Clause 4:— (Hansard, 14 December 1906)

§ *MR. MORTON (Sutherland)
moved as an Amendment that the Board should consist of nine members, one to be appointed by each of the following six city councils, but not necessarily a member, namely, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness, and Perth, and three by the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Member said he included Inverness because it was the capital of the north of Scotland. He complained that the Report of the Committee which sat in 1903, and over which the right hon. Member for St. Augustine's presided, was being ignored from beginning to end, and he failed to understand why a Committee which considered the whole question so thoroughly should have its Report treated in such a manner. This was not a mere Edinburgh affair, but a Scottish matter, and it should be treated as such. He had no faith in the gentlemen appointed by the Secretaries for Scotland to these Boards, especially after the experience they had had in connection with the Board of Manufactures, to which gentlemen were appointed—not to do any work but to secure for them some sort of official position. According to the Report of the Committee they did not make good attendances at the meetings. He desired to know what the Secretary for Scotland proposed. Everything had been done in a most secretive manner. Moreover, it was unfair that a Bill of this character should be brought in at the fag-end of the session.

§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair, Forfarshire)
said it was true the Bill did not follow the recommendations of the Committee to which the hon. Member had referred, but it would be found that the Government's proposals as a whole followed in many respects the suggestions of that Committee. The congestion of accommodation in Edinburgh would be completely relieved by the proposals of the Bill, founded largely on the help of the Treasury, who in this matter, he thought, had been considerate and generous. The changes in the Bill would give double space to the National Gallery and to the Royal Academy, and for the latter it would provide a new home. Further, it would contribute largely to provide a new School of Art, and with the help of the Government in this matter, combined with the efforts of the Town Council of Edinburgh and the Scottish Education Department, and the aid of voluntary contributions, they hoped to establish a fitting School of Art in Edinburgh as the capital of Scotland. The Bill proposed to substitute for the present controlling Board a new branch of smaller size and more business-like character, whose duties would be the care of the National Galleries of Scotland and the promotion of the fine arts generally. To the proposal that there should be an element in the Board not nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, but by some outside authority, there were objections which were very difficult to overcome, one being that this was a Board entrusted with duties in Scotland, the execution of which depended largely upon Parliamentary grants. The House of Commons, which contained the only really national representation of Scotland, should have the right to challenge the appointment of any member of the Board.

§ *MR. MORTON
How?

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said the nomination would be made by the Secretary for Scotland, who was responsible to the House.

§ *MR. MORTON
But we shall never get a chance of challenging them.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said the House had a perfect right to challenge any action on his part. But the right of challenge would not exist if the nomination was vested in anybody except the Minister responsible to the House, and it was desirable that they should maintain that principle. The second reason for not departing in principle from the proposals of the Bill was that it was exceedingly difficult to have any equal and fair representation of all parts of Scotland. They might take Inverness and leave out Perth. They might take Edinburgh and Glasgow and leave out Perth and Dundee; or they might include Perth and Dundee, and leave out Paisley, Kirkcaldy—

§ MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)
And Alloa.

§ MR. SINCLAIR,
continuing, said that even then there were counties which would not be directly represented. The principle required that the nomination of the members should lie under the control of the House of Commons, and the facts of the case supported principle in that respect. For that reason they had departed from the recommendation of the Committee, and were unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutherland. He quite recognised that there was great value in the proposal that the Board should be kept in touch, so far as possible, with local and municipal interests in Scotland, and, provided they could secure that without infringing on the principle he had mentioned, he thought they should do what they could to obtain it. What he proposed to do was to suggest to the House acceptance of an Amendment to the effect that three of the seven members should be members of elected local authorities in Scotland. The small Board would be a more business-like arrangement. Fresh blood could always be brought in to keep up the connection with the local life in Scotland, so that the direction of the interests of art might be according to the real aspirations of the people.

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's)
said to could not support 842 the Amendment, and he was not more in love with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. He complained that the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in two important particulars. Under his proposals there would be no direct representation of the Royal Scottish Academy and other scientific societies, and there would not be a National Gallery in Scotland worthy of the nation. Apparently the present building in which the national pictures were hung was to be turned into a gallery, and any idea of a new National Gallery was to be abandoned for ever.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
Not for ever.

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said they were asked to sanction a large expenditure for the purpose of turning into a National Gallery a building which, according to the evidence given before the Committee, was absolutely unsuited for that purpose.

*THE CHAIRMAN
I do not think I can allow a discussion on the question of sites and buildings to go on on this Amendment.

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
replied that statements of the kind had been made by the other side, and he failed to see how he could reply to hon. Members if he was not allowed to deal with the points they had raised. But, of course, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair. He concluded by saying that the right hon. Gentleman had ignored the point of the Committee that there should be representation on the Board of the Royal Scottish Academy and the Society of Antiquaries. He asked for some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in making the appointments under the Bill he would bear in mind the special interests he had mentioned.

§ *MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)
admitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent, did valuable service for Scotland as chairman of the Departmental Committee which inquired into this question. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly been fair to the Secretary for Scotland, because if he allowed for the changed conditions he would see that the present Bill was largely framed on the 843 recommendations of his own Committee. The Royal Society did not now require extra accommodation, as it was excluded from the purview of the Board. The constitution of the Board with which they were now dealing was entirely on the lines recommended by the Departmental Committee in so far as it gave an absolute majority to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Royal Scottish Academy was not directly represented. He did not know what was in the mind of the Secretary for Scotland, but he was sure that any Board nominated by the Scottish Office would include a representation of the Royal Scottish Academy. In this matter they must trust the representative of Scotland in this House. The Amendment was entirely subversive of Parliamentary control and against the recommendations of the Committee which his hon. friend so largely supported. His hon. friend in proposing local representation ignored the county councils of Scotland. He thought the smaller Board would discharge its duties more conscientiously, and that more responsibility would be placed on each individual member. A great deal could be said for local representation, but if it were to come in, the Secretary for Scotland would have a difficult task before him in justly apportioning local representation over the whole of the country. Perhaps they were exaggerating the importance of local representation, and he would give a word of warning on this point, because if the proposal of his hon. friend were given effect to it would only be representation once removed. He knew no form of representation more dangerous and unsatisfactory than that. If they were to have direct representation Edinburgh had a large claim, not only on account of its geographical situation, and as the capital of Scotland, but because it was going to provide £30,000 for the promotion of a new school of art. His hon. friend the Member for the Dumfries Burghs wished the Convention of Royal Burghs represented. That was no doubt a very useful and distinguished body, but it was not specially representative of high art, and there they would have representation twice removed. He saw great objection to a hard and fast line being laid down in the Bill with regard to either the localities or the 844 interests concerned, but there was a strong feeling that there ought to be some form of local representation on the board of trustees. He thought the solution of the difficulty was to be found in the Secretary for Scotland's Amendment. The most important thing to secure, however, was that they should have complete Parliamentary control, and that they would obtain if the appointment were left in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, who was responsible to Parliament. They were dealing with money provided by the State, and it was absolutely essential that control should be kept in this House. If in the past Parliamentary control had not been effective it was largely due to the fact that they had had ten years of unsympathetic government. If in future Parliamentary control were not effective the blame would rest entirely with his hon. friend the Member for Sutherland and others who sat in this House. The Minister for Scotland must be held responsible for the administration of Scotland, and he thought those who were objecting to the constitution of the Board ought not to press their objection to the point of delaying the passing of the Bill. It was wanted in Scotland, and they really got so little for Scotland that they ought to take all they could get. This was not a vital point and he hoped Scottish Members would not do anything to delay the Bill, because if they did, it would not facilitate the granting of any further demands, and he was sure they did not wish to give an opportunity to those who believed that the only duty of an Opposition was to oppose, and who, he had no doubt, would take advantage of any stick with which to beat the back of the Government. However, he did not think there was any real desire on either side of the House to delay the Bill, which was accepted as a benefit to Scotland, and he hoped they would unanimously approve Clause 4.

§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)
hoped the discussion would not be prolonged. At the same time it was fair to point out that whilst they were discussing a compromise, it was not a compromise entirely between the Secretary for Scotland and hon. Gentlemen opposite. He recognised that the compromise suggested by the Secretary for 845 Scotland was a very fair one, and he should give it his hearty support. The view of certain artistic associations and authorities in Scotland had been very strongly in favour of direct representation upon the Board, but there had been a change of opinion on one side among the witnesses, and the view of those most competent to deal with the subject in Scotland had gone rather away from the Report of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and in favour of the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland. He therefore though this right hon. friend's suggestion was the best solution of the question, and he trusted the proposal would be embodied in the Bill.

§ *MR. R. DUNCAN (Lanarkshire, Govan)
said it was a sound proposition that the Secretary for Scotland should be responsible for the Board. He thought it was not beyond the power of the House to say that some of the gentlemen whom the right hon. Gentleman nominated should be representative of art interests in Scotland—who knew art practically, and had given their lives to it.

§ *MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire)
said he was very much surprised indeed to hear the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. He thought his hon. friend entirely misrepresented public opinion in Scotland with regard to the appointment of a Board which was to manage a great national concern. His hon. friend ought to know that if there was one thing more repugnant to the feeling of Scotland than another it was nominated boards. Unless there was a large share of popular representation on the Board the Bill would entirely fail to evoke in a tangible form the national sentiment of Scotland to aid in the promotion of art. In saying this he was also voicing the opinion of a conference of artists and laymen in regard to the main part of the Bill. He would only quote two sentences from the opinion of the conference and begged the House to weigh thorn well— The Bill will fail of its purpose unless it is altered because it proposes a Board of Trustees to be chosen by the Secretary for Scotland—that is, a purely bureaucratic Board—intended to be national in effect. No Bill could do this, especially in Scotland. It is against the spirit of the people. For a thing to be national in Scotland you must take the nation with you from the start and keep it with you. No matter what label you put on it, such an insti- 846 tution can only be truly national if it effectively brings into play the living interest of the nation, interest to equip it, interest to maintain and administer it, and interest to appreciate it. A good deal had been made of the argument that because funds in aid were granted by Parliament therefore Parliament—in the person of the Secretary for Scotland—should have absolute control. But what about similar grants to school boards? Parliamentary grants were given to school boards, but those boards nevertheless controlled the schools, and it was surely a good precedent to quote. He was convinced from the number of opinions he had obtained from artists and others that the Bill would entirely fail to promote art in Scotland unless there was a large share of popular representation.

§ MR. GULLAND (Dumfries Burghs)
thanked the Secretary for Scotland for the concession he had made, although he had an Amendment which he of course preferred to any other plan. He was not at all afraid that his right hon. friend in his nominations would not have regard to the interests of art; but what he had been afraid of was that his right hon. friend might not appreciate the necessity of having on the Board men who really represented the people and the visitors to the galleries, because under the old Board that was the chief trouble. This Board not only had to buy pictures, but it had to induce people to see them when they were bought, and it was to popularise the constitution of the Board that he had put down his Amendment. But he quite appreciated the desire of the Secretary for Scotland for Parliamentary control, and he thought his right hon. friend had met them very fairly indeed in agreeing that three of the members of the Board should be members of directly elected local authorities. He wanted business men, accustomed to business affairs in town councils and county councils, to look after a matter like this, and to be in touch with the people, so as to see for one thing that the galleries were open on public holidays, and also to remove the obnoxious charge for umbrellas and sticks which was made in the Scottish galleries but not in the English galleries.

§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
regretted that the hon. Member opposite by implication should have charged 847 him and his hon. friends with obstruction. It was not necessarily the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and all he would say was that if the hon. Gentleman would do him personally the honour of looking back on the Parliamentary records he would find that a good many years ago he was the only Member who raised the claim of Scottish art when the question was unpopular in this House, and when such a claim was unheard of in Scotland. They had had a thoroughly business like discussion for forty minutes to-day, and he therefore resented any suggestion of there being a disposition to obstruct, especially as there was only one other question of importance raised by this Bill. He regretted this change in the Bill. He was inclined to think that seven was too small a number to constitute the Board. It was not exclusively a question of buying pictures and keeping the galleries clean. They had to look after Dunblane.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said as a matter of fact the Board would only have to hold the funds for Dunblane and would have nothing practical to do with respect to it.

§ LORD BALCARRES
said he did not realise that the First Commissioner of Works had to be responsible for anything beyond its structure. However it was not a material point, though, of course, to that extent he was wrong. But when they had selected three members from local authorities, there were only four left to be nominated from other bodies, and it was obvious that the Antiquaries must be represented on the board, and it was admitted that the Royal Academy must be represented; that rather reduced the sphere from which the right hon. Gentleman could select representatives. If after two or three years it was found difficult, as he anticipated, to get a regular quorum, it would be a very simple thing for the Secretary for Scotland to have the number enlarged. It was purely an experimental number. He thought it would prove in the long run to be too small. This new Board was not going to be an affair to meet once a quarter, but it was to do its work regularly and properly, and in any case a quorum of three was too small for work of this character. He liked still less the Amendment standing in the name of the Member for Dumfries Burghs. He 848 was in favour of a wholly nominated Board, and if the Secretary for Scotland made a bad nomination it was the duty of hon. Members to haul him over the coals. As to local representation, if they chose the three best men for the purpose in Scotland they would not represent local and municipal life. He submitted that hon. Members were setting to work in the wrong way. Each Member representing a Scottish borough would expect his own borough to be represented, he supposed. Edinburgh had almost a right to be represented, and the reason only one municipal or local authority was recommended in his right hon. friend's Report was that only one municipality in Scotland had given towards a National Gallery. He feared they were not going to got a wholly nominated Board as originally proposed by the Secretary for Scotland, and they were not going to get the wholly representative Board as proposed by the hon. Member below the gangway. There was absolutely no guarantee that these men would represent local or municipal life. The right hon. Gentleman could only select from among persons who, at the time of selection, were elected persons. They were to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, but they could retire from the local authorities without ceasing to be members of the Board of Trustees. He appealed to the Lord-Advocate to say whether that was not what was meant by the words in subsection (1) of Clause 4, that the Board "shall consist of seven members, who shall hold office for five years from the establishment of the Board, and who may be re-appointed."

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Thomas Shaw, Hawick Burghs)
said that the security taken in the Bill was that the trustee should be a member of a representative body when appointed, but that his appointment might be for a longer term than five years.

§ LORD BALCARRES
said there was no guarantee, that a man would remain a member of the local authority after he had been appointed a member of the Board. If he did not retire from the Board on ceasing to be a member of a local authority, 30 per cent. of the "local touch" might be lost. The Secretary for 849 Scotland had given notice of an Amendment to provide that three of the members should be members of elected local bodies in Scotland, and he merely wished to point out that that need not necessarily bring about the local touch which the right hon. Gentleman desired to have. He should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had adhered to the provision in the Bill in this particular, and above all, to the financial particular that followed. He did not admit that any local authority had a direct qualification to appoint a member to the Board. Members of local authorities were elected on wholly different grounds. The case was different in England, where local bodies appointed aldermen because of their special knowledge of various subjects. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully watch the experiment which it was proposed to make, so far as the constitution of the Board was concerned, with the view to amending the Act if it should be found, as he rather anticipated, that seven Members were not sufficient adequately to fulfil the duties.

§ MR. THOMAS SHAW
said the noble Lord entirely mistook the feeling on both sides of the House if he supposed that his intervention in the debate was resented. On the contrary they welcomed it. He would say frankly that he thought the compromise proposed was a fair Parliamentary transaction, and one which entitled the House to say it was thankful that the Secretary for Scotland had, in conjunction with Scottish Members and Scottish local bodies, been able to come to a conclusion which scorned satisfactory on all hands. The noble Lord seemed to think that there might be difficulties in obtaining the artistic element from the area of selection. He would simply refer him to two or three municipalities. The municipal Corporation of Glasgow had shown the very highest interest in the development of art in Scotland. The same could be said of the municipalities of Aberdeen and Dundee. Edinburgh also had a good record in that particular. That was a complete answer to the objection that there was not material of excellent artistic quality from which to make the selection. On the whole the Government preferred a system which, on true democratic lines, produced artistic results, rather than to be forced into a 850 selection of people called aldermen, of whom they did not happen to have any north of the Tweed. The noble Lord's speech would not be lost on his right hon. friend in making the selection. He conceived it utterly impossible that any responsible person in his nominations would neglect the existing artistic bodies in Scotland. The arrangement now proposed was open to Amendment on the lines which the noble Lord had suggested, but he did not think there would be any difficulty in regard to a quorum. He did not agree with the noble Lord as to the size of the Board, as he thought it was better to have a compact and proper business assembly in matters of this kind.

§ MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)
said the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division rendered great service to Scotland in this matter in the last Parliament, and none of the Scottish representatives resented the part he had taken in the debate. He had good reason for knowing that the Bill and all its details had been most carefully considered by the Scottish Members, and he thought the conclusion to which the Scotch Secretary had come was a fair compromise.

§ MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)
said he had spent thirty years on municipal bodies, and he knew something about them. He infinitely preferred the Board originally proposed to the compromise which the Secretary for Scotland had come to with those who had been squeezing him for the last two or three weeks. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been left with a perfectly free hand. There were not many people connected with the local authorities in Scotland who could be chosen as trustees. Sir James Gibson Carmichael would make an excellent representative, but he had come across very few who could be suitably chosen in the county councils with which he had been connected. He did not wish to sound a note of discord, or to be thought obstructive, but he wished to express regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not adhered to his original proposal.

§ MR. C. E. PRICE (Edinburgh, Central)
said he still thought nine would have been a better number than seven, because he was anxious to got a larger representation of outside bodies.

§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON
said it should not be assumed that the three largest municipalities in Scotland were necessarily to be represented on the Board. There were local authorities in smaller places from which persons of artistic taste might be chosen.

§ *MR. MORTON
said that nobody could allege that they had had too much time to discuss Scottish questions during this session. This was practically the only Scottish measure which had been brought forward this year, as everybody knew; and when any Scottish Member had to attack the Secretary for Scotland on some appointment which had been made, it was made a personal affair as against the Secretary for Scotland, and if a division were challenged the Party Whips were invariably brought in to outvote the Scottish Members. He did not wish to make any personal attack on the Secretary for Scotland, who was most courteous and gentlemanly, and treated the Scottish Members fairly; but, still, on questions like this the right hon. Gentleman,could by the power of the Government Whips, bring in a majority which could vote down the Scottish Members unmercifully. He complained that they had not had the slightest chance this session of discussing Scottish affairs. He did not see why they should have to attack the appointment of these gentlemen through the Secretary for Scotland. He had been accused of being a simple-minded enthusiast; but his enthusiasm, unlike that of the hon. Gentleman, went beyond the Scots Greys. It seemed to be left to English Members to discuss these matters of Scottish historic buildings, and he confessed that he would like to see a little more enthusiasm among Scottish Members in regard to, for instance, the King's Park at Stirling, which he had saved for the people. He agreed with the noble Lord that the members of the Board of Trustees who represented the local authorities should cease to be trustees when they ceased to be members of the local authority. He wanted to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the new body of trustees, when appointed, would have power to consider the question of a new building for a National Gallery, and the site on which it was to be erected.

THE CHAIRMAN
said that that question was not in order. What they were now discussing was the constitution of the new Board.

§ *MR. MORTON
said he bowed to the decision of the Chairman, but supposed he would have an opportunity later on of raising the point. He confessed that he would have been much better pleased if they had had no Bill at all during the present year than a bad Bill. He thought that the people of Scotland ought to have had more opportunity to consider what was the best thing to be done in this, which was a national matter, and not a mere Edinburgh affair.

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he thought the Committee were entitled to an answer from the right hon. Gentleman on the two points which had been raised, viz., whether the claims of the Royal Scottish Academy and other art societies in Scotland would be considered by the right hon. Gentleman in constituting the Board, and whether he would consider other qualifications when he was making the appointment.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said that all the claims and elements mentioned were bound to be considered in constituting the Board. It would be his duty to inform himself to the very fullest possible extent as to every claim that could be made.

§ *MR. MORTON
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not reconsider the question of increasing the number of the Board of Trustees to nine.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said that the number of the Board originally proposed was seven, and that had been arrived at after 853 very careful consideration. From the point of view of getting a good working Board, he thought the number should be limited to seven; and in that he was supported by his friends behind him; therefore he was very reluctant to make any change in the number of seven.

§ *MR. MORTON
said that that was not the opinion of the Scottish members generally, who thought that there should be a larger number on the Board.

*THE CHAIRMAN
said he really could not let this discussion go on. The number of members of the Board was already decided.

§ MR. BLACK (Banffshire)
thought the words of the Secretary for Scotland would limit the area of selection on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The mere nomination of men who happened to be members of a local board did not secure local interest such as would be obtained if the municipalities themselves nominated the members. He, however, did not propose to divide against the Amendment.

§ LORD BALCARRES
asked if the persons who had served as trustees for five years, and on their appointment were members of local authorities, were to be allowed to continue on the Board of Trustees when, they had ceased to be members of the local authorities.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said they would not be continued on the Board of Trustees as representatives of the local authorities; but they might be reappointed in another character.

§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.),
as Deputy Chairman of Committees, took the Chair, in place of Mr. Emmott.

§ MR. C. E. PRICE
said he wished to express the pleasure with which the Members for Scotland welcomed the Deputy-Chairman of Committees back to the House after his illness. He had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "four" in Clause 4, and insert "five of whom may be reappointed."

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
ruled that the Amendment was not in order.

§ MR. WATT (Glasgow, College)
moved an Amendment to the effect that when vacancies should occur on the Board new members should be appointed by the Board and not by the Secretary for Scotland. He ventured to think that the Secretary for Scotland had sufficient power in connection with the Board, and that in the event of vacancies occurring he ought to allow the Board to fill them.

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would not accept this Amendment. The words which came before them dealt with a casual vacancy. It was necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should have a large range of choice. The lines of the Bill followed the Report of the Committee in this matter.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said that, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, they were following the Report of the Committee upon this subject, and they would stultify themselves if they consented to any change of the Bill in this respect. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

§ MR. WATT
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. WATT
moved that the chairman should be appointed by the Board and not by the Secretary of Scotland, pointing 855 out that the chairman would have a double power in regard to voting.

§ *MR. MORTON
seconded the Amendment, to which he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would agree. If they were to appoint a Board which was to have no power except at the will of the Secretary for Scotland, and to do what he told them, the Bill would be absolutely useless. If a board of guardians could not appoint even a nurse without the consent of the Local Government Board, that was not local control If this Bill were adopted in its present shape they would have the same sort of thing in Scotland by and bye, as the right hon. Gentleman would not always be Secretary for Scotland. Why this selected body of seven could not be allowed to appoint their own chairman he could not understand. If they were not allowed to do so it would be better not to have any Board at all, but to leave the whole "show" to the Secretary for Scotland. The representatives of the people of Scotland should have some control; responsibility and control should go together.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
hoped the Committee would give the Secretary for Scotland discretion in the matter. It would largely depend upon the chairman, at least for the first few years, how matters would go, and it was for the Secretary for Scotland to say whether the men selected for this duty were really the men who intended to give time and thought and trouble to the interests of the Board. He asked hon. Members to look to the future and not to the past and to adhere to the proposals of the Bill.

§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
said the right hon. Gentleman had asked them to look to the future, and that was the point which ought to be taken into consideration. It would be all right if they were satisfied that the right hon. 856 Gentleman was going to be at the Scottish Office for the next twenty years. He thought they might have confidence in his carrying out the Bill in its entirety. But they had to consider how a Tory Secretary might administer it. This was a small reasonable Amendment, and after all there should be some recognition of the democratic principle by a democratic House of Commons.

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said one of the great complaints made against the old Board of Manufactures was that there was no continuity of policy, and it was pointed out that one of the reasons was that they had no permanent chairman. He supported the Secretary for Scotland in this matter, and thought that it was of great importance that the Secretary for Scotland should appoint the chairman. They desired to put the responsibility upon the Government, because by so doing a better qualified man would be obtained. If the Secretary for Scotland had the appointment he would have to bear in mind that the person appointed should possess both artistic and business qualifications, and that his action was a matter for Parliamentary criticism. To secure also a continuity of policy the appointment should be made for a considerable period. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would adhere to his proposal.

§ MR. BLACK (Banffshire)
complained that during this session only three or four hours had been given for the discussion of Scottish affairs and that time was devoted to the question of pupil teachers. Before discussing the Amendment before the Committee he submitted that the ought to have some explanation from the Secretary for Scotland as to the intention of this clause. Was it the intention to appoint a permanent chairman whose duty was to extend beyond the period of the Board over which he presided, or was it proposed that he should cease to hold office when the Board ceased to exist? If it was intended that the chairman should hold office for five years the clause would require an Amendment.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said that briefly the principle that he recommended was that in order that the House of Commons should have full control in this matter 857 the chairman should vacate his position at the end of five years.

§ MR. BLACK
said in that case a detailed Amendment was necessary, namely, that it should not be less than one year.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said that was a very small point which might be left to the regulations that were to be prescribed for the conduct of the business of the Board.

§ MR. MORTON
Would those regulations be submitted to this House?

§ MR. SINCLAIR
No, Sir.

§ MR. MORTON
I thought not.

§ MR. BLACK
asked whether these regulations would say that the chairman should not be appointed for less than one year.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
replied in the negative; the regulations would only supplement in detail the main lines on which the Board might act, as laid down by Parliament.

§ MR. C. E. PRICE
said he entirely agreed with the desirability of the Board appointing its own chairman, and as part of the compromise entered into he would not move his Amendment. His hon. friend had reserved one point, namely, that the chairman's appointment should come up annually for confirmation—that if a man was appointed chairman for a period of five years his appointment should come up annually to be confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland so that this House might have an opportunity of criticising that gentleman if he failed in his duty in any way. He would, therefore, like to move to insert the word "annually."

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
said the Amendment could not come in at this point.

§ MR. MORTON
said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that those regulations would not be laid on the Table of the House, and his hon. friend had spoken of withdrawing his Amendment as part of a compromise. The so-called com- 858 promise was not a compromise with the whole of the Scottish Members but with one or two who had given the rest away. What the Scottish Members wanted was to adhere to the principle that the Board should have the appointment of its own chairman and its own officers down to the office boy. He repudiated this compromise by three Scottish Members. It was quite contrary to what the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate had agreed to at a previous meeting.

§ MR. GULLAND
supported the Secretary for Scotland from whom he thought the nomination should come. He thought the selection of seven men would give him a very good range in which to find a man for this position. The right hon. Gentleman might not appoint the man most fitted to carry through the business, but they should trust him further and let him appoint the chairman.

§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON
said there would be great difficulty in getting continuity of policy unless the chairman was appointed for at least five years, and there was some advantage in allowing the chairman to be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. Only last week this was brought to his mind with reference to a Board with which he was connected. There were six members, three on each side, and the chairman had died and for the whole of the year the business of the parish had ceased to proceed. It took him one hour and twenty minutes to get into the chair, but directly he got there they got through the business.

§ MR. WATT
said he recognised that he had not sufficient support upon this point, and therefore he would withdraw his his Amendment.

§ *MR. MORTON
moved an Amendment to insure that the Board when appointed should have control of the appointment of their own officers. Unless they had the right of appointment they would have no control. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would give them something in the way of democratic government even if that something was only in the direction of enabling the Board to be master in their own house. It would 859 make the Board more self-reliant and more efficient if they had the right of appointing their own office boy even, than if they had nothing to do with the appointments at all.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
thought his hon. friend hardly understood the importance of an Amendment of this kind in such a Bill. By common consent one of the most important offices was that of secretary to the Board. A great deal would depend upon the experience of the officials of the Board. It was essential therefore that the House should have control over these appointments and be able through the Minister responsible to Parliament to criticise them. As this clause did nothing more than give the control which this House insisted on retaining with regard to the officials of all the Boards of Scotland, it was desirable that this clause should be retained. It was not put in in order that the Secretary for Scotland should interfere in the administration of the Board in its own business. There would not be the least desire to interfere with the work of this Board any more than there was a desire to interfere with the work of other Scottish Boards.

§ MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.)
said that what they complained of, as Scottish Members, was an absence of control over the affairs of their own country. The Secretary for Scotland was right theoretically, but practically he was wrong. What he said was that the secretary of this Board would be a most important official and therefore should be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. But, at the same time, while it gave the nominal control to the Scottish Boards working in Scotland, the real control was vested in the Secretary for Scotland instead of, as it should be, in the Scottish people. He desired that the Scottish people should be satisfied as to the true reason for every Amendment which had been moved, and in that 860 regard the debate had done good by showing the whole Scottish nation how its interests were neglected in this House.

§ *MR. MORTON
thought the Secretary for Scotland might rest content with having the appointment of the secretary in his hands, and allow the Board to appoint all its other officers. It was a very dangerous way of conducting business not to allow them to appoint their own officers, and had worked very badly in many Boards in this country. If he (Mr. Morton) gave up the appointing of the secretary, surely the Secretary for Scotland would allow the Board to appoint other officers. [Mr. SINCLAIR dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He would allow no power whatever. That was a mistake, and it was wrong to try and push this Bill through the House at this late period of the session.

§ MR. DALZIEL
asked whether the secretary was to be appointed for five years in the same way as the chairman. The whole difficulty of that would be that, being appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, he would in a certain extent be the master of the Board instead of their servant. He would be able to say that he was elected as secretary for as long as the Board existed, and it was quite conceivable that a certain class of gentleman might make it very awkward for the Board. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in the appointment which he made, would take care that the Board was master of the secretary, and not the secretary the master of the Board.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
The hon. Member need have no fear upon that point.

§ LORD BALCARRES
said he apprehended that the secretary of this Board would not occupy the same position as an ordinary secretary. He would be, so to speak, the adviser of the Board and would assist in the purchasing. He would be what might be called the buyer.

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said the secretary would be purely and simply secretary of the Board, and in every sense the servant of the Board, and he would be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland 861 in the same way as other important officials of other Boards in Scotland were appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. With regard to all minor officials, there was not the same need of care in their appointments, and there would be no interference with them. Those appointments would be under the control of the Board itself.

§ *MR. STEWART (Greenock)
said there was a very strong feeling among the supporters of the Government that their proposals were far from adequate in this matter and that more power should be given to the persons forming this Board. They were willing, however, to agree that the Secretary for Scotland should appoint subject to the approval of the Board or vice versa. That was a kind of compromise which should be acceptable to the Scotch Secretary, and it would give the Board a dignity which they ought to have. If a permanent official were to be thrust upon them against their will, he would become, the master of the Board of which he was nominally the servant.

§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON
said under the circumstances he certainly thought it was necessary to leave considerable power to the Board.

§ *MR. MORTON
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter on Report and endeavour to meet the Scottish Members in some way?

§ MR. SINCLAIR
said he would be delighted to refer again to the practice of other Boards and see what change could be made in the Bill. The hon. Member for Greenock need not be under the least apprehension that this official would not be the servant of the Board. He would also point out that whoever was trusted with the approval of the appointment, the real power lay with the person who had the final say in the matter, and that was the Secretary for Scotland. This system was recommended as being the one which would cause the minimum of friction and the maximum of efficiency.