§ Order for consideration, as amended, read, and discharged.
§ Bill re-committed in respect of an Amendment to Clauses 6 and 19 respectively; considered in Committee, and reported.
§ Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee and the Committee of the Whole House, considered.
§ * MR. SPEAKERruled that the first three new clauses on the Paper standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir C. Pearson) were out of Order—namely:—
§
(Complaint to Sheriff on question of chargeability.)
Where relief has been or shall be granted to any person otherwise than upon an order or judgment of the Sheriff pronounced under Section 73 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, it shall be lawful for any two Parish Councillors or for any five ratepayers of the parish to lodge a written complaint with the Sheriff of the county in which the parish from which such person has claimed relief, or any portion of such parish, is situated, complaining that such person is not legally entitled to relief, and setting forth the ground of such complaint, and the said Sheriff shall forthwith, if he be of opinion that such person is, upon the facts stated, not legally entitled to relief, order intimation of such application to be made to such person, and also to the clerk of the Parish Council, requiring them, within a given time to be specified in the order, to give in a statement in writing showing the reasons why the relief was granted, and the Sheriff, after such procedure as he shall deem necessary, shall make an order finding such person to be legally entitled or not entitled to relief, and such order shall be final and binding on the Parish Council: Provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enable the said Sheriff to determine on the adequacy of the relief, or to interfere in respect of the amount of relief to be given in any individual case.
§
(Complaint to Board on question of undue relief.)
Where relief has been or shall be granted to any person, it shall be lawful for any two Parish Councillors or for any five ratepayers of the parish to lodge a written complaint with the Board, complaining that the relief granted is excessive in amount, or is of a kind that should not have been granted, and setting forth the grounds of such complaint; and the Board shall, after such intimation as shall be deemed proper, investigate the grounds of the complaint; and if upon inquiry it shall appear to the Board that such complaint is well founded in whole or in part, the Board may order the Parish Council to reduce the amount or to vary the kind of relief granted as may be specified in the order, and the Parish Council shall make such reduction or variation accordingly: Provided that where any such complaint has been made and disposed of, no subsequent complaint touching the same poor person shall be competent unless either (1) such poor person has in the meantime ceased to be in receipt of relief, or (2) such a material change of circumstances is averred as in the opinion of the Board warrants a futher investigation.
§
(Powers of Board as to assuming Poor Law administration in a Parish.)
When and so often as (1) the total assessment for the relief of the poor in any parish imposed upon owners and occupiers taken together, continues for more than one year to exceed the rate of 5s. in the £1; or (2) the Board, on the representation of a ratepayer or ratepayers who have paid not less than one-tenth of the whole poor rate collected within the parish during the preceding local financial year shall, after due inquiry, find that the administration of the Poor Law in a parish is unduly lax, or has resulted in extravagance or excessive relief, or is in any other respect not being conducted according to the intention of the several Acts for the time being in force for the relief of the poor, it shall be lawful for the Board, by-order, to withdraw from the Parish Council of such parish the administration of the Poor Law therein, and the whole powers and duties of the Parish Council, or any committee thereof, touching the relief of the poor; and the same shall thereupon be vested in and exercised and discharged by such and so many paid officers as the Board may think fit to appoint to carry the same into execution; and the Board may from time to time recall such appointments, and define and direct the execution of the duties of such officers, and the amount and nature of the security, if any, to be given by them or any of them, and fix and regulate the amount of salaries payable to such officers respectively, and the time and mode of payment thereof; and such salaries shall be chargeable on and payable out of the poor rate of such parish; provided that unless the Board shall sooner revoke the appointment of such paid officers, they shall hold their offices for the term of one year from the date of their appointment, and thenceforth till the time of the next election of a Parish Council for the said parish, and no longer.
§ * Mr. SPEAKER, in giving his ruling, said the first Amendment was scarcely in Order, as the question of Poor Law relief was subject to a distinct Statute, and he thought that, under a Bill for the constitution of a Local Government Board in Scotland, it was not competent—certainly not without an Instruction, and he doubted if it would be even with an Instruction—to amend the general Poor Law of the land. Also, the first of the two Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealing with the Law of Settlement should be treated as a distinct measure of settlement.
§ * SIR C. J. PEARSONthen moved the following New Clause:—
§
(Saving ecclesiastical arrangements.)
Nothing in this Act, nor anything done in pursuance of this Act, shall alter any right to or affecting teinds or any ecclesiastical arrangements or jurisdictions.
This clause, he said, was taken almost word for word from the Local Government Act of 1889, and was to act as a saving clause in regard to the elaborate provisions with respect to boundaries. He had placed it on the Paper in consequence of some Amendments put down by the Secretary for Scotland on Clause 47.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the Government were quite prepared to admit the importance of the view put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he was advised that the Government would fulfil the object aimed at in the Amendment by an Amendment further on in the Paper.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought the discussion of this question might very well be deferred until they reached Clause 47.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CAMERON CORBETT (Glasgow, Tradeston) moved the following new clause:—
§
(Application of Act to certain parishes.)
This Act shall apply to the parishes specified in the Fifth Schedule annexed to this Act, subject to the modifications and alterations
413
following—(that is to say)—(1) In the year 1898, and in every third year thereafter, simultaneously with the preparation of the Municipal Registrar in a burgh within which any such parish is wholly or partly situated, the assessor charged with the preparation thereof shall prepare, and shall arrange in the parish wards fixed by or under the provisions of this Act, a separate list of the persons qualified to be parish electors within a burghal parish or within the burghal part of a parish; and the whole enactments of this or any other Act relative to the registration of burgh electors or parish electors, including the provisions relating to officers and dates, and to numbering and placing distinctive marks on the Register or list, shall with the necessary alterations of notices and other forms and other necessary variations, extend and apply to the preparation of the said list; and it shall be lawful to object to the insertion or omission of the name of any person in the part of said list applicable to a parish ward as nearly as may be in the same manner, and subject to the same provisions as to appeal and otherwise, as in the case of any entry in or omission from any Municipal Register or list. (2) The nomination of Parish Councillors in such parishes shall take place on the second Tuesday, and the election of such Councillors on the third Tuesday of November in the year 1898, and in every third year thereafter. (3) The expenditure incurred in the preparation of the said separate list of parish electors, in so far as relating to any such parish, and the expenditure incurred in the election of Parish Councillors for such parish, shall be a charge upon the poor rate levied therein.
The hon. Member, in supporting the Amendment, said that as they were thoroughly satisfied with the provision for the first election they might wait for further legislation, as the second election could not take place for three years. But if the provision was a good one, they had better get it in now than depend upon the uncertainty of the future. This proposal, he would point out, only affected Glasgow. There was no other interest that could possibly be touched.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he recognised to the full the difficulties which Glasgow had put forward frequently and with very great ability in different shapes. The two points mentioned by his hon. Friend were, first, that it was important to Glasgow to have a separate list for municipal purposes and Parish 414 Council purposes; and, in the second place, a separate election for municipal and for Parish Council purposes. Both those were got by the provisional clause as it stood at the end of the Bill. But that was not all. He was most anxious, if possible, not to have any exceptional legislation in this Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox, in a carefully drawn Amendment, brought the question forward in Committee, and was willing to introduce into the clause an Amendment to the effect that it should only be for the space of three years. As the Bill stood there was a provisional clause, and during a period of three and a-half years no alteration would be required. He did not wish to go deeper into the case now, but he believed that if such a change were required it would be required not only for Glasgow, but for other parts of the country likewise. Therefore, he thought they had better wait until then. He therefore thought the House would do well to affirm the decision of the Committee.
§ MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this course, which had been so strongly desired by responsible persons in Glasgow. His right hon. Friend said he did not like exceptional legislation, but when there was diversity of circumstances they must have diversity of legislation. It was perfectly true that the scheme of the Bill fitted perfectly well the great majority of the parishes; but when the representatives of the greatest city of Scotland came to them and said that it was absolutely impossible to carry forward the elections by the scheme of the Bill, he thought that a very serious representation indeed. Those authorities said they were satisfied with the arrangement for the first election, but it was not creditable statesmanship to pass a scheme applicable for the first election, but avowedly and admittedly, on the authority of the Minister in charge of the Bill, impossible to work in Glasgow in the future. A very satisfactory scheme had been embodied in the Amendments put forward by the Member for St. Rollox (Sir J. Carmichael), and he would regret very much if the House did not accept the proposal.
§ SIR J. CARMICHAEL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)thought there had been a little misunderstanding in regard to what had been proposed by the Secretary for Scotland in respect of the clause which he (Sir J. Carmichael) took charge of in Committee. There were two Amendments moved to that clause by the Secretary for Scotland. The first was accepted by the authorities in Glasgow, and was embodied in the clause; but the second Amendment, making it a purely temporary provision, remained in the name of the Secretary for Scotland, and was never accepted by himself (Sir J. Carmichael) or the authorities in Glasgow. They were, of course, very glad that the Secretary for Scotland had met them as far as he had done, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had done all he could to meet the views of the Glasgow authorities; but the practical difficulties appeared to be almost insurmountable after the first elections were over. However, he understood from his right hon. Friend that he looked forward, between now and the year 1898, to opportunities for rearranging that machinery; and therefore, as it would be a very formidable task to re-arrange it now and to insert fresh Schedules and exceptional legislation, and as the Schedule would have to include other towns and places which had not yet been consulted, he thought they might do wisely to be content with the assurance of the Secretary for Scotland that this should not be considered a settled matter, but would be reconsidered before 1898.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)said, that what the Secretary for Scotland had said, although conciliatory in tone, was extraordinary in substance. He agreed in the objects and saw no objection to the clause itself, beyond the fact that it was a clause which applied to one part of the country and not to other parts of the country which did not happen to require it. But the right hon. Gentleman said that, although he acknowledged the danger that this clause was intended to deal with, nevertheless there would be ample opportunity in the next three years to do anything that might require to be done. That argument seemed rather an unfortunate one. They might depend upon it that there would be other defects found in this Bill which 416 were not now foreseen, and which Parliament might have hereafter to deal with. But when a defect was actually seen, and nobody had any objection to the remedy proposed, it was in accordance with ordinary business and practice that they should take this opportunity of amending the Bill, and not throw the burden on their successors, who might have something else to do than to rehandle this question. However, if the Government wished to persist in that view of bringing in supplementary Bills next Session, they could not prevent them taking that course. If his hon. Friend desired to take the opinion of the House, he would assuredly divide with him in the Lobby, for it appeared to him that his hon. Friend had made out a good case—one which no one had attempted to answer—and the House ought not to go through the comedy of passing a Bill the defects of which they already saw without amending it.
§ * THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.) Clackmannan,said, that the right hon. Gentleman must surely have uttered his last sentences under some strange mistake. The Government did not admit that there was any error requiring correction.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROh, surely yes.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURNo; certainly not. There was a general rule provided in this Bill for the method of election. That was satisfactory for the first election in Glasgow. But there were two points which, as he understood, were proposed to be raised under the new clause which had been moved. One arose from the supposed difficulty of making conterminous the parish wards and the municipal wards, and the other the difficulty of polling the two sets of electors on the same day. These were two separate and distinct things. As regarded the first, there was ample provision in the Bill for making the wards conterminous in Glasgow as well as in other places. The Government thought that before this difficulty could arise, the clauses that came under notice later, if properly worked, would solve difficulty number one; and as to difficulty number two, that was applicable to the whole country. In Edinburgh they were 417 not unacquainted with this state of things. They had had experience of it for a long time, when the Municipal and Road Trust elections were held on the same day, and no difficulty was found in conducting them simultaneously. If Glasgow had a large population, it had also large staffs and large funds, and if additional clerks or polling rooms were required, these could easily be supplied. The Government thought that the general provisions of this Bill were appropriate to Glasgow as well as to the rest of the country, and he understood that what his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland meant was that if experience showed that the view of the Government was wrong, and if a case for special treatment could be made out, it would be considered. Certainly, the Government did not think that there was any defect whatever in the Bill, and they did not expect any further legislation would be requisite.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)had the following Amendment on the Paper to Clause 3:—
§
Page 1, line 25, at end, add,—
Provided also, that the said Board shall have power to make Rules regulating, restricting, or affecting the deportation of paupers from Scotland to Ireland, which Rules shall be of the same effect as if they were enacted in this Act.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) was in the House when I stated that any Amendment altering the Poor Law and the Law of Settlement would be out of Order. I gather that the hon. Member proposes to give the Board the power to make Rules regulating, restricting, or affecting the deportation of paupers. If among these powers there is the power of shortening the period of settlement, that, I think, would be clearly out of Order, inasmuch as it would affect the general Law of Settlement in a Bill not specially devoted to the alteration of the Poor Law.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWith your permission, I would vary the Amendment, and move simply to transfer the exercise of these powers from the Sheriffs, who, as I understand, now exercise that power, to the Local Government Board. I would move, after the word "Act," to insert 418
and all powers now vested in Sheriffs relating to the deportation or removal of destitute poor from Scotland.The effect will be to leave the powers as they are, but change the authority which is to exercise them. I submit with confidence to the Government that this is a matter which requires some alteration and amendment of the law. For many years persons who had not been born in Scotland, but who have given their entire labour and lives to work in that country, have been sometimes, under circumstances of great hardship, deported from Scotland to the country of their nativity, simply because——
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI rise to a point of Order. I understand that you, Sir, have ruled out of Order the clause of my hon. and learned Friend near me, the effect of which was not in any way to alter the Poor Law of Scotland, though it was directed to give some power of review of the acts of the authority administering the Poor Law. It appears to me, if the hon. Member is now moving his clause, that it comes under the ruling you have just given, and is really on all fours with the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ * MR. SPEAKERIt comes very near, but I do not think it is exactly the same, because, as the right hon. Gentleman has observed, the form of the Amendment on the Paper gave power of review. As I understand the altered Amendment, it refers to the power which administers the law, and which may not properly or impartially exercise that power. The hon. Member therefore proposes to transfer bodily the powers now exercised by the Sheriff to this new Board, without in any way altering the Law of Settlement or any rule of the existing pauper law.
§ * MR. J. B. BALFOURMight I point out, Sir, that there are two separate and distinct statutes affected by this Amendment—the Poor Law Act of 1845, upon which the Law of Settlement depends, and the Act of 1862, which regulates the exercise of the powers of deportation, but the powers of deportation were given in consequence of the law as to settlement. Accordingly this Amendment, in our judgment, would touch that law distinctly, and would, in effect, 419 give the power to the new Board to repeal the enactments of the two separate Statutes of 1845 and 1862.
§ * MR. SPEAKERIf I may interrupt, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not referring to the Amendment on the Paper?
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURNo; I was taking the limited Amendment.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYLet me read the words again—
And all powers now vested in Sheriffs relating to the deportation or removal of destitute poor from Scotland.It simply vests the existing powers in a different body.
§ * MR. J. B. BALFOURThe Amendment proposed to transfer from judicial officers to the Board the administration of a department of the Poor Law. Under the Act of 1845 and the Act of 1862, of course, what lies at the foundation of deportation is the law by which, if a person has never acquired a settlement in Scotland, or has lost that settlement, he is sent to the country where he has a settlement.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYOn the question of Order——
§ MR. SPEAKERThat is not on the question of Order.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURI am quite content to leave it to the Speaker.
§ MR. SPEAKERI quite understand that if any alteration of the Law of Settlement is implied in this transfer from the Sheriff to this new Board it would then be out of Order, but a mere transfer of existing powers without any power to alter the Law of Settlement would, I think, be perfectly consistent with order. Under the circumstances, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman may proceed.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYwas extremely obliged to the Speaker for the ruling he had given. What he now proposed was, he admitted, less satisfactory than the Amendment in its original form. The new Local Government Board would be presided over by a responsible Minister, and therefore it might be assumed that it would not allow the transfer to Ireland of paupers who had been in Scotland 30, 40, or 50 years, and who had given 420 all the labour of their lives to that country, and that it would not exercise its powers in the same harsh way as Sheriff's had exercised them. As the Lord Advocate had said, Sheriffs had supposed that they were exercising a purely judicial discretion. He hoped if his Amendment were adopted that the Local Government Board would temper the very stringent judicial views the Sheriffs had taken, and would act with lenity and in something of the spirit of the times. Nobody knew better than the Secretary for Scotland the hardships of the existing situation. At that very moment the Irish Office had a Bill to abolish the existing system of deportation, and nothing but the great stress upon the time of the House had prevented its introduction. He was somewhat surprised that the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour), no doubt simply actuated by a desire for Order, should yet seek to trip him up on a point of Order.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROh, no. All I desired was that both the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment and our Amendment should be treated alike, and that what was done in the one case should be done in the other.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYwas sorry if he had misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman when in Office always desired that the very great harshness of these Rules should be tempered in some way. As regards Ireland, they had never succeeded in getting from Parliament a single concession in the way of local government, and could it be considered surprising that Irish Members should seize the only opportunity at their disposal to endeavour to secure some amelioration of the laws affecting their country? He trusted that the Government would, at any rate, accept the Amendment in principle, and allow it to be placed on the Statute Book. He would, therefore, move that among the powers devolving upon the new Local Government Board in Scotland should be
all powers now vested in Sheriffs relating to the deportation or removal of destitute poor from Scotland.
§
Amendment proposed to be made to the Bill, in page 1, line 19, after the word "Act," to insert the words
421
And all powers now vested in Sheriffs relating to the deportation or removal of destitute poor from Scotland."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he must at once notice, as showing that in the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman this Amendment opened up a large question, his statement that a Bill was in preparation by the Irish Office for doing away with the transportation or deportation of Irish paupers from Scotland to Ireland, and that the only reason why that Bill, with the large scope which he had attributed to it, was not introduced this Session was the question of time. That certainly could not be said to be the case. This was a question which concerned not Ireland alone, but Scotland greatly, and most certainly a Bill of the sweeping terms described by the hon. Member would not be, and could not have been, introduced without the very fullest notice to Scotland beforehand, and without the Boards and the communities concerned having full time to discuss it, and, if necessary, to make recommendations and remonstrances about it. That the present system was open to amendment nobody felt more than the Board of Supervision itself; but that the present obligation of Scotland to support persons who were not born in that country should be altered from the basis on which it stood at present was a matter which would touch Scotland quite as closely, he believed, as any matter which could well be brought before Parliament, and it would have to be done with very great care and in a manner to satisfy the sense of justice in Scotland as well as to remove the grievance in Ireland. He owned he did not see that the Amendment would very seriously alter the situation. He did not very well see how the fact of the Board deciding the mere detail whether a particular person ought under the law to be supported in Scotland or deported from Scotland would alter the principle on which the law was carried out. Though he would not raise any question of Order, he felt that if they admitted this Amendment they would be having Amendments from other quarters with regard to the administration of the Poor Law of a nature 422 which they would be compelled to refuse. He regarded this Amendment as little more than an abstract Resolution to the effect that the relations between Ireland and Scotland with regard to the maintenance of the poor ought to be altered, and he was willing to admit that they should be reconsidered, but he was not willing to introduce this Amendment into the Bill, because he did not think that it would be of any service there, and he must own it would he rather inconsistent with his idea of the manner in which this Bill, which bad been so thoroughly considered in Committee, should be treated by the Government when it came out of Committee.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 177.—(Division List, No. 214.)
§ * CAPTAIN HOPE (Linlithgow)had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
Page 2, line 2, leave out from the first "Scotland" to end of Sub-section, and insert "and Commissioners, in number not fewer than three nor more than five, of whom one shall be appointed vice president and chairman of the Board in the absence of the president.
§ MR. SPEAKERI am not sure whether or not this Amendment increases the charge. But as I understand it, the effect of the Amendment would be to add to the paid element. If that is so it is fatal to the Amendment.
§ MR. PARKER SMITH moved, on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries-shire, the omission of "three" and the insertion of "five" in page 2, line 3. The proposal of the Amendment was, he said, to add two to the Board who might be unpaid, but who would be well acquainted with local government in its various forms. The definition of the sort of men was contained in another Amendment on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend—namely, that they should be persons versed in the administration of local government in Town Councils, County Councils, Parochial Boards, or Parish Councils. He thought it would be a great loss if such men were not added.
§ MR. SPEAKERIt is not clear whether the Amendment proposes to add paid members. I gather from the hon. Member's speech that the members to be added are not paid members. If they 423 are to be paid, the Amendment would be out of Order. But as the Amendment stands there is nothing to show whether these members are to be paid.
§ MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he could not make it clear by a numeral whether the members would be paid or unpaid. He thought he might say, however, that an Amendment which would follow would propose to add two members who might be unpaid.
§ MR. SPEAKERI think it is impossible to accept the Amendment with the intention of the hon. Gentleman unexpressed. The hon. Gentleman may like to say "three paid and two unpaid."
§ MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, that if necessary he would say "three paid." But the point could be put right by an Amendment on Sub-section 2, pointing out that only certain of the appointed members should be paid, and by words providing that the additional two who were members should be unpaid.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "five."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
MR. MAXWELLsaid, he thanked his hon. Friend for bringing forward this Amendment. His object was to add non-official members to the members of the Board as they stood at present. The subject was discussed at considerable length in the Committee upstairs, and he did not wish to take up the time of the House for long in referring to it. The question, however, was one of considerable importance. The Secretary for Scotland more than once referred to the Irish Local Government Board. One heard a reference of that kind to Dublin Castle with some suspicion, and he did not think that the circumstances of Scotland were exactly analogous, seeing that they had in Scotland a system of local government which did not exist in Ireland. They had heard references to the Local Government Board in England. There was a very marked difference between the circumstances of Scotland and England; because, in the case of Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland was unable to be present for the greater part of the year to 424 take a constant part in the matters which were brought before the Local Government Board. As the matter stood, the Board as constituted really divided itself into two parts—one part of which would be constantly in Edinburgh, and another portion of which would be for the great part of the year located in London. What he desired was that there should be added to the three officials who were constantly at work in the affairs of the Board two members of a representative character. He did not mean that they should undergo any form of election by anybody in Scotland, but he meant that just as the advocate represented the legal element, and the medical officer represented the medical element, so this other element should represent the Local Authorities. That was, they would be chosen from men who had spent a great part of their time in conducting Poor Law administration, or taking part in county or burgh affairs. He thought that in that way they would get a Board which would command greater confidence, and to which the Secretary for Scotland would be able to look for better advice than from a Board constituted entirely of salaried officials. In the Board of Supervision, the Lunacy Board, and the Fishery Board, there was an element of this kind. These Boards were not solely composed of official and salaried members, and he thought it was highly desirable that there should be such an element on the new Local Government Board. He did not think that by introducing two members of the description he proposed they would in any way interfere with the responsibility of the Secretary for Scotland to Parliament for the management of local affairs, because an Amendment was introduced into the Bill which made it quite clear that the new Local Board was to conform to any Orders issued by the Secretary for Scotland. The nominated members of that Board would know that they were there as the advisers to the Secretary for Scotland, and he believed it would strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's hands in carrying on the affairs of the Board when he knew he had men of practical experience to consult and appeal to in matters of difficulty.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he was glad to learn that the hon. Member was not going to oppose a medical officer 425 being on the Board. He hoped hon. Members who originally voted against the medical officer would not be offended when he said that if this was not the most widely popular proposal in the Bill, it was the most intensely popular in certain circles, and had given very great satisfaction to the medical profession not only in Scotland, but all over the country. He was afraid he must, for reasons he had given in the House on the Second Reading, oppose the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The main object of the first part of the Bill was to alter the administrative relations of the Board of Supervision to Parliament and the Ministry. What the Bill intended to do was to create a Board which should be responsible to Parliament, and which should be composed of men who were bound to give either the whole of their time as in the case of two of the members, or all the time that was wanted, as in the case of the Sheriff, to public duties. His hon. Friend said that the Secretary for Scotland would have useful advisers in these two unpaid gentlemen from outside. But the Secretary for Scotland wanted to have advisers who should also be administrators, and his experience was that they could not have able continuous administrators unless they were salaried, and unless they were bound to give their whole time. His experience was that unpaid members attended occasionally and fitfully, and they did not follow out the proceedings of the Department in the manner that was done by those who were bound to give their whole time. They had had enough of this system on the Board of Supervision, and he believed the people of Scotland really wished to see it altered. He therefore could not accept the Amendment.
§ * CAPTAIN HOPE (Linlithgow)said, he was quite unable to follow the difficulty of the Secretary for Scotland in accepting the Amendment of his hon. Friend opposite. If he could have had an opportunity of moving an Amendment of his own, it would have been to very considerably alter the constitution of the Board by making it a strong and an influential Board, such as would command the respect of the Local Bodies in Scotland to a greater extent than the Board of Supervision did at present. It appeared to him that the omissions from the existing 426 Board that were now proposed in the Bill were all in the direction of weakening the Board, and making it a less useful Board than it would have been even if left as it was. The Secretary for Scotland expressed great pleasure at the delight he had given to the medical profession by placing a medical officer on the Board. He had no objection to a medical man being put on the Board if he was suited for the work he had to perform. But he objected to a medical man being selected as a medical man instead of being selected purely for his knowledge of the administrative work which the Board would have to carry out. He looked upon the new Board not only as a weak Board, but as one which would be entirely dominated from Loudon; and he did not think those hon. Gentlemen opposite who advocated Home Rule for Scotland would deny that a London-dominated Board to manage the affairs of Scotland would be the most unpopular Board with the people of that country. The proposal of his hon. Friend to add two members to the Board who had practical experience in the administration of local affairs would strengthen the Board in the direction in which he wished to see it strengthened. He hoped the Government might oven yet be induced to see that the proposal of his hon. Friend would be an improvement of their scheme.
§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)thought this was perhaps the most important part of the Bill. It was proposed to replace the Board of Supervision by a new Local Government Board. The Board of Supervision had done its work remarkably well in the past, and he only hoped the new Board would do its work as well. He did not think the composition of the new Board was such as to give entire confidence to the people of Scotland. There was nobody on that Board who had a thorough acquaintance with local government in Scotland. The professional element was absolutely predominant on the Board, which he thought was a very unfortunate arrangement, and not likely to lead to the benefit of the public.
§ It being half-past Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed To-morrow.