§ LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice to ask the Secretary for Scotland what powers the education authorities have to authorise expenditure for other purposes than the direct advancement of education; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question involves a much larger principle than the actual fact on which it is founded. Some time ago there was a proposal in Lanarkshire to set up a small water area for a district called Hazlebank—a very small area indeed. The cost would be rather considerable, and many ratepayers in the county were opposed to the scheme. I think the total cost was estimated at £3,000. About the same time, the education authority of Lanarkshire proposed to build a new school in that area, and, to assist in the furtherance of the water scheme, they proposed to make a grant of £100 or £150 towards the cost. The actual amount is really nothing; it is the principle involved that has caused me to bring this matter to your Lordships' attention.
1500§ In Scotland our educational system is somewhat different from that in England. There are three taxing authorities in Scotland, the Imperial authorities, the local rating authorities, and the education authorities. In this case it means that all the ratepayers in the county of Lanark will be contributing, though it may be a very small amount, to the cost of the water scheme for this small district. The school must, of course, have a supply of water, but I maintain that the people who are going to benefit from the construction of a new water supply should bear the cost, irrespective of the fact that the children are in their own homes or in a school of the education authority. That is the point of my Question. The ratepayers of the whole county are being asked to contribute to the benefit of a small area which wishes to have an improved water supply.
§ It seems to me the custom, nowadays, to make those who are not going to benefit by new schemes pay for them. I do not know who is able to make a protest against this proposal. The parish council took the matter up and were at once ruled out on the ground that they had no locus standi in the matter. Although they were going to contribute to the scheme they had no power of objecting to it. I hope my noble friend will be able to say something on this point. It seems to me a distinct breach of the principle that those who are going to benefit by a scheme should pay for it.
§ VISCOUNT NOVARMy noble friend will agree with me that the "direct advancement of education" is a phrase capable of liberal interpretation. In a certain sense it may be said that education authorities have no power of expending money except in the advancement of education, but the Legislature has from time to time added other various services to the primary function of education authorities. From a previous communication with my noble friend, I am aware that his Question had its origin in a proposal of the Lanarkshire Education Authority to contribute towards the cost of the water supply in one of the districts of the county. In reply to the last part of his Question, I have to say that the matter 1501 has not come officially before the Scottish Education Department. The Department, however, understand that the education authority have agreed to a contribution of £150 towards the capital cost of the water supply for the district in which one of their schools is situate. There can be no question as to the power of the local authority to provide water for the school; indeed, it is its duty to do so. While the method they have adopted might in an ordinary case be doubtful, the Department have no reason to think that the Lanarkshire Education Authority have acted without proper legal advice or that their action is not justified by the special circumstances of this particular school. I may remind my noble friend that the scheme was passed in the time of the late Sir Thomas Munro.
§ LORD LAMINGTONMy Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for his answer, but I confess I am not much nearer to understanding the exact position. He does not seem to have met my criticism, and he really founded his reply on the fact that the proposal was passed during the time of Sir Thomas Munro. Previous to his death Sir Thomas Munro was a very ill man and, possibly, did not pay the same attention to the case as he would otherwise have done. Neither does my noble friend contest the principle I have laid down that by a side wind they should not get support from the whole of the county towards an improved water supply for a very limited area. That is an absolute breach of a large principle and one which may be carried to great lengths. I know that various other charges have been added indirectly to local education authorities, but I do not think they should be allowed to place a charge on the whole ratepayers of a county for the benefit of a small area. I do not, however, move for Papers.