(No. 92.) COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 3 July 1883)

LORD BALFOUR
, in moving the omission of the clause, said, that his object was to prevent the application of the Bill to Scotland. He thought it was a very unfortunate course to apply the Bill to Scotland, because the way in 174 which the Bill was drawn showed that it was primarily intended to apply to England, since it proposed to transfer powers now exercised by the Privy Council to the Local Government Board. There might, or might not, be in future a Local Government Board for Scotland; but if there was to be, he thought it would be much preferable to wait until it was established, and then transfer from the Privy Council to that Board any powers it might be desirable it should exercise. The Bill, if passed, would take from the county and burgh authorities some of the powers they exercised under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, and transfer them to the local sanitary authorities. In Scotland, the local sanitary authorities were small bodies, being the Parochial Boards of the landward parishes, and the Police Commission or Town Council, as the case might be, in burghs. He understood that one of the reasons for the proposed transference was that the powers of the Act of 1878 had not been generally exercised. There were at present 112 local authorities in Scotland under that Act, and only 24 of them had put the powers conferred on them in force; but, of the 24, not less than 16 were county authorities, and 8 were burgh authorities. There were 33 counties in Scotland and 78 burghs, and the effect of the change would be, that the execution of these powers in the landward districts would be entrusted to the same class of persons as in the burghs, who had already failed, with a small exception, to carry them out. Anyone who knew what the constitution of a Parochial Board was would agree with him that it was a very unfit body to have such extensive powers entrusted to it as were proposed by the Bill. It seemed to him that the parish was much too small an area in which to work an Act of this kind, and that it was much better and more economically done, and with much less friction, when worked by the county authority. If the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President) said that the county was too large an area, he (Lord Balfour) would reply that it was better to wait until a Local Government Board was formed for Scotland, and then see whether some other authority could not be devised for working the Act. If the Bill in the present state of matters were applied to Scotland, he was convinced that nothing but 175 evil would ensue from it; and, so far from the Act of 1878 being more zealously worked, the very reverse would he the result. He moved the omission of the clause.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
said, that there was a rather general impression that this Bill created certain new powers. Was that so? He believed it simply proposed a transference of powers already in existence from one authority to another, but thought it would be desirable that his noble Friend (the Lord President) should make such a statement on the subject as would re-assure those concerned.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he was glad the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had asked the question, because it gave him the opportunity of stating that the Bill was absolutely limited to the transfer of the powers of the 4th section of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878 from the Privy Council to the Local Government Board. The fact was that a purely sanitary clause found its way into that Act which had nothing whatever to do with diseases in animals, and was entirely concerned with matters affecting the health of mankind; and the proposal was to transfer the working of that clause to the Department which was concerned with all other sanitary matters, without the smallest addition. As to the proposal to omit Scotland from the Act, he had done his best, since the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) last stated his views, to ascertain how the matter lay, and he had quite failed to convince himself that there was any sufficient reason for omitting Scotland. This was a purely sanitary matter; and if the Scottish sanitary authorities wore fit to deal with all other sanitary matters, they were surely fit to deal with this, and they would henceforth be under the direction of the Board which was charged with sanitary matters. He failed to see how the Bill introduced into the other House, with reference to Scottish Business, affected this question. It proposed a Scotch Department in London, but not to meddle with the Departments in Edinburgh; and he had no reason to believe that it would affect anything except the management of 176 Scotch Business in London. It would not affect the constitution or the powers of the Boards in Edinburgh. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion.

LORD BALFOUR
said, he had no intention of discussing what was the precise effect of the Bill just introduced into the other House; but, if the view of the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President) was correct, the measure was of a much more limited nature than the people of Scotland believed. As to the Bill now before their Lordships, he repeated that, if the reason for it was that the existing authorities had not put in force the powers in the Act of 1878, it proposed, in order to correct that failure, to take away the administration of them from the authority in Scotland, one-half of which did put them into force, and to give it to an authority all over Scotland, corresponding with that of which only one-tenth had put them into force.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he would ask his noble Friend (Lord Balfour) not to press his Motion. He thought the proposal of the noble Lord (the Lord President) was a very proper one. His noble Friend spoke about the local authority in Scotland putting the powers in the Act of 1878 in force. He believed his noble Friend was connected with some authorities who had done so; but still the fact remained that out of 112 local authorities in Scotland only 24 enforced these regulations. He disagreed with his noble Friend when he said that the parish was too small an area in which to put the Act in force. It seemed to him (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) that the fact of its being a small area would make it much more easy to ascertain whether the dairies wore in good or bad condition. His own idea was, that these provisions had hitherto done an immense deal of good; and he believed it would be greatly to the advantage of both countries that this Bill should pass into law.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, that under the Bill it was probable that the local authorities who had done nothing would hear something from the Board of Supervision, which possessed means of exercising a supervision such as the Privy Council did not possess.