish to see put forward. In a matter of this kind we ought to be very careful.

It has been well said that in matters of this kind we go from precedent to precedent, and I was very sorry when the English Bill was being discussed to learn that the Clause which so many of us objected to in the English Bill was founded on the Rating and Valuation Bill of two years ago. That is going to be used against us if we allow this Clause to go through without protest. Legislation is carried on in a somewhat haphazard fashion. Clauses are carried without proper discussion and in the case of the English and Scottish Local Government Bills unquestionably many Clauses have gone through without adequate or full discussion. Therefore, in order to ensure the proper carrying out of this Measure in accordance with the intentions of the party which has brought it forward, you must give some power to the Minister within certain well regulated and defined limits.

I do not believe that in any quarter of the House there would be found any hon. Member who would say that the Minister should not be allowed a certain amount of administrative liberty in order to carry out the intentions of this Bill, and in order to see that they are properly carried out. One cannot help noticing not only in the Debate this afternoon, but also in the Debates which took place in Committee and on the Report stage of the English Bill that there was a great amount of destructive observations against the Clause, but I did not notice very many constructive suggestions. I cannot conceive why it would not be possible with those precedents in mind to see if a Standing Committee of both Houses could not be established with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, and these matters might be referred to such a Committee.

There would be three possibilities. In the first place, they could say "yes" to any proposition placed before the Committee. They might decide that the difficulty was one which obviously ought to be met, that the subject should be dealt with at once, or they could defer it until Parliament was again sitting. Thirdly, the Standing Committee could refuse to grant the application. I think a proposal of that kind could he carried out with the general assent and consent of all sides of the House. In the meantime until we get some Standing Order of that sort I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to introduce limiting words, and certainly a date more in accordance with what we have inserted in the English Bill so that the Minister will be restricted to dealing with administrative difficulties and those alone. I apologise to my hon. Friends representing Scotland for interfering in what is essentially a Scottish matter, but I approach this question from a constitutional point of view as an old Member of Parliament and I hate giving bureaucracy the powers that are now being given to them.

Whilst I was glad to have assurances from the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that in regard to this proposal their intentions were just and honourable, I must say that in my opinion there will have to be a large amount of redrafting of this Clause before it will be acceptable to this Committee. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has left the impression on the Committee that what is required is merely the putting in of dates in Sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) as well as in Sub-section (1). As the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) pointed out, a date is not the sole protection, because the Secretary of State need not go on repeating the offence, if it be an offence; he can do a good deal of damage if he is misguided, either by his Department or otherwise, before the date. It ought not to be beyond the ability of the Lord Advocate, the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary, with Departmental assistance, to make clear what are the provisions that they need in Sub-section (1). I think their intentions are in accord with those of the Committee, but they are not expressed in the Clause, and are not sufficiently safeguarded by the date.

The other Sub-sections are much more ominous. I do not think for a moment that, as was suggested from the Front Bench opposite, this was some device for scoring off the Opposition. As practical men we have far more to do than that; we are not electioneering, but are trying to get a workable Measure. But, with the most admirable intentions, there has been very bad drafting here, and it is a matter that is more serious in principle, as well as in detail, than seems to be recognised by those on the Front Government Bench. I am certain, however, that if they will give their minds to it, they will be able to produce something which will be acceptable to the House.

One thing that is of interest in this connection is that, while we Scotsmen believe that Scotland is a more democratic country, and has more democratic traditions, than the country South of the Tweed, the provisions of this Bill are even more drastic than in the corresponding English Measure, as is also, indeed, the case with the alterations in local government which the Bill makes. It is very difficult to understand why that should be. Everything in these Sub-sections is contrary to the whole tradition of Scotland. In connection with our Scottish Church, in connection with Scottish education, we have always objected to anything in the nature of hierarchy or dictatorship by the Government, and, therefore, it is natural that this Clause should arouse special indignation in the people of Scotland. We are very glad that our plea has been reinforced by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton), who has intervened so effectively, in our Debate this afternoon, and I think it ought to be pointed out that it is obvious that we on this side are moved solely by democratic considerations, because, if what we anticipate came to pass, a Secretary of State for Scotland of another political persuasion might have power to do a great many things which, to our minds, would be admirable and useful, by means of this Clause. We are, however, prepared to have the democratic method, and we are very glad to think that this chorus of protest is likely to produce a Clause, if any Clause of the kind be needed, more in accord with the tradition and democratic sentiment of the people of Scotland.

I want to make the object of this Clause quite clear, because my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) does not seem to appreciate the extent of the observations that I made. I am entirely in agreement with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Under Secretary has

Seeing that the Lord Advocate has twice said in this House that the Clause as it stands is not the Clause which the Secretary of State for Scotland arid the Government hope to see finally in the Act, is there any necessity why they should push this Clause through to-day? Is it not possible for the Lord Advocate to withdraw this Clause which he does not intend to be placed permanently in the Act and bring forward, on the Report stage, some form of words which may be considered by the House on their merits. As the thing stands now, he is actually asking the House of Commons to put through, on the Committee stage, a Clause which on his own admission neither he nor the Government intend shall remain permanent.