House of Commons
Wednesday, July 10, 1929
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill,
London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill,
To be read the Third time upon Monday next.
Kilmarnock Water Provisional Order Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Hungary (Military Service)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the principle of conscription for recruiting Hungary's army has been re-established in parts of Hungary with official sanction; whether he is aware that this is opposed to the military clauses of the Treaty of Trianon; and will he state what measures His Majesty's Government intend to take in order to see that the provisions of the treaty are carried out?
I am fully aware that the re-introduction of compulsory enlistment in Hungary would be a breach of the military clauses of the Treaty of Trianon, but I have no information to show that the principle of conscription has been reestablished with official sanction. There are, however, indications that the terms of voluntary enlistment laid down by the Treaty of Trianon are not being strictly adhered to. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the only body now competent to investigate alleged irregularities is the Council of the League of Nations.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this matter is brought before the Council of the League at the earliest possible moment?
:Yes, Sir, on condition that the hon. Member will supply me with sufficient evidence to warrant the arrangement.
:I will give the right hon. Gentleman the information within an hour.
International Commitments
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Great Britain has any military commitment with any other Power or Powers to take joint armed action in certain contingencies; the term for which they remain in force; the condition under which they can be terminated; whether any military, naval or air force conversations or arrangements have taken place or are contemplated with regard to those commitments; and, if so, to what extent is this country committed by such arrangements?
:Excluding the obligations incumbent on all members of the League of Nations to co-operate in protecting the covenants of the League, Great Britain's only commitments of the nature described in the hon. Member's question are those set out in Article 4 of the Treaty of Locarno of 1925, and the undertakings embodied in Article 7 of the Aland Islands Treaty of 1921, and in Article 18 of the Straits Convention annexed to the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, 1923, in the two latter of which the High Contracting Parties agree to cooperate in such measures as the Council of the League of Nations may recommend. The texts of all these treaties have been made public. No conversations or arrangements for the execution of these commitments have taken place or are contemplated.
Geneva Protocol (Poison Gases)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which European nations have not yet ratified the Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of poison gases?
:The following European countries have not ratified or acceded to the protocol: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Great Britain, Irish Free State, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, (Sweden, Switzerland. Of the above, Great Britain, the Irish Free State and Finland have undertaken to ratify or accede as soon as possible.
:If this country has agreed to ratify, why did the Labour party criticise the late Government for not having done so?
:Give us a chance.
:Did the right hon. Gentleman mention Soviet Russia?
:That country was not in the list.
China
Wei Hei Wei
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any representations have been made to him by the Nanking Government with regard to the retrocession to China of Wei Hei Wei; and whether, in that case, he will state what is the policy of the Government in respect to them?
:I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on this subject on the 5th of July.
Beitish Naval Mission
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an agreement has been made with the Government of China providing for the training of naval cadets in England and the engagement by the Chinese Government of a British naval commission to assist in the development of a substantial Chinese navy; whether, in view of the inevitable stimulus such an agreement must have on naval rivalry and armament increase in the Pacific, he will consider postponing the operation of the agreement until after the disarmament conference of the League of Nations for which the preparatory commission is preparing the agenda; and whether he will place the agreement before the House before its final ratification?
:I have been asked to reply. The contract providing for the Naval Mission in question was negotiated with the approval of our predecessors in office. It is plain that the new Chinese Government will require certain naval armed forces for general police purposes and for the suppression of piracy in Chinese waters, which in recent years has proved a serious problem, and it is proper for His Majesty's Government to assist them in any way in its power in the organisation of such forces. His Majesty's Government have no information which leads them to believe that the Chinese Government intend to embark on naval expansion which would involve an armament competition of the kind which my hon. Friend fears, and he may be sure that His Majesty's Government would in no circumstances encourage or participate in any such policy.
:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the opening phrase of his sentence, in which he pointedly stated that the contract had been negotiated by his predecessor, and the later sentence, in which he gave reasons why the contract should be carried out, whether I may take it that His Majesty's present Government approve, in this matter, of the action of their predecessors?
:I do not think I have said anything inconsistent with the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward.
:Is it not a fact that if this British mission did not go to China, the Chinese would undoubtedly have got a mission from some other country?
:Arising from the reply given by the Foreign Secretary to the ex-Foreign [Secretary, does it necessarily follow that anything which may conflict with the outlook of the Labour party will be put into being, because it does not conflict with the view of the late Government?
Diplomatic Privilege(Ambassador, Washington)
asked the Secretary -of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the surrender of extra-territorial rights by His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington; and whether the action of the Ambassador was taken under instructions from His Majesty's Government?
No surrender of extra-territorial rights has been made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington. The Ambassador's decision not to apply for any more permits to import liquor during his term of office was a purely personal one and does not affect in any way the principle of diplomatic privilege or the rights of his successors.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that prohibition is a very vital issue with the internal politics of the United States, and that the action of the British Ambassador is tantamount to taking part in those internal affairs?
:No, No!
League of Nations
Mandated Territories (Examination of Reports)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who are acting as the accredited representatives of the mandatory Power this year before the permanent Mandates commission of the League of Nations at Geneva in regard to the examination of the annual Reports of Palestine, Tanganyika, Iraq, Cameroons, and Togo-land, respectively.
:Only the annual reports on Palestine and Trans-Jordan and the Tanganyika Territory are under examination at the current Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission. The accredited representatives of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are:—
For the report on Tanganyika, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. D. J. J. Jardine, O.B.E., Chief Secretary to the Tanganyika Government, and Mr. E. G. Machtig, O.B.E., of the Colonial Office.
For the report on Palestine and Trans-Jordan, Sir John Chancellor, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., the High Commissioner. Mr. G. L. M. Clauson, O.B.E., of the Colonial Office, has been appointed an accredited representative to assist at the examination of both reports.
The reports on Iraq, the British Cameroons and Togoland will not be examined until the next Session of the Commission. For the Iraq report, as at present arranged, the accredited representative will be Mr. B. H. Bourdillon, C.M.G., the Counsellor to the High Commissioner for Iraq. No one has yet been selected as accredited representative for the reports on the other two territories.
Contributions
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the contributions made by the Exchequer to the League of Nations in the years 1920 to 1928, respectively, distinguishing between the payments made in respect of the Secretariat of the League and other organisations and the International Labour Office, respectively?
As the answer consists of columns of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
Contributions paid by His Majesty's Government to the League of Nations and International Labour Organisation.
Russia
British Embassy, Petrograd (Plate)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information with regard to the disappearance of the British Embassy plate at Petrograd?
:As the hon. and gallant Member may recollect, my predecessor on 15th November, 1927, in reply to a similar question, informed him that some silver, believed to form part of the Petrograd Embassy plate, had come to light in Riga, and that His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires had lodged a provisional claim with the Latvian police authorities pending the definite identification of the property in question. A short time after my predecessor had made that reply it became clear that there was no connection between this silver in Riga and the plate of His Majesty's Embassy in Petrograd. His Majesty's Government accordingly withdrew their claim, and as far as I am aware no further light has ever been thrown on the question of the whereabouts of the plate.
Will one of the first duties of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) be to try to recover this plate?
:I will search your house first.
Zinovieff Letter
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the trial in the Berlin courts of the men Orlov and Pavlonovski on various charges, during which evidence has been forthcoming of their part in the alleged forging of the document that has come to be known as the Zinovieff letter;" and whether he has instructed His Majesty's Ambassador to watch this trial and to inform him of anything that may throw light on the episode?
I have received a report from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Berlin with regard to this trial, and any further developments which may be of interest to His Majesty's Government will no doubt be reported to me in the ordinary course.
:May we take it that if there is any opportunity of throwing further light on the Zinovieff letter episode it will be taken?
Diplomatic Relations
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the opinion of His Majesty's Government that diplomatic relations with Russia have never been severed, or merely that this country has not ceased to recognise that there is a Soviet Government in Russia?
I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement on this point which I made at the close of last Friday's Debate.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say which statement?
:There was only one statement made at the close of the Debate.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer which of the two alternatives is the truth, without referring to two statements?
I did not refer to two statements. I referred to a definite statement made at the close of the Debate on Friday, which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date.
Rhineland Evacuation
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is under any sort of pledge or obligation to the French Government not to evacuate the Rhineland without their consent or without simultaneous French evacuation?
No, Sir. His Majesty's Government retain complete liberty to withdraw the British troops from the Rhineland if and when it seems expedient to them to do so.
If that is so, need we be put in the position of having to make concessions, whether under the Young Report or otherwise, in order to purchase French support for that evacuation of the Rhineland by our troops that is so much desired by our people?
:The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not conclude that we are endeavouring to make any bargain of the kind that he has described.
Anglo-Egyptian Relations
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is contemplating making any agreement with the Egyptian Government while the Parliamentary constitution of that country is suspended?
:I have had a conversation with the Egyptian Prime Minister, in the course of which various aspects of Anglo-Egyptian relations were naturally touched upon. His Majesty's Government are prepared to give the whole question their most careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any general statement.
:May I respectfully ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear in mind that any agreement which might be reached with the Egyptian Government which has not the support of the Egyptian people behind it will not be a lasting agreement?
:Will the same thing apply to Russia?
Royal Navy
New Construction
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when the vessels to be built under the 1928 shipbuilding programme will be laid down?
:An announcement on the whole question will be made by the Prime Minister as soon as possible.
:May we take it that it is the intention of the Government to avoid any unnecessary additional expenditure on the Navy?
Naval Ratings (Voting)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the complaints made by the lower deck of the inadequate information given them before the recent General Election regarding the exercise of their electoral rights; and whether he will take steps in future to see that the fullest information is given the lower deck as to the procedure of recording their votes or appointing proxies?
:No complaints of the nature referred to have been received at the Admiralty. Every naval rating is supplied with a pamphlet giving full information as to the procedure for voting by post or appointing proxies, and receives a personal notice giving particulars of the constituency for which he is registered. In addition a Fleet Order setting out in detail the procedure to be followed is issued prior to a General Election and copies of this are posted on the notice boards of all H.M. Ships and Establishments. These arrangements are regarded as adequate for the purpose.
Singapore Base
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he expects the Singapore naval base to be completed; and if he will state the cost to date and the additional expenditure likely to be incurred to bring it to completion?
:Under the arrangements made by the late Government the approved work at the Singapore naval base would be completed in 1937. The expenditure to date is £856,812. The estimated amount for completing the work is £6,900,466. These figures do not include the expenditure on the Floating Dock, which amounts to £971,492, nearly all of which has been paid.
How much of that money has been paid by the Dominions?
:A very considerable contribution has been received from the Dominions and also from the Federated Malay States.
:But these contributions are not included in the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given?
:The figures which I gave were figures of expenditure. The supplementary question related to figures of contributions.
:But the expenditure referred to is British expenditure, I understand?
:I should have thought that no one would have known better than the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer that most of the expenditure to date has been paid from funds received from other sources.
Meat Supplies
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Navy are not to be fed on British beef, he can say from which country the beef is to come in the contracts that are to be made for the autumn?
:The present policy of obtaining frozen beef to the utmost extent possible from British Dominions will be continued.
:Is this carrying out the new slogan of the Government to buy everything outside England?
Dockyard, Bermudas
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officials and men, respectively, are employed in the Royal Dockyard at Bermuda; and how many of these have been sent out from the United Kingdom to work in Bermuda and would otherwise be resident in the United Kingdom?
:The numbers employed are officials 65, workpeople 757; those described in the latter part of the question number officials 42, workpeople 293.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give an estimate of the annual savings that would be effected by the closing down of the Royal Dockyard at Bermuda and the carrying out of the necessary repairs to the ships of the North American and West Indies squadron at the Royal Dockyards in this country?
:The practicability of making some reduction in Bermuda Dockyard has for some time past been under investigation, including the proposal that the cruisers on the station should refit periodically at home. As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, a reduction of this sort involves consideration of various problems, not the least being the disposal of redundant personnel, and until these are resolved it would be premature to make a statement or give any estimate of annual savings.
Promotions (Mate Schemes)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many persons from the lower ranks have been promoted to commissioned rank during each of the past 10 years; and whether he proposes to take action with a view to increasing the number and accelerating the speed of such promotions?
:As the reply is a long one, and involves a number of figures, T will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
:Is there anything in the answer which deals with the second part of the question?
:There is a complete reply to the question.
Following is the reply:
I assume that the question refers to promotions of ratings direct to commissioned rank under the mate schemes, and not to promotions of warrant and subordinate officers to commissioned rank.
The numbers of promotions to mate and mate (E) during the last 10 years have been as follow:
— To Mate. To Mate (E). Total. 1919 … Nil 10 10 1920 … 11 6 17 1921 … 3 7 10 1922 … 6 6 12 1923 … 6 5 11 1924 … 6 5 11 1925 … 5 5 10 1926 … 9 5 14 1927 … 7 5 12 1928 … 8 5 13 61 59 120
Four promotions to mate (E) have been made this year but the promotions to mate are not yet due.
The number of promotions which can be made to mate and mate (E) necessarily depends upon the total number of officers required in the Fleet, but so far as pro- motion to mate is concerned, practically all candidates who qualify and are recommended by the Selection Boards for promotion are selected. With regard to mate (E), the number of candidates is greater, but a very appreciable number of engine room ratings receive promotion annually to warrant rank, through which promotion to commissioned rank is also available, and in addition, a small number of artificer apprentices are selected for promotion to midshipmen (E).
The normal avenue of promotion is in all cases through warrant rank.
Marriage Allowance
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider authorising the payment of marriage allowance to wives of naval ratings when the wife is on passage home from a foreign station?
:I am not quite clear as to the point which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. If a wife of a Naval rating were being conveyed home at Government expense, she would not be entitled to payment of marriage allowance. If, however, the question refers to a wife coming home at her own expense, she would normally be entitled to receive marriage allowance. Should the hon. and gallant Member be aware of any such case in which the allowance has apparently not been paid and he will give me particulars, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.
General Messing System
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the food for breakfast in establishments messed under the general messing system is cooked overnight; and whether steps will be taken to put a stop to a practice which spoils good food and causes discontent to the naval personnel who are served with unpalatable food?
:I am not aware that food is cooked earlier than is necessary to enable the breakfast meal to be served promptly, having regard to the large numbers to be provided for and the facilities available, but the matter will be inquired into.
:Will the hon. Gentleman go into the matter, because this statement of mine is accurate?
West Indies (Naval Bases)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any proposal has reached the Government from authoritative United States quarters for the demilitarisation of British naval bases in the British West Indies in connection with the peace plans of President Hoover or otherwise; and whether both the Dominion of Canada and the West Indian Colonies will be consulted before any such proposal is considered?
:I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.
:Has any proposal come from any quarter?
:Not that I am aware of.
East Africa
Commission's Recommendations
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before taking action on any modifications of the Hilton Young Report that may be suggested by Sir Samuel Wilson, the House will have the same opportunity of studying the suggested modifications as it had of studying the original Report?
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether 'any Order in Council framed to implement the proposals of Sir Samuel Wilson in regard to the establishment of a new inter-territorial authority for the co-ordination of certain services in East Africa will be submitted to a joint select committee of both Houses of Parliament before it is put into operation?
:My right hon. and Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has now received Sir Samuel Wilson's Report, but he would wish to have time to study it himself before coming to a decision either as to publication or as to any other action arising out of it.
May we be assured that publication will take place if any action is contemplated under that Report?
If my right hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question in a fortnight's time—that is before the Recess—I will endeavour to give him an answer.
Will the hon. Gentleman give the same undertaking as was given by his predecessors in office, that no final decision will be come to in regard to this matter of the closer union of the East African services without Parliament being previously consulted?
I have not the least doubt that that will be done by the party which is now in power.
Bu-Bu-Bu RAILWAY
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Bu-Bu-Bu Railway is not open to passenger traffic; whether it is proposed to abandon the railway; and, if so, whether the loss will fall upon the British Treasury?
The railway which ran from Zanzibar town to Bu-bu-bu, a distance of seven miles, was closed down in 1928 as the public had almost ceased to use it owing to competition from motor transport. No loss will fall on the British Treasury.
Is it part of the policy of the Government to abandon short railways in Africa and to utilise motor transport instead; is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this case steel sleepers were used and proved very effective against the ravages of the white ant; and will he consider the advisability of not following this example of abandoning railways as part of the policy of the Government in developing Africa in order to find work in this country for our engineering trades?
I should say it is the policy of this Government to be most economical and efficient at the same time, and, if there is no need whatever for the railway, I do not see any necessity for spending the taxpayers' money on it.
Locusts
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a Report from the sub-committee of the Committee of Civil Research dealing with methods of attacking the plague of locusts in East Africa; whether he has any information to the effect that following last year's invasion of locusts from Abyssinia large numbers of young locusts bred in Tanganyika Territory are now appearing; and what steps ad interim are being taken locally to counter this menace?
Yes, Sir; two interim Reports have been received from the Committee of Civil Research, and these have been forwarded for consideration to the East African and other Governments concerned. According to the latest report received at the end of June, locusts were then still breeding or maturing in the northern half of the Tanganyika Territory. It is understood from information received from the Acting Governor of the Tanganyika Territory in April that the Government of the Territory has organised a comprehensive scouting and news service; that they have taken such measures as are possible for warding off flying swarms, but that they are concentrating primarily upon the destruction of eggs and hoppers, and that they have provided themselves with supplies of the necessary poison and appliances for dealing with hoppers that are too numerous to be dealt with by driving and thrashing.
Big Game (Slaughter)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the wanton slaughter of big game by parties in motor cars in East Africa; whether he will invite the East African Governments to consider passing amending legislation to increase the penalties for such practices; and whether an arrangement can be come to whereby persons guilty of them in any part of East Africa may be tried in the Dependency in which their game licence is taken out although the actual slaughter may have taken place in an adjoining territory?
:My Noble Friend has seen the recent correspondence in the Press on this subject; The Governor of Tanganyika has already been asked for a report on the matter. It is now proposed to bring the matter to the notice of the Governments of other British dependencies in Eastern Africa, and to ask that, if any such practice as that referred to in the right hon. Member's question exists in the territory with which they are concerned, they will consider what measures can be taken to stop it.
:Can the hon. Gentleman say how long this practice has been going on?
:Unfortunately, I am not aware how long it has been going on.
:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many worse practices going on in East Africa?
:Will the hon. Gentleman accept the suggestion that these people should not be allowed to bring home their trophies? That would end it.
Hong Kong (Mui Tsai System)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the Report promised by the Governor of Hong Kong upon the question of the abolition of the system of mui tsai?
:The further report promised by the Governor of Hong Kong has just been received, and is now under consideration.
West African Service (Leave Rules)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been taken in regard to the 18 months' term in the West African Colonial Service?
:If the hon. and gallant Member will examine the Leave Rules which are printed in the Colonial Regulations, he will see that no fixed term of residence is laid down, and that within the limits of 12 and 24 months the actual length of each officer's tour is at the discretion of the Governor, who takes into consideration the necessities of the Service, the character of the station or stations at which the officer has been serving, and his medical history. The rules were purposely framed so as to be elastic, and the Colonial Governors are well aware of the fact. So long as the rules are interpreted on these lines I see no reason for any alteration in them.
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is considerable evidence both from medical and commercial authorities on the West Coast of Africa that this term should be definitely limited to 15 months instead of 18 months?
I have heard so myself. If the hon. and gallant Member has any cases which he will report to me, I will have them inquired into.
Kenya (Abyssinian Raids)
30–31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he has yet received from the Governor of Kenya Colony a full report of raids made into Kenya Colony from Abyssinia in March last, in particular the two raids reported to have taken place into the country south of Lake Camp and the native settlement south of the Loburin River; what were the casualties on both sides; and how many, if any, British subjects were captured and taken to Abyssinia;
(2) whether he has received any information with regard to a collision between His Majesty's forces on 25th May last near the Lotokoi Pass, on the Sudan-Abyssinia-Kenya border, and the subjects of the Emperor of Abyssinia; whether he has any information as to the casualties suffered on both sides; how many of the combatants have been killed and wounded; how many, if any, British subjects taken captive; and the name and condition of any British officer wounded in the engagement?
In April the Acting Governor of Kenya telegraphed that on the 11th March 25 Marille were reported to have raided south of Sanderson Gulf on Lake Rudolf and that they had killed two Turkana and raided stock. On the following day some 300 Marille raided south of the Eburin River, about 25 miles south of the Kenya-Sudan border, and killed at least 25 Turkana, but they were cut off by a detachment of the King's African Rifles the next day at Kalamakun, all stock was recaptured and the Marille fled in disorder to Abyssinia, leaving seven dead.
No report has been received from the Acting Governor of Kenya regarding the encounter referred to in the second question; but according to the account which appeared in the Press the only casualty suffered by the King's African Rifles was one native lance-corporal wounded; and in the absence of any communication from the Acting Governor, it may certainly be assumed that no British officer was wounded.
My Noble Friend is asking the Acting Governor of Kenya to furnish a full report on both these raids by despatch.
Are representations being made to Abyssinia with regard to these raids?
I would ask the hon. Baronet to wait for the report that is being made to my Noble Friend.
Is it the duty of the Acting Governor to report on these matters as a matter of course, or is he waiting for a request that he should report?
:I should imagine that it is a duty imposed upon him to report, but at the same time it may be necessary to ask for a report to be given rather more speedily than in the ordinary course.
Southern Rhodesia (Land Bill)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any request for his approval of the Southern Rhodesia Bill to provide for the apportionment and conditions of tenure of certain lands in the colony, under which it is proposed to segregate the lands of that territory into white and black areas; and whether, before his approval is given to this Bill, an opportunity will be provided the House for discussing the new principle of colonial administration embodied in this Bill?
:As this question is one for the Dominions Office, I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in the late Government was consulted regarding the principles of the Bill before it was introduced into the Southern Rhodesia Legislature, but a copy of the Bill as passed has not yet been received. I understand, however, that it contains a Clause providing that it shall not come into operation until the Governor has declared by Proclamation that it is His Majesty's pleasure not to disallow it. On receipt of the Bill the action to be taken will be carefully considered. As to the second part of the question, while I understand that it is unlikely that any special facilities will be available before the summer adjournment, consideration would be given, if time permits after the text of the Bill has been received, to any general desire for its discussion.
Does my hon. Friend realise that this Bill embodies an entirely new principle in Empire legislation, in differentiating between whites and blacks, and will he see that this House has an opportunity of discussing this if His Majesty's Government decide to implement the Bill without this Clause being eliminated?
I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that the whole Bill is receiving very careful attention, and I am sure he appreciates the fact that we cannot come to any decision until the text of the Bill as passed in the Rhodesian Legislature has been received.
Ceylon
Constitution
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the views of the Governor of Ceylon on the recommendations of the Donoughmore Commission regarding a revision of the constitution of that colony have now been received; whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the proposals of the Donoughmore Commission before another election takes place in Ceylon on the basis of the existing franchise; and whether Parliament will be informed of any departure from the proposals made by the Donoughmore Commission before any Order in Council dealing with the Ceylon constitution is actually framed?
:A despatch giving a comprehensive review of the situation has just been received, but will require some time for consideration. I cannot make any statement at the moment, but Parliament will be informed of the Secretary of State's intentions before any Order in Council is framed.
:Will the hon. Member ask his Noble Friend to consider very carefully the desirability of publishing the Governor's despatch as a White Paper?
:I will convey that request to my Noble Friend.
Taxes
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the circumstances under which the Governor of Ceylon certified a number of new taxes refused by the Legislature; what was the estimated revenue without the new taxes; what is the estimated yield of the new taxes and what is the total estimated expenditure for the coming financial year; whether he has received any representations from the elected members on the subject; and what reply has been sent?
:The Governor obtained the approval of the Secretary of State to the submission to the Legislative Council of proposals for email increases in Customs duties and postal rates, the anticipated revenue being about 2,000,000 rupees and 1,000,000 rupees respectively. He regarded the raising of additional revenue as of very great importance, as the island was about to make use of its credit for the purpose of raising a loan, and) in these circumstances he utilised the special powers given him by the Order in Council of 1923. The estimated revenue without the new taxes was 103,000,000 rupees, and the estimated expenditure 133,000,000 rupees. The Secretary of State has received a protest by telegram from 18 unofficial members, who state that a written protest follows. The reply is under consideration.
:May I take it, from the reply the hon. Member has just given, that the Governor has had and is having the full support of the Secretary of State?
:I think I can say that, so far as is now known and until we know more about it, he will be backed by the Secretary of State.
:May we take it that he is receiving the full support of the Governor?
Trinidad (Crown Lands)
asked the Under- Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total acreage of Crown lands avail able for development in the island of Trinidad; what proportion this bears to Crown lands already under development and to the total acreage of the island; and what steps are being taken for the further development and the use of the Crown lands available?
:The area of Crown land remaining unsold on the 31st December, 1927, the latest year for which figures are available, was 558,614 acres, or rather less than half the area of the island. Of these, 219,154 acres have been set apart for forestry development and a large portion of the remainder is under licence to oil companies. It is not considered that any special measures are desirable for dealing with Crown lands at present.
Crown Colonies (Justices of the Peace)
asked the Under- Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the terms of appointment of Justices of the Peace in the Crown Colonies; whether any conditions are attached to the appointment; whether those appointed are informed of such conditions, if any; on whose recommendations are such appointments made; and by whom are they made?
:The appointment of Justices of the Peace in a Colony is made under the law of that Colony which lays down any terms and conditions of the appointment considered desirable in that Colony. In many Colonies no such terms and conditions are laid down by law. The appointment is made by the Governor, who will, no doubt, obtain such advice on the subject from the chief judicial officer or other persons in the Colony as he thinks desirable.
Empire Trade
asked the Under-Secretary of State fop Dominion Affairs "whether, in view of the declared desire of the Canadian Government to enter into a new Empire trade agreement which would go further than a revision of existing preferential treaties, His Majesty's Government will take the lead in proposing a general Empire conference to consider this means of assisting British employment and Imperial self-sufficiency?
:As indicated in the recent speeches of the Lord Privy Seal and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have under their active consideration the question of the development of inter-Imperial trade, and they naturally welcome the indications in statements by members of His Majesty's Governments in Canada and elsewhere, of which reports have reached them that this question is also under examination in other parts of the Empire. How such trade development can best be brought about is clearly a matter which each Government must, to a large extent, examine for itself. If, however, there were any general desire for an Imperial Economic Conference to take place before the next Imperial Conference which, according to the present understanding, is due to meet in London next year, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear, gladly participate.
:In arranging for any such possible conference, will an attempt be made to carry out the desire, which has often been expressed in this House by the Lord Privy Seal, that representation should cover both Oppositions and Governments in the various parts of the Empire.
:Yes, Sir, I think that consideration will be taken into account.
Aviation
Sunday Flying (Noise)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his Department has received any petitions complaining of the noise made by low-flying aero planes engaged on pleasure nights which disturb the quietude of Sunday after noon; and can he state whether his Department has taken any action in the matter?
:No petitions upon this subject have been received, but a few complaints that the activities of aircraft on Sunday sometimes disturb religious worship have from time to time reached the Air Ministry. All such complaints have received careful consideration, and wherever possible steps are being taken to meet them, but the Department has no power under the Air Navigation Order or otherwise to prohibit Sunday flying. I would add that any breach of the Regulations under the Air Navigation Order in regard to any unnecessarily low flying which may be the cause of complaint would be a matter for the police.
:Has the hon. Gentleman called the attention of the police to the complaints that he has had?
:If it will be necessary to call the attention of the police to the noise of aeroplanes, which is a nice hum, what complaint is going to be made about the loud sparking and plugging motors?
Light Aeroplane Clubs (Subsidy)
asked the Under- Secretary of State for Air whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the payment of subsidies to light aeroplane clubs after the expiration of the present subsidy in April, 1930?
:The agreements with the light aeroplane clubs, the earliest of which expires on the 30th July, 1930, were based on the principle that the clubs required a subsidy for three years, at the end of which period it was expected that they would be self-supporting. I hope this expectation may be realised, but in any case regard it as premature to discuss what action should be taken in the hypothetical event of its being disappointed.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these clubs are facing the future with considerable apprehension, and will he give consideration in due course to the question of granting a further subsidy to these clubs?
:Will the hon. Gentleman also take into account the clubs which have been formed since the subsidies were granted, and which are affiliated to the Royal Air Club, and put them on the same basis as the others?
I can assure hon. Members that all relevant matters will be taken into consideration.
Does this apply to any other sporting clubs?
Assistance
asked the Under - Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of its importance to industrial areas, he can state if His Majesty's Government proposes to increase the assistance given to civil aviation in this country?
I am not sure what form of assistance the hon. Member has in mind, but, while I cannot make any pledge in regard to financial assistance, I can assure him that any proposals for the furtherance of the interests of civil aviation in this country will at all times receive careful consideration.
Aircraft (Examinations)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether in the arrangements which have been come to whereby civil aircraft owners are obliged to have the examination of aircraft for renewal of certificates of airworthiness carried out, not by Air Ministry officials, but by officials of a private concern named the British Aviation Insurance Group, aircraft owners will have the option of still having such examination carried out by Air Ministry officials if they so desire?
:Yes, Sir, they certainly have that option. There is no obligation whatever upon owners of private civil aircraft to have their aeroplanes inspected by the British Aviation Insurance Group under the arrangement made with that body in connection with the renewal of certificates of airworthiness, and it rests entirely with each owner whether he will have his aircraft inspected under that arrangement or as hitherto, by Air Ministry officials.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the principle of the Air Ministry authorising private concerns to carry out the necessary examination of civil aircraft, as required for the renewal of a certificate of airworthiness under the Air Navigation Act, is to be extended to applicants other than the British Aviation Insurance Group; and, if so, will the qualifications required by the Air Ministry before the granting of such powers to a civil concern be defined and published by the Air Ministry?
As regards the first part of the question, the position is that two bodies, including the one mentioned, are being accepted as competent to make recommendations for the purposes ,of the renewal of certificates of airworthiness for privately-owned aircraft.
The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but applications from other responsible bodies possessing competent inspection organisations will receive consideration.
Airships
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the position of the two airships now under construction; when is it expected that trials will take place; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to review their policy towards air ships?
:In answer to the first two parts of the question, the position in regard to R.100 was stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day) on the 8th July. As regards R.101, it is also hoped that inflation will begin towards the end of this month. Inflation and shed trials should occupy approximately two months and if the shed trials are successful the airship should take the air about the end of September. As regards the last part, I am not at present in a position to make any statement of future policy.
London Squares (Preservation)
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to introduce legislation on the lines suggested by the Royal Commission on London Squares, 1928, with a view to ensuring that no more of these open spaces shall pass into the hands of the speculative builder?
:I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr.Scurr).
Does the hon. Lady realise the great urgency of this question, and that if action is not taken many of these squares will be built on by the speculative builder?
My right hon. Friend has this matter under consideration.
Prime Minister's Visit to America
asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state when his forthcoming visit to America will take place; and whether any representatives of the Dominions will be present at any conference that takes place?
:I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
Unemployment
Government Policy
asked the Prime Minister whether he will at once appoint a Select Committee of this House to investigate the problem of unemployment and suggest remedies?
His Majesty's Government have. continuously under examination the grave problem of unemployment, and arrangements have been made for the co-ordination through the Lord Privy Seal of all activities relating to unemployment. It is therefore unnecessary to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
Does not this give a first-class opportunity of inaugurating the Council of State, which we were asked to accept last week?
I am hoping to inaugurate it directly in this House.
Will this investigation include the question of employment in agricultural districts, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the effect on employment in agricultural districts of the refusal to purchase British meat for the forces?
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the injustices inherent in the present Unemployment Insurance Act under the transitional scheme and the injustices done to workmen all over the country?
Insurance Legislation
asked the Prime Minister whether legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts of 1927 is intended during the current month?
The only unemployment insurance legislation which the Government contemplates proposing during the present month is a Bill for increasing the Exchequer contribution to the Unemployment Fund, to which I referred in my statement on Business on the 3rd July.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the iniquities of the Unemployment Insurance administration, about which so much complaint was made in the recent Election, can only be amended by immediate legislation?
The hon. Gentleman is giving his own suggestions and not asking a question.
Are we to take the Prime Minister's statement as meaning that on this side of the Recess there is to be no alteration of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
An alteration so far as I have indicated, but no more.
:Am I to take it that all the iniquities of not genuinely seeking work will continue to afflict the unemployed?
:So far as these are administrative, no; so far as they are legislative, that is so.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that administrative action is impossible in this matter?
:Yes, on the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, but legislation must be awaited until the time comes.
Victoria Dock Road and Thames Tunnel Schemes
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the number of persons who would be found employment on the following schemes, and whether it is proposed to include them in the plans for finding work for the unemployed, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in 1926, the scheme for the improvement of approaches from the East India Dock Road to the Victoria Dock, linking with the East Ham and Barking by-pass road, estimated to cost some £3,000,000, and the construction of a road tunnel under the River Thames from Dartford to Pur-fleet, which is also estimated to cost £3,000,000?
:The construction of the new Victoria Dock Road was approved by Parliament last Session. With regard to the suggested Lower Thames Tunnel, I have asked the county councils of Essex and Kent to collaborate with my Department in pursuing the technical inquiries requisite for formulating a practical scheme. No detailed estimate can be formed of the volume of employment which would be afforded by these two projects.
:May I take it from the hon. Gentleman's answer that no engineering survey at the moment has taken place on the last scheme.
:With regard to the Lower Thames Tunnel, the engineering Inquiry made was as to the practicability of the scheme at another point, and that has proved to be impossible. It is necessary now for engineering inquiries to be made with regard to bringing it to the executive point. Unfortunately, the matter appears to have been somewhat delayed by the previous Government.
:May I take it from the answer which the hon. Member has given that it will be some months before people can be employed on this scheme?
:Certainly some time must elapse, because I am, first of all, dependent upon an intimation from the county council as to their willingness to co-operate. The Essex County Council have already indicated their willingness to co-operate in the engineering inquiry, and it is no good beginning to make the tunnel until the engineering plans are settled.
:As most of the schemes which have been mentioned in the question and referred to by the Minister of Transport apply principally to London and its environment, will the Minister of Transport remember that there are some other parts of the country, particularly Scotland, which require schemes to be put into operation?
:Is the possibility still under consideration of constructing the Lower Thames Tunnel between Graves-end and Tilbury?
:That is one of the proposals to which I have referred in answer to a previous question. There are very serious engineering objections to the Tilbury-Gravesend scheme, and I am afraid that the only practical thing is to go on with the inquiries relating to the Dartford route.
Civil Service (Royal Commission)
asked the Prime Minister whether, before deciding on the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the Civil Service, he ascertained the views of the Staff Side, National Whitley Council, which is the official voice of the civil servants; and, if so, what opinion was expressed by that body?
:No, Sir; but I have no reason to believe that the decision which has been taken on this question is unacceptable to Civil Service associations represented on the National Whitley Council.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman receive at as early a date as possible a deputation on this matter from the National Civil Service Whitley Council, Staff Side, for which they have asked?
:No request has been made to me, so far as I know, but a request has been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he proposes to receive the deputation.
Coal Industry (Hours of Labour)
asked the Prime Minister what is the result of the meeting between the representatives of the coal owners and the Government; and whether any further meetings are to take place before the hours of labour in coal mines are reduced?
:I am unable to make any statement as yet upon this.
:Is it the intention of the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government to meet the coal-owners again before anything is done?
:I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what I have said.
Contributory Pensions Act
asked the Prime Minister if the provisions of the proposed legislation for pensions for widows and their children will provide for such children in attendance at school in the Isle of Man while the mother continues to live in the British Isles?
:I have been asked to reply. As a Contributory Pensions Act has now come into operation in the Isle of Man, reciprocal arrangements are being made between this country and the island, which will permit of the payment of allowances for the children referred to.
Royal Air Force
Henlow Aerodrome (Prosecutions)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can make a statement upon the result of the recent inquiry into the safety of Government property at Henlow aerodrome?
:The result of the inquiry was that criminal proceedings in the civil courts were instituted against three civilians and three airmen. The case was tried at the Bedford Assizes on 27th May and the three civilians were each sentenced to nine months' imprisonment in the second division, each being ordered at the same time to pay £100 towards the costs of the prosecution. Of the airmen, one was sentenced to one month's and another to five months' imprisonment in the second division; the third was found not guilty and discharged.
:Were the three airmen all below commissioned rank, and were any commissioned ranks included in the inquiry?
:In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I think they were non-commissioned ranks. I must have notice of the second part of the question.
Military Aeroplanes (Civilians)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state what are the regulations in force regarding the use of military aeroplanes by civilians, other than those connected with the Air Ministry; whether any charge is made for the use of such aeroplanes; and, if so, what are the rates?
:The use of military aeroplanes by civilians other than those connected with the Air Ministry is regulated in accordance with paragraph 797 of the King's Regulations for the Royal Air Force, which provides inter alia for the conveyance—I quote the actual text of the Regulations—of
" persons of distinction in the public service of any part of the British Empire or of any friendly Power "—
in cases in which the responsible authority
" is satisfied that the public interest would be promoted by the grant of flying facilities."
In this country such flights are only authorised by the Air Ministry, while; overseas the personal authority of an air or other officer commanding is required. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the third part does not therefore arise.
:Is it a fact that a service aeroplane was used last Saturday to take a Member of the Government to a political demonstration at Durham?
:I think the hon. and gallant Member is placing the emphasis rather in the wrong place. The object of the flight was not to enable the Prime Minister to attend a party gathering, but to curtail his absence from the seat of Government. It was necessary for him to make the journey with the utmost possible despatch, since he had two engagements of State, one before starting and the other on the following morning, namely, the Thanksgiving Service; and the case is therefore consistent with those provided for by the King's Regulation which I have cited.
:May we take it that wherever the interests of the State are served, aeroplanes will be available for any of His Majesty's Ministers, and that the necessary encouragement will thus be given to the Royal Air Force?
:Is there any precedent for a Minister using a service aeroplane for party meetings—to fly to a political demonstration? [HON. MEMBERS:" Sit down ! "] If the Prime Minister was so pressed for time, why could he not hire a private aeroplane?
:Answer!
:I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the aeroplane did not go within 30 miles of the function concerned. [HON. MEMBERS:"What difference does that make?"] Secondly, that it was necessary to take that form of transport in order that the Prime Minister should fulfill an engagement in the public service.
:Does not the hon. Member recognise that it is obvious that the Prime Minister's journey by this aero plane was performed simply in order to attend a party meeting? He could have fulfilled all his other engagements if he had not attended the party meeting. Under these circumstances—
:Speech! The hon. Member is making a speech.
:The hon. Member must put his question as a question, and not in the form of a speech.
:I asked the hon. Member a plain question—whether he is of opinion that a party meeting in support of the party opposite is in the public interest?
:Answer!
:Can the hon. Member tell us in how many cases late Government officials used aeroplanes during the time they were in office?
:None.
:In regard to the question of the hon. Baronet, I do not know that I am called upon to express an opinion on the subject. So far as the engagement of the Prime Minister is concerned, I see no reason why he should not fulfill an engagement which he makes. [HON. MEMBERS:" At the taxpayers' expense ! "] The point I wish to impress upon this House is that the Prime Minister had to undertake before the flight an urgent engagement in the public interest, which was a matter of public duty. [HON. MEMBERS: " Party interest! "] I am referring to the engagement which had to be undertaken by the Prime Minister immediately before the flight, and that method of transport was adopted with the full exercise of the discretion of the Air Ministry, under those Regulations which I have quoted.
rose —
:Any further questions on this subject should be put on the Paper.
:In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given, may I give notice that I will raise this question to-night on the Adjournment?
Flights (Populated Areas)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on 3rd July an air pilot performed daring and dangerous feats of flying in the neighbourhood of and over St. Paul's Cathedral; whether he is aware that on the same date the inhabitants of South London were disturbed by the manoeuvres of a Royal Air Force aeroplane, which circled continuously until after midnight; and whether he will take immediate steps to prevent populated areas being used for these purposes?
:As regards the first part of the question, the Air Ministry has received complaints regarding the incident referred to, but as the number of the aircraft has not been reported by any of the eye-witnesses it has not yet been possible to identify the individual concerned. Full inquiry is being made into the incident, but I should like to draw public attention to the importance of noting the number of the aeroplane in any case of the kind, to assist identification. As regards the second part, night flying practice from the aerodromes around London comprised in the scheme of air defence is essential to the efficiency of the squadrons which occupy them, but it is the Air Ministry's desire that the disturbance which this inevitably involves should be restricted to the minimum which is unavoidable if efficiency is not to suffer. It is only rarely that flying continues after midnight.
Can the hon. Gentleman say why he proposes to put restrictions on the noise of aeroplanes and does not propose to put restrictions on the noise of motor cars?
:That question does not arise out of the answer.
Long-Distance Flying-Boat Cruises
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry will consider the possibility of extending the policy of long-distance flying-boat cruises so as to enable a flight of Royal Air Force flying boats to visit South American ports in a similar manner to the visits paid to these ports by naval craft; and whether such a cruise could be considered so as to allow of such boats visiting Buenos Aires at the time of the proposed Buenos Aires British Empire trade exhibition during November, 1930, to February, 1931?
:Yes, Sir; it is the Air Ministry's intention to consider the possibility referred to as and when aircraft suitable for the purpose become available, but I cannot give any undertaking that they will be so available as early as November, 1930.
Transport
Mineral Railway Wagons
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the Report of the Standing Committee on Mineral Transport; and, if so, what are their recommendations on the more economic user of mineral wagons on the railways?
:No, Sir, but it is expected that a report will be presented shortly.
:Is the Minister of Transport aware that this Committee has been sitting for about two years, and will he make an effort to get the Report expedited in order that some action may be taken in the matter?
:I can assure my hon. Friend that every endeavour is being made to secure a report, and I have every reason to believe that we shall have it very shortly.
Horse-Drawn Traffic
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the hindering effect in busy thoroughfares of horse-drawn traffic, with a view to initiating legislation whereby such horse- drawn traffic would be prohibited from using certain thoroughfares at certain busy times of the day?
:Outside the London Traffic Area I have no powers in the matter and, as the hon. Member suggests, further legislation would be required. The question of the exclusion of all horse-drawn traffic during certain hours of the day from certain streets in London has been considered on more than one occasion by the London Traffic Advisory Committee, but, in view of existing requirements of trade and the conditions under which certain forms of traffic are operated, such a proposal is not regarded as practicable at the present time.
:Will the hon. Member take into consideration the alleviation of traffic in London, and, when he is considering that question, will he consider the position of some of those railway booking offices which we find in main streets, such as Oxford Street and Holborn?
London, Midland and Scottish Railway
asked the Minister of Transport if he has had his attention drawn to the danger to the travelling public using the London, Midland and Scottish Railway through Barrow-in-Furness owing to the working of trains over the main lines of railway by the unsuitable engines of a private firm of steel producers, such trains and engines being manned by personnel not in accordance with the general practice as to the standard and qualifications demanded by the railway company; and, if so, whether he intends to take any action to ensure the safe working of the main lines of the railway by duly qualified men and locomotives?
:My attention has already been drawn to this matter. I am informed by the railway company that engines belonging to the steel company concerned have worked over the railway company's line for some years without difficulty, but that in view of a recent extension of the arrangements, the engines have been specially examined, and some alterations called for, and that steps are taken to secure that the men employed on this work are adequately qualified.
:What will be the position in the case of an accident to a passenger train involving loss of life with regard to the inspection of the Department? Will the unskilled non-railway man be blamed or the railway companies?
:I must ask for notice of that question.
Unclassified Roads (Grants)
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the heavy burden borne by the ratepayers in rural districts for the upkeep of unclassified roads, he will make any increased grants or increase the number of miles of unclassified roads at present scheduled for grants??
:All unclassified roads in rural districts which have any traffic value have already been scheduled and grants from the Road Fund at the fate of 25 per cent, are made towards the cost of maintenance. As from the 1st April next these grants will be merged in the General Exchequer contribution to be made to county councils in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929.
:Is it the intention of the present Government to do anything further in regard to this question than has been done in the past?
:I shall be exceedingly disappointed if this Government does not do more than the last Government.
:What does the hon. Member mean by " traffic "? Does he mean through traffic?
:No, not exactly through traffic, but the road must be seriously used for traffic purposes. It does not necessarily follow that it must be through traffic.
:Can we obtain fresh schedules of the roads used for through traffic at the present time?
:I think that question ought to be put down on the Order Paper.
Questions to Ministers
With regard to the order of questions on the Order Paper, I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that, as you will be aware, questions to the Ministry of Labour in the last Parliament were taken on Wednesday, and they were fairly high in the list. I now find that the day for questions to the Ministry of Labour has been altered from Wednesday to Tuesday, which makes a very great difference. Now the number of questions allowed is five; they must follow No. 45 on the Order Paper, and they come after questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. This practically precludes putting questions to the Ministry of Labour in this House. Under these circumstances, may I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that Foreign Office questions should be given first place on Wednesday, and the second place on Monday, when Indian questions are given a preference. In view of the fact that there are a large number of new Members in this House and other hon. Members who are deeply concerned with the Ministry of Labour which deals with questions affecting the lives of large masses of the people, I ask if it is not possible, nay, even desirable, to see that questions to the Ministry of Labour are given a much more appropriate opportunity than is now allocated to them?
:The hon. Member must recognise that this matter does not rest with me. It is really a matter for arrangement between the two sides of the House for the convenience of Ministers and Members. I am sure that, if the hon. Member puts his question in the proper quarter, it will receive the attention which is due to it.
:I understand, Mr. Speaker, that your predecessor used his influence, or at least his good offices, when a similar occasion arose in regard to Scottish questions in order to find out whether something might be done. Might I ask that on this occasion at least your good offices, Mr. Speaker, might be used in this matter to secure a better adjustment?
:May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you should use your good offices to get the questions to the Labour Ministry changed to a different day, because at the present time labour questions have to be put on the same day as questions put to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that it was owing to the good offices of your predecessor that the day for putting Scottish questions was changed. If we put down questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the day arranged for taking questions put to the Ministry of Labour, it means that it will be impossible for us to have the questions answered which are put to the Ministry of Labour, if we are allowed only three questions on the same day.
:I shall be only too glad to use my good offices, but the matter does not rest with me. The fact that the hon. Member has brought this question to the notice of the House, and to the attention of those responsible, will ensure that his suggestion will be taken into consideration.
:Does not the complaint that has been made from the benches opposite show that the Conservative Government managed their affairs much better?
:I do not want to press the point, but I have been trying to find out who is responsible, in order that I might put a question down. I have not, however, been able to find out, and I should be deeply grateful if I could get to know who exactly is responsible.
:Is it not possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to arrange the days for the convenience of the House?
:That is exactly what I have suggested—that the matter might be arranged between both sides of the House to suit the convenience of Members and Ministers.
:May I say that we on this side will welcome consultation through the usual channels on this very important matter? After some experience, I came to the conclusion some time ago that the post of the Minister of Labour is as important a one as any in the Government, and one that should be in constant and close touch with the House of Commons.
:I at once respond to the suggestion that has been made. I am sorry to say that this is the first I have heard of any inconvenience having been caused. If the matter had been brought to our notice in the ordinary way, we should have done our best to rectify it.
:Is not this the proper place for raising a question of this kind, when a change has been made without the House being consulted?
:Now that the matter has been raised, I have no doubt that it will be considered.
Business of the House
{by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the King's Speech affords the only effective opportunity of debating and criticising the policy of His Majesty's Government, and that there will not be another Gracious Speech for 15 months, he will give an assurance that an opportunity will be found early in the New Year for a general Debate on the policy of the Government?
:As I indicated in my statement on the opening day of the Debate on the Address, it is the desire of His Majesty's Government that every reasonable opportunity should be given for the discussion of their policy. If it is the wish of a considerable section of the House that a general Debate should take place after the Christmas Recess, I have no doubt that facilities for such a Debate can be afforded, its character and duration being arranged through the usual channels.
:We shall be pleased to communicate through the usual channels, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer.
Electoral Law (Inquiry)
(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he has any announcement to make with regard to the setting up of the Committee referred to in the King's Speech to consider certain experiences of the recent Election?
:Yes, Sir. I cannot announce the exact terms of reference, as they are still the subject of consultations between the Leaders of the parties in the House; but I am happy to say that I have approached Lord Ullswater with a view to his presiding over the Committee, which will be formed on the model of the Speaker's Conference, 1916-17, and he has been good enough to put his services at our disposal. I desire to take this opportunity of thanking his Lordship for acceding to the request I made to him with the support of the Leaders of the other two parties.
:Are we, in consequence of this, to anticipate another General Election shortly?
Submarine Disaster
(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any further information to give with reference to the loss of Submarine " H.47 "?
:" L.12" struck " H.47 " on the port side at right angles just abaft the foremost central room bulkhead, "L.12's" bow penetrating about two feet. " H.47 " sank in a few seconds, considerably down by the bow, in a depth of 55 fathoms. Orders were given to close watertight doors and abandon ship, but, from the information at present available, it does not appear that the doors could have been closed in the time. "L.12 " was carried down 40 feet at an agle of approximately 50 degrees, bow down, after the collision. Captain, officers, and men on deck were thrown into the water, and a considerable amount of water entered the submarine before hatches could be closed. I am convinced that there is no possibility of any of the crew of " H.47 " having remained alive for more than a very few minutes. I regret that the total loss of life, with the death of the rating injured in " L.12," is now 24. From late advices received, it has been found necessary temporarily to suspend salvage operations on account of unfavorable weather.
:I could not hear the beginning of my right hon. Friend's reply, but can he say— perhaps he mentioned this—how the collision actually occurred—whether the submarines were approaching a rendezvous, or carrying out exercises, or whether the weather was thick? Can my right hon. Friend give us any other information that would throw light on the cause or this great tragedy?
:Such other information as has come forward so far is of the nature of information that ought to be kept for the Court of Inquiry.
Procedure (Unofficial Members' Business)
(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement with respect to the proposed inquiry into the Standing Orders relating to Private Members' time?
:My hon. Friend will have observed on to-day's Order Paper a Motion in my name pro- posing that a Select Committee on this matter shall be set up forthwith. If, as I hope, that Motion is accepted by the House, I am assured that the Committee will make every effort to present their Report to the House before the Summer Adjournment.
Orders of the Day
King's Speech
Debate on the Address
[Seventh Day.]
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd July],
" That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
" MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN.
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Snell.
Question again proposed.
:On a point of Order. May I ask the Government whether there is any intention to allow—
:I am afraid the time for asking questions has passed. Does the hon. Member wish to raise a point of Order on the question before the House?
:My point of Order is with regard to the number of Amendments to the Address which have been put down on the Paper but which cannot be taken, and many of which represent rather urgent and important matters in the affairs of the country. I wish to ask the Prime Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether some time cannot be given for discussion of those Amendments?
:That is hardly a point of Order.
:I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words:
The proposals of the Gracious Speech bear little resemblance to the promises and pledges of the hustings. As compared with them, given as they were with a poetic fancy which I admired, the language of the Gracious Speech is pro- saic in its utterance as well as drab in its outlook, and, as for Scotland, the Government might very well have been considered never to have known or heard of its existence, as there is not a single word about Scotland in the Speech from beginning to end. There is no reference to the problem of Home Rule for Scotland, which was always regarded by the Labour party in Scotland as a prominent plank in their platform; and there is not a single word from beginning to end of the Speech about the problem of local self-government, which was raised in so acute a form in the last Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they were going to fight that Bill Clause by Clause and sentence by sentence, and we were told that, instead of the de-rating proposals which were put forward, they had schemes of their own which were to develop Scotland and make it a country in which it was in every way desirable to live. Although on the hustings we were confronted with some of those schemes, I find no reference whatsoever to them in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Some of those schemes were presented to us in various forms, and, if the matter were not so serious, the schemes which I came across might very well add to the gaiety of nations. This is not the occasion for me to refer to some of the war cries of our opponents during the last Election, but I may refer-to the famous one which was, no doubt, sent out in order to capture the " flapper vote," as it is called. my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister —said that he was going to establish in every glen in the north and on the mountain-sides chalets and trust houses, so that people from all parts of the world might come and make Scotland a modern Switzerland. [ Interruption. ] I said that my opponent said it, and he always told the electorate that he was in very close touch with my right hon. Friend. I do not suppose for a moment that my right hon. Friend knew even his name. Not only was Scotland to be repopulated in this way, and made a glorious Switzerland, but there were to be concrete roads of double width going through every strath and glen in the north of Scotland; fishermen were to have gear and boats for nothing, and piers and harbours were to be renovated and made the most perfect in the world.
There is a great score against the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and if I know my hon. Friends behind me aright, I know that day after day we shall attempt, as best we can, to make the right hon. Gentleman fulfil those pledges. My opponent— and I am quite sure that the same experience must have been the lot of every other candidate in the north of Scotland—proceeded to say that whenever the Socialist Government came into office, there would not be a depleted population of 4,000,000, but that there would be 12,000,000 of happy and contented souls. Did the spokesman of the Government who was supposed to have made the real speech upon the proposals of the Government, the Lord Privy Seal, say a word about that? On two occasions I pressed him in the course of his speech to tell us what he is going to do for Scotland, and how he is going to deal with the Local Government Act and the schemes under that Act. He merely gibed and sneered, and told us he was going to make Scotland attractive, so that Americans might come there and witness Scottish thrift. Is it not a cynical fact that while the Socialist candidates for Scotland were talking about increasing population by leaps and bounds up to 12,000,000 souls, one of the main points of the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, and one upon which he laid the greatest emphasis, was his proposal to introduce a more efficient and more attractive form of emigration from Scotland. Not only that, but it is a well- known fact that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to leave England and go to Canada to negotiate with the Canadian authorities for a more efficient scheme of emigration.
I know perfectly well that while migration may be necessary, nobody wants anyone to leave Scotland for any other part of the Empire unless he wishes to go there through his own personal ambition and volition; but in one breath to talk about increasing population and making them happy and contented, and in the same breath to talk about emigration and place it in the forefront of the political programme of the Government, seems to me, to say the least of it, to be very cynical. Instead of talking about Scottish schemes what did we hear? The very first thing he is going to do is to give money for Imperial schemes. Again, I say, the Government seem to forget that Scotland, England and Wales are really the heart of the Empire. Nobody on these benches ever objects to legitimate Imperial schemes, and we have supported them in so far as we could, but when we find the country at home crying for schemes such as the Lord Privy Seal puts forward for remote parts of the Empire and for mandated territories, we have a right to complain. The very first thing the Government are going to give is £1,000,000 for the Zambesi Bridge.
The hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) appealed on more than one occasion to the last Government to develop the Forth and Clyde Canal. There is a proposal in Scotland to-day to have a foot-bridge over the Forth, and the very materials which would be used—the Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head, but I think I am right, and am within the recollection of many colleagues of mine, when I say that a scheme "was placed before us as Liberal Members of Parliament not very long ago, and I saw in the Scottish Press that it was a scheme that was going to be placed on the list of schemes to be submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Privy Seal. The argument that the Lord Privy Seal produced was that the Zambesi Bridge would require steel from this country. The same argument, however, applies to a bridge over the Forth or the Tay, and, instead of employing men not of our own kith and kin, we should, by having a scheme such as I suggest in Scotland, be able to employ men of our own kith and kin at reasonable wages. The right hon. Gentleman is going to find time for his scheme. I venture to suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland will say that he has not time to deal with this large subject before the end of July, but the Lord Privy Seal is going to take time to amend the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act before the end of July. What is that for? To give employment out there and for development. Our point is that you can give employment at home and develop schemes which are just as useful and just as admirable in this country.
The Amendment we have placed on the Paper gives the Government an opportunity to respond to Scottish democratic opinion. It is obvious that that opinion exists. Only yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in answer to a question, said that no fewer than 80 resolutions came from accredited authorities in Scotland denouncing the Act which was passed by the late Government, 'and asking that the Act should be suspended pending further inquiry or consultation with the municipal authorities. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that there is a very strong and clamant opinion in Scotland against the proposals in the Act, and we are asking in this Amendment for two things —first of all an inquiry, and, secondly, consultation with the authorities concerned. I am not oblivious of the fact that there are a great many people in Scotland who say—and very often rightly say—that once a Measure is on the Statute Book, it should be given a fair chance. I am not at all oblivious of that fact, but there is scarcely an authority in the parish council world, in the educational world or in the world of smaller burghs who have not denounced this Act, and are seeking at the earliest moment to have some alteration made in connection with it. I know that one or two proposals under the Act are in operation. There are the de-rating proposals in connection with agriculture. They are in existence. I supported these de-rating proposals for agriculture, and so did my colleagues here, because we -could not understand why, if money were going to England, we should not get our
fair share for Scotland. I say it quite openly, and I am perfectly certain that was the view of my hon. Friends. Though we are seeking for an inquiry, we are not thereby seeking to scrap every part of the Act. We believe that by an inquiry we should not only get the fair proportion we are getting under the financial proposals of the Government, but we should get relief from any inequalities that may be inflicted upon the industry in various directions, and, instead of the one-sixth or the one-eighth, which was ultimately the proportion for rating purposes which was inserted in the Act, we should get one-tenth or one-twelfth as the proportion. We should welcome, therefore, any opportunity of inquiry with regard to the financial proposals. We go a step further. I never believed in the details of the scheme as a whole. I think it is wrong that the scheme should apply merely to existing tenures and existing leases. I pointed that out to my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for Scotland in the course of the Debate. I am of the same opinion to-day. Others in Scotland that I came across take the same view also. They say an inquiry ought to be held if only on that point.
We are also of opinion that an inquiry is essential in another direction. There would appear to be no doubt at all that, out of every £6, £5 in the course of time will go to one class, namely, the landlord, and £l to the tenant. An hon. Friend of mine has capitalised the annual value and he came to the conclusion that something like £15,000,000 to £17,000,000 will go into the pocket of one class. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, when the Bill was going through that House, made that point just as we did. So that from the point of view of these proposals alone, it is necessary in our judgment to have an inquiry. But the real question at present is this. Are the Government prepared to give an opportunity for consultation with the local authorities? I know the late Secretary of State for Scotland will say he gave an opportunity of consultation to municipal authorities and the other bodies concerned, but consultation, in order to be real, must take place before the proposals are placed on the Statute Book. The right hon. Gentleman, I make bold to say, never had any consultation with the main authorities until after he had introduced the Bill. It was introduced in July last and it was during the Recess that he consulted the various local authorities. That, I admit, he did, but it was too late. He had already adumbrated his proposals, and he stuck loyally by them for many a long day, until we compelled him to retract some -of his proposals and to reconsider others.
I do not think I can state our case better than it was stated by the Prime Minister in Glasgow. I have here a quotation from his .speech which I have no doubt has been sent to every other Scottish Member. The Prime Minister is far too able and astute an electioneerer not to know that this is the type of speech which would go down in St. Andrew's Hall. He knew it was giving voice and utterance to the demand of 5,000 or 6,000 people in that hall and to popular demand outside. This is what he said:
Let me now deal with the three different authorities to which reference has been made. I agree with the Prime Minister as far as the Royal burghs are concerned. I agree that their individuality has been the saving grace of our local government. I have in my constituency three Royal and ancient burghs, 700 years old, and, like many other Royal and ancient burghs, they have been the pioneers of liberty. They have been the fortress of liberty, and in many cases they have kept the flag of freedom flying, and not only that, they have been responsible for the founding of our foreign trade. The Prime Minister, in that very good vote-catching speech at Glasgow, made it quite plain that those burghs had an individuality, and that individuality was a priceless asset to Scotland as a whole. Under this Bill, as he himself knew when he made that speech, that individuality is to be destroyed. The right hon. Gentleman is a Scotsman, and he knows well that the little local burgh, with its pride and tradition of ancestry, hates the very idea of being compelled to obey the dictates of a mushroom growth body like a county council. Not only have the burghs that wonderful history, but, if I remember aright, in the Act of Union of 1707 a Clause was expressly inserted which ran as follows: Interruption. ] The hon. Member has two burghs in his constituency, and he knows that I am expressing the views of the local authorities.
:The right hon. Gentleman said they had all their powers taken away. No burgh has ever maintained that at any stage.
:In the first Bill, they were left merely as cleaners of the streets. That is all they were in the first part of the Bill, but afterwards they got some very old powers restored— powers which are not necessary to-day. But the real effective powers to control health and life have been taken away under the Bill. Indeed the Prime Minister expressly mentioned that as one of the worst features of the Act. I beg him and the Government to consider once again what action they propose to take before they turn down this Amendment.
Let me take again the second body that is concerned— the parish council. In introducing the English Bill, the late Minister of Health made a very good case for the suppression of the boards of guardians. Upon the principle that the Prime Minister suggested in Glasgow, because the guardians were abolished in England there was no reason why the equivalent body in Scotland, namely, the parish councils, should not also be abolished. The parish councils were real democratic bodies. They were elected by the local people, who took a pride and an interest in the election. We were taunted with the fact that because there was no election in certain places, these parish councils were no longer the popular bodies they had been. I made inquiries and I found that in my constituency, and I have no doubt it is true of other constituencies, the fact that there was no election was not a sign of decreasing popularity. It was a sign of satisfaction with the members of the boards. When, as is done under this Bill, the parish councils are destroyed in the scattered districts of the Highlands, the Government, unless it takes action now, is equally responsible with the late Government for destroying the principle of democratic government by parish councils. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that on the West Coast and in the Isles, where the districts are scattered, they have come to look to the parish councils for guidance and support. Not so very long ago the Noble Lady the Member for West Perthshire (Duchess of Atholl) was chairman of a very important Committee. I quote her because she is acknowledged as a great expert in all matters of local government. She and her Committee came to the conclusion that, whatever happened to parish councils in other parts of Scotland, the councils in the scattered areas should be left with their powers complete and entire. As one distinguished Highlander said the other day—it was quoted by the Under-Secretary—what chance has a poor man in the remote West Coast against a great central authority in Inverness? In the more scattered parts, they feel that they will not have any chance when they have to deal with what is called a bureaucratic and antidemocratic body residing at a distance.
Let me take the last local authority concerned—Education. It is a very remarkable thing that the Act of 1918 has not yet been put fully into operation and yet the proposal was brought forward by the last Government to destroy that Act. There is not a single Member on any bench in this House who will deny that the School Management Committees have been most efficient and effective bodies, and they have in their representation the best friends and the best equipped men and women in the country. It has always been the pride of Scotland that education has a special significance and a special place in the hearts and the minds of the people of the country. They regard it jealously and there was a strong feeling of animosity against the then Government when they introduced as they did in the last Parliament a Bill utterly wiping out the education authorities constituted under the great Act of 1918. We are told that some of these experts in education, male or female, can be co-opted. Many men hate the idea of co-option. They are prepared to face a proper election; but they will not serve on a body by getting on to that body by a back door. They are against this hybrid form of government introduced by the late Secretary of State for Scotland. The people want elections for such an important thing as education. The proposal at present in the Act is that education, instead of being in the forefront of Scottish life, as it has been since the days of John Knox, has become a single item on the agenda of the county council. The whole thing is ridiculous and against the best and highest interests and traditions of Scotland.
The attitude of the Liberal party as a whole must necessarily depend upon the pronouncement made by the Government to-day upon this grave issue, which strikes a blow not only at the rights and liberties of ancient and well-defined communities but at democratic government itself in all matters which so closely affect the life of the people of Scotland. We do not accept the view put forward in the last Parliament that the Act is a symmetrical whole, which must be taken as a whole or repealed or suspended as a whole. We refuse to accept the view that the financial and de-rating proposals cannot be separated from the momentous administrative changes in the Act. We claim the right of Scotland to its fair share of the financial arrangements and an inquiry into the manner in which the distribution of that fair share works. We ask that before an administrative up- heaval, so unexpected, so uncalled for and so undemocratic should come into active operation, that the authorities should be fully and freely consulted. Pledged as the present Government is by their precepts, their principles and their pledges to the proposal of this Amendment, they surely cannot refuse to accept it.
:I do not intervene at this mot to take part in what I may call the substance of the Amendment, but just in order to bring one or two facts before the notice of the House regarding what might be called the time limit. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Mac-pherson) delivered a very sprightly speech which had all the reminiscences of a platform oration, even to " Ladies and Gentlemen." He did me the honour of quoting, at some length, a speech which I delivered in Glasgow on this subject. He rather slurred over what, for the purpose of this Debate, was the important part of that subject.
:I quoted it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted it, but he rather slurred it over. When I was in Glasgow, and before I went to Glasgow, I was pressed very much by my friends in Scotland to make a declaration on the lines of the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. I have not one single word to withdraw of the criticisms which I made upon the Measure when it was a Bill, and I have not one single word to unsay of what I said in Glasgow and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted. The Act is a bad Act. It is bad from the point of view of general administration, and it is bad in relation to the genius of Scotland. Knowing that, my friends in Scotland pressed me, as I have said, to make a declaration on the lines of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend. I refused. I knew perfectly well what was likely to happen. I said that the election was being held at a certain time of the year, the 30th May. After the results were known and when Parliament met, I was pretty certain that there would be a change of Government. I knew that time would have to intervene to enable that change to take place, and I also knew about the limitations of the Recess. I was aware of the fact that the first weeks of Parliament would have to be devoted, among other matters, to unemployment and with all these things in mind I made a statement in Glasgow which was perfectly specific. I said:
" I wish it were possible to suspend the operations of the Bill, to consult with authoritative Scottish municipal representatives as to amendments, and then to get these passed as quickly as possible. I do not know whether that is possible, but this I do say to you "—
And this I will repeat to this House—
" if Labour has a Parliament in which to turn, so to speak, if it has five years not only of office but of power, before the end of that time the Labour Government will consider the whole broad, wide question of Scottish administration—land, education, local administration, county and municipal administration—for the purpose of establishing a system by which Scottish opinion can enjoy the rights of self government, and Scotland will rule Scotland, and not merely echo obediently the orders of English Ministers."
:The last paragraph says " self government "; we are dealing with local government.
:It was a comprehensive statement dealing with matters arising out of the Bill, and I had in mind, on the platform at St. Andrews Hall, Glasgow, something wider than the Bill, but primarily the Bill. That is the pledge which I gave. That is the position I took up, and to that position I adhere to-day. What has happened? The Bill has been passed. That is not only what has happened. The Act is in operation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman picks and chooses in the speech which he has just delivered. He says that there are certain parts of the Act that are good. The de-rating of agriculture, good on the whole but very bad in detail. They are in operation, and he does not want them suspended. There are other parts of the Act. Does he suggest that the Government should take from this Act all that they like and suspend all that they do not like? Does he suggest that it is practical politics or common sense to bring in a new Bill which is not a suspensory Bill but which is a suspensory Bill with a thousand and one excepted details, a Bill full of complexities which would take even more time to discuss thoroughly in this House than the original Act? Is that his proposal? That is the proposal in his speech.
:There is no reason why the Government should not suspend part of this Act if they wish to do so. They can suspend any part they like. This has been done in many other Acts.
:My point is that if you suspend part of this Measure you have to make new financial arrangements. I may inform the House that, as a matter of fact, we have had a look at the sort of Bill that would be required. We have examined the matter in detail, very carefully. I doubt whether there is any Member, if he were in a responsible position in this House, who would accept that proposal, as a possible way of handling a situation in which Scotland, unfortunately, finds itself at the present moment. What have we done? As soon as we came in we faced this question. We desire to do something to stop what we believe will be a misfortune in Scottish local government if this Measure is going to get rooted into the administrative machinery of Scotland. We looked at it, we got drafts made. We got all the points taken out. We went into it in a thoroughly workmanlike way. When the King's Speech was under consideration, it was perfectly evident to us that it was an impracticable proposal to which to put our hands. Hon. Members should remember that the time for getting this amending or suspensory legislation through is very limited, not only limited by this House sitting this month, but limited by the fact that arrangements must be made almost at once for The re-election of the bodies in Scotland which are affected by the Act. If we introduced a full Bill now, covering the whole of the ground of the Act, it would not be possible to get it through by the time—the middle of September, I am informed—those preparations must be made. I hope that all parties of the House will believe that we had to drop it, not because we did not want to go on, but because, under the circumstances, it could not be carried through. That is the reason why there was no mention of it in the King's Speech, and why there was no mention of it in the business which I announced to the House.
We did not stop there. We are still actively pursuing this problem to see if anything can be done to save something of the old and approved Scottish administration. There is one possibility, which I will mention to the House. When we examined the various memoranda that have been presented to us, the various proposals and the various inquiries that we had caused to be made into the operations of the Act, it seemed as though we might be able to draw a line between education and the other provisions of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. W. Adamson) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Johnston) will take part in the Debate later and, with that detailed knowledge which I do not possess, will explain how that division may be found to be possible. We found that with just a little adjustment we could separate education and we could suspend the educational provisions of the Act. That, at any rate, would be saved.
I have had two Bills drafted for that purpose, and have examined them. I had to turn down the first Bill, because it was impossible on account of the various complexities that were introduced in it. I have the second Bill now in my possession. What I am perfectly willing to do is this I will have the second Bill printed and introduced, so that the House may see what it is and we may be able to find out whether it would be possible to get it through, of course, 1 cannot say with freedom, but within a reasonable time. If we could get that done by an amount of goodwill which does not amount to agreement, and with helpful discussion, we would be prepared to find the necessary time in order to do it; but the House had better see what it is going to face before any sort of arrangement is even talked about.
I do want to emphasise this point, that if any hon. or right hon. Member from any quarter of the House, is under the impression that this exceedingly difficult and complicated question, the revision of a difficult and complicated Act like the Scottish Local Government Act, has not been under the constant consideration of the Scottish Office and myself, they are profoundly mistaken, because that is not the case. The pledge for the future which I gave at Glasgow, still holds. What is in my mind now? If we save education, we must give the other parts of the machine time to work, and then, say, after about 12 months of experience have been drawn from the working of the Act, the inquiry can begin. That inquiry will be, as I said at Glasgow, an inquiry primarily into local administration, but I should be very sorry indeed if from the view of that committee the larger question of Scottish self-government were to be excluded. If the House will agree to my suggestion and we set up such a committee, it will not be my fault if the terms of reference are so narrow) that the larger question of Scottish self-respect and the recognition of Scottish historical authority are excluded from the view of the Committee. I propose to have the Bill amending the Scottish Local Government Act in regard to education printed, introduced, and circulated, so that hon. and right hon. Members may see its scope and see how far they are prepared to give us the time and assistance that is necessary to get it through.
Perhaps I may be permitted at this stage to say a few words on the admittedly difficult situation in which the House finds itself. The Prime Minister has explained that, while he adheres to the views which he expressed in the Glasgow speech upon this subject of the Local Government Act, the circumstances in which he finds himself are such that it is absolutely impossible to destroy this Measure. The House will, of course, realise that I cannot be expected to welcome the sabotage of a Measure upon which I spent a fair amount of energy and time. The right hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment to the Address spoke to us with echoes not only of past controversies in this House but perhaps of the louder echoes of the recent contest at the hustings from which we have come. I listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for any real criticism or any real grappling with the problems involved in a Measure to which the House paid considerable attention during its passage. It may be true, as was stated in answer to a question yesterday, that a certain number of authorities in Scotland have memorialised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and His Majesty's Government upon this matter, and have asked that the Act should be held up. Equally im- portant local authorities, certainly authorities as representative of progressive organisation in the local government of Scotland, have stated publicly that they do not desire that the Act should be held up. [HON. MEMBERS " Name! "] The Corporation of the capital city of Scotland, the Corporation of the City of Edinburgh. They considered this matter the other day, and they are no mean body. They are a representative body, and I am satisfied that they are not the only public body in Scotland antagonistic to the proposal put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson).
The Prime Minister has said that, obviously, he is precluded from dealing with this Measure as a whole. He comes forward and says I invite you to proceed presently with the due consideration of a Bill, the terms of which this House does not know and can only guess at "—a Measure devised, in the words of the Prime Minister, " to save education." If it were to save education I should, of course, lend a ready ear to any such proposition. But it is to save a principle not so ancient as the Prime Minister has indicated; a principle which has been in operation in Scotland—an ad hoc authority dealing with education—dating only since 1918. He talks about the attack which has been made upon an administrative system which has existed in Scotland for a long time, but he does not propose to retain that much more ancient system of burghal administration for some of the services. The fact remains that here is a proposal to tinker with this Measure in one aspect and one aspect alone. A proposition was made by the right hon. Member for Boss and Cromarty that there should be a recasting of the financial provisions, and that Scotland should get one-tenth Or one-twelfth. Obviously, that is a matter about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would require to have a good deal more information. It would bring about complications with regard to the same kind of distribution in the Measure in force on this side of the Border.
5.0 p.m.
On the question of education and those people who have held important offices in Education Authorities, I have always taken care to say of them that, in by judgment, they have done well by education since they were entrusted with their duties under the education authorities in 1918. Obviously there are many men who are dissatisfied with the proposals of the Act and who resent being swept away and other people being entrusted with the duties of administering education. This is really not a political question but a question of efficiency in the method of dealing with education and the progress of education. I can assure the House that that was the spirit in which I approach this matter, and in no other spirit. I have served upon local authorities. I am an admirer of that local feeling and that local interest, and I am all for the conservation of that local interest; but I say, and I think I am speaking for a very large number of people in Scotland, that the House has to consider not the short view on these matters, or even how you tread upon the toes of existing authorities, but what will lead ultimately to greater efficiency in the conduct of local affairs. If we are to be asked to touch this question of the education authorities, I can only say that I view it with alarm because of the difficulties in which it places the larger new authorities, with their extended powers, their added responsibilities and the financial circumstances which are inevitably linked up with these new authorities. I am constrained to say that it is likely to be a grave disservice to education to retain the ad hoc authorities and bring them into conflict with the new and larger authorities. When, as in the past, these ad hoc authorities have to go and say we require so much money to meet the circumstances with which we have to deal, and they are to be the judges, not these larger authorities, then grave questions of financial complexity will arise and, I fear, a disservice to education. One of the difficulties in dealing with education in Scotland has been that more and more the education of our children is being linked up with the health services of the country, and if you have an education authority as a separate ad hoc authority from those authorities which have to deal with the health of our children, there must obviously be cases where there will be a lack of co-ordination and you will also have increased and unnecessary expenditure and a duplication of officialdom which in my judgment is unnecessary and undesirable. All I can say at this stage, speaking for my friends on this side of the House, is that while of course we will consider any Bill which His Majesty's Government may introduce, we stand by the Act as it left this House. In our view the proper procedure, whatever the Government might do at a later stage, is to let the Act come into operation. The Government is perfectly able to alter and rescind an Act of a previous Government, but obviously, if they are going to do that, it is not fair to local authorities in Scotland or to this House to attempt to do this in a manner which leaves great dubiety in the minds of those who have to administer these questions.
At the present moment every local authority is being asked to produce schemes for carrying out local government in Scotland, and if out of every such scheme there is to be drawn this one subject then local authorities will ask, and rightly, how it is going to be adjusted and what effect it will have on the balance of the arrangements they make under the Act in regard to the co-ordination of the health services and education. How, indeed, are these schemes going to be brought into working order in the comparatively short time which remains to public authorities? I admit at once that there are great cleavages and differences of opinion between hon. Members opposite and ourselves on this matter and I do not deny that they have a right at the proper time and in the proper circumstances to change legislation if this House agrees, but I beg of them not to place local authorities in Scotland in a position which will do great evil to the development of local administration in Scotland. I am the last to say that any clause in any Act of Parliament will not develop a weak place but I do think that the Local Government (Scotland) Act does hold out the possibility of the development of many services, the co-ordination of the health services, and help our children in all our public services, which, apart from party, we are all desirous of seeing carried out. As far as we are concerned we stand by the Act of Parliament and we think it would be inadvisable for His Majesty's Government to attempt at this stage to tinker with these problems. They should do so at a later stage. As far as we are concerned we shall resist the Amendment.
:I am glad it is my good fortune, in making my maiden speech in this Chamber, to have the opportunity of defending the local government institutions in Scotland against the very severe and grave attack made upon them by the Local Government (Scotland) Act. I represent a large rural area in which there are many parish councils, several educational authorities and a number of the smaller burghs. I am here with a very definite mandate from all these bodies to do what I can to prevent the Act coming into operation. May I say that we on the Liberal Benches who represent Scottish constituencies speak with a special sense of responsibility on this matter because we are conscious of the great body of opinion in Scotland, both in the local authorities themselves and amongst the electors, against the Act which has again been commended by the late Secretary of State but which the electors desire to prevent coining into operation. Let me envisage the situation in Scotland. In the necessarily short references which have been made to the matter by the Prime Minister and the late Secretary of State, it may be that the full extent of the damage about to be wrought in Scotland may not be realised. The extent of the damage is well known to my colleagues who represent Scottish constituencies, but it may not be quite so well known to other members of the Liberal party who represent English constituencies, and for the benefit of these colleagues and also for the benefit of English Members of the Labour party may I describe what the effect of the Act is upon local government in Scotland? Will the House believe that no less than 1,064 local authorities are being wiped out of existence by the Act?
:What is their size?
:I will give you their size in a moment. There are 869 parish councils, 27 district boards of control, 98 district committees, 37 education authorities—the authorities to which the Prime Minister referred—and 33 standing joint committees, making a total of 1,064 authorities. With regard to the smaller burghs there are no fewer than 194 of these which are greatly affected in regard to their powers. The right hon. Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has pointed out that the original Bill made an even graver attack on these smaller burghs than the Act does. The original Bill took away all their powers with regard to housing, water supply and drainage, but in view of the strongest protests from these smaller burghs the late Secretary of State gave way and restored to them their powers in regard to these matters. But let the House observe the other powers and duties which are being taken away from these smaller burghs by the Act as finally passed. First of all, there is the maintenance of classified roads; secondly, the police; thirdly, the major health services; fourthly, the valuation of land; and fifthly, town planning. In regard to the major health services may I point out to my English colleagues that in England the boroughs and urban districts deal with the very matters which are proposed to be transferred from the burghs in Scotland to the county councils; matters such as infectious diseases, maternity and child welfare services, milk and dairies, and drugs. These are all dealt with in England by the boroughs or the urban districts. The smaller burghs in Scotland resent deeply the affront which the Act puts upon them. They say that in the past their administration in regard to all these matters has been not only efficient but economical, much more economical than that of some of the larger burghs and country councils. They demand the right to retain their powers in regard to these matters.
The second group of bodies is the parish councils. They were not referred to by the Prime Minister. They are, of course, the most numerous. They took the place of the old parochial boards in Scotland and since 1894 these parish councils have performed their duties well, efficiently and economically. I stress the point, made also by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, that the administration by parish councils has in it that note of personal touch and sympathy which is essential in the administration of Poor Law relief. Imagine the feelings of some of those who are to be the recipients of Poor Law relief in the future if, instead of being consulted with regard to their requirements by a sympathetic member of a parish council, they are visited by an official from the county council's office. The parish councils are protesting vigorously against being put out of existence. I should like to stress this point, that the Conservative party, when they had an opportunity last year to put these parish councils out of existence naturally took it, because they have been hostile to them all along. If anyone takes the trouble as I have done to look up the Reports of Parliamentary Debates he will find that in 1894, when the Bill which brought these parish councils into existence was passing through Parliament, the same animosity was displayed then by the Conservative party against parish councils, and they were set up by the Liberal Government of that year in spite of the protests of the Conservative party. We want to stand by them to-day. The late Secretary of State says that he consulted various authorities in Scotland, but the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty was quite correct in saying that he consulted them after the Local Government Bill was introduced. What did the late Secretary of State do? He invited delegates from the parish councils and also delegates from the education authorities to meet him. He lauded them to the skies, and praised their work; but he went back to London and proceeded with a Bill which put them out of existence. They still protest, and they look to the Labour Government in the hope that there is a chance of getting the bad workmanship of the late Government undone by the present Government. I trust that they will not look in vain.
A few words with regard to the third group, namely, the education authorities. It is quite true that they came into existence only in 1918, but since then they have been doing excellent work. In important departments of their work they are only now getting into their full stride. It is an utter mistake to interrupt the progress of that work. We in Scotland feel that, above all things in regard to education, it is essential that we should have an ad hoc authority, and that the authority should be in an area where public opinion will be able to play upon the authority in regard to the education of the children. We do not agree that an authority which for the most part is dealing with roads and sewers and water supply, can best deal with the education of the children. Indeed we think that so vital a matter ought to have the most expert knowledge and the widest experience which can be obtained. That is why we intend to hold, if we can, to the education authorities. It may be that the areas of the education authorities require to be amended, and that in some instances they may be too large, but, whatever be the case, we intend to retain, if we can, the ad hoc authorities.
Coming to the statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, I confess to being somewhat disappointed with the extent to which he showed even a disposition to meet the strong body of opinion which is expressing itself in this House. What does it come to? He has offered to have, 12 months hence, an inquiry into the whole of local government in Scotland. In point of fact he has promised an inquiry into Home Rule for Scotland. The passing of the Local Government Act of last year has given a fillip to the Home Rule movement in Scotland such as the late Government did not expect. The Prime Minister also said that he would introduce a Measure dealing solely with the education authorities. Apparently he is not prepared to do anything whatever with regard to the parish councils, or the smaller burghs; nor is he prepared to do anything with regard to de-rating [ Laughter ]. Hon. Members laugh, but let me say that from the first day when I got a copy of the de rating Bill to the last day on which I sought to understand it, I denounced the Bill.
:So have we all.
:I have denounced it on account of the injustices in its operation, the incidence of the taxation from which the finances were derived, and the method by which these funds were distributed among favoured sections of the people. All of these things I have denounced, and in repeating my denunciation to-day I am at least consistent. With regard to agriculture, in which I am peculiarly interested, I also object strongly to the provisions of the de-rating Act in so far as they are neither more nor less than an endowment of the landlords. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite cheer that statement. Then we are in agreement on the matter, and I hope that they will support us in the Lobby later. It is grossly unfair, for instance, that of £6 of de-rating benefit, £5 should go to the landlord and only £l to the tenant farmer. The tenant farmer not only stands to gain merely a comparatively trifling sum under the de-rating provisions, but he stands to lose by the petrol tax, and in the end he is probably worse off under the Act than if the Act had never been passed.
Those being my views with regard to the de-rating section, I am naturally disappointed that the Prime Minister has given no indication of his intention to deal with that part of the Act. We on these benches intend to press the Government, if we may, still to deal with that matter, because of the grave inequalities and injustices of the Act. We also intend to press the Government with regard to the other two groups of authorities, namely the parish councils and the smaller burghs. I hope that the Prime Minister has not stated the last word on the subject. I wish he would appreciate more fully the body of opinion to which we are trying to give expression to-day. The eyes of Scotland are upon us here. I do not know any Act in recent years which has aroused so much interest to begin with, and so much resentment finally when its provisions were understood. Accordingly I trust that the Government will reconsider its position and will see its way to suspend the whole Act. The Prime Minister told us that that was impossible. May I at least give one indication of what might be done? I would recall to the right hon. Gentleman's memory how, in 1920, the Corn Production Act was passed and within six months was repealed—not merely suspended—for the very good reason that the Government found it impossible to provide the money required under the Act. That is a precedent that is worth considering.
I would also point out how the Act itself falls into two distinct and separate compartments. The first part deals with local administration; the second part with the question of de-rating, and the grants and re-arrangements consequent upon the provisions of the Act. Nothing could be simpler, if the Government found themselves unable to deal at present with de-rating, than for them to suspend the operation of the whole of the first part of the Act. Of course, as one might expect, the late Secretary of State for Scotland is putting as many difficulties as possible in the way of the Government doing such a thing. On the other hand, we on these benches offer the Government our best help to do what we say ought to be done as a matter of justice to the people of Scotland. If the Government cannot find a way to do it, let them consult us. I at least am optimistic enough to feel that in this country, if not on these benches—I am quite hopeful of finding some geniuses here—there are those who, in this crisis of our affairs, could find a way out. What I want to make sure of from the Government Benches is that there is first of all a will there to find a way.
:In addressing the House for the first time, I claim, as I am entitled to do, the indulgence of the House. Those of us who are sitting on the Government Benches for the first time were sent here by the electors primarily to deal with great human issues, to deal with poverty and to make an attack upon poverty, but we find in this Liberal Amendment that we are being asked to spend a very great deal of our time in dealing with machinery. It is as if, because of the reckless driving of the Tory party during the last?years, a motor accident had taken place, and as if the Liberal party were now running along and asking us, first of all, to look after the machinery. We think that the first thing to do is to look after the human casualties, and to deal with the machinery afterwards. Those of us who are on these benches welcome very cordially the length to which the Prime Minister has gone in making his declaration to the House. I am glad to find that he is able to give clear proof that his declaration was not dictated by the Amendment that has been moved by the Liberal party, but that it was the result of pressure from his own people and the result of an attempt to carry out the beliefs and convictions of the Labour party in these matters. There is no getting away from the fact that the operation of the Act is opposed by the majority of the people of Scotland. I would have liked to have seen other parts of the old machinery retained, but I accept the statement that, as salvage from the wreckage made by the late Government, we can succeed only in saving the education authorities. I am glad indeed that we are able to go that length.
The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment took us on a tour over a very great part of the world. That makes it somewhat easier for a new Member, who is naturally anxious about keeping within order, to follow in this Debate. If this were simply a question of delaying the dealing with matters of greater importance, with the great human issue that the House has to face and to face very soon, if it were a case of taking up a great deal of our time to deal with the saving even of the education authorities, I would be inclined almost to say, " If this is all we can do ' let the tow gang wi' the bucket.' Let is simply carry on and let us look forward to the time visualised by the Prime Minister when we can have an inquiry into the question not only of local government in Scotland but of the government of Scotland as a whole." 1 am convinced that the Scottish people are ready and anxious for that inquiry and examination. When they learn—and it is somewhat difficult to learn—that we are contributing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain a sum of somewhere in the region of £110,000,000 per annum, and that out of that sum we are getting something like £30,000,000 to deal with purely Scottish affairs, then the Scottish people will begin to wonder if they are. actually 65 per cent, or 70 per cent. Imperialist. I do not think they are, and the balance remaining for Imperial purposes from Scotland's contribution does not, in my judgment represent the point of view of the Scottish people. When we see a country such as ours the worst housed of all the civilised countries in the world, we realise the great problem which faces the Scottish people and faces this country. It is a problem which I fear this House, constituted as it is at the present time, and overloaded with work, cannot adequately tackle.
I look forward very hopefully to the inquiry which the Prime Minister has promised and which will give us an opportunity of developing initiative in Scotland and giving expression to Scottish opinion in a way that is not possible at the present time. We have in Scotland a greater proportion of unemployment than exists elsewhere. All these are matters to which we require to give our attention and these are the matters to which the House ought to devote itself rather than to any question of machinery. There is a need for dealing with many things from the Scottish point of view. There is the provision of legislation for dealing with great work-producing schemes such as forestation and a number of problems of that kind. When we bear in mind that within the lifetime, of this generation there may likely be a shortage .of white timber in the world, then I think we must realise the importance of dealing with a subject of that kind. In regard to the retention of these local bodies, where local patriotism— which is very strong in many districts of Scotland—can find its expression, we have to realise that these bodies have worked very effectively for many years. We regret the passing of any of them but we must recognise that Acts of Parliament at the commencement of their operation have certain effects which we cannot immediately override. I am thankful for what it is proposed to save from the wreckage—if I may so describe it—and I am certain that this gesture of the Government, to meet a very pronounced Scottish opinion, will be welcome throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
I have said that I do not believe this House to be capable of dealing adequately with all the problems which affect Scotland so seriously at the present time. In saying so, I do not wish it for a moment to be understood that I stand for any policy of separatism. I see nothing wrong with our retention of our present constitution, but I want to see Scotland set free to apply that genius for government which was given expression to more than 200 years ago. The expression of that genius was stopped by dubious means, just 222 years ago to be precise. I want to see Scotland again with an opportunity of giving expression to her genius for government. It is on record that what was done by the Scottish Parliament prior to 1707 was a good example to other legislative assemblies. Indeed England took a very long time to reach the standard of the Scottish legislation passed prior to the merging of the two Parliaments. While I do not, as I say, stand for any policy of separatism, I would point out that the way in which the Scottish nation has been thwarted for many years, and the attempts of the last 30 years to get self-government for Scotland, have had the effect of convincing many people in Scotland that nothing whatever is to be gained by making an appeal to this Parliament. I do not share that view, but there is a growing opinion in Scotland in favour of casting off the yoke that was placed upon us in 1707. While that opinion is growing, I think that those of us who have been associated with endeavours to secure an opportunity for full Scottish expression can say that a gesture, such as has been made by the Prime Minister to-day, will have a great effect in showing that, even from this House, justice may be obtained for Scotland within a reasonable time. I welcome heartily what has been put to us by the Prime Minister this afternoon, and I end on the note on which I started —the necessity for tackling great human issues that cry aloud to be dealt with. 1 ask this House to allow the Government to put through the necessary legislation to enable this change to be carried out at the earliest possible moment.
:It does not often fall to a Member of this House to have the opportunity of congratulating two hon. Members on maiden speeches and still less often is it the fortune of a Scottish Member to be able to congratulate two other Scottish Members on maiden speeches. Such fortune is at the moment mine and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) and the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Mathers). Comparisons are odious and invidious and I will not attempt to make any in regard to those speeches, but perhaps the hon. Member for Kincardine will forgive me if I say that there was a more familiar note about his speech which recalled many of the acrid Debates on the Scottish Local Government Measure in the last Parliament, whereas I think the House will agree that in the speech of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh there was a new and interesting note, and if I may say so without patronage, a most admirably expressed note.
On whatever side of the House Scottish Members may sit, I am sure they will combine on every possible, proper and suitable occasion for the furtherance of any policy which is for the general wel- fare of Scotland. I cannot say that in my judgment this Amendment, or the somewhat niggling solution proposed from the Government Front Bench, fall into the category of proposals which are for the benefit of Scotland as a whole. In my judgment they are quite the reverse. I am amazed that the Liberal party should have fixed upon this Amendment. It is an extraordinarily good example of how little pre-knowledge affects our actions. Anyone who has read that admirable work dealing with the Liberal industrial inquiry will remember that the chapter devoted to rating contained a most solemn warning to the effect that, whereas a scheme for the reform of rating was an admirable opportunity for reforming local government, there was grave danger that any real reform of local government would stir up every narrow, local parochial antagonism. It was the Liberal party themselves who pointed out how grave was that danger, and the party which pointed out the danger has fallen into the trap.
It is not reform of rating.
I think the hon. Member's answer would be better if made when he is on his legs instead of in his seat, but I must leave him to Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was saying, and, in spite of the introduction of a musical instrument, I propose to continue. [Laughter.] I am glad that one hon. Member opposite realises the import of what I have said. I was saying that the Liberal industrial inquiry report stated that the most formidable difficulty with regard to the reform of local government was the narrow parochial objections which it would stir up. That has been the case, and in no department of the reform, in my judgment, have more narrow and more restricted local antagonisms been stirred up than in the reform with regard to the education authorities. I say this to the House and to Scotland— that nobody in Scotland except the education authorities themselves regretted their demise. Least of all was it regretted by those responsible for education— not for making education a political matter, but for the education of the young. Least of all did the teachers of Scotland, who are, one would suppose, the best judges, express dissatisfaction at the demise, in the period of the previous Scottish administration, of these bodies which the Labour party proposes now to maintain. From whatever angle of vision you approach the Act, whether you say that it affects Scottish traditions adversely, or that it affects democratic institutions adversely, or that it cuts too deeply into the structure of Scottish local life to be anything but a disadvantage to Scotland— from whatever angle you criticise it, the disappearance of the education authorities is the part of the reform least open to criticism. Everybody in Scotland—everybody who will judge the question fairly and not try to make a political matter of it —knows that the Scottish education authorities are the youngest of all the institutions affected by the Act. Everybody knows that they are only 10 years old, and everybody knows that, during that period, their personnel has declined.
Who is everybody?
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton).
Everybody who will speak honestly. At all events, there will be agreement on this point. It is admitted by the education authorities themselves that they have only, to the most restricted extent, any control over policy or finance. When one was being urged to vote against the abolition of the education authorities, it was pointed out that it could not be an economy, because they had control only over some 10 per cent, of the finance that passed through their hands. It was also said they had far too little control over educational policy, and I believe it is the fact that their control is very restricted. That being so, what is the use of selecting this institution for survival? Is it not clear that these two facts, the fact of its limited control over finance and the fact of its limited control over policy, are in themselves the very reason why the personnel is declining, because it is now not worth while to be a member of an education authority? Everybody in Scotland, and not merely the hon. Member for Perth, knows that this is true.
If you were going to maintain the education authority with any reason, or so as to make it an efficient or valuable part of the local machinery of government in Scotland, you would have had to go through a process of reconstruction, so as to give it more power and control, but in its present form, which, I understand, is the form that the Prime Minister wishes to maintain—there is no intention of reforming it, and mere maintenance is enough for this most active-minded Labour Government—it is not worth keeping. Nobody knows better than those who are now taking up the problems of Scottish administration that of all the institutions affected by the late Act none is of less value, of less tradition, and of less importance to the people of Scotland than is the education authority, which I believe and hope will soon come to an end. I have spoken, I hope, not with exaggeration.
It is said, both by Liberals and by Members of the Government party, that our Act adversely affected democratic principles, but I have never been able to understand why. A country is not more democratic because it has a thousand democratic institutions; it may be far more democratic if it has only one. [HON, MEMBERS: "Why?"]. I should have thought a country was essentially more democratic if it had a purely democratic Parliament than if it had an undemocratic Parliament, let us say, and a lot of democratic local institutions. Surely it is the quality not the quantity, of the democratic government of a country that determines whether or not it is democratic, and it is the answer to the question whether you are improving or destroying the quality of its democracy that enables you to say whether or not you are attacking democracy.
Does the hon. Member deny that centralisation tends to autocracy and to the destruction of democracy?
That is the kind of question that is very much like the question, "Have you given up beating your mother-in-law?" I am not going to be led away into the question of whether the formation of a local Parliament such as the new county authority will be can be described as centralisation or as strengthening democratic institutions, but it is nothing to the point to say that some hundred local institutions have been swept away. In an age when democracy is, in so many parts of the world, threatened, and in some parts threatened on account of its failure to be efficient, it appears to me that those who care for democracy must in the twentieth century carry out a different work from what they carried out in the nineteenth century. Their work in the nineteenth century was the extension of democracy, but the work of this twentieth century is the concentration and making more efficient of the democracy which we have; and it is from that point of view that I have always regarded our Act as a step towards sounder democracy and not towards reaction, as is so often said.
I cannot congratulate the Prime Minister upon his attempted solution of the problem of what should be done with the Act. I have already said that he has selected for preservation the institution whose death will cause the least sorrow in Scotland, but, further, I cannot approve of it for this reason, that I think it is a disaster to the people of Scotland that we should have a Government whose first step with regard to Scotland is this trivial and niggling suggestion of maintaining the education, authorities. There are in Scotland many large and vital problems— the hon. Member for West Edinburgh said human problems— which demand attention and, if possible, solution, and I think it is an irony and a farce that the first time this Government touches the Northern Kingdom it should do so in a way so purely conventional, so absolutely useless, and so clearly dictated by that sense of party expediency which I am afraid will be the dominating note of their life. I shall vote against this Bill, if it ever sees the light, and still more if we are ever asked to give it a Second Reading, with a very clear conscience. It is a piece of political humbug; it is an administrative mistake, founded, not upon knowledge of the real conditions in Scotland, but merely on what the education authorities say themselves; and it is a purely artificial attempt to paper over the cracks.
Everybody knows the cracks in Scottish life which require attention, and that the problems which face any Government in Scotland are real and difficult problems, and Scotland should not come into the Westminster arena for the first time in this new Parliament in so ridiculous a guise. I do not propose to spend my time, if the Government would only carry out useful and valuable; legislation, in taunting them because they are not doing something else. The situation of this country is at the moment far too grave to make party scores out of the failure of policy to square with electoral pledges, and the Members of this Parliament who will best do their duty as members of this great institution are those who will support real, constructive, valuable and creative work and thought, from whatever side of the House or from whatever party it comes. I cannot say that I see in the Liberal Amendment any signs of either constructive or creative thought. It appears to me to be a dog merely returning to something which in this House I would not mention.
The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) began by saying that it was not often given to an hon. Member to congratulate two hon. Members, and to a Scottish Member to congratulate two Scottish Members, at the one time who had made maiden speeches immediately before. I should think that it is still more rare for any hon. Member to be given the doubtful privilege of congratulating two hon. Members who have come from an election defeating those who were supporting the very principles that he is advocating in his particular speech. I should say also that the hon. Member for Perth sought to personate Everyman and gave us an opinion which, he said, was the opinion of practically everybody in Scotland. He went on to speak about the cracks in the building, and papering over them. It is a remarkable thing that his Government should have produced a Measure that was so much undermined and that stood on such a poor foundation that the cracks became so evident that within three weeks of coming into power this Government felt impelled, by the opinion in Scotland, to go back to the old building and leave the cracked building still further to subside.
The hon. Member also said he thought this taking away of the educational part of the Act was the least necessary, that the passing of the education authorities would be received with the very least regret, and that no one outside the education authorities themselves would lament their passing. He further spoke of the whole of this proposed action as trivial and niggling. I hope to show that the action taken is neither trivial nor niggling, and that it is a very substantal salvage which is proposed to-day. The hon. Member complained about the declining personnel of the education authorities. I am utterly unconscious of that, and I think it will compare very favourably with the personnel of the county councils as we have known them, or even as they are to be set up anew. May I join with the hon. Member in congratulating the hon. Members for Kincardine and West Aberdeen (Mr. Scott) and for West Edinburgh (Mr. Mathers) on their very excellent maiden speeches?
6.0 p.m.
I wish to recall to the attention of the House that this part of the Act, at least, was without any express mandate. I do not say there was any mandate for the other part, but at least there had been certain Commissions on the question of altering the expenditure of the parish councils, and their work and their relations to the county councils, and these were quoted from time to time; but without a mandate this was forced through. It was brought in at the last moment, as we understood, and to the surprise of everyone. I am speaking now mainly of the abolition of the ad hoc education authorities. In the Division in the last House of Commons on the Second Reading, a large majority of Scottish Members voted against the Measure. It is fair to say that the Government redeemed some part of that loss in some of the later votes, but taking the House as it is to-day, an overwhelming majority is represented against this Measure, and not least against the education part of it. The late Secretary of State for Scotland spoke of the greater efficiency that would come to education under this Measure. It was one of the striking facts beyond contradiction connected with the passing of this Measure, that it never was argued on educational grounds at all. The education of the child really did not come into the picture, and to this hour we have waited for an educational argument for the great changes proposed. These were not the grounds on which it was put before us. There was the ground that England had done something of the kind and that Scotland might well follow; there was also the ground that because the parish councils were being absorbed in the county councils and district councils, the local authorities for education also should be similarly absorbed on the ground of symmetry. Indeed, the late Prime Minister, speaking at Glasgow, on 22nd November last, gave the most remote reason that could have been given for the abolition of the education authorities. He said: ad hoc authorities. That matter was thrashed out in Debate after Debate, and I will not go back to it, save to say that if you take a great education authority like Glasgow, you will find that there has been virtually no overlapping. The only instances in which overlapping could possibly occur were in regard to the medical inspection and feeding of school children, and matters of that kind. The late Under-Secretary of State made a good deal of some instance of playing fields in which there had been some difficulty as between the Corporation of Glasgow and the education authority. But when these matters were probed, it was found that any overlapping that existed was almost negligible.
The other argument of the late Secretary of State was that in matters of finance, if you set up education authorities again they will have unlimited control, apart from the block grant, and be unfettered from the county council. It was one of the greatest objections we had to this Measure that the finance of education was to be controlled not by educationists, but by county councils which were erected for a different purpose altogether. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Perth (Mr. Skelton) adduced the case of the teachers as being in support of this Measure, and the Press is making a good deal of the fact that the Socialist teachers support the Measure and oppose any form of repeal. That is no new point at all. That was known to us when we opposed the Bill. It may seem strange to quote one's own speeches, but I venture to recall the words which I spoke on Third Beading of this Measure. I spoke as one who has stood by the teachers in the Glasgow School Board in all their great contentions, but who differs from them on this matter. I said:
ad hoc system. That must have been a slip of words, because everyone knows that we have always had in a measure the ad hoc system, and a complete system— or as complete as it could be— since 1872. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the burgh schools and to the high place they had held in the past. It is quite true that the Royal Commission which reported in 1867 paid a high tribute to these schools as superior to the church schools, and as in some respects superior to the parochial schools, and certainly far superior to the adventure schools. Although the burgh councils had then a mere fraction of these schools, the Commission said that they admitted the excellence of the burgh schools but recommended that they should be taken out of the hands of the burghs and put into the hands of an ad hoc authority. That was the argument of the Commission and of the Government in 1872. When it was proposed to abolish the ad hoc authority in 1918 in a Bill that was prepared for this purpose, the opposition in Scotland was so pronounced, that Mr. Munro, the then Secretary of State, felt obliged to withdraw the Bill, and to substitute the old system of ad hoc authorities. I will give the words that were used by Mr. Munro:
I am one of those who feel so strongly on this matter that, had we not got a concession from the Prime Minister, I do not know that I should not have been reluctantly compelled to dissociate myself from the Government on this occasion; but I do feel they have done their utmost to meet us, and that this part of the Act can be lifted out without involving what would be the almost impossible task of repealing the whole Act. So far from it being a trivial and negligible matter, if you do this you will be lifting a burden from the county councils which they are not able to bear, you will be releasing education from the financial control, in part at least, of the county councils, you will get a more direct control over public schools and over intellectual and social activities and, what weighs most with me, you will bring education back into the public eye. For years I fought to get the meetings of the Glasgow School Board made public. When you put education under the county council it goes into committee, and public interest goes. After we had secured public meetings of the Glasgow School Board the votes at the elections increased enormously, because a new interest was manifest in education. If all these things are done for education it cannot be described as either a niggling or trivial change, and I regard it as a very solid salvage from the wreck.
I am pleased, also, that there is to be an inquiry, and one which will touch the subject of Scottish local government. I am not emphasising particularly Scottish Home Rule, because I recognise that in all parts of this House there are those who think that some measure of devolution is necessary, and, therefore, I value the promise that we shall have this inquiry. I would only add that, while we are not getting all we would desire in this matter, while our objections to some part of the Measure remain unaffected, I feel that we shall accomplish a considerable and most welcome salvage, and rejoice that we are to retain our ad hoc system in education which, I say without fear of contradiction, has been the envy of the whole world and one of the true glories of Scotland.
In following the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), I would like to say, not only for myself, but for a good many of those for whom I speak, that we fully recognise not only his interest in education, but the great service which he has rendered to it in the past. But I differ from him when he ventures to give the reasons which actuated the teachers of Scotland in coming to the conclusion to support the Act of this year. I think he said the overriding reason was that they might be rid of some sort of control, indirect or direct. I have been closely associated with this matter for many years, and to my knowledge there was no such consideration in the mind of anyone. The overriding consideration was the welfare of the children. We felt that by having a unified authority, an authority which dealt not only with the book-learning of the child, but was concerned with the child on the physical side practically from birth to manhood, an authority which dealt with housing, with recreation and every other social service, we would build up a system which would be to the advantage of children in the generations to come.
I listened to the statement made by the Prime Minister with regret and some sur- prise. The Amendment which is now before the House is a comprehensive Amendment. It asks for a reconsideration of the whole Act of 1929, both on the side of de-rating and on the side of local government. If the Government had come forward and said, "We agree that the Act is unsatisfactory in many respects "—according to the statement of the Prime Minister it is unsatisfactory in almost every respect—" we will suspend the operation of this Act in full," we could have understood the position of the Government. It is true that certain parts of the scheme of de-rating are already in operation, but they have not been so long in operation, and the amount of money involved is not so great, that they also could not have been made the subject of reconsideration without undue hardship to anyone. The hon. Gentleman who, I take it, is going to reply shakes his head, but de-rating is only very partially in operation—it does not come into full operation, for some months to come, on 1st October. So far as the agricultural part is concerned, the matter is of small moment, very little has been done; and, so far as the industrial part is concerned, it would injure nothing in Scotland if that were also held over; and the scheme outlined by the proposer of this resolution, that there should be a handing over of an equivalent sum to Scotland and that Scotland should have the right to say how that money should be used, would be a proposal which could be argued for by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government.
What have they done? They have recognised this injustice, from their point of view—I am stating their point of view, though with regard to de-rating it is also my point of view. They have recognised that there is injustice with regard to the parish councils and the small burghs. But they have not had the courage to say:" We challenge this whole Act and will contest this all over again." They have taken the rather easy and, I might say, rather cheap line. They have said: "Here is one service which it would be rather a popular thing to take out of this Bill," and they have concentrated on that one service without giving a single reason why they have done so, except that the structure of the Act seems to make it fairly easy to take this out and leave other things as they are. I am not speaking as one whose views were formed by any consideration of the Act we are discussing. I made my position about that quite clear when the Act was under discussion in Committee. I Was brought up under the ad hoc system and I had many years' experience of it, very happy experience in many ways; but it so happened that in 1916 we held a very comprehensive inquiry into the administration of Scottish education, and came to the conclusion that a county authority was essential and that the municipal idea of administration was the better one.
There is no question of principle here. The whole thing is a question of method, and that is why we should not introduce anything in the nature of party politics. As a matter of fact, I do not know any piece of social legislation in recent times which has had such varied political support as has this Measure. It has been supported in administrative bodies by members of each of the three political parties. In 1916 we came to the conclusion, first, that the county should be the area, and second that the county council, or the town council in certain cases, was the proper administrative body. The then Secretary for Scotland, Mr. Munro, was convinced that the selection of the county councils and the town councils was the proper one, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) also had that view at that time, or at least he was a Member of the Government which brought in the Bill proposing such administration. I have no objection to any person changing his mind for a good reason, but that is a fact; those who at that time were closest in touch with the problem of administration came to the conclusion that the solution which has been embodied in this Act was the proper one.
It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Motherwell has said, that the opinion of Scotland at that time was against that proposal. It was, undoubtedly. [Interruption.] I have every respect for those who maintain that the ad hoc method is the best. I held it myself until I came to study the question more closely. The proposal in 1918 to abolish the 940 parish school boards met with quite as much opposition as the proposal to substitute municipal government for the ad hoc system. As those who were Members of the House at that time will remember, we had in 1918 the strongest possible opposition from the School Boards' Association and others whose status was being attacked, but the Act of 1918 was passed, and it is its amendment which we are now being asked to consider at the present time. I have said that the proposals in the Act have, in my view, received more varied political support than any other recent piece of legislation with which I am acquainted. It is quite true that there has been very strong and very natural opposition from the members of education authorities, just as there has been from the members of parish councils and other bodies, hut you find that the great municipalities, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other great municipalities which are fully representative of the general citizenship of the country, are supporting this Act by large majorities. I have already said that the support of the Act is not only strong, but I would also point out that the hon. Member for Motherwell made rather a strong admission for one who holds his views, for he said that the Act was not an issue at the Election. We have been told that public opinion in Scotland has been aroused against this Act, and yet the hon. Member for Motherwell says that he was not asked a single question about this particular Act during the election campaign.
All I said on the subject was that I did not pledge myself to support the repeal of the Measure, but I dealt with the subject in my election address.
I accept that we know there are hon. Members opposite who received immense majorities at the last election, although they were known to be supporters of the Act. The corporation of Edinburgh discussed this question, and a very important member of the party opposite who was a former member of this House brought forward a resolution on this subject at the meeting of the Edinburgh Council in favour of the Act. The present Act received the support of 40 members of that particular town council, and consequently it can be said that it commended itself practically to the whole body of the Edinburgh Town Council. I quite appreciate what the Prime Minister said about the difficulties in the way of repeal, and I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had to consider and reconsider the matter before deciding upon taking any step. The very fast that there was no reference to this subject in the King's Speech or in the statement made by the Prime Minister has led people to believe that nothing was to be done. We have had quoted in this Debate a number of public bodies who have protested against the Act, but we have had no statement as to the number of bodies who supported the Act, simply because no occasion has arisen for asking other bodies their opinion for or against this Act. I can assure the Government that when the Bill which has been promised is brought forward very strong opposition will be forthcoming.
What are we going to have when this Bill is brought in? I hope we shall have from subsequent speakers some indication of what the new Bill is going to contain. It is hardly worth speculating as to what it will contain if we are going to have exact information in a short time. There is another very germane question which I would like to ask. We have been told that opinion in one way or the other in Scotland, as far as the Government can judge, is strongly against the Act being put into operation. I should like to know whether the Measure which has been promised is going to be a mere repealing Act or a suspensory Act, and if the latter for what period. I should also like to know what sort of an inquiry we are going to have into this question. We have had the opinion of the Education Authorities' Association time and again on this subject. We have had representatives of that body in London expressing their opinion on this question. We have also had the opinion of experts like Sir Henry Keith, whom I know personally. One of his arguments is that the ordinary county counsellor has no time for additional duties, but he himself has time to devote not only to one public body, but to an infinite number of public bodies, such as the Convention of Burghs, school authorities, and committees of all sorts.
He is a man of unusual leisure.
Sir Henry Keith has been quoted as an authority whose opinion on this subject should be respected. I would like to ask to whom are we going to commit this inquiry? I should think that Parliament is the proper body to decide what system is to be set up. What body does the right hon. Gentleman think is capable of making such an inquiry? If the right hon. Gentleman simply says that he himself wants to make a little further inquiry, then we shall know where we are. If we have a Commission which will hear evidence and issue a report, are we any more able to come to a decision on this subject?
There is another very important matter which I desire to raise. The hon. Member for Motherwell, who made an interesting speech, referred to the fact that a certain body of teachers sent forward a resolution in support of the proposal of the Government. I take it that there is no political line of demarcation between the supporters of this system and the opponents of it, and I ask the Prime Minister—perhaps it is more a question for the Chief Whip than for the Leader of the House—when this question comes up for discussion in the House will the Members of the party opposite who have taken definite action in support of the non ad hoc system be allowed to give a free vote upon it? When the right hon. Gentleman brings forward his new proposals will they be accompanied by the crack of the party whip?
If there is any useful purpose to be served by an inquiry of this kind the Members of the House of Commons should be made fully cognisant of the facts whatever they are, and then the question should be left to the individual judgment of Members of the House. This is not the occasion upon which we can discuss details, but again I express my great regret that the Government have made this exception in the case of education. We have had it said time and again in this House that education is so important that it should be kept in the hands of a special body. I repeat what I have said before in this House, that in my opinion, and in the opinion of those who share my views, education is of such vast importance that we dare not leave it as a thing by itself, but it must be treated as an important element in the communal life of the country.
I would like to point out that the subject we are discussing at the moment is not whether we should or should not have an ad hoc system. What are the terms of the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson)? I entirely agree with most of the general criticism of the existing Act which has been indulged in by the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. When the Act which has been referred to was a Bill passing through this House I moved its rejection on Second Reading and also on Third Reading. Consequently, I am committed as much as anyone can be committed by the speeches which I made against the Measure. I would like to point out, however, that we are not now considering the merits or demerits of the Act, but we are dealing with the question whether or not it is possible within the limitations of time at our disposal to agree to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty has asked us to do. The right hon. Gentleman has asked us in effect to suspend or amend the existing Act. He asks us to suspend or amend not only the Education Clauses, but the whole Act. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Scott), who supported the proposal which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty, said that if we find ourselves in any difficulty in this matter he would invite us to consult his friends on the Liberal Benches, when our difficulties would immediately disappear. The hon. Member did not tell us whether in discussing the de-rating section of the Act we were to consult the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) who voted against the Act, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty who supported it, and he left us in doubt as to which section of the Liberal party we were to rely upon.
I think that statement is rather unfair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). What really occurred was that I was against the whole of the de-rating proposals and so was my right hon. Friend, but when an Amendment was moved to cut out agricultural loans from the de-rating proposals, both of us saw no reason why they should be cut out, and we were both agreed on that point.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty has stated that he was in favour of the retention of these particular Clauses, and we have been asked if we can amend this Act. Let us consider for a moment how far that Act could be amended even if we were all in favour of some practical proposal? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty says there are no difficulties whatever in the way of his proposal. Let me put to the House some practical difficulties which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland immediately ran up against when he began to consider what steps he could recommend the Government to take. In the first place, the de-rating portion of the Act is in existence now. De-rating exists; it has been in operation since the 16th May. [Interruption.] I do not say that it is all in operation, but de-rating in fact has been in operation since the 16th May, and the reductions in railway rates have been in existence since last autumn. Business contracts and leases have been entered into on the faith of the continuance of the de-rating portion of the Act. We are faced, further, with this fact, that, if we proceeded to cancel, amend or suspend the de-rating Sections so far as Scotland is concerned, we should be very heavily prejudicing Scottish industrial concerns, and, indeed, Scottish agricultural concerns, in competition with their English friends over the Border. Then we are faced with the further fact—and these are practical difficulties, of which hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House must take cognisance—we are faced with the further fact that railways are, so to speak, an international concern in this country, and it is an exceedingly difficult matter to suggest any method by which the de-rating Sections of the Act could be cancelled for railways and machinery and plant and capital on the Scottish side of the Border, while leaving the scheme operating in England. The suspension of the local government provisions of the Act means, so we are advised, the suspension of the block grants also, and, therefore, a loss to the necessitous areas. The Convention of Royal Burghs, which cannot at all be accused of any sympathy for this Act, and which has consistently fought and opposed it—the Convention of Royal Burghs, at its last consideration since the General Election, decided not to ask for suspension or for repeal, but decided to ask only for such amendments as were found to be possible and practicable.
If these be the facts, then there is no use whatever in this House spending its time vainly in pleading for the unattainable. Let us turn to the question of what is practical. What can we get? As the Prime Minister said, what can we save from the wreckage? Here again we come to the question of time. We are getting on towards the middle of July; we have little over a fortnight of Parliamentary time—it could be extended, certainly— and the programme has been announced to the House, in which we have two important Measures dealing with unemployment to discuss, in which there is an important Bill dealing with the housing subsidies to discuss, in which there is an important Measure, with a Money Resolution, dealing with the Unemployment Fund to discuss. This House has to discuss these important Measures in the space of a fortnight, before they go to another place for discussion there. I leave to the imagination of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite what might be said in another place if not only four, but five important Measures happened to arrive at its doors during the last two or three days of the expiring Session.
We are faced with these facts; what do we propose? What did the Prime Minister propose? The hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House said, quite truly, that there was a strong section of public opinion in Scotland which was in favour of the retention of the Bill so far as it stood in relation to education. The teachers' organisation have definitely taken a stand, for reasons which they consider to be valid, against ad hoc authorities. On the other hand, practically the entire body of local administration in Scotland—local education authorities, school management committees, people of all types and standings, people of all sections and classes, of all political persuasions in Scotland who deal with local administration—have declared that in their judgment and in their opinion the best system that we can have is that of ad hoc authorities. We are faced with this great divergence of opinion among people whose views ought to be considered, and carefully considered. The Prime Minister has simply suggested that this House would be well advised to accept, not an amending Bill, not a repealing Bill, but a mere Measure of suspension so far as the education Sections are concerned, and that forthwith there should be set up an inquiry— whether a committee or a commission I am not in a position to say; I do not know—before which all sections of public opinion in Scotland could present their views, and the House of Commons at a very early date would then be in a position to give a considered judgment as to whether or not the ad hoc system should be retained.
The teachers' organisations have declared against that course. In doing so, they have had, as the late Secretary of State for Scotland had to do, to fall back on a partial system of co-option. The system of democratic election had to be interfered with, and the new bodies were compelled to co-opt, possibly from outside, to form an education committee. Those who have had, as most of us on these benches have had, experience of some form or other of municipal or county government, stand amazed at the hardihood of those who calmly suggest that education should be relegated to some committee of a county council or large city council, in a similar way to sewage, parks, or some other department of local administration which does not require specialised knowledge. So far as I know, practically everyone who has dealt with the local administration side of education in Scotland, has declared in favour of the retention of some kind of ad hoc system, and that is the proposal to the giving of fair consideration to which the Prime Minister addressed himself this afternoon.
The only argument, if I may call it so, which has been put against the Prime Minister's proposal for an inquiry was that put by the late Secretary of State for Scotland. He pleaded that his Act should be given a trial. He said, "If you are going to inquire or suspend, do not do it now, but give it a chance." If we do not do it now, we cannot do it later on. If we would do it at all, we must do it during this month of July, 1929, before the education authorities are swept away and before definite and final preparations are made for summoning the new bodies into existence. There will still, as the right hon. Gentleman said, be opportunities for temporary overlapping to a slight degree so far as public health functions dealing with children are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman instanced, as his Under-Secretary has frequently instanced, the case of Glasgow, where there was trouble over a Bill between two bodies; but we are advised that most of the education authorities all over the country work side by side quite satisfactorily with no overlapping whatever. If the right hon. Gentleman gives us the case of Glasgow, we will give him that of Aberdeen. If he gives us somewhere else, we will give him 10 other cases. We say that we shall use all our persuasive powers to induce the local authorities, education and health, during the interregnum, during the period of inquiry, to prevent overlapping, and to see to it that the health of the children shall be looked after and that no child shall suffer.
The right hon. Gentleman said, further, that he foresaw difficulties about the block grant. We foresee none; we are advised that there are none. The best advice that we can get declares that we can lift the education Sections out of this Act without any disturbance of the other financial provisions of the Act whatever, that we shall not disturb the de-rating provisions, and that, therefore, it is easy and simple to do it. Education being financed, as to nine-tenths of it, not by a block grant but by the old method, there is no financial difficulty whatever. As to the point made, as I understand it, by the right hon. Gentleman, about the remaining tenth part dealing with the Local Taxation Account, we are advised that that is a stereotyped thing and that there is no trouble about it whatsoever. The best advice that we can get is that, by a short, simple Bill suspending the education Sections of the Act, we disturb no part whatever of the local government machinery in Scotland. We shall set up our inquiry forthwith, and we trust— [Interruption.] I do not say that it will be done within 24 hours; I mean that there will be no unnecessary delay; and we are perfectly certain that, after that inquiry has been held, this House will be in a position, as it is not now, to decide between the respective views of the teachers' organisations on the one side and the administrators of education in Scotland on the other.
7.0 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman, whom I should like to congratulate on what I believe is his maiden speech as a Minister, has covered the whole range of the Amendment moved from the Liberal Benches, but the only practical question before the House to-day is the proposal to bring forward a Bill to suspend that part of the Local Government (Scotland) Act which deals with the transfer of powers in regard to education. The Act is so far-reaching and comprehensive that speakers have found it very difficult to do it justice, either on the platform or in the House. Very few speakers this afternoon have attempted to deal with the question on its merits, and I hope the House will allow me for a few moments to bring forward some considerations against any possible repeal of this portion of this Act, which I do not think have always been made very clear in discussion. My right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary of State have dwelt in their speeches on the great importance of closer co-ordination of the medical services of the education authorities and town and county councils as one of the main reasons for these proposed changes. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), speaking a few moments ago, said that there had been no evidence of overlapping in the medical services in Glasgow under the present system, except in regard to medical inspection and the feeding of school children. Anyone who reflects for a moment must realise that those are two very large exceptions. They are very big and important services. If hon. Members opposite admit that there has been overlapping in the biggest city in Scotland in regard to these two very important items in the educational service, that is a very strong argument for the proposed change.
I said that the only possibility of overlapping was in regard to these matters. I do not admit it. I said that any little overlapping which had been adduced in the city of Glasgow was practically negligible.
I am very sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member, but, if he admits the possibility of overlapping, that is a very important possibility, and one with which any efficient Government must deal. In previous Debates, my hon. Friends told the House of overlapping that had actually occurred in regard to clinics, and also of the economy in the provision of hospitals that would be possible under the Act in general. I wish to draw attention, however, to another respect in which coordination between the medical services of the schools and of other authorities seems to me vital to the welfare of the children of Scotland. I am going to refer to the question of defective children. Take physically defective children, in the first place. Anyone who has studied that subject at all knows that in the last few years a new hope has risen on the horizon for these children. We are told on the highest surgical authority that there is real hope in the great majority of cases of preventing lasting crippledom provided these children can get orthopaedic treatment and get it at an early enough age. In England and Wales fully half of the education authorities have schemes for the orthopaedic treatment of children, schemes every one of which have been concerted jointly by the education committee of the council and the maternity and child welfare authority. Such concerted action has been very much facilitated by the fact that in many areas, notably in the county boroughs both these authorities are part and parcel of the main authority, namely, the burgh council.
As a result of this concerted action, if you visit one of these hospital schools for orthopaedic treatment, you find, if it has been in existence for some time, that many children in it are very young, almost in arms or at any rate young toddlers, because the medical officers realise how much more valuable work can be done if the children are brought there long before school age. As the result of this treatment, there is in some areas practical evidence of the decrease of crippledom.
In Scotland, we have so far very little orthopaedic treatment for these children. We have a splendid educational system, but that is one of the ways in which there is room for improvement. It is just as vital in Scotland as in England that any treatment of that kind should include children below school age as well as children who are of an age to attend school. Is it not obvious that you will have a far better chance of co-ordinated, concerted action in regard to cases of this kind if the education authority is the town or county council, which in Scotland under this Act will also be the authority for maternity and child welfare? It is not too much to say that the provisions of this Act, more especially that part of it which puts education in the hands of the town and county councils, offers to the children of Scotland that chance of early orthopaedic treatment and therefore of escape from crippledom which so many English children now enjoy.
Why was it that on this point of medical services the Onslow Committee of the late Government reported that the school medical service should remain separate from the general administration?
The answer is quite simple. The school medical service in England is part of the machinery of the town council or county council, because education is part of the machinery of the same local authority.
Take, again, the case of the mentally defective children. There are many children of this type who, we lament to know, are not receiving proper care either in Scotland or in England. There are those who are described as educable, in regard to whom the responsibility for seeing that they get education falls on the education authority, while as regards those who are declared non-educable the responsibility rests at present upon the parish council and district board of control. Many Scottish Members must have had occasion to realise that these two classes of children are cared for at present by two authorities, because it means very often that they fall between two stools and that nothing is done for them. I have heard of cases in which parish officers have come to the medical officer of the school authority and implored him to declare educable children whom he had previous declared non-educable, so that the parish council might be relieved of the responsibility of looking after these children.
Lately, in England and Wales these children have been the subject of a long and exhaustive inquiry by a committee who have recently reported. The main purport of that report has been to ask for much more flexibility in the way of treating these children, dealing with them in more ways than are at present usual; and many suggestions are made for much closer co-operation between the authorities for the educable and non-educable. Does not all that show the importance of having machinery in Scotland under which education will be one department of the work of the county council and the care of those unhappy children who are declared non-educable will be the responsibility of another branch of the same body? That, again, will offer these children in Scotland a chance which has not yet been provided for them. I am very pleased to think that many medical men and women are included in the ranks of those newly returned to the benches of the Labour party. I would ask them how they can find it in their hearts and consciences to vote for the repeal of provisions which give so much greater opportunities for the care of mentally defective children than they have ever yet been able to enjoy?
I now want to deal with the charge that the Act is undemocratic. The present system is vaunted as the ne plus ultra of democracy. When that charge is made by hon. Members opposite and by hon. Members below the Gangway, I wonder how many of them realise how many parishes and rural districts of Scotland are unrepresented to-day on the education authority. Hon. Members opposite chiefly represent urban areas, and therefore, perhaps, they may not have had so much opportunity of realising this point as I have had. Take my county alone. A parish such as the parish of Fortingal, the largest parish in Scotland, which stretches from the east end of Loch Tay to the heart of the Moor of Rannoch, including the whole of the Rannoch district and of the district of Glen Lyon, has never yet had a representative on the education authority and is not likely to have a representative on that body as long as representatives continue to be elected under the system of proportional representation.
That system tends to give the burghs a great advantage over the surrounding rural area. Every burgh is sure of being able to send one representative at least to the local authority, but a great rural district, such as the parish I have mentioned, has been unrepresented on the education authority of Perthshire ever since the inception of that body. Yet it has always sent two members to the county council and will continue to do so under the scheme proposed by the county council and approved by my right hon. Friend before he left office. There are several other rural districts in the same county which are in the same position. They are electoral districts for the county council under the Act, and yet they have never been directly represented on the education authority. It is that lack of representation in so many rural areas which I believe to be one of the main reasons why the education authorities have suffered from a good deal of unpopularity, and why there are a good many people in the rural areas of Scotland who have felt too much out of touch with the education authorities in the last 10 years. Under the provisions of the Act, however, every rural area in Scotland which is an electoral area for the county council will in future be directly represented on the body responsible for education. Every county councillor will not be a member of the committee dealing with education, but everyone will have a responsibility for the educational affairs of his county. Therefore, one of the great advantages which I see in the proposals of the Act is that it will restore to every rural area this direct touch with the education authority of the county which is so vital if our people are to maintain that interest in education which has been so characteristic of them in the past, and which it is sad sometimes to see them in danger of losing.
I would like to refer also to the fact that women are to have seats on every education committee. It was a very wise and statesmanlike provision of the Education Act of 1902 which required women to be co-opted on to every education com- mittee in England and Wales. After four and a-half years' connection with English education, I see the value of this in the part that women have played all over England and Wales in the administration of education. I see its results in the greater linking up with voluntary effort, in the care for the health and general welfare of the children expressed in such things as nursery schools, play centres, and provision for defective children. I do not think it is too much to claim that this care for the health and general welfare of the child is largely a result of the fact that in every area in England and Wales for the last 27 years women have had a share in the administration of this most important service. In Scotland women have not hitherto been assured of such a share.
Then, I greatly value the assurance given under the Act of the continuance and development of religious instruction from the fact that the clergy will have to be represented on every education committee. Many ministers have been elected in the past to school boards and education authorities, but it has not always followed that, because a minister, or ministers, were members of a school board, religious instruction was either efficient, or necessarily existed in a school at all. On the other hand, the provision in the Act by which on every education committee there will be not less than two persons specially nominated by religious bodies on account of their interest in religious education ensures, to my mind, that this most important subject will receive adequate and incessant attention. It has been stated that to do away with the ad hoc authority is to make a break with Scottish tradition. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, those who make that assertion show that their Scottish educational history wants brushing up.
So does his.
I wonder if the hon. Member remembers that it is one of the oldest and the most characteristic traditions of Scottish education, that burgh councils for centuries past were assisting education before ad hoc authorities were set up.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it dates back to 1918, whereas it dates back to 1872.
My right hon. Friend was only referring to this Act. I quite recognise that the ad hoc authority dates back to 1872, but the setting up of the ad hoc authorities in that year was a break with an old and great Scottish tradition. We owed that break in 1872 to a Liberal Minister, and a further break in it to another Liberal Minister in 1918, who, keeping the ad hoc authority, took away from all the burghs, except the four cities, the burgh school boards which before that time formed something of a link with the town council of former days. But I am willing to admit that the ad hoc authority has been useful in its time. I do not wish for a moment to say that nothing good has come out of it, nor do I wish to follow the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) in the rather severe strictures which he passed on the work of education authorities. There may be an obvious reason for my not being so severe on them as he was. I believe they have done very good work, but I think the great work they have been able to do has been to a great extent because their advent brought about the bigger area for education, which was so very badly needed if teachers were to get fair opportunities of promotion and transfer and if the general level of education, in the rural areas particularly, was to be raised. But because an institution does valuable service to-day it is surely a very short view to say that there is never to be anything else but an institution of that particular kind.
The big area which has been the basis of the improvements of the last ten years remains under the local Government Act. There is no change in that whatever, and there is no need that there should be any change in the system of school management committees. That will rest entirely with the new councils, who, of course, will have the advice of their special education committees in the matter. It may well be said that in requiring, as the Act does, every county and town council to set up a special statutory education committee, the ad hoc principle is sufficiently maintained to ensure that a large proportion of the members of every education committee will be people specially interested in education and ready to devote their time to it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) spoke about education formerly being in the front. It seems to me that education to-day is rather in a side channel. It is going along a course of its own with too little touch with other services and other interests. The Salvesen Committee emphasised that there was too little touch between education and industry, and hon. Members on the Liberal Benches who, with other colleagues, were responsible for the very interesting report embodying the Liberal Land policy, have pointed out how necessary it was that there should be more rural science in the primary schools. They say:
When we hear this question discussed, we hear far too little of the merits of the case, and far too much of the dignity and antiquity of various bodies. This subject is much too important to be discussed on any other ground than that of economy and efficiency, and we believe the Act will make for both. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Mathers), making his maiden speech, said he desired to see the House deal with great human values rather than with machinery. It is just because we see the great human values that need strengthening, and the great human needs that have to be met, that the Bill has been so far-reaching and has, in particular, dealt with this matter of education, and it is just because we value machinery very much less than human values that my right hon. Friend did not hesitate, in a very courageous way, to reorganise, and, as we think, reform, much of the local government machinery of Scotland. Therefore, this is not merely a secondary matter with us, this question of the possible suspension and probable ultimate repeal of the Clauses of the Local Government Act which deal with education. We think they are vital to the economy and efficiency of the services of education and health, and, therefore, we shall be ready to sit longer than a fortnight, to sit if necessary into the holidays, in order to make quite clear our opposition to any such proposal.
I listened with considerable disappointment to the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand the Prime Minister holds the view that the Local Government (Scotland) Act is a bad Act. The Secretary of State, on the Second Reading, said that in his opinion the overwhelming majority of his fellow-countrymen were very much opposed to the Bill, and the Under-Secretary moved the rejection, not only on the Second but also on the Third Reading, in eloquent speeches in which he brought home to the late Government their failure to meet opinion in Scotland. After what has been said, and after the attitude which these right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have taken up, we are entitled, and I am sure their supporters are entitled, to obtain something more from them than they have received to-day in the proposals that have been put forward to alter the provisions of the Act. I am not quite sure whether the House yet apprehends what the intention of the Government is in regard to the proposals they have put forward in connection with the education authorities. The Prime Minister suggested, I under- stand, that the question was to be dealt with in the form of a Bill which would exclude from the operation of the Act the present education authorities. I understand that what the Under-Secretary of State really has in his mind is something more in the nature of an inquiry into the whole question of education. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will enlighten us as to whether the inquiry is to deal in the first place with education.
I am sorry if the Prime Minister did not make his position perfectly clear. What we propose to do is to introduce a Bill with no avoidable delay which will have the effect of suspending the education Clauses of the Act, and at the earliest possible moment an inquiry will be set up covering more than education—dealing with all questions of local government.
Would it deal with Scottish Home Rule?
Undoubtedly.
This is rather important. Is it suggested that this inquiry is the inquiry proposed by the Prime Minister, because the inquiry proposed by the Prime Minister was to be set up after a year, and legislation on its findings was, in the Prime Minister's pledge, contingent upon a five years' period of power by the Labour Government. If an inquiry of that sort is to be called for, suspension is relegated to the Greek kalends.
We understood that the Prime Minister had in view an inquiry which was to extend over a period of years and which might not eventually deal with the matter until after the five years expired. That is not what Scotland wants at present. We are in this House, many of us, to give expression to the view that the Scottish people expect here and now that something is going to be done to alter the provisions of this Act which has been passed, in very large measure, in the teeth of public opinion in Scotland. The circumstances under which we are placed to-day are almost unprecedented. This Act which has very far-reaching effects upon local government in Scotland and upon our rating system was passed through this House during the latter part of the late Government's period of office without any direct mandate from the Scottish people and under conditions which certainly did not give it any degree of authority, or the degree of authority that it would have had if it had passed through the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills after full discussion in the House of Commons.
We are abundantly entitled to put forward a case, especially after a General Election in which this matter was certainly raised in many constituencies all over Scotland, not only by Members sitting on these benches, but by hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. I do not want to take up the time of the House by referring to the specific statements that were made, but I think that hon. Members will admit that I am quite correct in saying that a criticism of the Act was contained in many election addresses that were issued by Labour Members and by other Members of the House. The question was undoubtedly one of those matters which was thrashed out at the General Election. I have certainly come to this House to give expression to the views of a constituency where the matter, especially in relation to the interests of the smaller burghs, is a very acute one. It is only right that we should take this opportunity of voicing the opinion of Scotland, which, I believe, is very strongly in favour of some immediate action.
Let us consider for a moment the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister said that he would desire to stop the misfortunes "which might happen to Scotland if this Measure were to get rooted into the administrative machinery of Scotland. Those are the words which he used. We are here to ask hon. Members opposite to co-operate with us in preventing the new provisions of this Act from coming into operation and becoming rooted when it will be exceedingly difficult to make the necessary Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this is an Act of Parliament which is bound to be amended. It will have to be amended and re-amended in many particulars. Although it is true, as the Under-Secretary of State has said, that a portion of the Act came into operation on the 16th May, he is aware, and the House is aware, that most of the principal provisions of the Act will not come into operation until 1st October, and that then the machinery will, for the first time, be set in operation which is going to provide for the reconstitution of the county councils and which will lead to the further provisions of the Act being put into effect.
The appeal that we make to the Government is this: We say to them that is is far better here and now to visualise the effect of this Act and to try and meet the difficulties before they have got rooted in, when you will find it much more difficult to amend the Act. I speak with some experience of local government when I say that it will be extremely difficult for the Government to deal with this Act once the whole machinery has been put into operation. Once the new elections have taken place for the town councils, who will have to appoint their representatives on the new county councils, once the new county councils have been elected, once the Act has got into full stride, it will be much more difficult to handle the situation.
I would say to the Government that, while they are willing to deal with the question of education, it is only one of the questions which arises upon this Act and upon which the opinion of Scotland is very strong. The position of the smaller burghs in Scotland is one which deserves very full consideration. There are larger burghs and cities which are having extended powers, and some of them welcome these provisions. The right hon. Gentleman ought to keep in view the fact that this Act is reducing and restricting the powers and handicapping many of the local authorities, in the smaller burghs, in the carrying out of their most important functions. Those functions which are to be removed from the smaller burghs have already been enumerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Western (Mr. Scott), who made his maiden speech in the House at an earlier stage. I would like to make a special appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of those smaller burghs under 20,000 population which to-day are so admirably equipped in regard to public health administration. I would like to give, as an instance, the case of one of the most ancient burghs in Scotland—St. Andrews—which I have the honour to represent, and which is also a University town. It has pro- tested, both through its town council and by a resolution from the University, against the operation of the Act. It is a town in which there is a population normally of between 10,000 and 11,000, while during the summer the population is more than doubled. It can boast of one of the most efficient public health administrations in Scotland, both in regard to maternity and child welfare, and with regard to hospitals and infectious diseases. My right hon. Friend, who is well conversant with the situation there, the Board of Health, and all those who know of the work, have nothing but admiration for the efforts which have been put forth by that community. The infantile mortality has been reduced in the town under an exceedingly effective system of ante-natal clinics and child welfare clinics to 46 per 1,000 as compared with 98 per 1,000 in the St. Andrews district of the county. It shows what extraordinary results can be obtained under an efficient Burgh administration as compared with the county administration. The position is the same with regard to other burghs of that character who are so well equipped for their work. They have now to allow these important functions to be carried on by the new county councils, and it will reduce the efficiency of our administration. This is only an illustration of many other burghs, and I have received similar representations on this question from the larger burghs in my Division. We maintain that this Act is going to injure these communities. Notwithstanding the provisions which have been made for delegation in certain instances, it is going to prevent the carrying out of the most efficient public health administration. I would also point to the fact that the other services which it is proposed to take from these burghs are all services to which they attach importance and which at the present moment they are administering with good effect.
I do not desire to take up the time of the House with regard to the financial provisions of the Act more than to say that I regard the principle of the de-rating of selected industries, whether they are suffering from depression or not, as very unfair to all other classes of ratepayers, and believe that the operation of the block grant under this Act will certainly impose further burdens upon the ratepayers at no very distant date. Strong objection has been taken to the financial provisions, not only by the burghs themselves, but by the Convention of Royal Burghs. The Convention of Royal Burghs are entitled to have their views heard in the House of Commons. They represent a very large body of Scottish opinion, and to-day they have come to us with a protest and a resolution to which we are bound to give effect. I suggest also that the enlargement of the areas under the Act will in many cases lead to additional burdens through the spreading of the rates, burdens which, we maintain, ought not fairly to be laid upon the whole body of ratepayers, seeing that they are of an Imperial and national character like the heavy burden of unemployment relief.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government to consider whether they are not prepared to go a great deal further in this matter. I am sure that Scotland expects them to do so. I am certain that after this Debate there will be a strong expression of opinion that, when the Labour Government have the offer of co-operation from others in the House to carry into effect the pledges which they gave and the arguments which they previously advanced, they will be expected by the country to take advantage of the opportunity. I should like to say, further, that many of us here feel that we are in duty bound to express our views with force and to insist upon some further action being taken, and not have an inquiry which is going to hang up the whole matter. An inquiry which may last for a period of years is of no value to us in Scotland unless there is a definite undertaking on the part of the Government that the operative provisions of the Act are not going to be put into immediate operation. We maintain that it is perfectly competent and possible for them to do so. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the pressure of time. Surely, the House of Commons and the Government ought to be prepared to devote a little time, if necessary, to the serious reconsideration of a Measure which is doing an injustice to Scotland, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will still be prepared to give us an undertaking that he will give effect to our wishes.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) may rest assured that no greater hostility to the Act which we are discussing can be shown from the Liberal Benches than will be shown, and has; been shown all through, from the Members on the benches on this side of the House. We are still as antagonistic to the Act which has been placed upon the Statute Book as we were when we were on the Opposition side of this House. But practical difficulties have to be faced. I want to suggest that these practical difficulties have been faced by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has pointed out to the House the very grave difficulties, nay, I would say further the absolute impossibility in the time at the disposal of the Government, in seeking either to repeal, to suspend, or to amend the Act. I have listened with very great interest to three speeches this afternoon, one from my own benches— the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland— and the others from the Opposition Benches. I would like to congratulate the late Secretary of State for Scotland upon what, I believe, was one of the best speeches that he has ever delivered in this House. If he had put his case as well when he was attempting to force through his Bill as he did to-day in seeking to defend the Bill now that it is an Act of Parliament, we should have enjoyed the proceedings more than we did.
I listened with great interest to the Noble Lady. She did not take part in the Debates on the Bill, and the speech that she has delivered to-day is the first that she has delivered on this question. No one will deny her ability either in administration or in the work which she has been doing on behalf of English education during the past four and a half years. Let me examine some of the arguments which she submitted. She pleaded for the Act, and opposed any change so far as the education Clauses in the Act are concerned. One of her reasons was that under the Act there would be closer co-operation for the medical services. No one on this side of the House denies the need for the closest co-ordination between the medical services in regard to schools, but we claim that you can get that co-ordination without wiping out the ad hoc authorities that have existed in Scotland for the last 57 years, or the new ad hoc authorities which have been in existence for the last 10 or 11 years.
There has been nothing like the number of cases of overlapping that hon. Members opposite would have the House believe. There have been isolated cases, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary of State for Scotland in the last Government, and the late Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to give instances where there has been deliberate overlapping. The accusation must be one of deliberate overlapping in connection with medical services so far as the counties are concerned. I am a bit sick in this House and in Scotland of always having Glasgow's failure at co-operation trotted out, for the purpose of imposing certain educational schemes upon other parts of Scotland. In regard to the feeding of school children it was the Glasgow Education Authority that first raised a case in the Courts, and we found among the leaders in the fight against feeding, Ministers of the Gospel who had forgotten the teaching of their Master. That can be no reason for seeking to abolish the ad hoc authorities. You cannot look at education from the Scottish point of view merely from the attitude of the Glasgow authority. You must look at it from the way in which it will help the sacred cause of education, and the giving of benefits to the children of Scotland in connection with the administration of education.
There was no need on the part of the late Government to wipe out the ad hoc authorities if they wanted merely to bring about co-ordination in the medical services. I admit that even in certain other services there has been overlapping in one or two instances. I only know of two cases in Scotland where there was conflict between two public authorities responsible in connection with the children and both of them, if I remember rightly, were in the right hon. Gentleman's own county. It would be impossible for any overlapping to arise now, except in the case of the larger burghs. Supposing the present Government do not take out of the Act the Education Clauses, you still leave the possibility there of overlapping so far as the feeding of school children is concerned, because the power of administration in connection with the Poor Law is given to the larger burghs That is not entirely a county question. Therefore, there may still arise some possibility, although I hope there will not be a probability, of overlapping so far as the feeding of school children is concerned. The only case that I can recall is that of the Kirkcaldy Burgh Council and the Fife Education authority. There, the Education authority have been prepared all along to meet the Department and those responsible for administration and legislation and to discuss a way of avoiding the possibility of overlapping.
The Noble Lady has made one of the best defences that has yet been made in favour of the changes that were brought about by the late Government in this legislation. She referred to the education of defective children. If the education authorities in Scotland have not made more progress in dealing with that particular problem it is not because some of them have not had the desire or the will, but simply because those who have been responsible in connection with the higher offices have repeatedly refused to allow those authorities to carry through schemes which they were prepared to put into operation in the interests of defective children. We have been told that the changes which are contained in the Act would result in the more early treatment of children in schools, and would give more chances of success. Is there any reason why the whole scheme of the medical treatment of children over one or two years of age are concerned should not be handed over to the education authorities? Is there any reason why the medical services of the existing education authorities should be handed over to a county council which has never done anything in connection with the medical treatment of school children?
We have had to build up efficient services in many of our county authorities under the most adverse circumstances; services coming into existence immediately after the War. We had to take up work in 1919 which represented five or six years of arrears, and during three or four years we who have been the administrators have been amongst the most unpopular individuals in Scotland. No one knows that better than the Secretary of State for Scotland. Appeal after appeal has been made by some of the bodies to which education administration is being transferred, that our powers should be taken away because we were spending too much money in the interests of education. The complaint on the part of many teachers has been, and is, that the education authorities are dominated by too many ministers of religion. That may be true, but if I have to choose between giving educational administration over to ministers, with whom I am not too much in love, or handing it over to factors, landowners and big farmers, then I shall plump for the ministers, with all their faults, every time, after my experience for years in educational administration in Scotland.
The Noble Lady dealt with the provision respecting ministers and religious instruction. We had to fight against the proposal that it would be merely ministers who would deal with the religious problems that were likely to come up in connection with the new authorities. We were successful in compelling the Government to accept an Amendment, which was drafted in the Lobby, not giving special rights to the Church of Scotland or to any other Church, but giving rights to all religious denominations to take part in a conference for the purpose of selecting a minimum of two ministers who would have the right to be co-opted as members of the new education authorities. The plea made by the Noble Lady was that because there was a guarantee that two ministers would be on each new authority, religious instruction would be better attended to in future than at the present time. That is the greatest condemnation that has ever been passed in this House against the ministers of religion who are on the education authorities in Scotland to-day, whose numbers have been one of the chief complaints of the teaching profession. Now, it is suggested that they have not been looking after religious instruction.
Is there any education authority in Scotland where religious instruction is not given in schools under public control? I have had a good deal to do with educational administration for a longer period than I like to think, and I do not know of any Scottish education authority which has not religious instruction in its schools. I cannot understand how the Noble Lady made that statement almost as her final plea for keeping the education authorities inside the existing Act. I cannot understand why she objects to the proposal of the Government to save the education authorities, and why she advances the particular reason that religious instruction will be better looked after in future by having two representatives of the ministerial profession on each education committee. At the present time we have education authorities in Scotland where, shall I say, to the disgrace of the ministerial profession they have been more interested—everyone will know exactly what I mean—in a Billy and Dan fight than in promoting the best interests of education so far as the children are concerned.
I believe that ministers of the gospel can quite well attend to the best interests of education without repeatedly, as they do in the Glasgow district, fighting about their particular creed. From my experience of the last 20 years I say that when I have had to plead for the feeding of school children my worst opponents have been ministers of the Gospel on the education authorities of which I have happened to be a member. I do not believe that by wiping out the existing education authorities and merely allowing two representatives from religious denominations to be co-opted on to the new authorities, that there will be any better chance of safeguarding religious instruction. The issue now is one for the electors, and I am satisfied from my knowledge of the Scottish people that there is no party that dare go to the country and suggest that we should take away religious instruction from our schools in Scotland. So much for the speech of the Noble Lady.
8.0 p.m.
I come to some of the remarks of the late Secretary of State for Scotland. He said that to change or repeal this particular part of the Act would have a most unfair effect upon public bodies. I believe it might. I am prepared to concede that point. But the proposal made by the Prime Minister to-day is not to change or repeal the Act, but to suspend it until we had time to look around. And why should we not have time to look around? The late Government had no mandate for these revolutionary proposals, which were rushed through the House of Commons. We have had a General Election since, and whilst I am not prepared to concede the claim made from the Liberal benches that this was the main issue at the Election, no one will deny that it was a factor in the defeat of Tory Members who lost their seats in Scotland. If we were discussing this question in the Lobby of the House, I believe Liberal Members themselves would admit that it was not the main question.
I did not quite catch what the hon. Member said. What was the main issue?
The Liberal party said the main issue at the last General Election was unemployment. I am trying to be quite fair, and I hope the Liberal party will vote with us and defeat an attempt to destroy all that is best in local administration in Scotland. No proposal has been made from, these benches to tinker with the present Act —that was the charge made by the late Secretary of State. The Government say that there is not sufficient time to deal with it, and thereby made it quite clear that the time is far too limited for tinkering with or suspending the Act where it will impinge upon the financial arrangements already made under its provisions. The proposal of the Prime Minister is to take something out of the Act which will not destroy the framework of the Measure, and carry out the rest of the proposals until the Amending Bill in introduced. The claim was made by another hon. Member that the teaching profession is practically unanimously in favour of the Act. It is a claim which is repeatedly made. I am wondering whether he is correct.
Let me tell the House how the conference of teachers in Edinburgh arrived at their decision. It was a conference of delegates, many of whom had received no mandate whatever on the question. In the county education authority of which I am a member, the teaching profession had 19 representatives at this conference, but to the best of my knowledge and on very authentic information no meeting was ever held in the County of Fife for the purpose of discussing this question. Nineteen delegates went to the conference and voted in accordance with the advice given by the executive of their particular organisation. I am not complaining about that; I am telling the House exactly what took place. A meeting of the teaching profession in Edinburgh was convened for the purpose of discussing this great change and in order to give their delegates to the conference a mandate. There was no quorum. In the course of my own conversations with members of the teaching profession—and I question whether there is any other hon. Member who knows more than I do about the teaching profession—I know of no single teacher who has expressed any disapproval or passed any adverse comments on the existing system of educational administration. I have had a correspondence with one, but outside of that particular individual I know no other teacher who has expressed opinions in favour of this change and I do know of many teachers who are quite well satisfied with the present system of educational administration.
I trust that we are not going to ask this House to spend the enormous amount of time which would be necessary, much as we detest the Act, to repeal, suspend or generally amend the Measure. I never pledged myself to the electors in my constituency either to repeal or suspension. I opposed the Act and I was able to convince the electors that it was a most unfair and unjust Act. When questions were put to me as a candidate at the last election I said that if I had to make a choice between using Parliamentary time for the suspension of this Act or using it for getting the anomalies in connection with the widows, orphans and old age pensions removed, or getting for the miners better hours and improved conditions, or for dealing with the general improvement of the people in the great problem of unemployment, then my choice certainly would be in favour of Parliamentary time being used to deal with the problem of unemployment and poverty. But I realise that a Very limited amount of time will be necessary to save the educational authorities. It can be done. Five days of Parliamentary time are sufficient, and the Prime Minister has indicated his willingness to allow that time to be taken. No argument has been submitted to the House for handing over education to county councils on the ground that it would be to the advantage of education. You can get co-ordination of your medical services and avoid overlapping without taking away the ad hoc principle in Scotland.
I listened with amazement to the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). He said that the personnel of these authori ties had been deteriorating. It is obvious that the hon. Member knows nothing about education in Scotland or the problems we have to face. In 1919 we had to deal with the problem of the underpaid teacher. Talk about the teaching profession being the Cinderella of the professions! It was a standing disgrace to the nation the miserable low sums which were being paid to teachers in 1919. The County of Fife had to take over well trained and capable teachers, with as much as 20 years' experience, who were receiving the miserable sum of £85 per year, in 1919, with its high cost of living. Will anyone say that an element of satisfaction has not been imported into the teaching profession as a result of the work carried out by the educational authority of the county of Fife? We had to endure insults which were thrown upon us as administrators because we were prepared to face the electors and tell them that the teaching profession must get justice. Now, and I say it more in sorrow than in anger, you want to get rid of the type of elected representative who worked hard to get for the teaching profession the national minimum scale of salaries they now have in Scotland. I trust that we are going to have the support of all those who are interested in education and want to lift it out of the area of county council administration. I do not say this offensively to county councils.
I represent two agricultural counties, one of them the finest agricultural county in Scotland. There are some able and capable farmers on the county council, but they are much more interested in matters concerning the diseases of animals than in human diseases, much more interested in sheep dip and sheep scab than in seeing that the children of the ploughman are well educated. I have had to meet them in educational administration and may God save the Scottish people from that type of administrator if education is handed over to those whose only idea is that the education for a ploughman's child is an education sufficient to allow him to count up his pay at the end of a month or three months. That is not good enough for the children of the ploughman and the working classes. They are entitled to the best education we can give, under the best conditions. An American once said that it is only the richest people who are able to pay for the worst education because it is only their riches which gives them the chance to buy the worst form of education. Our children are entitled to the best education. Consider the record of the education authorities in Scotland. Our work has practically only just begun, and it is proposed to destroy these educational authorities because they are only 10 or 11 years old. That was the argument of Herod over 1,900 years ago, who set out to destroy the first born in order to save his throne. The idea at the back of the proposal in the Act is that if they can destroy these young administrative bodies of 11 years old it will be possible to hand over educational administration to county councils with their niggardly ideas about education and their determination to keep down the expenditure. I am proud that the Prime Minister has announced to-day that so far as we are concerned we are prepared to save these educational authorities and give them the chance of going on with their work for education in Scotland.
Before the end of this Debate I hope that we shall hear in more detail from a representative of the Government reasons why the whole of the Act should not be suspended. We have heard a great deal about repeal and amendment, but neither is being asked for at the moment from the Liberal Benches. What we are asking for is that there should be suspension to allow sufficient time for the local authorities in Scotland to be fully consulted. I know it has been said that the late Secretary of State for Scotland consulted with the various local authorities in Scotland. I think there is a difference of opinion in Scotland as to whether the areas were really consulted or whether the right hon. Gentleman did not just summon a number of representatives of local authorities and tell them exactly what the Government had decided. What we claim in Scotland is that for a long number of years we have had a system of local government that has worked smoothly and satisfactorily. None of us who have been connected with local government would go so far as to say that there is not room for improvement. We do not believe that the legislation passed by the last Parliament was likely to improve local government machinery in Scotland.
There was, for instance, the question of the parish as a unit. In the counties of Scotland nothing has been of more importance in developing the esprit de corps of the people and their interest and initiative, than the parish as an administrative unit. It is true that the parish councils in rural areas have not a great deal to do, but many of us contend that instead of abolishing parish councils it would have been better to have given them more to do. There is a great deal to be done to brighten and strengthen rural life in Scotland, and many things that can be done only by a statutory body. We have many voluntary organisations doing excellent work, but those who have been connected with parish work realise that it would be a great advantage to have a statutory body in every parish. For instance, it might have power to extend rights of way and to provide recreation grounds. These things are much required in rural Scotland. There is also the provision of parish halls. All these things could be more economically and satisfactorily done by one statutory body than by a number of voluntary organisations whose work is often overlapping.
I shall not deal with education, because it has been dealt with fully by my hon. Friend the Member for South Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood), who is recognised in this House and in Scotland as an expert on education. We have been pleased to hear that there is a prospect of education authorities being retained, but there is undoubtedly disappointment that there is not to be a much wider examination of the proposals of the late Government. It is all very well to talk as the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) talked on the question of democracy. I claim that it is not democracy to limit the representation on local authorities to a very small section of the people who have a great deal of leisure. Undoubtedly there are many people serving on these small local authorities who can afford to devote only two or three hours a week to serving the community. These ladies and gentlemen would be debarred altogether from serving on the new central authorities, which would require a long time to deliberate on the many questions that come before them. Moreover, a long time would be occupied in travelling to the places where the meetings are held.
It is unfortunate that there is to be such a wide concentration of local government in Scotland. It was stated by the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) as a recommendation or advantage of the Statute of last year that it contained proposals with regard to agricultural education. She kindly quoted an extract from the Report of a Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, in regard to agricultural education, and stated that the position was better in England, apparently because county councils could contribute towards agricultural colleges. The county councils in Scotland can contribute towards agricultural education but in practice very few contribute one penny. On the other hand practically every educational authority in Scotland contributes more or less liberally. So the position will not be altered for the better.
With regard to the question of county councils, and the representation on county councils, I am one of those who prefer the form of representation on education authorities, where there are districts and a system of proportional representation. My experience of over 11 years as a member and at one time a chairman of an education authority is that owing to this system we have been able to gather a personnel that is not excelled in any form of local government in Scotland. We have men and women representing very varied interests and possessing a real knowledge and love of education. It would be very unfortunate indeed if these important duties were transferred to the county council. For a long number of years I have also been a member of a county council and, I might add, an efficient county council. As it is composed at the present time, much as I respect its personnel, I do not think that it is a fit body to be charged with education.
Education will not be its main function, as has been stated to-day; it will be only one of its many functions; and if the personnel remains such as it is on Scottish county councils as a whole education will not be one of its most important functions. Anyway we have an assurance with regard to education. I hope, however, that before the Debate ends we shall have an assurance regarding the parish councils also. I believe that the parish councils are the most important bodies in Scotland from the point of view of keeping people in touch with the requirements of the areas and keeping them in touch with what is being done, for the parish councils have representatives on the District Committees, where they meet in conjunction with the county councillors, and there is a constant transmission of information from one body to another.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that the difficulties in the way of suspending the Act are not nearly so real as they would have been four or five years ago. At that period you had a number of rating authorities in Scotland. Now you have only the town council and the county council. I can see no reason why the total sum that is to be allocated to Scotland under de-rating cannot be worked out under the statistics that are in the possession of the Department of Health. If that were done there would be no real difficulty in suspending the Act. Surely, it is much better to suspend the whole Act than to hold an inquiry 12 months hence—an inquiry that will report three or four years afterwards on the whole of the ramifications of local government. It is much better to have things put on a satisfactory footing right away. If these proposals come into operation and if—as I am convinced they will —they prove unsatisfactory and cumbersome and unable to give that degree of efficiency which we are entitled to expect in Scottish local government, it will be more difficult to alter them after they have been in operation for a year or two and it would be better not to bring them into operation at all.
Listening to this Debate and remembering what took place when this Measure was before the House, it seems remarkable to anyone with a good memory that so many statements should be made to-day which do not coincide with the statements previously made on the subject. I wonder whether the change across the Floor, either way, is the only thing responsible for the differences which I seem to detect. As one who gave uncompromising opposition to the de-rating proposals I do not indicate any change in that position. Difficulties have been pointed out to us to-day by the Prime Minister, but, when one analyses what the right hon. Gentleman said, it does not seem to be an argument outside the question of time. The whole of his argument was based upon time, and I cannot help wondering whether this element of time is a reality or whether it is another case of submission to the rotten fungus of tradition, that has brought the House below the average line of ordinary intelligence. In the recent Election, questions were discussed in the open and on the platform and statements were made by all parties that if returned they would see that certain things were done. Now we are told that because someone wants to go grouse shooting there is no time to do what we said as an Opposition we would do if we got on to the other side of the House.
That is the position as I see it, and I am very much disappointed because I cannot understand why it should be decided that at a certain time the House is to have its holidays, no matter what is taking place in the country. I do not grasp the reason for that state of things, especially when I think not only of what is concerned in this Measure but of the hellish poverty which exists in this country to-day. When I am told that a holiday is to interfere with the only machine which can relieve that poverty then I begin to feel that the element of time is something which we ought not to consider. So much for what are called the traditional practices of the great British House of Commons. The ex-Secretary of State for Scotland was very enthusiastic in saying that he was going to stand by the Measure. I wonder why he said that?. The Measure was brought into this House without any consultation of the wishes of the Scottish people and was brought in by an Englishman who had seldom been in Scotland unless he went there to fish after the Twelfth. I thought the result of the last Election would have shown any Scottish Member that, whoever might be standing by the Measure, the Scottish electorate were not standing by it. The voting was definite enough to show that there was no majority in Scotland to approve of what the late Government sought to do, and if the de-rating Measure had been worth it, and had been all that the right hon. Gentleman says, there would have been a vote big enough to send back the people who introduced it, so that they might carry it through. I am awaiting the time when we shall discuss the subject once more and when we shall no doubt get the explanation that the people of Scotland, unfortunately, did not understand how good the Measure was. The average voter in Scotland is far more intelligent than in other places and it will take far more than an election to enable the average individual to understand what is meant by the formula. During the Election I followed the speeches of some of those who were great men here in the former discussions and who talked about the formula and how it would work and how simple it was, but not one of them made any reference to it in election addresses. Perhaps they thought the only place they could use it was in the House of Commons. The ex-Secretary of State for Scotland—I do not like the expression "late" Secretary of State because it has another meaning in Scotland, and I do not want that—complained that there had been no information as to how the things which it is proposed to do are going to be done. He should be the last to complain. When the Members of this House were told that the de-rating Measure was being brought in, what one of them knew exactly what it was going to be, and who could understand the formula even when it had been printed? The ex-Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did his best to understand it and I do not know any one of the Scottish Members who had greater qualifications for getting down to it, but I think even he had to admit a certain amount of failure.
Therefore, I cannot understand why the ex-Secretary of State should complain about having no indication as to how the present proposals are going to be carried out. The Scottish Conservative Members, if they understand the Act, know that the education part is something quite separate from the de-rating or local government part of the Measure. Education is absolutely water-tight. You can place it outside without it disturbing any other part of the Bill. There is no financial connection or commitment of any kind. The whole thing is complete. It was lifted in there for a certain purpose—because the Conservative party saw the continual intelligent growth of Labour support in Scotland on local bodies.
The ex-Secretary of State said there had been no mandate in regard to what is proposed here, but in each constituency which I visited, beside my own, the candidate became more and more emphatic about this Act. Increasing my majority as I did, I know that it was due entirely to two things. One was this question which we are now discussing, and the other was the question raised by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer about the French Debt. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the people of Scotland, if you judge them by the votes they gave, were entirely against the bringing into being of the de-Rating Measure for Scotland. The need for investigation was also mentioned by the ex Secretary of State, but his party, as a party, never gave a single day for the investigation of the Bill which they brought in. Just as they flung in education, so did they fling in the increase to the factors for gathering rents; and when it went to the House of Lords the landlords came along and said: " What about us? Therefore, when the Bill came back here, we discovered another thing flung into it, and that was that landlords holding unworked minerals in their land were to get three-quarters of their rates paid, though those minerals might never be worked.
The whole of these things, namely, education, the factors' increase, and the question of the unworked minerals could all have been lifted out of that Bill, and they would still have had the De-rating Bill with which they started, but they had no intention of running a straight course, and the history of the Conservative party is never to run a straight course. The party that starts off without knowing what is wanted by the people, starts off from the wrong mark, and that is why it came in at the wrong post at the last Election. We are told that the difficulties are such that it is difficult to get any change made in the Act, but why should that be so? The changes that have been proposed are not great, and there is no reason why the whole Act should not be altered. The reason why I am so strongly in favour of an ad hoc education system is that I would never give a vote to take away the right of another citizen outside to vote direct for something that already exists as an institution. The ad hoc system of education is an institution in Scotland, and the reason why no Government should do what has been done by this Act is that, changes having been made in 1918, it is quite well known that 10 years is not a sufficient period in which to realise whether the changes are going to be what the promoters of the Act originally expected them to be.
We have had a question raised about the inefficiency of the members of these education authorities, but that is simply a question for the electorate. We must not take away the democratic right of the people. If the members of the education authorities are not what those who elect them think they ought to be, it is within their power to change them, and I would fight to retain that right. We have had speeches regarding the linking up of education with agriculture and industry, it being thought that if you changed from ad hoc authorities to county authorities you might do something more in the counties in regard be agricultural education and something more in the cities for industrial education. Speaking as one who was for five years a member of an education authority in Glasgow, and specialising in the evenings on what are called technical classes, I know the difficulties in the way of approaching any other public body in order to get them interested, even to the extent of lending a certain piece of machinery whereby to demonstrate to the pupils how certain things worked. I had to go right outside to get what I wanted. We wanted a double-acting pump. We only had a wooden pump, and there were only eight boys in the class, but when we got a real pump that class went up from eight to 80 inside six weeks. If you are going to do anything at all so far as continuation education is concerned, even in day classes or evening classes, you have to keep that thing in grips by a direct authority.
A question has been raised to-day about the permanent official, but do not hon. Members opposite see that those who talk about permanent officials fail to realise that the bigger you make this authority, the further you put it away from the actual sphere of its operation, the further away is the permanent official? The permanent official in the case of the county council for Lanarkshire, in the Glasgow area, means that, instead of being able to act in a direct way, you are all the time going about in the most indirect way, and just as you do that, you divorce all those interests that are to-day directly concerned with education. I think it was the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) who spoke to-day about the human values and machinery, but when you are dealing with those human values you always have to keep in mind the child. Just as you begin with the child in the elementary school, you have to make up your mind that you have to deal with the adolescent until the school-leaving age. The more you make the machinery indirectly in touch, the further away you get from the human element. Whenever the authorities are set far back, and are put beyond the teacher, the human element is detached. If you transfer education or anything else from direct contact the further you get from the real activities of the human element. I was reading this morning a report of an institution where the same thing is taking place; it is taking place in institutions of all kinds. The wider becomes the contact, the further away becomes the official, the man at the top, who only sees heads of departments, and never gets into touch with realities.
I would rather we had been fighting tonight for the total suspension of this Measure. I would have allowed no time or question of policy to interfere. I looked forward, on the promises that were made, to our being able to-day to register the firm determination which we expressed against the Measure. Now we are to be content with one thing—which is something, after all—the elimination of the education Sections from the Act. It means that we shall keep our educational ideals in Scotland, and that we shall be able to concentrate on our education in Scotland as something so real that it must be kept apart, even to the extent of having a special election to itself.
This Act has to be amended, and nobody perhaps realises better than hon. Members on the other side of the House that the Act would have to be amended very seriously. That being so, I regret that the Government have not taken their courage in both hands and tackled the matter at once. I am in some doubt even now as to what action the Government propose to take. I understand that a Bill is to be introduced as soon as possible— " forthwith," I believe, is the correct term—to retain education under the authorities of the old procedure. As regards the other part of the suggestion made by the Prime Minister, and afterwards elaborated by the Under-Secretary, I do not understand when the inquiry to which he referred is to begin, and over what kind of ground that inquiry is to roam. Is it to begin at once, or wait until we have had a year's experience of some of the working of the Act? There are anomalies and inequalities in the Act which will make themselves felt very much sooner than a year has had time to elapse.
The Amendment from this side of the House is by no means a factious Amendment, and I believe that the Members of the Government will realise that. They contested the Bill when they were on this side of the House as stoutly as we did, and they realised as much as we did what are the grave faults of the Act. I recognise that the position has altered by their having crossed the floor of the House; then they were speaking as critics, and now that some responsibility rests upon their shoulders, they speak from a different point of view, and they have to deal with actualities and realities. It has been said that it would have been a matter of less difficulty for them to deal with the amendment of the Act, or the postponement of the Act, now, before it gets its roots deeply into Scotland, than to put off the evil day for a year or so, when it would be much more difficult to deal with. I realise that there must be difficulties in suspending an Act which has been so recently passed as this Measure, but it has not yet come into force; it was only in May that it began to come into force as regards one portion, namely, the de-rating of agriculture. The other portion will not come into force until later in the year.
Representations have been made to me from various associations and authorities of towns and parishes throughout Scotland, and particularly from a burgh in my own constituency. I should like to refer more particularly to that burgh, because it illustrates in a most remarkable way some of the inequalities and anomalies of this Act. I refer to Lerwick. The population is approximately 4,800, and in the rest of the county of Shetland it is 20,700, giving 'a total of 25,500. A penny rate, after de-rating has taken place in Lerwick, will raise £lll, whereas in the whole of the rest of the county it will raise only £68. Hon. Members will realise what a peculiar position that creates. Although the burgh has only one-fifth of a mile of classified roads, out of 'a total in the county of 240 miles, the burgh with one-fifth of the population of the county will contribute nearly twice as much as the remaining four-fifths to the upkeep of the roads—a position which cannot be defended from any possible point of view. When you get an agricultural county like that, very largely de-rated, it is obvious that when any fresh services are undertaken or any fresh rates have to he imposed, the burden must inevitably com on the people of the burgh who are not de-rated. Working out the contribution to which I referred in another way, every penny raised per head of the county population is the equivalent of 7d. per head of the people living in the burgh.
That is an anomaly which it is impossible to defend from any point of view. It is one of the matters which, if the Government had accepted our proposition, might have been dealt with immediately. How soon are they going to start their commission of inquiry? I hope, before this discussion comes to a close, to hear very definitely what it is the Government propose to do: when the inquiry will start, whether it is to be a roving inquiry into local government in Scotland, mixed with the question of Home Rule for Scotland, or whether it is to be divided into sections and one of its sections is to be related entirely to the working of this Act and the other related to the wider question of Home Rule for Scotland. Questions such as these 'are of very great moment to the people who are concerned. The burgh I have spoken of is remarkable, perhaps, for the figures which relate to it, but in other respects it is like many other of the burghs in Scotland. Its business has been efficiently and economically run. It is proud of its traditions and of the way its business has been carried on, and, like the rest of the small burghs, it objects to being thrown in with the rest of the county—brought under the heel of the county, as it were, for the Carrying on of its major activities. Incidentally, in that particular county the majority of the ratepayers belong to the crofter class, who are very largely de-rated and have become merely nominal ratepayers. But they 'are the people who will have the election of the new county council, and it will be the county councillors elected by these people who will levy the rates for new services for which the burgh will have to pay.
That is a glaring instance of how this Act may work, and, from my point of view, it as a very strong argument in favour of the Government tackling the proposition at once, and arranging that such things shall be inquired into and not allowed to continue for one day longer than is necessary. For that reason I urged that the inquiry should be undertaken at the earliest possible moment and directed with the greatest possible energy.
This is not the occasion to re-discuss the whole of the Local Government (Scotland) Act. It has been inevitable in the course of the Debate to-day that certain aspects of that Act should have been more or less discussed, but we do not want to have a post mortem examination of that Act, because not only do those of us who took part in the discussion of it when it was a Bill know pretty thoroughly what are the points at issue between the various parties in the House, but all those Members who fought seats in Scotland in the recent General Election have a pretty general acquaintance with the feeling in Scotland towards the Act. It has been suggested by some hon. Members that there is little or no feeling in Scotland about the Act. I think the result of the General Election is one answer to that suggestion. If this Act, in the shape of a Bill, were to be re-introduced into this House, it would have absolutely no chance of getting a majority of Scottish Members in its favour. That being the case, and it being admitted on all sides of the House that the Act is full of blots and anomalies, I think it is very regrettable, as I said earlier in my speech, that the Government have not taken their courage in both hands and put a stop to it at the earliest moment possible.
9.0 p.m.
Along with my colleagues I took part earlier this year in the discussions on the Bill which is now an Act, and I am certain that on one would have been more surprised than the late Secretary of State for Scotland if something had not been said about the Act. He would have considered himself a very fortunate man if the King's Speech had been allowed to pass without what has been said outside being repeated in this House. Despite his indignation this afternoon, I believe he did expect that if any part of the Act could be suspended it would be suspended by this Government. He knows that from start to finish his Measure received the very strongest opposition from both the Labour and the Liberal parties in the last Parliament. He knows that almost from the first day when his White Paper appeared Scottish public opinion was against his proposals. It is true that from time to time he consulted local authorities in Scotland, but his consultations with them were not a pleasant experience for him. He had some very stormy interviews with the representatives of those local authorities, but even that did not induce him to modify the Measure when it was passing through the House. I believe the right hon. Gentleman deluded himself with the idea that the men whom he met in Scotland were not representative of Scottish opinion, that the representatives of the parish councils and of the burghs did not represent the opinion of the people of Scotland. If he was in any doubt about that matter then, he is in no doubt about it now. He knows the opinion of the people of Scotland regarding the Act.
The depleted Tory representation from Scotland is evidence of the fact that the people of Scotland did not approve of this Measure. We have had many inquiries from the Liberal benches as to what the Government intend to do and whether, if it be not possible to suspend the whole of the Act, they would at any rate suspend the local administration portion of it—and if that had been possible I certainly should have supported it. I am as whole-hearted an opponent of this Measure to-day as I was when it was before the House as a Bill, and I would willingly see the whole of the machinery part of the Act suspended, if that were possible. As a matter of fact, but for the promise which has been given from the Front Bench to-day I should have been supporting the Liberal Members in their Amendment; but I am satisfied with the pledge given by the Prime Minister. I am satisfied that if we can secure for the time being the elimination of the education part of the Act, we can carry on with the other part for the time being. With the assurance given us by the Under-Secretary for Scotland that an inquiry is to be instituted at once into the whole local administrative system in Scotland, and that legislation will come along on the back of that inquiry, I think we can agree to support the position which has been outlined by the Government.
I would point out to the Liberal Members who are responsible for this Amendment that certain steps have been taken to bring the Measure into operation. Instructions have been issued to parish councils to proceed with the winding up of their work in preparation for going out of existence. The county councils and the burghs who are to undertake the additional duties under the Act have also been making preparations. I have taken part in county council discussions where we have considered the recommendations of local education authorities, and I know that a very great deal of work has been done in the direction of bringing the Act into operation. Therefore, I can quite understand the difficulty in which the Government are placed in regard to suspending the whole of the Local Government part of the Act. Of course, there is not the same difficulty with regard to the education Clauses which were strongly opposed when the Local Government (Scotland) Bill was before the House, and over and over again the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked to drop the education Clauses of the Bill.
It is quite true that there was a large measure of agreement in regard to local government reform in Scotland, and, if the Secretary of State for Scotland had confined himself to local government without interfering with education, he would have found a great deal more support for his Measure. I have never disguised the fact that so far as I am concerned I have never approved of the present parish council areas. It is nothing new to hear from the Liberal Benches the defects of the parish council system in Scotland, and the Liberal party took that attitude when the Local Government (Scotland) Bill was before the House. The Labour party are in favour of wider areas in Scotland than were afforded by the old parish council areas, and, if the Secretary of State for Scotland in the last Government had confined himself to that reform, he would have found a large amount of agreement in the House of Commons.
In the last Parliament, the Labour party were quite prepared to support any steps to prevent overlapping between one area and another, but the late Secretary of State for Scotland introduced into his Measure not only parish councils but the Education Clauses and in that way he courted disaster in no uncertain fashion, although by the aid of the Guillotine he was able to pass his Measure through the House of Commons. If in the last Parliament the Local Government (Scotland) Bill had been left to the free and unfettered decision of the Members of the House it could not possibly have been passed before the General Election, and I am sure we could have kept that Measure before the House of Commons for many months. The late Under-Secretary of State for Scotland used his big majority to drive that Measure through, even against the expressed wishes of the people of Scotland. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should be the last man to complain about what the Government propose to Jo with the Act, because the right hon. Gentleman used the power of the Closure most unmercifully. Although the Members on the Government's side have not the same power in regard to the Measure which has been promised, at any rate we have the good will of the people of Scotland behind us in proposing to amend the Act.
For these reasons, I welcome the pronouncement which has been made by the Prime Minister, as well as the additional information which has been given by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not so sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to satisfy hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, but I think he will try his best to do so. I hope they will consent to withdraw this Amendment, and let us present a united front on this question in order to gist this Measure made as much" in conformity with the opinions of the people of Scotland as possible. I know there are practical difficulties in the way. Some of them have been alluded to by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and I know that many local authorities have made arrangements for bringing the new Act into operation. Consequently, anything that is going to be done to amend the Act should be done speedily in order to prevent local education authorities from being swept into the common stream under this Act.
I hope the Government will go ahead with their programme and with their Measure to suspend the operation of the education clauses of the Act. I hope they will set up the promised committee of inquiry to deal with local government in Scotland, because such an inquiry ought to have been held last year before the late Government dealt with local government in Scotland. The late Secretary of State for Scotland claimed that he had the opinion of Scotland behind him in regard to the Act with which we are dealing when, as a matter of fact, he had only the opinion of the County Councils Association behind him. More than once in the discussions on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill I reminded the Government that they had no support in Scotland except the County Councils Association. I can well understand the attitude of that Association and the attitude of the late Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, because powers were being given to the larger authorities, but at the same time powers were being taken away from the smaller local authorities. I hope the Government will go ahead with their scheme and give us a better system of local government than that which was carried into law by the late Government.
This is the first occasion upon which I have known what it is to be in opposition. We know that in the past parties have changed their names. At one time there was a Whig party in this House which subsequently became the Liberal party. At one time we had a Tory party which became the Conservative party. We have now the Labour party in office, but I think in future it will be known as the Inquiring party. Ever since the Labour party came into office, whenever they have come up against any difficulty, they have ended by proposing an inquiry. Hon. Members opposite are to be congratulated upon the fact that in regard to the subject under discussion they have got a little more than an inquiry. I was one of those who supported the Local Government (Scotland) Bill in the last Parliament. Although I was formerly opposed to sweeping away the parish councils, I have now concluded that the district councils which have been put in the place of the old parish councils are really better for local government purposes because the old parish councils were quite out of date.
As I have said, I am sorry that there should be this suggestion of tampering, even in one small way with regard to- education authorities, with the Act which was passed by the last Government. There is no doubt that it was very care fully thought out, and the taunts that were thrown at my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for Scotland were really most unfair, because he did more in regard to the alteration of the administration of poor relief and other relief in Scotland than was ever suggested in the English Bill. He certainly took a line of his own, and, therefore, I think it very unfortunate that this part of the Bill is going to be altered. It seems to me that this Government always run away from what they have said before. Those who were in the last Parliament know that, as we have heard to-day, hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were absolutely opposed to this Measure, and thought it a wrong Measure and a ruinous one for Scotland. If it be such a wrong Measure, surely it is worth taking time to try to get rid of it before it has been in force for very long. When hon. Members opposite were on this side of the House, they were always taking about holidays, and saying that the Unionist party always ran off to shoot, and so on. Where are they going now? [Interruption.] My point is that we are quite willing to stay here and see this matter out on behalf of Scotland, just as much as anyone on the other side, and I challenge hon. Members opposite, instead of having an inquiry, to stay on and go through this Bill Clause by Clause in the way in which they want it amended. We are quite willing to do so —
May I ask if the hon. Member is making that offer on behalf of his party, because we should like to know?
I, naturally, can only speak for myself; I am not a Leader of the party. I ought to add that the taunts I have spoken of as coming from hon. Members opposite came from the back benches, and not from the Front Bench. I admit that the question of time is a little difficult, and we know that the de-rating part of the Bill has come into force, but certainly the administrative part has not. With regard to the question of time, I would like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the consideration which he showed for another place. Generally, the idea of the Labour party with regard to the House of Lords is that it is of no use and never does anything, but the hon. Gentleman pleaded that the Measure would have to go to another place, and it would not be fair to keep Gentlemen there waiting for it.
That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I said that this House would obviously have to pay attention to the fact that there was another House, which obviously could not sit for weeks at a time waiting upon a Measure which we sent to it.
That is exactly my point, and I congratulate the Labour party on showing that consideration for the House of Lords. It seems to me that, if this were such a very bad Measure, they might have offered the Liberal party a little more than the stone which they have offered them, and might at least have dealt with the question of the parish councils. I fail to see why those administrative bodies need to be swept away. We are told that the matter is very simple as regards the education authorities, because that part of the work has not been commenced; but the parish councils also have not yet been swept away, and we are told that there is great opposition throughout the whole of Scot-and to the parish councils being swept away. We hear a great deal of talk about the objections of the people of Scotland to this Measure, but I have just fought an election in my constituency, and only one question was put to me on this subject of Scottish de-rating. [Interruption. ] Certainly, the people of Central Aberdeen are just as intelligent as those of any other part of Scotland, and I am perfectly entitled to speak of what I find in my own constituency. I say that all this talk about opposition is quite ridiculous. Let me quote the figures given yesterday. Out of a total of 869 parish councils, ony 59 have taken exception to the Measure. Of no fewer than 200 burgh councils, 23 have taken exception to it; and, of the 37 education authorities, only seven have taken exception to it.
What about the executive of the education authorities?
I cannot help that, but the figures are extraordinary. Attempts are made on the other side to give the impression that Scotland is absolutely opposed to the Measure, and I am perfectly entitled to say that Scotland is not absolutely opposed to the Measure at every turn. If the thing needs to b© done, why not have it done properly? The truth is that, if you abolish the provisions relating to education authorities and parish councils, you really upset the whole point of the Bill. In Scotland we have always been considered to be careful over the pence, and certainly Aberdeen always gets a name for that; and it seems to me most extraordinary to propose that two sets of bodies should be kept in force, namely, the education authorities and the new county councils, because that will mean further expense, and the savings which would accrue from the operation of the Measure will be lost. I should like to reinforce a point made by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), because a very large number of unfortunate children will fall between two stools as regards medical attention, owing to the fact that children will be looked after by two different authorities. We are told that there will be no overlapping, but there may be much waste, and certainly there have been many cases in which unfortunate children have lost the benefits that they should have had, simply because the health services have not been under one Department. I do ask the Government to consider very seriously before touching that part of the Bill. It does not seem to me that that is going to help, and I think that, if anything is going to be done, it should be done in regard to all administrative parts of the Bill, and not only as regards the educational part.
I have been wondering what kind of speeches would have been delivered by hon. Members opposite if, instead of the present Prime Minister, a Liberal Prime Minister had made the same statement that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to-day. I was very much interested, as I am sure the whole House was, in listening to the comparison made in the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Mathers), with regard to human issues and issues of machinery. Had the hon. Member for "West Edinburgh been in the last House, and had he taken part, as some of us, alas, too often took part, in discussions on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill and the kindred Bill relating to England and Wales, he would have found that there are other issues than mere machinery involved in the administration of this Act—there are very great human issues.
Let me put it in this way. The issues are different, of course, according to the part of Scotland from which hon. Members come. It is obvious that the point of view of Members representing towns and industrial districts, like myself, or the hon. Members from Clydeside, will differ from that of the hon. Member who has just sat down. If we are Members for great cities, we are in the areas the authorities of which under this Act are getting to themselves great new powers not merely to alter machinery but to handle great human problems. But, if hon. Members happen to come from the rural parts of the country, they will naturally have much more concern as to the alterations made by the Act in the administration of parish councils, and especially of the small parish councils. There are parts of Scotland where there are many small burghs, and I have within my knowledge a Division, for which a Member on this side sits, which has within its area no less than 14 small burghs. Such Members will not be so much concerned with machinery as regards parish councils or education authorities or problems which affect us in the large burghs, but they will be vitally concerned with the sentiments ex- pressed in the election addresses and Debates in this House both by hon. Members there and here about the curtailing of the powers of those small burghs. Therefore, this is an extraordinarily complex problem.
I have been reading the addresses—such as I have had time to read—in the elections in Scotland in which hon. Gentlemen opposite were concerned, and I have found a natural cleavage of opinion. It was not a cleavage of opinion, such as I have just referred to, between those who represent the large cities and those who represent the landward burghs, but a cleavage of opinion of those who are in close association with official circles and those who are not. There is a Very different emphasis in discussing this problem in the election addresses of members who are in close touch with the present Prime Minister and of some of the innocent back benchers who were not in the last House and who took the many admirable speeches of the hon. Gentleman and of the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston) at their face value. Let me quote some of their statements. Here is the Under-Secretary himself who is very cautious. We all know he is. We have all admired for many years his armoury of quotations in his paper—some of us as far back as when we were in France, when we used to read it because there was an embargo upon it, like other papers which were equally available. The hon. Gentleman is very cautious. This is what he said:
Is that me?
Nobody would ever accuse the hon. Member of being innocent. They might say he was persistent, especially with a Minister of Labour, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, but nobody would ever accuse him of being innocent. He may look it, but we know him rather better than he looks. It is not to him, but to one of his colleagues that I am referring—the Labour candidate for the county of Dumbarton and the colleague of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I quote this, because it puts in a few sentences what I could more easily put in an hour's speech, namely, the fact that we are not merely dealing with machinery but with human issues when we are asking for an inquiry into the working of this particular machinery. This Member had read the Debates in this House and had undoubtedly followed them closely, or he could not have put this passage into his Election Address. Obviously he did not consult the officials of his party before drafting it or he would have been rather more cautious. He has written this delightful passage:
"Without any mandate from the electors and in the teeth of strong opposition, the Government have forced through the House of Commons by sheer weight of numbers a Measure which completely revolutionises local government in Scotland and by the operation of the Guillotine they have even refused proper facilities for its discussion. The Act, ostensibly introduced to abolish the Poor Law, merely changes the method of administering Poor Law relief, and leaves intact the Poor Law system. It refuses to remove the maintenance of unemployment from the over-burdened shoulders of local authorities, although it is the cost of unemployment which has mainly created the financial difficulties of local areas. It conspicuously fails to deal on broad national lines with the problem of the roads. The percentage system of grants-in-aid to local authorities has been a stimulus to progressive and enlightened local authorities, and its abolition and the substitution for it of an all inclusive fixed block grant was designed to restrict the expenditure of the State, and will, I fear, ultimately lead to the crippling of the further expansion of those social services which are of vital importance to the welfare of the people. The abolition of parish councils and education authorities and the taking of the powers from small burghs and their transference to county councils has been resisted step by step by the Labour party in the House of Commons as a reactionary move and an unwarranted interference with democratic Government."
I congratulate the hon. Member. That merely expresses the opinion of hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they sat there last year, and it is the feeling behind this expression which is expressed in our Amendment to-day. We are not merely concerned with the education authorities but with every one of these major issues. I have been surprised that we have not had a speech from one member of the Government, whom I am glad to see in his place now. I refer to the hon. Member whom we congratulate once more on being a member of the Government, the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. T. Henderson). Let me quote this from the hon. Member—and he will not call this machinery—
"Subsidies for big business and land owners"—
May I ask whether this is not an infringement of the copyright of the election addresses of hon. Members?
I welcome the hon. Member's joke, because it is on his friends and not on me. If his hon. Friends had taken an opportunity of saying from those benches what one reads in their election addresses, I need not have bothered the House with them. The joke is not on me, but on the hon. Member's friends on the Front Bench, and I am quite sure, being good Scotsmen, they will appreciate that the joke is on them. Let me continue the joke: [Interruption. ] I am not now concerned with that. I am concerned with the statement made from those benches, because to-morrow in Scotland we shall be told we are not concerned with human issues, we are only concerned with machinery. I am concerned to point out that under the demands put forward from these benches to-day there are deep and abiding human issues which, if this machinery operates adversely to the needs of the people of Scotland, will adversely affect the standard of living and the operation of the social services to the poorest who live in the towns and villages. If they made their protest against that when the Bill was being backed by right hon. Gentlemen here, how much more ought they not now they have the chance of doing away with this injustice to those who pay rates in Glasgow and Edinburgh? Talk about the meekness of the patient oxen. There are the patient oxen to-night. They are not on these benches. They are over there. There is no word about block grants, no word about factors, no word about the national charge on the Poor Law for the unemployed, no word of all these great things of which we spoke.
In the last Parliament, I was accused more than once of being very temperate in my criticism of the Government because I said if I had to choose between the negative policy of the Socialist party and the de-rating of the right hon. Gentleman I preferred the de-rating of the right hon. Gentleman. I was told I was only a half and half Radical. Now, because we put down an Amendment, not a factious Amendment, but one which really represents, not everyone in Scotland, any more than the Act represents everyone in Scotland, but a great body of serious and capable and important public opinion, we are told we are to be fobbed off with the easiest possible way out. It was probably not in the mind of the late Secretary of State to place the education authorities in the first framework of the Bill. At any rate, the structure of the Bill would lead one to believe, and the statement made from those benches to-day would confirm that belief—I have always believed it—that it was an afterthought, and that the central idea and, as I described it, the idealistic idea of the Under-Secretary, of the coordination of the whole of the health services, led the Government to include the whole of the medical services, including those presently performed by the education authorities.
Perhaps I may quote from one of the oldest and most respected Members on the Government side about Scottish sentiment. I refer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown). He was in no doubt whatever. He wrote to his electors this:
I do not purpose following the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I did, during the course of the election, refer to the Local Government Bill, and especially to the effect of the de-rating proposals in Glasgow and how they would affect us. I am convinced, as many others who have spoken on both sides of the House are, that the Bill was passed without giving the people of Scotland an opportunity of considering it. A more radical proposal with regard to local government has not been made in the lifetime of any Member of this House than the Bill which was then proposed, and which is now an Act. It is true that it was forced through without giving the Opposition that opportunity of discussing matters as we think they ought to have been discussed, in view of the fact that it entirely changed local government. One of the things we objected to very strongly was the eleventh hour proposal —it was even later than that—when the right hon. Gentleman took an Amendment on the Paper and changed it into a Government Amendment of the Bill itself. It was the proposal with regard to giving the factors power to go before the sheriff and obtain the right to increase the rates. We protested against that. The late Secretary of State will remember that, in his zeal for well-doing, he refused to give an opportunity for discussion and immediately guillotined the proposal without our ever getting any time even to consider it. Apart from that altogether, he explained that he had the support of the authorities of Scotland.
I do not think that that is quite a correct description. He will remember that, in the first place, the authorities of the leading municipalities in Scotland without exception—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen—protested against the Bill, and, as far as the de-rating proposals were concerned, objected to them in their entirety, because of the unjust alterations that were being made with regard to rating. He managed to solve that problem by completely changing the conditions which he had originally placed in the Bill. Therefore, he got Glasgow, Edinburgh and the other places to accept the Bill. I think that it will be agreed that large corporations in every way, whether they are gigantic trusts or whether they are cities or States, have somehow or another a tremendous desire gradually to acquire and swallow their neighbours. Wherever you go you find that kind of thing at work. Glasgow and Edinburgh, large corporations as they are —the largest in Scotland—still have a desire to grow bigger. They will swallow areas, they will swallow populations and they will swallow local governments whenever the opportunity is given to them. When Glasgow and the other authorities agreed to accept this, they were only following out the natural inclinations of such great concerns to grow bigger and bigger.
I am, as the late Under-Secretary for Scotland pointed out, strongly in favour of the unification of the health services. I believe that if we unified the health services and put them under one authority, it would prove advantageous to the administration in every direction. If we could take the health services away from the parish councils and the education authorities, and put them under a local health authority to administer, we should have promoted efficiency in a most important direction, the direction of the health of the community. The late Government did not do that. They merely transferred from one authority to another authority the carrying out of the administration of the parish council and of education. It would be a good thing if the Government would press on with that inquiry and we could get out of that inquiry such a proposal as would meet, if not with the unanimous support, at least with the support of the great majority of the country, and a proposal that would help to bring about that reform in local government which everyone in this House, without regard to party, is agreed is necessary.
Let me refer to the rating proposals contained in this so-called de-rating scheme. Under the de-rating proposals those firms which are engaged in productive work are to get rid of three-quarters of their rates, the reason being that this will stimulate, industry and help to reduce unemployment. That is the reason which has been given for that change, and for preceding changes. In 1926 there was a proposal with regard to rating, and a change was made in the fating law which resulted in a reduction of the rates upon certain concerns, and in regard to agriculture wiped out 75 per cent, of the rates. In Glasgow one of the main industries is shipbuilding. At that time the shipbuilding industry received a 6½ per cent, reduction in rates, and then came this still further reduction of 75 per cent. with the result that the rates of the shipbuilding firm of Fairfields were reduced from £18,000 to something like £4,000 per annum. Is there any hon. Member who would be prepared to say that that gift to the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company would help to lower the price of ships to such an extent as would increase employment 2 I submit that it would do nothing of the kind. A passenger ship of 20,000 tons costs £1,000,000. If you were to take off the whole of that sum from the cost of one ship, it would only amount to something like £10,000, £12,000 or £14,000. I submit that such an amount of money taken off a ship which costs £1,000,000 is not likely to stimulate the building of ships or to do away with unemployment.
More than that lies behind this. They reduced the valuation of Glasgow. A penny in the pound in Glasgow used to produce £45,000 in the shape of rates. Our rates are 14s. in the pound. Our annual burdens are something like £7,000,000—an expenditure of a State, not merely of a city. The value of that penny in the pound has been reduced by Government action from £45,000 to £41,000, and they have given us in compensation, including the block grant, something like the equivalent of 3¾d. in the pound, so that there shall be no extra burden passed on to the people who are not participating in the benefits of de-rating. What has already happened? Glasgow Parish Council has this year decided to increase relief to the extent of £32,000 per annum. That means practically a penny in the pound on the rates. Then there is the overlong delay in dealing with the schools in the city of Glasgow which are a disgrace and which ought to have been tackled many years ago. The parsimony of the various Governments and the calibre of the men who were on the educational authorities have prevented that matter from receiving attention. There are schools in the poorer centres, in the poverty-stricken areas of Glasgow which, instead of being educational establishments that help to promote health and thereby promote education, are the very opposite. They are places which will tend to develop disease and to affect the health of the boys and girls in the schools, so that they will not be able to take advantage of the education given.
The Glasgow authority, this year, proposes to expend, apart from its ordinary education expenditure, £1,300,000, and that will undoubtedly mean an increase in the rates. That is the result of this Act which the late Government gave to us. True, the Glasgow Corporation will become the education authority and the parish authority. In so far as that change will give us control over the health of the people and the well-being of the people in other ways, it is an advantage; but, apart from that, the Glasgow Corporation will be overwhelmed with work. What is happening in Glasgow is likely to happen in Edinburgh. We shall be told by the late Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that Glasgow can meet the situation by reducing the numbers serving on its committees and spreading the work over more committees, and that by that means they will be able to do extra work, without increasing the burden upon the members. I speak as one who was for some years a member of the Glasgow Corporation and has seen the work grow continually, and I submit that even with the alteration suggested the reducing of the number of members on any one committee and the spreading of the work, the effect will be to overwhelm the members with work and to reduce their efficiency, to the injury of public administration.
I would suggest to the Members of the Liberal party that they would do well to accept the offer made by the Prime Minister, who promised to introduce a Bill. He preceded his remarks by saying that the Government had inquired into the matter and had found that to repeal or amend the Act at this time presented almost insuperable difficulties. To meet the desires of hon. Members on this side as well as the desires of hon. Members opposite, he proposes to introduce a Bill and to leave the House to discuss it. By that means he will give to the Liberal Members an opportunity of suggesting a feasible plan whereby we can rid ourselves of what I consider an iniquitous Act, and one that ought never to have been passed. It ought to have been submitted to the people of Scotland before it was brought to this House. It was never suggested to the people of Scotland until it was introduced to the people of this House. If the Members of the Liberal party would support the Government in dealing with this delicate and complicated situation they would be acting advantageously for local government in Scotland, and helping on another work of almost as great interest as the alteration or repeal of this Act. There are other problems which require solution. I suggest to hon. Members that they would he wise to agree to the suggested inquiry into local government. Out of that inquiry there may come something that will meet with the support of the people of Scotland and may ultimately make local government what everyone would desire, as near perfection as human effort can make it.
10.0 p.m.
I find myself in the peculiar position in that 1 follow in Debate the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. J. Stewart). In circumstances happier than these I used to follow the hon. Member. True, he is now in the seats of the mighty, on the right hand of the Chair, and is in a position to make his voice felt not merely by protest but by means of influencing the Government, but he occupies a seat other than that which he used to occupy when we held converse across the Floor of the House. I think it is a great pity that we do not find him on the Front Bench, now that his party has received office. In the old days, the old gang used to be fired out by the Under-Secretaries, but now there has been a reversal of the normal order and it is the old gang who fire out the Under-Secretaries. I think the Front Bench will yet regret the day when they severed themselves from the ripe judgment and administrative experience which the hon. Member for St. Rollox won for himself by many years of labour in local affairs in Scotland and in the work of this House. I might well have desired his support and advice on this particular occasion.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. M. Watson) said that it was not in the mouth of the right hon. Member for the Pollok Division (Sir J. Gilmour) to complain of anything that was going to be done to our Act. We do not complain. We welcome it. We have convinced the Socialist party of the necessity the desirability and the advantageousness to the people of Scotland of four-fifths of the Act which we put upon the Statute Book, and they are going to support us in the Lobby, and not we support them. I have been looking at the Amendment which the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland moved on the 3rd December last when this Bill was brought up for Second Reading. There are some harsh phrases in that Motion, but all that difference has blown over. We are at one now on the matter. The hon. Member moved: has been made as to its effects and consultation has taken place with the authorities concerned.
Toryism still in a majority in Scotland!
We have the advantage of the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to support this Amendment. We are not at all disposed to quarrel with it. And may I say that not merely do we propose to go into the Lobby against this Amendment but we propose to lead hon. Members opposite into the Lobby against it; and we shall be more than pleased to find them following us on this occasion fresh from the hustings. Jaded as they were with four and a half years of opposition we were unable to convince them of the merits of the proposals in the dying days of the last Parliament. But they have been convinced, they have accepted these proposals, and now they are to join us in voting against any suggestion that representations should be made to His Majesty regretting that no reference is made to the suspension of the Local Government (Scotland) Act until further inquiry has been made. Are hon. Members opposite right? They are, a thousand times right. The Secretary of State replied to a question from the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) as to what protests he had received against this Act. It is true that 23 town councils have protested, but there are 179 small burghs alone. Seven educational authorities have protested, but there are 37 education authorities. Fifty-nine parish councils have protested.
The Association of Education Authorities.
The Association of Education Authorities has no power or authority apart from its constituent members, and the hon. Member knows that if they had thought it of real importance we should have had resolutions from everyone of the constituent authorities. There are 869 parish councils; how many have protested? Have 100 protested? No. Fifty-nine parish councils have protested out of 869, and, only 84 local authorities have protested out of a total of 1,074, all of whom were to be swept away under the Act.
Has the hon. Member taken into account the fact that the burghs have sent their representations to the Convention of Royal Burghs instead of to the Secretary of State?
These burghs, if they really felt keenly about any question of local government, would not send their communications to anyone but the Secretary of State himself. Scottish local authorities are not apt to be fobbed off with associations and office boys when they want to make representations about which they feel keenly. They go to the fountain head, and, what is more, they sit on the doorstep until they have had a draught of its refreshing waters. I am not disposed to go into the unprofitable pastime of reading from the speeches hon. Members made when we were discussing the Bill. I have a reference here from the present Under-Secretary on the Second and Third Readings; and a reference from the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who was a little intemperate in his language at times. I have also a reference from the Under-Secretary of State for India, a precious and freshing recollection, and I have some interesting passages from a speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown), when he broke into a perfect hysteria of denunciation because it was suggested that the Opposition was not sincere in its opposition to the Bill, and every part of the Bill. He is going to vote against a demand for the suspension of the operation of the Local Government Act until inquiry has taken place—
How do you know?
We shall watch the Division List, and if the second vote of the hon. Gentleman is a vote against his Government we shall regard it as a sign of grace; but we do not expect to see that sign of grace. These speeches are past and gone, and I do not intend to bring up all the things hon. Members have said. I recognise, as all hon. Members must, that when in opposition a case has to be put vigorously, but when the yoke of office is laid on the shoulders of hon. Members opposite they will find many very difficult problems on which they will have to take a very different view. I only ask them, as they will shortly pass into the shades of oppo- sition, to take a little more charitable view of other hon. Members and that they will not consider any hon. Member who modifies his opinion as being actuated by corruption or by an intemperate hatred of the working classes of this country. I am emboldened to ask the House to support this Amendment. I was looking up one or two interesting remarks made by a great and powerful newspaper edited with such skill by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston) and sub-edited with such skill by the hon. Member who temporarily sits for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Dickson) an old constituency of mine.
The wish is father to the thought.
The hon. Member knows that South Lanarkshire is a shaky seat. We are both acquainted with the three-legged stool which the constituency represents. The same unmeasured denunciations which are now hurled against the proposals to deal with education authorities were launched against those very authorities when they themselves were set up. What do we find? Do we find that these authorities which are now lauded to the skies as the great citadels of democracy in Scotland, the centres of the touch of the proletariat with education, the bodies which if swept away will lead to a complete cessation of educational progress in Scotland? Do we find that they were greeted with such cries of delight from the Labour journalism of the West of Scotland when they were introduced in 1918? The "Forward" was thundering the same denunciations against the ad hoc education authorities as it has now launched against any attempt to make these authorities committees of the town council. It said:
A question was put to the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Health, as to whether he had any intention of repealing the Local Government Act in England, and he replied quite frankly that he had no intention whatever of touching it in any way. He did not need to camouflage the statement with a suggestion of an inquiry or the promise of a Suspensory Bill to be printed and circulated. He said bluntly that he did not intend to suspend the Act, and therefore it may be taken that the de-rating Act stands and will stand as the official policy of the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] We shall wait with interest to see whether the Minister of Health is driven to suggest anything with regard to the Amendment of that Act, so far as England is concerned. Four-fifths of the Act as regards Scotland is now the official policy of the Socialist party in Scotland, until and unless the famous pledge of the Prime Minister begins to operate. What is that pledge? It would be as well for us to have these things a little more definitely. We look round with interest for the right hon. Gentleman but we do not see him. We look with interest for the Leader of the House of Commons on this occasion, but we do not see him. We are forced then to work on our recollection of what the right hon. Gentleman said when delivering his statement this afternoon and the pledge on which it was based—his statement in the Glasgow speech which he assured us was the pledge he proposed to implement by his statement of this afternoon. " Amending plan "—that is the heading put by the sub-editor of the " Glasgow Herald "—and the right hon. Gentleman said: suspended. That is supported more particularly by hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway. It was supported in a speech of great interest by the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Major Dudgeon), whom we are glad, for our sakes to see back in the House, although for party purposes we deeply regret the mistaken decision of the electorate. In his resounding address to the Liberal Federation at Stranraer on a famous occasion, the hon. and gallant Member had several very interesting proposals to make for dealing with the problem of the local authorities and particularly the education authorities. He said:
Might I suggest that I did not state at Stranraer, when I was addressing the Scottish Liberal Federation, that the new body should be the county council?
The hon. and gallant Member may not have said that, but let me read again what he did say:
"Now it had been transferred to the town councils and the county councils to collect the rates, and they had no financial control either."
Surely the inference from that to the ordinary man is that the body which is going to collect the rates should have some financial control.
Certainly, but I did not say it should be the existing county councils.
It is not going to be the existing county councils, but the reformed county councils under the present scheme. The hon. and gallant Member was only following up what, after all, has been the central idea of the Reports which body after body, Commission after Commission, inquiry after inquiry has made to the Secretary of State for Scot land and to similar Ministers in England. I was listening all through this Debate for the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) to rise and give us the benefit of his opinions on these matters. That right hon. Gentle man, in his day the leader, or one of the leaders, of the Liberal party, who led it when it was small and in a difficult position, and led it with great skill and energy against his present leader—
You were with him.
I had not the honour to serve with the right hon. Member for North Cornwall. In 1917, when I was not in this House at all, but in another place, the right hon. Member for North Cornwall brought forward what was called the Maclean Report, which was a very interesting Report. That Report, which was to reconcile the views of the Majority and Minority Reports of the Poor Law Commission-—one of the most famous signatories of which I see sitting opposite me in the seats of the mighty in the person of the present First Commissioner for Works—said, in paragraph 7: area of that authority. When the head of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, now silvery white, was brown and ruddy and vigorous, and he was in the full flush of youth, in the days that are long past, before we had to address Mr. Sidney Webb as Lord Passfield, the Minority Report was framed, and the suggestion of the single local authority was brought forward as the ideal to which we should move. Nothing was done. For years the thing was considered, for years it was thought over, and in 1917 the hon. Member for North Cornwall considered it, and again brought to the notice of the Government the principle of the concentration in one authority of the responsibility for public expenditure for its area. Nothing was done. The matter went on year after year, and the hon. Member for St. Rollox and others sat upon a committee, and they suggested also that one local authority should be responsible for all the local expenditure for the area of that local authority, and nothing was done.
In 1928, the Secretary of State for Scotland got together all these Reports; he thought that it was time something was done with them. He issued a White Paper, which was considered by all the local authorities of Scotland. He issued a further White Paper in August; he had interviews; he discussed matters with deputations through the middle of that summer; the Bill was brought in on the 3rd December; the Debates went on through December, January, February, March, and April, and in May the Royal Assent was given to that Bill. Yet hon. Members below the Gangway say, " Stop, look, listen! This is too quick, too rapid. This revolutionary rate of progress is a very serious thing; there must be an Amendment to the Address; there must be further inquiry; we must look deeper into the matter. Let us start again, let us have another majority and minority report, let us have another Maclean committee; we have the right hon. Gentleman back with us. Let us have another report of the Consultative Council, let another 20 years elapse, and then we shall be able to start on the whole process once again." Is this really the time to start again on these interminable inquiries? Surely, if any question has been inquired into, it is this question; if any question has been con- sidered, it is this question; if there be any matter which is ripe for a decision by Parliament, not merely by the jaded last Parliament in the remaining days of its life, but by this fresh Parliament, newly brought from the hustings, it is this question.
Let us have done with this interminable grinding and regrinding of outworn problems, and let us settle this problem here and now, and pass on to the newer and fresher problems which are urgently needing consideration. We are against the inquiry proposed by the right hon. Gentleman; we are against the Bill which he proposes to print and to circulate, although he does not propose to press it upon the attention of the House. We are opposed to the Measure which he has adumbrated, and we will offer it the most definite and uncompromising resistance. We can do no other. We believe quite firmly that the proposals which we brought forward were for the good of Scotland, and we believe that four-fifths of them have commended themselves to the people of Scotland. It is not proposed to touch them; they are to be allowed to operate, although it is proposed to inquire into them. With regard to the question of the ad hoc or ad omnia education authority, opinion, medical opinion at any rate, is agreed that the unification of the health services should take place; and many are agreed that the control of finance by the central financing body should take place. Take away the control of finance, and take away the health services, and what is left of this ad hoc authority which we propose to put under the authority of an ad omnia body? We say that the decision has been made and that all the inquiries have been held; let us, at any rate, try what can be done under the new system which is now suggested. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman weaken on it. Do not let him bring forward as a sop to occasional bodies of opinion in this House the suggestion of starting once more on the dreary process of inquiry and counter inquiry, evidence and counter evidence, and. nothing being done. Let him stand up to the position. We, at any rate, are prepared to vote with the Government on this occasion. We have no hesitation in voting down this suggestion for susupending the whole of the Act, and, furthermore, we say that when the pro- posal to take out some of the provisions of the Act comes forward we shall meet it with the same uncompromising opposition.
I am sure the House must have enjoyed the light comedy of which the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) is a past master, especially in view of the fact that his Measure cost his Government so many seats in the course of the last General Election. I would, however, like to bring back the House to the question before us. We are not discussing today whether non ad hoc or ad hoc administration is the best. That will come before the House when we produce our Bill. To-day the real discussion is whether small burghs, parish councils and education authorities should be taken out of this Act. The attitude of myself and my Scottish colleagues towards the Act is well known. We opposed it, and did our best, both inside and outside the House, to defeat it, but the state of parties in the House then was such that all our efforts to secure the rejection of the Bill, or even its amendment in any material particular, were unavailing. Therefore, when we come to consider the course we can pursue, we approach the question with no friendly feelings towards the Bill.
If I am to judge by the communications which continue to reach me, and by the large number of personal representations which have been made to me, the following suggestions fall to be considered. First, there is the suggestion for the repeal of the Act; second, the suspension of its operations pending inquiry; third, its amendment so as to restore certain functions to the small burghs; and, fourth, the removal of education from its purview and the retention of the existing ad hoc authorities until an inquiry can be held. As has already been pointed out by the Prime Minister, by the Under-Secretary of State and others taking part in the discussion, we have carefully considered the situation in the light of the limitations of Parliamentary time before the Recess, by which time this question must be disposed of, and we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the last suggestion only is practicable.
I propose to indicate very briefly some of the main considerations which have led us to that conclusion. We have already been told by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that the de-rating provisions have been given effect to in certain respects, and the assessors have to make up the valuation rolls by the 15th of August. If we were to carry out the effect of the Amendment to the Gracious Speech we should certainly create a very difficult position indeed in Scotland industrially as well as from the point of view of agriculture. Moreover, the proposals of the Act involve a new valuation in order to give effect to de-rating, and those arrangements are now well advanced. Consequently, the suspension of the Local Government provisions might lose for Scotland new Exchequer money amounting to nearly £1,000,000 per annum and would come up against one of our national characteristics. I am quite certain that our English and Welsh colleagues would not expect us to run that risk. To retain that money for Scotland statutory provision would have to be made for the distribution of the new money and a good deal of controversy might be expected to arise over such a matter.
In this way a large amount of time would be taken up. If these financial advantages were interfered with, the ratepayers would lose considerably in many areas in Scotland which are much in need of financial assistance. Administrative action has already been taken to bring the Act into operation and much has to be done in the brief period that remains. Consequently a suspensory or repeal Bill designed to save either the parish councils or small burghs would have to be passed without delay, and it could not stand over until the Autumn Session. Such a Bill would not be simple in its application because of its financial complications. It would most certainly be highly controversial and it would be almost impossible to pass such a Bill into law before Parliament rises.
There remains the question whether the Act could, in the time available, be amended so as to retain for the councils of the small burghs the more important functions which under the Act are transferred to the reconstituted county councils. As regards this possibility we are faced by the fact that the financial structure of the Act is based upon the transfer of these functions and any action on this line would necessarily involve an extensive readjustment of the financial arrangements and a remodelling of the administrative provisions. Of course, a Measure of that description would require much time in its preparation and could not be speedily passed. In the meantime the local authorities are in course of framing their budgets on the footing that the local government changes are to take effect as contemplated by the Act. Notwithstanding all the arguments used by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove to cover up the responsibility of his own Government, the responsibility for the Act must rest upon the late Government, which elected to pass the Act at such a time and in such a form as rendered it practically impossible to suspend or amend it in the time available, unless to the limited extent which we have already proposed to the House.
Having disposed of what I think cannot be done, I now come to what may be practicable. Suspension confined to education is a practicable measure, provided that such suspension is definitely effected before the Autumn, and the Government have decided upon it. There will be no serious disturbance of the finances of the Act thereby, and the existing education authorities, which it is admitted on all hands have done excellent work, will simply continue their activities as at present. Certain arrangements as to the method by which they obtain their local revenue from the rating authority will be left, but these present no substantial difficulties, and have, as a matter of fact, been provided for in the Bill which it is proposed to introduce. The proposed constitution of the new county councils will have to be revised, since representation from the larger burghs for the purpose of educational administration will no longer be required. As to co-ordination of effort on health and relief services, I see no reason why this should not be secured by co-operation between the local authorities concerned, as it has been in the past. In fact, the threat to the life of the education authorities should be a warning to them that such co-operation is vital if their independent existence is to be fully justified. We are not proposing to repeal the educational provisions, but only to suspend them, in order that time may be given for careful inquiry into all the aspects of this most important problem of the local administration of Scottish education. I can assure hon. Members opposite that a fair hearing will be given to all the arguments, and that nothing can be lost by the arrangement we are proposing. We feel that it is only right that we as a Government should have time to look round a problem on which we feel that a great principle—the ad hoc principle in Scottish education, sanctioned by the success of no less than 57 years—is at stake.
Much has been said of the defeat of the late Government. While I am prepared to concede the point that the Scottish local government proposals were among the chief factors contributing to their defeat in Scotland, I do not believe that they were the main factor. I believe one requires to look in other directions for the main causes of the defeat of the late Government. I believe that their inactivity so far as the problem of unemployment is concerned was the main cause of their defeat. An hon. Member speaking from the Tory Benches to-night stated that the party who now sit on this side of the House had, so far as he could see, developed into a party of inquiry. All I want to say regarding that is that it is better to be a Government of inquiry than to act without any inquiry at all, as was done by the late Tory Government. There is no doubt whatever that in introducing their Bill they acted without any reference to Scottish opinion, and without any inquiry as far as education is concerned.
I want to deal with another point put by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin grove. He said that inquiry had been made. I challenge that statement as far as education is concerned; it was done without inquiry. If we are a party
of inquirers, that is better than taking such action as was taken by the late Government without any inquiry at all being held into that matter. Then the hon. and gallant Member referred to the number of local authorities who had sent in protests against the Act, calling for its repeal, amendment or suspension. He stated that there had been protests from 23 town councils, 7 education authorities, 59 parish councils and 2 other bodies which included the Association of Education Authorities. He sought to make light of the number who had protested, which was 115, if one includes representations for repeal, suspension or partial suspension, and said it was small in comparison with the total number. I should like to put the opposite side to him. How many of these local authorities sent in resolutions approving of the Bill which has become an Act? I think that he could count those resolutions on the fingers of one hand. The responsibility for this Act must rest on the shoulders of the hon. and gallant Member and his party. Whatever the disabilities of the Act are —and we are quite conscious of them— the responsibility must rest on the Tory party.
There is, in the time left at our disposal, only one alteration that it will be possible for us to make. I hope the Liberal party will be satisfied that we are doing the best that can be done under the circumstances if the other legislation that must be got through before the Recess is to have a chance of finding its way on to the Statute Book. I hope they will see their way to withdraw the Amendment.
Question put, "That these words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 374.
Division No. 2.] AYES [10.58 p.m. Aske, Sir Robert Granville, E. Mander, Geoffrey le M. Birkett, W. Norman Gray, Milner Millar, J. D. Blindell, James Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Morris, Rhys Hopkins Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Burgin, Dr. E. L. Harbord, A. Nathan, Major H. L. Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Harris, Percy A. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Hore Belisha, Leslie Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint) Peters, Dr. Sidney John Elmley, Viscount Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pybus, Percy John Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Foot, Isaac Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Rothschild, James L. Do George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car' vn) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Scott, James Glassey, A. E. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Scrymgeour, E. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) TELLERS FOR THE AYES — Simon, E. D.(Manch'ter, Withington) White, H. G. Sir Willi m Edge and Dr. Hunter. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
NOES Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cove, William G. Horrabin, J. F. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Cranbourne, Viscount Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Albery, Irving James Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Daggar, George Isaacs, George Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Dalkeith, Earl of Iveagh, Countess of Alpass, J. H. Dalton, Hugh Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Davies, Dr. Vernon John, William (Rhondda, West) Ammon, Charles George Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Johnston, Thomas Angell, Norman Day, Harry Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Arnott, John Denman, R. D. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Astor, Viscountess Dickson, T. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Atholl, Duchess of Dixey, A. C. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Attlee, Clement Richard Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Jowitt, Rt. Hon. W. A. Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Dukes, C. Kelly, W. T. Baker, P. J. Noel (Coventry) Duncan, Charles Kennedy, Thomas Baker, Walter (Bristol, E.) Ede, James Chuter Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Eden, Captain Anthony Kindersley, Major G. M. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Edmunds, J. E. Kinley, J. Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Knight, G. W. Holford Bainiel, Lord Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lamb, J. Q. Barnes, Alfred John Elliot, Major Walter E Lang, Gordon Barr, James Fielden, E. B. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Batey, Joseph Fison, F. G. Clavering Lathan, G. Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Ford, Sir P. J. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Bellamy, Albert Freeman, Peter Law, Albert (Bolton) Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Law, A. (Rosendale) Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central) Ganzoni, Sir John Lawrence, Susan Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Benson, G. Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Lawson, John James Bentham, Dr. Ethel Gibbins, Joseph Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Betterton, Sir Henry B. Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley) Leach, W. Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Gill, T. H. Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Gillett, George M. Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lees, J. Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Gosling, Harry Leighton, Major B. E. P. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Gossling, A. G. Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Bowen J. W. Gould, F. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Gower, Sir Robert Little, Dr. E. Graham Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Graces, John Llewllin, Major J. J. Bracken. B. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lloyd, C. Ellis Braithwaite, Major A. N. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Longbottom, A. W. Brass, Captain Sir William Greene, W. P. Crawford Longden, F. Briscoe, Richard George Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Lowth, Thomas Broad, Francis Alfred Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lunn, William Brockway, A. Fenner Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Bromfield, William Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Bromley, J. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Brooke, W. Gritten, W. G. Howard McElwee, A. Brothers, M. Groves, Thomas E. McEntee, V. L. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Grundy, Thomas W. Mackinder, W. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. McKinlay, A. Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Gunston, Captain D. W. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) MacNeill-Weir, L. Burgess, F. G. Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) McShane, John James Butler, R. A. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Malone, C. L' Estrange (N' thampton) Butt, Sir Alfred Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Mansfield, W. Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) March, S. Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) Harbison, T. J. Marcus, M. Calne, Derwent Hall- Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Margesson, Captain H. D. Cameron, A. G. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Marjoribanks, E. C. Cape, Thomas Hastings, Dr. Somerville Markham, S. F. Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Haycock, A. W. Marley, J. Carver, Major W. H. Hayday, Arthur Mathers, George Castlestewart, Earl of Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Melville, J. B. Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Charleton, H. C. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Messer, Fred Chater, Daniel Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Middleton, G. Church, Major A. G. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Mills, J. E. Climie, R. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Cluse, W. S. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Montague, Frederick Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Herriotts, J. Morden, Col. W. Grant Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hirst, W.(Bradford, South) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Morley, Ralph Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hoffman, P. C. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Colville, Major John D. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Compton, Joseph Hopkin, Daniel Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Mort, D. L. Sawyer, G. F. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Moses, J. J. H. Scurr, John Todd, Capt. A. J. Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Sexton, James Toole, Joseph Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Tout, W. J. Muggeridge, H. T. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Townend, A. E. Muirhead, J. A. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Train, J. Murnin, Hugh Sherwood, G. H. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Naylor, T. E. Shillaker, J. F. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge) Shinwell, E. Turner, B. Oldfield, J. R. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Vaughan, D. J. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Simmons, C. J. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon Palin, John Henry Sinkinson, George Viant, S. P. Palmer, E. T. Sitch, Charles H. Walkden, A. G. Penny, Sir George Skelton, A. N. Walker, J. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) Perry, S. F. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Wallace, H. W. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Wallhead, Richard C. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) Phillips, Dr. Marion Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. Picton-Turberville, E. Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Warrender, Sir Victor Pole, Major D. G. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Waterhouse, Captain Charles Potts, John S. Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Watkins, F. C. Power, Sir John Cecil Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Price, M. P. Smith-Carington, Neville W. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Purbrick, R. Smithers, Waldron Wellock, Wilfred Quibell, D. F. K. Snell, Harry Wells, Sydney R. Ramsbotham, H. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Welsh, James (Paisley) Rawson, Sir Cooper Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Raynes, W. R. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) West, F. R. Richards, R. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) Westwood, Joseph Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Sorensen, R. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Spero, Dr. G. E. Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Stamford, Thomas W. Wilkinson, Ellen C. Ritson, J. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) Williams, David (Swansea, East) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Wilson, J. (Oldham) Romeril, H. G. Strauss, G. R. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Rosbotham, D. S. T. Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Rowson, Guy Sullivan, J. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Harboro') Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Sutton, J. E. Wise, E. F. Salmon, Major .I Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Womersley, W. J. Salter, Dr. Alfred Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Womersley, W. J. Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Thomson, Sir F. Wright, W. (Rutherglen) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton Sanders, W. S. Thurtle, Ernest Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Sandham, E. Tillett, Ben Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Tinker, John Joseph TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
" That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Supply
Resolved,
" That this House will To-morrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."— [Mr. Kennedy.']
Ways and Means
Resolved,
" That this House will To-morrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."— [Mr. Kennedy.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Procedure (Unofficial Members' Business),
Ordered,
" That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to consider what alteration is necessary in the Standing Orders governing the arrangement of the time allotted to Public Business other than Government Business in order to meet the conditions of Sessions commencing between Easter and Christmas."
Mr. Ernest Brown, Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Donald Maclean, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Lees-Smith, and Sir William Mitchell-Thomson nominated Members of the Committee.
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Ordered,
" That Three be the quorum."— [The Prime Minister.]
Colliery Accidents
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kennedy. ]
I desire to ask the Secretary for Mines if he is in a position to make a statement in regard to the reported explosion at the Milfraen pit, Glenavon.
I deeply regret to inform the House that a disaster resulting in the death of eight men occurred at 10.30 this morning at the Milfraen pit, South Wales, belonging to the Glenavon Colliery Company. All the bodies have been recovered. Five men are in hospital suffering from burns. On receipt of the news the Senior Inspector of the District at once proceeded to the pit and was joined later by the Divisional Inspector. The colliery agent, the manager and the Crumlin rescue brigade had already entered the pit. So far as can be seen at the moment, the disaster was due to an explosion of firedamp. There was very little violence, and the explosion was confined to a small area. Ventilation has now been concentrated on a section of the district, and after the foul air has been removed further exploration will be made in order to discover the cause of the explosion. The heroism of the rescue party entitles them to our unstinted praise. I am also sure the whole House will desire to join in conveying our deep sympathy to the bereaved relatives and our hopes for the speedy recovery of the wounded men.
I regret to say that this evening I have seen on the tape a report of another disaster at Radstock in Somerset through a safety cage opening. Three men have been killed. The same expression of deep sympathy will go out to the bereaved in that case.
Military Aeroplanes (Civilians)
I am sure the House re-echoes the final words of the Secretary for Mines in regard to the disasters that he has mentioned. I rise to call attention, in the few minutes that remain, to a reply given to me during questions to-day on which I would like some further elucidation from the Under-Secretary of (State for Air. The question was as to what the Regulations were for the use of military aeroplanes by 'civilians, and quite properly the answer referred me to those Regulations and stated that the Air Ministry were the responsible authority for allowing this use of aeroplanes when it was satisfied that the public interest would be promoted by the granting of flying facilities. This question arises out of the Prime Minister's use of a Service aeroplane last Saturday in order to get to Durham to take part in a political demonstration. That is the point upon which we should like further explanation—how the Ministry could satisfy itself or the Air Council, which has nothing to do with politics, could satisfy itself that the public interest would be promoted by the presence of the Prime Minister at a purely party demonstration. The supplementary replies of the hon. Gentleman were to the effect that the aeroplane did not go within 30 miles of Durham. I grant him that, but I understand that it could not have done so if it had wanted to, because there is no landing ground there.
The second reply was that it was very awkward for the Prime Minister to be away from the seat of government. But unfortunately that applies to all Prime Ministers at all times, and applies in an equal degree to all Members of Parliament who very often are faced with the difficulty of fulfilling engagements in their constituencies when they are urgently needed here. We are not provided at the public expense with aeroplanes in these circumstances. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman had business which he could not possibly avoid on Friday night, and, further, that he had to be in London on Sunday morning to attend the great Thanksgiving Service that many of us attended. I grant him that. But what I want an explanation about, and what the general public wants an explanation about, is this: (Granted all these things—granted that it is necessary for pilots to receive their training, granted that the expense to the State was not overwhelmingly large, granted that the Prime Minister had to be here on Friday night and Sunday morning—the question to which we require an answer is this in one word: As he had to go by aeroplane, why could he not go in a civil machine? Why did he have to call upon the Royal Air Force to supply him, with a machine, when the Regulations of the Air Force state that they are to be provided only when the public interest will be promoted? How can the public interest in the general sense be promoted by either the Prime Minister or anyone else of any party attending a purely party demonstration?
I hope the hon. Member will tell us if there is any precedent for any Cabinet Ministers using an aeroplane belonging to the Air Force for a party meeting only?
As far as the request of the last speaker is concerned, I think it might be considered wise on his part, and on the part of other hon. Members opposite, not to ask for precedents of that character. The issue raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) is the right of the Prime Minister to go by means of a certain form of transport to a part of the country to fulfil an extra-Parliamentary engagement—[HON. MEMBERS: " Party."]—I am quite willing to accept that word from hon. Members, a party engagement, if you like—in order that he might be able to go and return in such time as to make it possible for him to fulfil certain State engagements. I am going to take the position that if there is any citizen of this country who has the right to the use of a service aeroplane under such special circumstances, it is the Prime Minister. May I say further, to the hon. and gallant Member who raised the question that, after all, his indignation is of the " tongue in the cheek " variety, because I am perfectly sure that if a matter of this kind were raised at public meetings throughout the country, certainly in constituencies such as those with which the majority of Members on this side are concerned, the feeling that would be expressed at those meetings by the public would be, "Let the Prime Minister fly if he wants to and good luck to him." I do not think there is the slightest reason to apologise, either for the Prime Minister or for myself, for the action that was taken. The point as to using a civil aeroplane does not cut much ice, for this reason, that if the Prime Minister wanted to use a civil aeroplane, he might have used a dozen quite easily. The question was one of facility and convenience, so as to enable the Prime Minister to carry out certain important State engagements. [An HON. MEMBER: " What did it cost?"] The question of expense is really too paltry to trouble the House with it, but so far as the political meeting is concerned, this engagement was an old-standing one. The meeting was of a county character to which people had come from a large number of constituencies, including the Prime Minister's own constituency of Seaham, and I think it can be left to the good taste and judgment of the Prime Minister as to whether he had any reason at all to allow that meeting to be let down by his non-attendance. As far as the use of the Service aeroplane is concerned, I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman at question time, and it is admitted by him, that the action taken was quite consistent with King's Regulations, No. V9V. It is within the discretion entirely of the Air Ministry and that discretion was used quite judiciously and is the same kind of discretion as is allowed by either the Air or any other command in any part of the British Empire or all over the world.
As a last word, I would like to tell the hon. and gallant Member and those who think with him—and I may say I am well aware of the fact that there is a large number of Members opposite who are rather indignant about this protest being made; it is a petty and mean protest— that they must not imagine that the work and the future of the present British Labour Government are going to be interfered with in the slightest degree by their action. It would require much more than that to prejudice the Labour Government in the eyes of the electorate, and I cannot congratulate the hon. and gallant Member upon, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will not be disconcerted by the hissing and spluttering of a particularly damp squib.
I should be the last Member in this House to blame the Prime Minister or any Member on the Front Bench for flying on his official duties. I think I flew between 40,000 and 50,000 miles on my official duties during the last Parliament. But I think the Under-Secretary of State for Air has really misjudged the position that my hon. Friends take up. We do not criticise the Prime Minister for flying upon his official duties—[An HON. MEMBER: " What about your joy rides? "] I never made a joy ride. I am genuinely sorry that a military machine should have been used to take any Minister to a party meeting, and I am going to suggest to the Prime Minister—I know he takes a very great interest in the Air Force and the develop- ment of flying generally—that it would be much better if, on similar occasions in future, he flew in a civil machine. No question could then arise at all. But it is open to the gravest misconception when any Prime Minister, whatever be —his party, uses a military machine— [HON. MEMBERS: " You took your wife !"] That is just my point. I took my wife in a civil machine and paid for her. I must ask the Prime Minister to reconsider it, having the interests of the Air Force at heart, and I think he will come to the conclusion that in the future it would be much better on a similar occasion not to use a military machine with pilots in uniform, but to use a civil machine, as has been done on similar occasions in the past.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.