SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE. (Hansard, 1 June 1911)

§ Mr. PIRIE
I beg to move to reduce Item A by £1,000 in respect of the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland.
I do not suppose in the memory of the oldest Scottish Member—I believe in one case extending over a quarter of a century—that there has ever been anything like the circumstances under which the Scottish Estimates are discussed this year. Certainly there has been some curious instances in the past, but nothing equal to the present occasion. What is the present occasion? We are here, I think sixty out of seventy-two Scottish Members, discussing these Estimates under the pledge that we shall not carry this Debate to its logical conclusion in case we do not approve of these Estimates, namely, to vote against them by going to a Division on any point on which we are not agreed. I do not cavil at this. I was asked to give that pledge. This pledge so far as I understand it—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
That is quite a domestic matter, and has nothing to do with the Vote.

§ Mr. PIRIE
Yes, it has; this day was given to the Scottish Members on that condition, and on that condition alone. I am one of the party who assented—and willingly—and I am only wanting to explain why I did assent to it. I was the only Member who had a Motion down for a reduction of the salary of the Scottish Secretary. Under the very exceptional circumstances, and in view of explaining the whole attitude we must adopt this year on the Scottish Estimates, the Chairman will not consider it out of place—and even I would ask leave of the House that I might be allowed to make my statements—to dwell upon this in order that the Scottish people may have one of the very few opportunities they get of learning the truth in these matters. The conditions of this discussion are so important that they ought to be realised. This year we have a sort of pantomime which is, being enacted. The general public of the Scottish nation may be called the dupes, and we who are the actors on the scene may be called the fools.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I cannot allow discussion of this kind. This is Committee of Supply, and the only matter that can be discussed is the Vote of certain moneys, and not such matters as the hon. Member is trying to bring out.

§ Mr. PIRIE
The only way to discuss this matter is upon the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. If I am not entitled to do so, I can only discuss the general aspect of the Scottish question, and the general way in which things are dealt with in this House. The Secretary for Scotland is responsible. However, I will not pursue the matter now. The only other question I want to discuss is the Fisheries Board, and I shall wait until the Vote on that item comes up.

§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER
I think the interesting speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, which was rather cut short, was somewhat unusual, but the circumstances in which we are dealing with these Estimates are rather unusual. I do not approach the matter from the point of view of the hon. Member however, but it is unfortunate, I think, that we should be called upon to discuss the Scotch Estimates for the year without having in our hands the most important report of all—that is, the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland, which was so 1239 cleverly criticised last year, and which contained accounts prepared and presented in such a way that no human being could understand them. The Lord Advocate promised that if possible they would be presented this year in a more intelligible form, and possibly because of that there may have been delay in preparing the Report. I do not want to make any great complaint, but I say it is unfortunate that on the only important question with which we on this side of the House want to deal, that is the success, or want of success, of the money spent in the experiments made by the Congested Districts Board in the purchase and settlement of so many properties in the northwest of Scotland we should not have an opportunity of doing so.
It is five years since the Secretary for Scotland said that the Board was pretty well out of date and required reconstruction, and as we shall have to deal tomorrow with the Scotch Landholders Bill it would have been very interesting if we had more definite knowledge of the results of the experiments made, and if we were able to decide in the light of the information given us whether the game is really worth the candle. The proceedings of this day, therefore, are shorn of much of their interests for us. We have a sort of trooping of the thistle. It may be a very interesting performance, not so impressive or picturesque as the one of last Saturday, which, by the courtesy of my hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, I saw very comfortably from the Scotch Office window. I think it is very unfortunate that our Scottish business should be arranged as it is. I quite recognise that there is a desire on the part of everybody to deal with the question that comes up for discussion tomorrow, and I hope some good result will follow. But I think some time might have been found for that without calling upon Scottish Members to remain in this benighted spot when everybody else is gone. We are left to pirouette in these two days in this hot weather in an atmosphere of which we are sick. The position is not a very dignified or a satisfactory one.
With regard to the general position of Scotch Estimates, I do not think that we on this side desire to raise many important questions. The only question which I desire to discuss, namely, the Congested Districts Board, is one which I am unable to discuss, and it would not be quite fair to ask the Lord Advocate to deal with many questions which the Report of the 1240 Board will contain, because I do not suppose that he is in a position to do so, or that he could give us any comprehensive view of the situation as it obtains at the present moment. On other questions I do not know that I have much to say. We have felt, of course, that Scotland is seriously handicapped from the educational point of view in connection with the superannuation scheme of teachers, and while this House I understand is quite ready to vote an expenditure of one and a-quarter million for labourers' cottages in Ireland it seems always difficult to get a miserable pittance for Scotland, whether we think she deserves it or not. Whether it is possible with discussion in this House to enable the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland to deal more successfully with the Treasury than up to now they have been able to do, I cannot say. But on both sides of the House there is an intense desire that there should be an increase in the grant for educational purposes. I have not risen to discuss anything in particular, but simply to make a protest against the position in which Scottish business is placed this year, and I hope we shall not again be asked to deal with Scottish Estimates while being left in perfect ignorance on the most important subject which we desire to discuss.

Mr. CATHCART WASON
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman opposite should have taken upon himself to somewhat severely criticise the Congested Districts Board for Scotland, because from personal knowledge of that Board and the work it has done in Scotland, I think it is the only one bright and shining light in the whole of our Scottish administration. The work that Board has done through the Highlands and Islands of Scotland ever since its inception a good many years ago is simply marvellous. The piers they have built, the roads they have made, the lights they have put up in different places should give the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate and his friends a good object lesson in the future administration of Scotland. And if it is possible to bring in this to-morrow on the discussion of our Land Bill I hope they may take an example from the work the Congested Districts Board has done in the direction of maintaining the people on the land and helping them to live at home. That Board more than any other realises our difficulty. They know more than most people do, that once you get the population off the Highlands and Islands of Scotland it is exceedingly difficult to get them 1241 back there. Once the farms are left derelict it is difficult to get the people back again to them. But the Congested Districts Board of Scotland has done good work amongst the people. They are a powerful body of extremely conscientious and able men, and they get very little remuneration.

§ Mr. YOUNGER
I did not propose to complain in any kind of way about the Board itself. What I wanted to discuss was the administration of the Board, and the results of its administration in regard to the estates purchased.

Mr. CATHCART WASON
That is a mere trifle.

§ Mr. YOUNGER
It involves about half-a-million.

Mr. CATHCART WASON
I am not a bit interested in that side of the question. They have only bought land under the extreme pressure of the hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends. Perhaps it would be as well if they let it alone. They have done an immense amount of good in maintaining people upon the soil. I wish now to draw the Lord Advocate's attention to the position of one of the Orkney Islands. In the time of his predecessor we succeeded in getting a substantial grant to build a pier. There are two or three thousand inhabitants in this island, and it is entirely cut off from the mainland of Scotland and of Orkney. One of the very objects of the Congested Districts Board is that they should provide facilities for such people. I approached the Congested Districts Board in a very humble spirit with reference to enabling us to get a small subsidy for carrying the fish off this island and marking the fish. I received a very sympathetic answer, but they are absolutely obdurate. I suppose all their money Went to Inverness-shire in buying land or putting down wire fences, probably useless at one end before the other is up. An enormous amount of money has been spent in that way. I only ask a few pounds a year, and I think the Board might well have come to the rescue. On the whole I contend the Congested Districts Board has done most admirable work throughout Scotland in the last ten or twelve years that I have known it. Not one penny has it spent for a useless purpose or without proper result in the whole of the Orkney and Shetland Islands. In every case I believe the result is not the same, but in every case so far as I know—and I know most of them, the Board has 1242 done admirable work in opening up and developing the country, and except for these occasional little lapses they are doing very admirably.
There is one question I should like to touch upon in the connection with the fisheries, but which I cannot possibly introduce on the Fishery Vote. If there is one administrative action in the legislation of which we are entirely and thoroughly ashamed in Scotland it is in reference to the Moray Firth. The position there is this. The Moray Firth is one of the best breeding grounds we have in Scotland. This place was closed for Scotch trawlers. More recently that was confirmed in the Law Courts that it was applied to all trawlers for a reason which we could never understand and of which the Secretary for Scotland has never given the slightest indication, and on which the Lord Advocate has never given the slightest indication. The matter was stopped, and we have never been able to get, directly or indirectly, any information why. We have been to the Foreign Secretary time and again; my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow has been deluged with questions, and he has never been able to say why this has taken place. The Secretary for Scotland ought to be challenged by Scotch Members to tell us what was the reason for this. We have got on our side all the trawling interest and fishery interest. We have seen what foreign countries have done and we have seen what has been done recently in Russia, and we think it is high time that our own Scottish Secretary who, after all, is the guardian of Scottish interests in this matter, and is the only person to whom we have to look to protect our interests, should come forward and do so. We cannot ask the Foreign Secretary, or if we do we get a reply that he can do nothing. It is to the Scottish Secretary we have to look, and he has really got to take the Foreign Secretary by the arm and lead him into the right path and try to stick up for the interests of Scotland in this matter. I hope you are not disbelieving, Mr. Whitley, but if you will go to this and other places and see the position our own trawlers are placed in you will find that they dare not catch a fish in those waters without being liable to go to gaol, while the foreign trawlers are there trawling all over the place.

§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
I was wondering how far the hon. Member was 1243 keeping within the lines of order. It is clear that anything connected with the merits of this question must be confined to the Fishery Vote, and the hon. Member is only entitled to raise some special action taken by the Secretary for Scotland, and that only, on this Vote.

Mr. CATHCART WASON
I wish to bring in the action of the Secretary for Scotland, because he has done nothing in this matter. I think we are being extremely badly treated. The Lord Advocate does nothing, and the Foreign Secretary cannot do anything. If only the Secretary for Scotland would do something that would meet the case. It is the general aspect of the question which I desire to bring to the notice of the Lord Advocate. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Whitley, for having allowed me to bring this matter before the Committee. The Lord Advocate will remember that some time last year he received a deputation from the Scottish Council on Women's Trades protesting against sweating. The Lord Advocate knows all about the matter. They put their case very clearly before the Scottish Secretary and the Lord Advocate with reference to the conditions of labour in certain trades in certain parts of the south of Scotland. I think they fairly satisfied those representatives of the Government that the conditions under which this particular industry was carried on were not such as ought to prevail in this country at the present time. These women showed the Secretary for Scotland that the conditions under which the industry was carried on was not worthy of our country, and they demanded that a full inquiry should take place by a representative of the Local Government Board for Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland replied, "That is all very well in its way, but you have given me no facts. You have alluded to this question in a general sort of way, but you must collect certain facts and hand them to me."
At considerable trouble, the Scottish Council for Women's Trades collected a great number of hard cases and facts, showing the conditions under which this labour was carried on, and I am sure the Committee will be surprised to know that even on the report of these women absolutely nothing has been done. The case is extremely unsatisfactory. A letter was read from a farmer connected with this trade who said he had nothing 1244 to do with it, and that it was the merchant who organised the labour. I can assure the Lord Advocate that this is a very serious question in the South of Scotland, and one which deserves immediate attention at his hands. The trade is not carried on as it ought to be. There is another very serious grievance in the Orkney and Shetland district, and many other similar places, in regard to old persons who have passed the age of being able to work, and who are obliged to give up their little homes. A very restricted and narrow view is taken of this matter by the authorities, and all we ask is that where the Old Age Pension Committee is satisfied that there is a deserving case there ought to be a direct appeal from the local pension officer to the Local Government Board. I put a question on this point to the Lord Advocate, and instead of answering me as I expected he would do, he replied to a totally different question, which showed that he had not even read my question. I gave notice to the Lord Advocate, as I am sure he would not willingly act discourteously.

§ Mr. BARNES
I rise to ask for an explanation in regard to a matter in which I am interested, and upon which I am sure a large number of people in Scotland are also interested. Questions have been asked from time to time about the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill, and I think I shall be in order in asking for some information on this point. I take it that we are discussing things in general now, but what I have to say constitutes a charge relating more to a sin of omission rather than commission on the part of the Scotch Secretary or somebody else, and I want to know who. At all events, this Bill is one of very great interest to the people of Scotland, and especially to the people in the burghs. We have asked questions about it from time to time, and we have got little satisfaction. A number of us went to the Scottish Whips six weeks ago, and we were led to believe that the House Letting Bill was coming on almost immediately. As that promise did not mature, we put questions in the House—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is a matter of legislation, and it is not in order now.

§ Mr. BARNES
I was not suggesting legislation. I was simply preferring a charge of neglect against the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate for not bringing this particular Bill forward as they ought to have done.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is not the business before the Committee at the present moment.

§ Mr. BARNES
Surely the Lord Advocate is responsible for not pushing the Government forward in this matter. My point is that our opportunities are slipping by, and I want to know who is responsible. I have an uneasy feeling that it is not the Government but hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side who are dictating to Scottish Members on this question. I hope we shall hear from the Lord Advocate why this Bill has not been pushed forward.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
On this side of the House we have nothing to do with the order of business.

§ Mr. WATT
The Opposition were responsible for what took place last night.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
That statement is quite incorrect, and I do not know the reason why the Bill was not brought forward.

§ Mr. MORTON
Was there not a bargain made with the Tory party that it should not come forward.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I understand that the Motion to suspend the 11 o'clock rule was made in order to make sure that the Irish and the Scotch Bills should be carried through. That Motion was not moved at the proper time, and why it was not done I do not know.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is not in order in discussing now the business of the House.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I think it is very unfortunate that the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow should be allowed to get up and make a charge against us of having prevented a Bill coming forward, and the rules of the House do not allow me to make an answer to that charge.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I did stop the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, and I cannot allow this matter to go any further.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I hope it will be noted that the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division made a charge against the Opposition, and although I am anxious to meet that charge, the Rules of the House do not allow me to do so.

§ Sir WALTER MENZIES
I have a good deal of sympathy with hon. Members in their difficulty in finding subjects which are in order on this Vote. To put myself completely in order I will move the reduction of the Vote on the Registrar-General's salary by £100.

§ Mr. PIRIE
I was under the impression that we were discussing the Secretary for Scotland's salary.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is so.

§ Sir W. MENZIES
Should I be allowed to discuss the general question of education on this Vote?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There are a number of Votes down on the Paper, and any subject relating to those special Votes can be discussed when they come before the Committee.

§ Sir W. MENZIES
Is there a Vote down for education and for the Registrar-General.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Certainly, if the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper he will see on page 15 exactly which Votes are set down for consideration today.

§ Mr. PIRIE
It seems to me, Mr. Whitley, with all due respect to your ruling, that there is some relation between the House Letting Bill and the negligent action of the Secretary for Scotland—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have already ruled that that subject cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

§ Mr. PIRIE
On a point of Order. May I put this before you—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It is not a matter of administration; it is a matter of the arrangement of the business of the House which is not in the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

§ Mr. PIRIE
I want respectfully to put this before you: Can I call your attention to the neglect of Scotch business arising from the non-presence of the Secretary for Scotland in this House. That is the great fault we have to find with the present Administration.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member has been long enough in this House to remember that many previous attempts have been made to raise questions of that kind in Committee of 1247 Supply, but always without success. It is not in order to raise them in Committee of Supply.

§ Mr. MORTON
If we cannot complain of the Secretary of State for Scotland not introducing legislation to put the law in order, may I ask what is the good of him at all?

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I desire to discuss very briefly two points with regard to which action might be taken by the Secretary for Scotland, and the matter of the Secretary's action with regard to the housing provisions that prevail, particularly in the mining towns and mining districts of Scotland. I shall not labour those conditions now. My colleagues are well aware of them, and I am quite sure both the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate are also well aware of the conditions under which so many people have to live. Those conditions are extremely disgraceful. They mean that a great number of men, women, and children of Scotland are living under conditions which cannot possibly make for a healthy life. When we come to consider the solution of this very great difficulty, it is not so easy to speak definitely, but I suggest the Secretary for Scotland might do a great deal more in putting pressure upon the local authorities responsible in order to ensure that the existing law, now so flagrantly violated, is duly observed. Some amusement, I think, was created not long ago by the Clause in the Coal Mines Regulation Bill which provided for what has been described as compulsory baths. The people chiefly responsible for the housing conditions to which I am calling attention are the people who control and, in some cases own, the collieries. The houses are provided very often by the proprietors of the collieries, and in the case of companies they are working at a considerable profit. There is not even the excuse of poverty to justify the houses which are provided, and we have examples in this country and in the south showing that the housing conditions in mining districts may be adequate, healthy, and even beautiful. I do not labour this matter further, except to urge the Lord Advocate to apply much more pressure upon local authorities, and to endeavour to secure obedience to two principles: First, the principle of a minimum amount of accommodation, and, secondly, the principle of a minimum number of persons to the rooms provided. 1248 Under the existing law the Lord Advocate has most of the power he requires in order to bring to an end some of the graver scandals that at present exist in the mining districts of Scotland.
I pass to the other administrative point on which I should be grateful for some information. It has reference to the enforcement of the Employment of Children Act of 1903. Under that Act the duty was placed upon local authorities to adopt bylaws regulating the employment to which children of school age might be sent, and the conditions under which they might be employed whilst being also liable and required to attend school. The Lord Advocate is well aware that a Departmental Committee has recently inquired into that Act and has published its Report, accompanied by the evidence. That Act, particularly in Scotland—I daresay it is true also with regard to other parts of the country—has been very largely a dead letter. Very few public authorities have troubled to make the by-laws they have the power to make under the Act, but what is equally serious is that where these bylaws have been made they have been very largely a dead letter, and the local authorities have not troubled to carry them out, with the result that to-day in Glasgow and in many other places in Scotland little children are being used in improper forms of employment during the long evenings and early mornings. The statutory provisions of the Act which prohibit the employment of children in any sort of occupation are constantly disregarded, and match-selling and street trading generally are carried on in Glasgow by little children under the age of eleven. I submit this is a disgrace to any nation, and I submit with great respect it is a matter which calls for instant action on the part of the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate. I am well aware of the difficulties of action, but I do make this appeal to the Lord Advocate, believing it is an appeal with which he will entirely sympathise.

§ Mr. AINSWORTH
I hope to strictly adhere to the rule you have laid down that we are to discuss at present, merely the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, and that what we have to concern ourselves with is what he has done, or what he has left undone. I hope I shall be able to do that without transgressing your ruling. I want thoroughly to confirm the view taken by the hon. Member for Sutherland that the treatment of Scotch business in this House is largely due, and must be largely 1249 due, to the interest and the charge taken by the Secretary in the advancement of the procedure of that business. The Secretary for Scotland is the only Member of the Cabinet we have representing Scotland, and therefore Scotch business is entirely under his charge. I think there I am not only quite right, but I am keeping strictly within the rule you have laid down. There were two Bills on the paper last night, one for Ireland and one for Scotland—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is going back to the matter I have already ruled on. The arrangement of business in the House is not in the control of the Secretary for Scotland, and it is is not in order to discuss that matter in Committee of Supply.

§ Mr. AINSWORTH
Surely the Secretary for Scotland is a Member of the Cabinet, and surely the Cabinet arranges the, business of the House. I will, however, just leave the fact to speak for itself, and I sincerely hope that fact by this time is beginning to be thoroughly appreciated. It will have been noticed, though we wish to criticise the action of the Secretary for Scotland, nobody has ventured to move a reduction of his salary. I will tell you why. It is because that salary is far too small. He is paid a miserable £2,000, while the Secretary for Ireland gets much nearer £5,000—I believe £4,000—and every other Front Bench man in charge of a Department gets £5,000. How can we expect Scotch business to be well transacted when our representative, the only Cabinet Minister, I think, who is the representative of a kingdom, is paid in this way? Most of the Scotch officials are paid at the same rate, and get very much less than the officials of other Departments. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Lord Advocate?"] We do not think the Lord Advocate can be too highly paid. The reason is because a sovereign is supposed to go twice as far in Scotland as anywhere else, and because we spend so economically that we are supposed to be able to do with less money than people in any other part of His Majesty's dominions. I want to draw attention to the present condition of what I may call the business machinery of Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland is far too lowly paid, and has far too much to do. The result is the business of Scotland falls into the hands of Boards, which, though nominally responsible to him, are really responsible 1250 to nobody but themselves, and our only way of bringing ourselves into touch with those Boards is by addressing a question to the Secretary for Scotland, who is not here to answer.
5.0 P.M.
The business for Scotland is in what I may call a ridiculous and absurd condition, and, before we vote his salary, we should see if the machinery of Scotch business cannot be improved to some extent. I should like to suggest that the position and power and capability of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland might be improved by simply extending its powers over the whole of the crofter parishes of Scotland. If the Secretary for Scotland would only make the powers of the Congested Districts Board co-terminus with the territories under the control of the Crofter Commission, he would do an immense work for the Highlands of Scotland. Is there no way in which we can bring the other Boards more under the authority of the House of Commons? The Fishery Board is in a peculiar position. The House may be, but perhaps it is not, aware that for England there is a Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, but for Scotland it is only the Board of Agriculture. If the Fishery Authority of Scotland could be thrown in with the Agricultural Authority you might have a Board of Agriculture and Fisheries exactly as you have for England. The same Board would control Scotland as in England, having the same authority and the same area. If we were to do that, we should be able to claim an Under-Secretary, sitting in this House to be responsible for the business of agriculture and fisheries in Scotland, whom any Member of the House could approach at any moment on matters affecting these two most important questions for Scotland. That is a very small reform which could be carried out with a minimum of trouble, and if it required the assent of the House, I am sure that would be given without any question at all. I would also like to refer to another point which, if the Secretary of State for Scotland would take it up, would improve the business of Scotland and the business on Scotland in this House. At present Scottish Bills go to a Scottish Grand Committee. Every Grand Committee has to be a reflection of the House of Commons. Fortunately or unfortunately, at present the Liberal Members for Scotland are in a large majority. The result is that when the Grand Committee is constituted upstairs, you have a 1251 large proportion of Scottish Liberal Members and a very small proportion of Scottish Conservative Members. To bring the Conservative Members up to their proper number, you have to bring in a number of English Conservative Members. I venture to say that on such questions as Scottish Land and Scottish Education, which are the two principal matters which have been before the Scottish Grand Committees in the last two Sessions of Parliament, English Members have neither the knowledge nor the experience which enables them to deal with those questions. What I suggest is, that we should increase the number of Scottish Conservatives available for Scottish Grand Committees, and that instead of putting in English Conservative Members of the House of Commons, we should put in Scottish Conservative Members of the House of Lords.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That seems to be a proposal for amending the Standing Orders, which must be raised on another occasion, to say nothing about its being an alteration of both Houses of Parliament.

§ Mr. AINSWORTH
I can only say that Scottish business would be infinitely better done under these circumstances than it can possibly be done under the existing rules. I must apologise if I trespassed on the rules of order. I think you will allow that the circumstances have not been made easy for us to discuss these questions which are of importance to us, and we are entitled to bring them before the Committee when we can.

§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON
I hope I shall not be transgressing the rules of order if I venture to express the hope that before the end of the Session we shall have another day set down for Scottish Estimates, when we can effectively discuss them. No doubt valuable ends will be served by our discussion to-day, but it is necessary to have the right of dividing if we are to deal with the questions effectively. I wish to deal with one or two questions in regard to the Boards which my hon. Friend (Mr. Ainsworth) touched upon. The Fishery Board is not one which has commanded any great degree of public confidence in Scotland for many years past. I understand its composition has recently been improved, but it would add to the public confidence in that Board if an advisory committee of practical fishermen and others were appointed, 1252 whom the Board could consult. It is supposed, rightly or wrongly, not to be sufficiently in touch with national requirements and feeling, and I suggest that the appointment of an advisory committee would remedy that. With respect to the Local Government Board, I should like some information as to what provision has been made to deal with the great town-planning schemes which will now come under it. The Bill giving Dunfermline 4,000 acres of land and a new Admiralty site to control, is exactly one of those examples of town planning for which great preparations have been made by the English Local Government Board. The control of the central authority in town planning is really the lynch-pin of the whole undertaking. I am not satisfied that adequate provision has yet been made in Scotland. I have had some information furnished to me which shows that the Local Government Board is not sufficiently staffed to deal with great undertakings of this kind. Unless you have an exceptionally competent local authority, the only security for the proper carrying out of these undertakings lies in the control of the central authority. The Congested Districts Board has been referred to in glowing terms—perhaps too glowing—by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason). I have been informed on credible authority that the Board never meets, and one would really like to know whether it has ever met, and who is really responsible for the work of that Board. If I have to deal with the Scottish Education Department, I know perfectly well who I am dealing with; but if I am dealing with the Congested Districts Board, I have not the ghost of an idea. One should know who is responsible for the large works carried on by this Board. There is one general question which I should like to raise; it is whether the Scottish Office has given attention to the whole question of the great growth of local taxation and its incidence in Scotland. There is the question of the police pay and clothing. I am certain of this, that from personal recollection of the time when the matter was discussed, it was never for one moment contemplated that the proportion paid by the Government for the police pay and clothing allowances would fall from 50 to 37 per cent., as it is now. That is regarded by every local authority as an abominable state of things. It is the real obstacle to getting local authorities to agree to pro- 1253 viding the weekly holiday for the police. That, amongst other points under this head, is a matter of which I should be grateful for some further information from the Government. The Burgh of which I am the municipal head is against the Bill simply and solely on that ground, but the Burgh I represent is in favour of it, but under the strongest protestation against so small a receipt for the cost of the pay of the police. From every local authority in Scotland there has come a complaint of the addition to the rates to be imposed by the teachers' pensions; that is another item. There, again, I am sure that educational efficiency, as the police efficiency in the other case, will be weakened unless these just claims are attended to by the Scottish Office, and further grants obtained. There are one or two minor points I wish to refer to. Considerable pressure is being exercised by medical officers in Scotland. They have had small-pox hospitals built here, there, and everywhere. That is the result of the semi-abolition of vaccination in Scotland. I am one of those who think that the practice of vaccination ought to be encouraged. I do not think that sufficient encouragement is given to it. If the practice of vaccination were to die out, as it is rapidly doing in many parts of Scotland now, the community would be put to enormous expense in regard to small-pox hospitals. The very best of county and burgh medical officers are putting great pressure on local authorities to provide sufficient hospital accommodation, and I am not sure that it is not the view of the Local Government Board also, that further provisions should be made. I sincerely trust that no occasion for these buildings will arise, but if the whole country is to be subjected to this scourge such provisions should exist. That expenditure is the result of the policy of this House, but I question the advisability of putting it on the local authorities, who are not responsible for the policy. With regard to Poor Law buildings, pressure is being put on local authorities to increase them, but with the old age pensions and with the Insurance Bill now before the House and with other provisions made by Parliament, there should not be any pressure put upon local authorities at present to spend the ratepayers' money upon the extension of Poor Law buildings. Of course, the whole question of rates still remains in certain parishes of Scotland. For instance, the Lewis rates are over 20s. in the £; that is a serious case, it is an absolute barrier to 1254 any new industries coming into the district in the face of such rates as those. I do not think that point has been sufficiently appreciated, but I should be glad to know if the Scottish Office has really given its attention to, and taken a comprehensive view of the whole incidence of local taxation in Scotland. There is a question connected with licensing which I hope will have the attention of the Secretary for Scotland. Formerly, within my own county of Fife, public-houses were closed upon certain holidays. That was done by general agreement; one district of the county opened its public-houses on these holidays, and under the inspiration of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) another district followed its example. That introduced a great confusion as between different districts, and makes it possible to open public-houses in all neighbouring districts, which is quite contrary to public sentiment. I brought this question before the Secretary for Scotland, and he allowed the licensing authority of this district to open their houses, he having the power to refuse. But I do think that the whole question is one that should be considered, and that it is one upon which we should know the mind of the Government. I would, therefore, ask the Lord Advocate to deal with the matter, and I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet any information in regard to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Registration of Titles. That Report bears upon the question of the transfer of houses and small lots of land. It bears also upon tenure, and in many villages on the Moray Firth a system is common under which it seems impossible to give a proper tenure. A good deal, therefore, depends upon this question of registration of titles in order to give a cheap and easy transfer of small houses and small parcels of land. The Commission took a good deal of trouble about it, and I hope the Government may take some trouble about it also. In addition to what I have already said, there are one or two points in regard to which I promised to ask for information. One is whether something can be done towards giving an allowance in regard to the salaries of the officers engaged in the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. They are a most important part of our social organisation, and the work that they do is admirable. Most of the officers are greatly overworked in regard to purposes of charity organisation, as well as of securing good treatment of the children; 1255 and I do not know of any better social work than that which is being done by the officers of this society. Those are some of the points upon which I desire information, and I hope we may have some expression of opinion from the Government.

§ Mr. HUNT
I wish to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the affairs of the Island of Benbecula, and I wish to point out that there are certain things which could be done by the Secretary for Scotland for which money has been provided by Parliament, and which want doing very badly indeed, and which I think should be done as soon as they conveniently can be. In the first place, lights are very badly wanted at Petersport, in the island of Benbecula. Then again last year the Secretary for Scotland made an arrangement with Mr. McBrayne, who carries the mails, that his mail steamships should stop at Petersport once a week to take in cargo and passengers. This practice has been given up this year, and the consequence is that the people of Benbecula have no means of getting to the steamship in order to get away from the island, however much they may want to do so, unless they travel over a very rough road and over an arm of the sea for about twenty miles whichever way they go. Last year, after this arrangement was made in the month of August, in spite of it, Messrs. McBrayne missed calling one week, although there were a lot of people waiting for the steamer according to this arrangement made by the Secretary for Scotland. The firm never even wired to say they were not going to call, and in consequence the people who were there, including women and children, had to walk back to their homes over rough roads and arms of the sea at a late hour. The Secretary for Scotland was told about this—indeed, he was telegraphed to—but he took no notice.
I think some action should be taken in the matter, because these people broke their contract in not sending the steamer. Moreover, the meal bags which were on board for the island were got at by the rats, which ate the meal, and the people lost a lot of money. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate to laugh, but I have no doubt that if it had been his meal bags that were eaten the laugh would have been on the other side of his mouth. There has been an arrangement of this kind in the past, and the people are very anxious 1256 that they should have a chance once a week of getting away from the Island by steamer, and I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that could not be arranged. I have applied to the Postmaster-General about it, and he said he could not do it, on account of the expense, and referred me to the Secretary for Scotland. That is why I venture to put this question on the present vote. May I say that on the Island of Barra, which is the same size as Benbecula, there are two ports at which steamers call, and the Secretary for Scotland has spent a lot of money on Barra but nothing on Benbecula. All that the people of the latter island ask for is to have a light put up at Petersport, so that the mail steamers can call and deliver and embark passengers and goods. At present all the parcels for the Island get smashed because they are left twenty miles off and they are always a day late. The Postmaster-General is willing to allow these boats to call there and deliver letters if the Secretary of Scotland will find money for this purpose of a light out of the £35,000 a year which he gets from the Congested Districts Board, one of the objects of which he to improve the communications of the Outer Hebrides. Some of this money ought to be applied to these services, and considering that the two Islands are about the same size I think the right hon. Gentleman might do this small thing for the people of Benbecula. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General told me that I must apply to the Secretary for Scotland on the matter, and I accordingly do so.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. George Younger)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think the Secretary for Scotland has anything to do with the lights, and I think therefore that this would arise on the Lord Advocate's salary.

§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT
As points of Order are being raised, may I ask you, Sir—with great respect and with congratulations, which I am sure will be joined in from all quarters of the Committee—by what precise procedure you, who are not on the Chairman's panel, occupy the Chair? I do not object to the arrangement, but on the point of Order, may I ask you to explain to the Committee the procedure under which it was effected?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The only explanation I can give to the hon. Member 1257 is that the Chairman of Committees asked me to take his place here, and said he had the power to do so.

§ Sir JOHN DEWAR
Are not these lights under the jurisdiction of the Fishery Board?

§ Mr. HUNT
The reason I rose to ask questions on this subject was because the Postmaster-General referred me to the Secretary for Scotland, and I have very little more to say except that I think that something at all events should be done about this matter. I should like, in conclusion, however, to remind the Lord Advocate that the people of Benbecula furnish a lot of soldiers and sailors to His Majesty's Army and Navy, and moreover they are a very decent and law-abiding people, whilst other people who have a tremendous lot of money lavished upon them hardly ever send a man into His Majesty's Forces. I hope, as I have been allowed to bring this matter forward, that the Lord Advocate will consider it and we shall get something done, at all events before next year. I understand a right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House is also going to bring this matter forward, and I trust he will do so, and more effectively than I have done.

§ Mr. WILKIE
May I be permitted to say in a few words, Sir, that I am pleased to see you in the Chair. For a number of years we had one of your predecessors in that Chair, and I think you will admit that he served the House very well, though not perhaps so well as you are doing at the present time. I wish to join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leith in the complaint that he addressed to the House, that we Members for Scotland do not receive the attention which we deserve. We are told it is because there are so many Scottish Members if not Scotchmen in the Government, and if that is so I do urge the Government this afternoon to seriously consider some of the complaints which have been put forward. The one which I would like to emphasise is that in connection with the pay and conditions of service of the Police Force in Scotland. South of the Tweed they are much better paid than they are in Scotland, and I have received several complaints and resolutions from my Constituents on the subject. Our police are being deprived of the benefit which this House gave of one day's rest in seven, and it is complained that the councils are not getting the fair treatment that their 1258 colleagues in other parts of the country are receiving, and that we are causing this extra expense to be placed on the ratepayers of the town, and consequently those town councils are somewhat adverse from giving them what they would otherwise do. I think they are entitled to equal remuneration for their labour, and to an equal superannuation. We know the Lord Advocate's strong opinion on some of these matters, and all that we ask him to do is to urge on the Government that in these matters we shall get equal justice and equal right with the southern part of the country. We heard from the hon. Member opposite that vaccination was dying out. I am very pleased to hear that statement. It again shows the forward state of opinion in Scotland, because the theory of the Vaccination Acts has entirely exploded, and has not been carrying out what it proposed. It has never been proved that this has been the means of keeping down small-pox. The hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) referred to the House-Letting Bill. I think the representatives of the workers in Scotland have a cause of complaint. We are not blaming the Government for the delay which has occurred, and I am not going to blame the Opposition, but I should like them to consider its provisions favourably. I fail to see again why the workers of Scotland should not have the same privileges and the same accommodation in shifting from place to place as they have in England.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I really must carry out the decision of the Chairman of Committees. I do not think I can allow the hon. Member to discuss the matter further.

§ Mr. WILKIE
I thought I was within the limits in discussing this part equally as hon. Members have been in discussing the other parts. I fail to see any difference in the matter. Seeing that we are having an opportunity of virtually creating a new town at Rosyth, I hope the Town-planning Act will be put into force, and will be taken advantage of, and that instead of building another town of slums we shall have a city worthy of the name. Instead of requiring in the future insurance associations to keep the workers alive when they are sick, we want provision made to prevent sickness. We want not cure, but prevention, and if we had the bulk of the slums of the cities done away with there would be less call on the Bill. I trust that the Scottish Office will consider the points which have been 1259 placed before them, and if the Scottish Members have not been so militant as others in certain quarters I hope it will not be assumed that we are not equally earnest in the interests of those whom we represent.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
The hon. Member appears as an out-and-out opponent of Vaccination. Scientific opinion has hardly reached the high point which the hon. Member has attained, and, unfortunately for the medical profession, universities have subscribed to opinions exactly opposite. I have received numerous communications from doctors all over Scotland as to the alarm that is fast seizing the profession as to the threatening cloud which will burst on the country sooner or later. I know as a fact that the medical authorities and the Local Government Board itself have felt this so strongly that warnings have been expressed as to the necessity of being prepared for an epidemic. That is a very serious question indeed. I should like to refer to a circular issued not long ago, which assumed a new form when it was last issued. The Secretary for Scotland may have feelings of his own, approaching, perhaps, somewhat more nearly than some of us would like to those of the hon. Member (Mr. Wilkie). If he allows these personal opinions by one hair's-breadth to affect his administration of the Vaccination Acts he is guilty of what I believe is a very serious dereliction of duty.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am very sorry again to interfere, but I am afraid this comes under another Vote. There is a special Vote for the Local Government Board, under which questions relating to vaccination can be discussed, and I am afraid it is not possible to discuss them on the Vote of the Secretary for Scotland.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
The Chairman did not stop a previous speaker who referred at considerable length to this question. But, apart from the Local Government Board altogether, I am speaking of the conduct of the Secretary for Scotland.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Yes, but the question arises directly on the Vote of the Local Government Board for Scotland. I think there can be no doubt it does not arise on this Vote at all.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
Another point I should like to refer to arises under the 1260 Education Act of 1908. Under Section 16, Sub-section (d), the Secretary for Scotland is directed to make certain payments to the University of Scotland out of the Educational Fund, which is a large fund established by the Act. The Secretary for Scotland has powers over it distinct from those of the Education Department, and under this Sub-section he is empowered and directed to make certain payments to the Universities in addition to any sums otherwise payable to them under the Act. He is directed to appoint a special committee and to have special inquiries made and to make this grant. Surely he is not carrying out this direction by making no grant at all. It no doubt rests in his discretion to say what is the amount of the grant after he has made these inquiries through the Committee, but how he can carry out the directions at all if he makes neither a large nor a small grant I do not know. We fully discussed the matter when the Education Act was under consideration, and I, on behalf of a University, consider that the Secretary for Scotland has distinctly deprived the Universities of a certain sum which is due to them. His action must be to some extent affected by the fact that when grants were made to England and Wales a grant from the Treasury was made to the Universities of Scotland. But that had nothing to do with this grant under the Education Act. The Sub-section says expressly:— The Secretary for Scotland is to make payment to the University for Scotland in addition to any sum otherwise payable to them under any Act. The fact that they had a right and established their right to a grant from the Treasury did not lessen or do away in the very smallest degree with their right to claim from the Secretary for Scotland this grant under the Education Act. I demand an explanation of the reason why the Secretary for Scotland has omitted this bounden duty laid upon him by the Education Act, and has cut out the Universities altogether from sharing, as they are entitled to share, under the Education Act of 1908.

§ Sir JOHN DEWAR
I should like to join the hon. Member opposite who brought to the notice of the Lord Advocate the question of the harbour and pier. The pier has been erected at great cost, which was greatly contributed to from the Congested Districts Boards Fund and also in the form of labour from the inhabitants 1261 themselves. For long this pier had no access to it by land or sea, but ultimately it became accessible to vessels trading in the West Highlands during the summer months, but during the winter months vessels cannot enter owing to the want of lights to guide them into this somewhat difficult harbour. The Congested Districts Board has spent a large sum on the harbour, and it is a great pity that we should not complete it and make it accessible at all times of the year and all states of the tide by making the additional payment which is necessary. I believe the sum required is very considerable, and the Congested Districts Board have hitherto rather hesitated to spend the large sum necessary for completing the work. I would urge the necessity of taking the work in hand and having the harbour completed. It is of the greatest importance that this should be done, and the question is one which appeals very much to the inhabitants of the district.
Another subject which I wish to bring to the notice of the Lord Advocate is the condition of affairs at Mallaig, at the end of the West Highland Railway. That railway has been the means of developing a very important trade in that part of Scotland, but for some reason the harbour there is not made as much use of as it might be. I wish to direct the Lord Advocate's attention to the condition of several of the houses which were built there for the accommodation of fishermen. There were 28 or 30 houses built there in a great hurry and occupied by fishermen. When the fishing season is at its height there is a great influx of workers, and the condition of the houses then is more or less a public scandal. The County Council have taken the matter in hand and investigated it, and they have applied to the Congested Districts Board for a grant towards the building of decent houses for the people. Lord Lovat offered ground at a very nominal sum to erect houses upon, but the Congested Districts Board refused the offer. I do not know that any reasons have been given for their so doing, but the result is that the County Council have been compelled to declare the houses uninhabitable, and to call for their being removed within six months. If that order is put in execution, the condition of affairs will be serious indeed. I think it is a pity that the Congested Districts Board have not dealt with the Matter, for it is one of great importance as affecting the health of the people and the development of the port.
1262 I wish also to refer to the condition of the harbour at that place. A very large sum was spent on the construction of the railway, and the Government gave a guarantee for a large portion of the cost. It has been a means of developing the district. Part of the bargain with the railway company was that a breakwater was to be constructed at Mallaig, and if completed within a certain time the Government undertook to pay £30,000. The breakwater was not made in the time stipulated, and without it the harbour is of comparatively little use. It is not only inconvenient to the district, but sometimes it is positively dangerous. I believe there is great fishing in that district. There were twenty or thirty steam drifters in the district, and they landed great catches of fish. Sometimes 1,300 or 1,400 crans of fish were landed at the harbour at great inconvenience and, under certain conditions, great risk. The construction of the breakwater should be proceeded with, at once. I would appeal to the representatives of the Government to use their friendly offices to induce the railway company to complete the breakwater. It would have a very beneficial effect, not only in providing for the convenience of that district, but of the whole of the Western Highlands. There is no reason at all why the mails for the Western Highlands and Islands should not go, to some extent, by Mallaig. That would make a difference of several hours, and would be a great advantage to the travelling public. I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to give favourable consideration to these matters.

§ Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART
I would like to endorse the appeal which was made a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) on the question of the housing accommodation of the coal-mining class in Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland has certain absolute and direct powers under the Public Health Act, and also Under the Acts which deal with the local authorities, to see that people are accommodated in a manner suitable to the requirements of good health, and suitable also for providing that class with the comfort which they ought to have. I know it would be entirely wrong to go even so far as the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark did on the question, as there is a Bill being considered by a Committee upstairs at the present time. The question is not so much one with respect to the size of 1263 houses and the number of rooms in them as a question of the number of individuals who live in each room. There are rules carefully laid down under the Public Health Act which the Secretary for Scotland is bound by his position to deal with. These are matters of great moment, because if you take certain coalfields you find that the conditions are deplorable at the present time. We must look to the future, and consider the health of the children who are brought up under the conditions which now prevail—conditions which, if investigated by anyone, would be regarded as absolutely astounding. I hope that the point which was raised by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs with respect to the local authorities will be carefully taken up and seen to by the Secretary for Scotland. That is a matter in which I myself and a large number of those with whom I sit on the county council in Fife are very interested, namely, the compulsory notification of disease. If questions like small-pox and vaccination are dealt with by the public authorities, surely the matter to which the hon. Member referred should also receive attention. It is one which has for many years been receiving the careful consideration of members of the medical profession and many others. I mean the question of the tubercular harm that may be done to the population by not taking adequate precautions. I would like to touch upon the point referred to by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Ainsworth) as to the Scottish Committee upstairs. I submit that there are a good many of us on this side of the House who, although we may sit for Welsh or English constituencies, know a great deal more about Scotland than in many cases hon. Members who sit for Scotland. Perhaps if we were asked sometimes to come in and assist in the deliberations of the Committee, Scottish business in this House might get on a little better.

Mr. PRICE
I understand although there are put down for consideration four Votes, it is practically on the second that we can really state any points. I wish to say that unless we get a guarantee from the Lord Advocate that another day will be allowed for the discussion of the Scottish Estimates, I am afraid a good many subjects which we are anxious to raise will be lost sight of. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) referred to Rosyth. Many people in 1264 that district have been greatly concerned that the land which has been bought by the Admiralty should not be disposed of. I have seen the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Junior Lord, and the Secretary to the Admiralty regarding this matter, and they say that they have no plans or offices at the place, or men who could do anything in regard to the laying out of the district of Rosyth, and accordingly they are disposed to sell the land. I think it would be a great calamity if the Admiralty disposed of any land, and more particularly with that which might be required for the purposes of the Admiralty at some other time. I think the Secretary for Scotland should enter into negotiation with the Admiralty to take over the land they do not immediately want, and place it under the Local Government Board for Scotland. We should then reserve for ourselves the complete use of the land, and we should be able to see a town erected there worthy of what I would call a model city.
May I suggest to the Lord Advocate that a circular should be issued to the different districts of Scotland calling attention to the high death rate among infants? Many people have been concerned to see the small increase in the population of Scotland during the last decade. Many can give an explanation of that, but the fact remains that the small increase that has taken place in the birth rate of Scotland has caused very great concern. I would suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should call attention to the very great percentage of deaths occurring among children under the age of twelve months. It has been very gratifying to see the enormous reduction that has taken place in the death rate all over Scotland, and particularly in the large towns, during the last thirty years. Anyone who examines the figures must be impressed with the fact that the medical officers of health have exercised their powers with very great effect, and accordingly we have an enormous reduction in the death rate. But I regret to say that there has been a very small reduction in the death rate as regards infants under twelve months. Dundee, for instance, stands at 107 per 1,000, which is appalling; Glasgow, a very much larger place, stands at 121; Aberdeen at 112; and Edinburgh at 111. I am glad to see that in Aberdeen, where three or four years ago the average stood rather higher, the medical officer of 1265 health has devoted a great deal of attention to the matter, and there has been a reduction in the death rate. If the Secretary for Scotland would issue a circular calling the attention of local authorities to what can be done in the matter of improving health conditions, I believe that would exercise a very great influence on the different authorities. Undoubtedly in Dundee the condition of things is accounted for by the condition of the working people. I do not know any place where less attention has been paid to the matter than in Dundee. It is a serious fact, in view of the reduction of the birth rate, that something should not be done to reduce the death rate of infants under twelve months.
6.0 P.M.
I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can give the Committee any information regarding the proposed extension of the museum in Edinburgh. The officer who has charge of the works in Edinburgh has done everything he can, but still he wants a very much greater extension of the museum than we have had. I am glad to see that a new director has been appointed. In a conversation which I had with him the other day he reiterated what had been said by the previous director, namely, that it is impossible to display the admirable collection they have owing to the crowded condition under which the museum exists. Therefore, if we can get any further grant for the extension of the museum, I am sure we will be most thankful. Another matter to which I would like to refer is the condition of the King's Park, Edinburgh. We all know the enormous amount of money that is spent on the parks in London, and we greatly rejoice to see it. Anyone coming to St. James's Park, finds it a constant delight; but I think that something more could be done to make the condition of the King's Park, Edinburgh much more worthy of the capital of Scotland, than it is at the present time. Those who are familiar with the Phœnix Park in Dublin know perfectly well that that is also a park of which any country might well be proud. The King's Park, having in it Arthur's Seat and many other features, which you will scarcely find near any other capital in Europe, can, I am assured by those who know, be made, if more money is spent on it, one of the most lovely parks that you could have in any portion of the British Isles; some parts of it at the present time look more or less like a wilderness. I trust, therefore, some 1266 additional money will be spent on this park, so as to make it worthy of the capital of Scotland.

§ Mr. WATT
I beg to move that Item "A" be reduced by £1,000, in respect of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. I am more than surprised that my colleagues from Scotland in discussing this Vote, which includes the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, have so far omitted to move a reduction. I now move that the salary be reduced by £1,000, because of the treatment which Scotland is getting and for which the Secretary for Scotland is fully responsible. It is the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to fight for our country in the Cabinet, and to assert the rights of Scotland to the time of this House, and to a consideration for its Bills in this House. Instead of doing that satisfactorily we all know how we are treated. Last night we were done out of the House Letting Bill. I understand that the Opposition had threatened that they would talk on the Irish Bill if the House Letting Bill for Scotland was insisted on. Immediately the Government, influenced by the Secretary for Scotland, held out the white flag, and the result is that Glasgow and the cities of Scotland are deprived of the House Letting Bill.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I would be glad if the hon. Member would kindly keep to the point. It is not in order to talk like that.

§ Mr. WATT
I obey your ruling, especially as I have finished that subject. Having finished that subject, I pass on to one that is in order, and that is the extraordinary position in which we are placed to-day of having to discuss the Scottish Estimates after the holidays have started. We are told by old Parliamentarians that such a condition of affairs has never been known before in the history of man. After the Adjournment has been moved, and the majority of Members have gone to enjoy the sunshine and the salt sea breeze, we are left here to discuss with great difficulty, because of the rulings of the Chair, the affairs of our nation, and not only have we to-day to discuss them in this unprecedented fashion, but to-morrow in order to get some legislation we have again to put in an appearance so as to pass the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. The Secretary for Scotland, I venture to think, is to blame for that. It is his duty to assert the rights of our country, and to get a full share of time 1267 for Scotland. We have another disadvantage in the fact that our Secretary is sitting in the Peers.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am afraid I must ask the hon. Member to respect the ruling of the Chair; and further I must ask him not to discuss the question, which he is now discussing, in the way in which he is doing.

§ Mr. WATT
In the way of the Secretary for Scotland being a Peer?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No.

§ Mr. WATT
It has been said that the Peer is an ordinary man spoiled. He started as an ordinary man, but, in the process of life, he was spoiled; so our Secretary for Scotland no doubt has undergone a deterioration since he went to the House of Lords, and instead of the affairs of Scotland being managed as well as when he was in the Commons, I believe they are managed worse since he became a member of the other august assembly. But these things apart I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to one or two things in which I think the Secretary for Scotland has been thoroughly remiss in his action. We have appointed a committee of experts to deal with the financial relations of Ireland and the United Kingdom with a view to the question of Home Rule being brought in. What I want to ask is, why did Scotland not have a committee on that point? Why did the Secretary for Scotland not institute a committee to consider the financial relations of Scotland and England, so that when the Home Rule All Round Bill comes in next Session, Scotland would be in a position to know precisely the financial relations that exist between it and England? In that respect, I venture to think the Secretary for Scotland has been remiss in his duty. Another point to which I would like to call attention is one on which I have put several questions in this House, namely, reclaiming of the land from the sea at Greenock.
The Corporation of Greenock are emptying their ashes into the sea at Cardwell Bay, and thus there has been reclaimed from the sea a considerable portion of land. This reclamation has actually been going on for something like 35 years and the extraordinary thing is, that as fast as the land is reclaimed into the possession of the landowners, it is 1268 re-sold to the Government. The reclaimed land has been re-sold as the site of the torpedo factory at a price of £27,200. This is still going on. The sea as we know is under the protection of the Board of Trade, and the Corporation of Greenock is under the Local Government Board; so you have this extraordinary position, that you have one department of the Government, the Scotch Office, permitting the filching of the sea from another department, and a third department of the Government stepping in and buying that filched land at an exorbitant price. If that went on in any commercial concern in the country, bankruptcy would be reached in the space of a very few weeks, and yet the Scotch Office, which is asleep in these circumstances, permits the Corporation of Greenock to continue the process which has been going on so long. I have here an extract sent to me from the report of the Police Board of Greenock. It is an entry made in December, 1886, and it clearly indicates that as far back as that time the rubbish of Greenock was being used to make this land which is now the site of a torpedo factory, and has been reclaimed from the sea. If that state of affairs, having been brought to the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, does not in the opinion of the Scotch Office require a remedy, then I venture to think that the salary that is being paid to the Secretary for Scotland is too large, and should be reduced, and I beg to move accordingly that Item A be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

§ Mr. ARTHUR ALLEN
I do not rise to support this somewhat drastic reduction of the Scotch Secretary's salary, but I want to draw his attention to one point, and that is the necessity which exists for following the example that has been set in England of appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire into the industrial and reformatory schools in Scotland. There has been no committee inquiring into those schools since the year 1896. The result of that committee was rather a curious one. Whilst the Scotch schools were transferred to the Scottish Office they were retained under the English inspectorate. That, I think, is not altogether a very satisfactory state of things. When I say, as is the fact, that on their inspectorate there is only one woman inspector who has to do the whole of England, Scotland, and Wales, and there is no whole-time medical inspector to do the whole of these schools and that the 1269 inspectorate generally is not a very large one, I am justified in saying that the time has come when a similar committee might be appointed to inquire into the schools of Scotland as is sitting at present in regard to the schools of England. It would be very unfortunate if the committee sitting on the English industrial and reformatory schools should produce its report without there being a similar inquiry or report produced with regard to the Scotch industrial schools. Of course the schools are of very great importance, having to deal with children and to train them in such a way that they will be in a position to earn a living when they leave school. I do think, therefore, that the matter is of very considerable importance, and I would urge the Secretary for Scotland at the earliest possible moment, to appoint a committee to inquire into those schools which exist in Scotland. I do want to emphasise the point which was raised just now by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire with regard to the administration of the Act relating to street trading by children. There is no doubt that street trading is a very prolific source of occupation amongst children in this country. If one reads the reports of the governors of prisons, and the reports by philanthropic people who are engaged in the work of reclaiming young people who have gone wrong, you will find that a very large proportion indeed of these young people have been engaged in street trading. The first step in connection with these children was the appointment of a committee, which made some recommendation on the subject; but I think that if the law as it at present exists were properly administered we should have a very much improved state of affairs. I ask the Lord Advocate to give his attention to the matter, and see whether something could not be done to screw up the different local authorities in Scotland to administer the Act in a proper way, and so do something to save the great waste of child life going on at the present moment.

§ Mr. MORTON
I am glad to support my hon. Friend's Amendment for the reduction of the Vote. We were told early in the evening by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Captain D. V. Pirie) about some pledge that was given, but I know of no such arrangement at all. I do not personally blame the Secretary for Scotland at all, but it would be better if he were in this House that we might deal with him in an efficient manner. We 1270 have been told by Lord Pentland himself that he went to the House of Lords to look after Scottish affairs. What has been done? I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to answer that question, and tell us what has arisen out of that adventure and speculation. At any rate Scotland appears to me to be worse off than ever, and I quite agree with my hon. Friend about the neglect of Scottish affairs. Just look how we are treated to-day. The doings of the Congested Districts Board constitute perhaps the most important point we have to consider. We have not had their report, with the result that we cannot allow the vote of the Secretary for Scotland's salary to be taken to-night. We certainly must ask the Prime Minister to give us another day to consider the report of the Congested Districts Board. In the absence of that report, so far as I am concerned, the reduction of the vote by £1,900 rather than £1,000 would have been much more satisfactory. I do not want to complain of the Lord Advocate, but I suppose he represents the Scottish Office here, though I quite understand he has too much business of his own, without adding to it the work of the Secretary for Scotland. I suppose under the circumstances we are to depend upon the office boys for information. I see in the Estimates that there are four of these boys, at 15s. each. That information comes from the Treasury, instead of coming directly from the Secretary of Scotland.
We have heard of the diminishing population in the rural districts of Scotland, and my complaint is against the bad administration of the Scottish Office, and the sooner we have a remedy of the existing state of things the better. As to the Congested Districts Board, it would appear not to exist. I had information given to me the other day that it has not met during the last few years. Of course, the Secretary for Scotland is really the Congested Districts Board, and he informs himself or does not inform himself of what ought or ought not to be done, and the result is generally that we get nothing done. I am speaking, as a matter of fact, with regard to Sutherland-shire. We have had nothing done by the Board in the Crofter Districts during the last five years. In fact, there has been less than nothing done. The previous Government did put on some steamers between Lochinver and some distance down the west coast, but when this Liberal Government came into power 1271 they took off the steamers, and we have not seen them since. Of course, I am personally aware that they have provided a sum of £35,000, but for some extraordinary reason which has never been explained—perhaps the Lord Advocate will try to explain it—most of that money has been expended in one county instead of in six counties. Where the influence comes in which induced the Congested Districts Board to spend this sum of money in one county I do not know. We have a right to claim that the amount should be distributed over the crofter districts. Of course, I should be out of order if I went into the land question, but I blame the Scottish Office a good deal for bad and loose administration. I do not know that it would make much difference if instead of reducing the Vote by a thousand pounds or nineteen hundred pounds we proposed to reduce it by the whole amount. If we had done that, and succeeded I do not know that it would have made very much difference in the administration of Scotland.
It is all very well to get new Acts of Parliament and new laws, but, as Mr. Gladstone always told us, it was of no use having good laws unless we have good administration. And what we ask for is good administration in regard to Scotland, which is, after all, the best part of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] After all, Scotland is a most law-abiding part of the country. It is law-abiding and loyal, and it does its best for the whole country. Scottish men and Scottish women are known all over the world as being the most industrious and sympathetic people. Under these circumstances one would have thought that a Liberal Government would have tried to do something for them. We should not, however, have had to-day for the discussion of Scottish business, nor would we have got to-morrow for the consideration of the Land Bill if we had not forced the concession out of the Government. I do not know whether I should be in order in talking about the Development Board and the funds under its control, or about the Roads Board. However, everybody has been out of order to-day, and perhaps I shall come in along with the others. We have heard one hon. Gentleman discussing town planning, which comes under a separate Vote, and we have also had reference to the Fishery Board, which also comes under a separate Vote; and why I should not be allowed to go wrong along 1272 with the others I cannot understand. I believe, however, that the Roads Board is under the control of the Scottish Office as far as recommendations go. The complaint I wish to make is that when the Board make grants they put a fine upon the people of the district, county, or town, as the case may be, saying that they must pay so much out of the rates in addition to the grants being given to them. With regard to Sutherlandshire, they received a grant, and the condition was put on the council that they had to find a thousand pounds out of the rate, not for the upkeep of the roads, but for improvements.
That means a rate in Sutherlandshire of 3d. in the pound. The road rate in Sutherlandshire is now 2s. 2d. in the pound, the highest of any county in Scotland. Therefore it does seem very unfair that the Scottish Office, or whoever is responsible for carying out the order of Parliament in giving these grants, should impose upon the inhabitants an increase of rates—rates which it is admitted are already too high. I hope the Scottish Office will try to look into that matter. I should also like to see something done to carry out such improvements as are necessary to prevent the depopulation of the rural parts of Scotland. One means would be tobacco-growing in Scotland. I am told that it would come under the Development Fund. I have to blame the Scottish Office in this matter, for they have not been nearly so strenuous in regard to it as has been the case in Ireland. The Irish tobacco-growing industry in Ireland is to receive £6,000 a year for five years, while Scotland has been refused a single penny, although it is notorious that Scotland pays a much higher percentage towards the general fund of the country than Ireland.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
No.

§ Mr. MORTON
The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London knows a good deal about these matters, but he does not know everything. I shall be very happy to show him a return which we have got out, and which shows that a very much higher percentage is paid by Scotland towards the general fund of the country than by any other part of the country, and about three times as much as by Ireland.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to promote the cultivation and growing of tobacco in Scotland. Over 100 years ago, before it was prohibited by law, it was grown there very extensively, and we are told by experts that it is just what is wanted in 1273 order to get that labour which is so much required. Then we have been asking the Congested Districts Board, with a view to preventing depopulation, that the piers should be improved so that the fishermen might carry on their occupation with safety to their lives. Those fishermen are the finest body of men in the country, and they are driven either to go into the big towns or to emigrate. I do not say that we could keep all those people in Scotland, because the Scotsman is an enterprising man, who goes all over the world, doing all he can for the benefit of the world, and not forgetting to save a few bawbees out of the transaction. We want various other matters attended to for the purpose of preventing this depopulation, which is now so serious a matter, but so far we have failed to get the Scottish Office to do anything at all. What we want to do is to see the promise of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman carried out, namely, that we should colonise our own country. The Secretary for Scotland, if he liked, could come to Parliament and ask for more money than the £35,000 he gets now for the Congested Districts Board. The House of Lords would not object to that. They never object to spend money on that sort of thing, so that he cannot make that excuse. I think, no doubt, it would take more than £35,000 to carry out all I want for the purpose of promoting trade in counties like Sutherland.
We are anxious that the Government should subsidise or start in some way steamers to go round from Lochinver to call at the various ports, so as to bring the produce of the country that they have to spare to market. For five or six years past I have been trying in every way I can to get this done, but I have got nothing at all yet, and I do not know when I am going to get it. An hon. Gentleman spoke just now about the necessity for a light. We have been asking for the same thing, and we cannot get it. I am referred to some other Board, and nothing is done. I am not going to press the question of house-letting, as it would be out of order, but, as there are some Friends opposite who understand all about these things, I want the Lord Advocate to tell us why that Bill was not gone on with last night when we had a distinct promise and were asked to come here in support of it. There is no secret about it, and I can produce a Whip from the Whip's Office asking me to come and support the Bill. I have a right to ask the 1274 Scottish Secretary, or the right hon. Gentleman who represents him as well as he can, why by some arrangement, or I do not know what you would call it, though outside I might use a very strong term, why the Irish Bill was allowed to go on and the Scottish Bill was stopped after being hanging about these premises for some years. It is all very well to tell me there was a bargain, and that the Irish got their Bill, but I should like to see that proposed openly in this House. I ask why the Secretary for Scotland did not get the Bill—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That subject is not in order.

§ Mr. MORTON
I was not discussing the Bill, but only the action of the Scottish Secretary in not going on with the Bill. Something was said about the police. It is a monstrous thing that, while in England generally the Government grants have been fifty per cent. of the cost, we only get thirty-seven per cent. in Scotland. Surely the Secretary for Scotland ought to look after this, and if he did his duty in the Cabinet or elsewhere, the Liberal Government is not so bad altogether that they would refuse to give him for Scotland what is right and fair. For some reason or other, in the Metropolitan district the Government grant is four-ninths, but I suppose there are special reasons for that. I desire to ask the Lord Advocate about the proposal there is for a new pier in Ross-shire. About a hundred years ago a pier was built by funds provided by the old Fishery Associate Society of Scotland. There is now a proposal in the shape of a Provisional Order to build a new pier. I should like to say distinctly that I have not the slightest objection to the building of a pier or as many piers as they like, but the point is that they are proposing with the help of the Scottish Office to build a new pier and charge on it, while the inhabitants had the right to use the old stone pier free of all charges. I say that those poor people have the right to the protection of the Government in their free use of the stone pier. I object to the closing of the pier and putting a charge on it. I have taken some trouble in the matter to find out who is right. I have got a considerable number of affidavits from men of over seventy years, who declare from their knowledge that it has been free during all their time and before it. That makes a very good case for the inhabitants. It is suggested that those 1275 poor people should come 700 miles at a cost probably of £500 to oppose a Bill purporting to be supported by a Government department. I think it is cruelty to make such a suggestion. I contend it is the duty of the Government not to help companies and promoters of that sort to make money, but to protect the inhabitants in all their rights. Perhaps the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City, would tell us about the House Letting Bill arrangement.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am never out of order, and as that will be out of order I could not do so.

§ Mr. MORTON
I hope that the Lord Advocate will allow the vote for the Secretary's salary to be postponed to another day on the ground mainly that we have not got the Congested Districts Board report, which we ought to have here. Therefore we are entitled to have time to consider it in Committee of Supply. There are other reasons why we should have another day. The Irish get three days, and why Scotland should only get one is impossible to understand. During the last five or six years of Liberal Government we never had the slightest chance of discussing Scottish laws. I think that is a monstrous state of things. My hon. Friend alluded before to the fact that in a Parliament which is supposed to be a free Parliament that we never had the opportunity of considering Scottish law affairs. I should like to ask for some information on the question of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth. It cannot come, I think, under the Fishery Vote, because I am not sure that the Fishery Board have anything to do with it. I think it is simply a question for the Secretary for Scotland to obey the law. The question has been before the highest courts on Scotland on appeal, and it was decided against foreign trawlers. My hon. Friends and myself are simply asking that the Government should do their duty and put the law in force. What the Foreign Office has to do with it I do not know, but they do not seem to care for the interests of the people of Scotland. It does seem absurd that whilst foreign trawlers are allowed to take fish in the Moray Firth, and whilst we have the decision of the Scottish courts that they have no right to do so, the Scottish Office should take no action upon that decision of the courts of law. The Lord Advocate 1276 may be able to give some explanation, but it does not show much respect for the law of the country when there is a decision of the High Court of Scotland and the Scottish Office pays no attention whatever to it.
I want to say in conclusion that although we have felt it our duty to bring these various matters forward, and though somebody has said the Scotch Members are a poor lot, all of us are merely criticising the administration of the Government. I think these matters ought not to be party matters. The whole of the matters we have been talking about are matters of mere administration, which ought not to be dealt with on party lines. There is no doubt that any Government, be it Liberal or otherwise, is of no use unless it is properly criticised. I should not like to say for one moment that the present Government are no better than their predecessors. But how much they will be better is a matter for themselves. Nobody blames the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate so much, but we think that we have a right, as sixty Liberal Members out of seventy-two for Scotland, to say that something shall be done to stop the neglect of Scottish affairs, and to stop the depopulation, and that everything that is right and proper with regard to the Administration shall be done. The Government of Scotland should be looked into, and it should not be regarded as a party matter in any way.

§ Mr. J. A. BRYCE
The Member for Leith called the attention of the Lord Advocate to the increased burdens which were put on the local authorities by the demands of the administrative power. I desire to support that, but I hope I shall not be considered paradoxical if I also call attention to a case in which the Department is taking the precisely opposite course. My own Constituency of Inverness has found it very difficult to keep up its police force owing to the low rate of pay sanctioned for constables, which is lower than is usual in the smaller towns in the rest of the country, and they have asked the Secretary for Scotland to sanction an increase of the pay so that they may get the class of men they require to do that kind of police work. The class of men they want is being drawn off for the supply of boroughs in the south of Scotland, and therefore they are anxious to be allowed to pay a higher scale of pay so as to attract the class of men they need, I understand that the Secretary for Scotland has refused to sanction this neces- 1277 sary scale of pay, and I would ask the Lord Advocate to inform me whether he is aware of this matter, and whether he will represent to the Secretary for Scotland that the scale of pay in Inverness should be similar to that sanctioned for Perth and other southern counties.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)
The holidays being almost upon us, and the House being technically adjourned, we Scottish Members have a day to discuss matters in which we take an interest. I am sure that none of the other Members of the House will grudge us this modest contribution to our debates, and all of us will desire to use it to the best possible advantage, for here we are, a Scotch Parliament, without any interference, except for the presence of one or two notable exceptions, from our colleagues in England, Scotland, and Wales to discuss the affairs of our own country. When I was in Opposition I said I believed my own country was the best governed country in the world, although it was then under the administration of the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) and the hon. Member who is now Lord Justice General. And I say the same thing to-day, now that I have had experience for myself ranging over a period of four or five years, and I think I say so with some reason because it was well known some days ago, or a week ago, that we were to discuss the Scotch Estimates, I have not received, anterior to this discussion, any notice from any one of my colleagues of the topics they desired to raise. I am on speaking terms with all, and on more than speaking terms with most of them, and I think that is a striking testimony to the smooth and frictionless and uneventful way in which the affairs of Scotland proceed. When even the Gentleman so acute, zealous, and experienced as the Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite and the Member behind him for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) have given me no notice of taking part in the discussion it speaks volumes for the manner in which the affairs of Scotland have been administered.

§ Mr. MORTON
You put off the considerations of the Congested Districts Board because the report is not ready.

§ Mr. URE
When you consider the wide range of the discussion this afternoon, and that not one of these topics was mentioned to me even yesterday by any Member, that shows that the affairs 1278 complained of are not calculated to stop the foundations of the Empire.

§ Mr. PIRIE
How many notices of reductions are there by Members for Scotland on the Paper?

§ Mr. URE
It has been suggested that an additional day will be found to discuss some of these matters, and I hope that will be done. I deeply regret that the report of the Congested Districts Board was not available, and the Members for Scotland are entitled to make complaint, but we had no expectation that the report would be ready for to-day. We are discussing the Scotch Estimates this year several weeks earlier than the usual time, and I think when hon. Members get the report they will not find that it is bristling with debatable questions. I can assure them we have taken to heart the criticisms that were offered on the form in which the accounts were presented, and that in future they will be presented in a form in which they will be much more intelligible and more easily criticised and examined than in former years. So much at present for the Congested Districts Board. I dare say, if the business upon which we are to be engaged to-morrow is completely successful, we shall not have much more discussion about the composition of the Congested Districts Board.

§ Mr. MORTON
Because it will have gone.

§ Mr. URE
That is quite right. I will endeavour to follow as closely as I can the order of the discussion, and to pick up as they were presented to us the various points upon which my colleagues have spoken. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. J. C. Wason) has drawn our attention to the fact that a long time ago a deputation waited upon the Secretary for Scotland and myself to represent that there had been some neglect with regard to the conditions under which female labour is conducted in the southern counties of Scotland. I remember that deputation, and I think, with all respect to them, they were very ill-informed on the matter they came to bring forward. We invited them to give additional information, but they conveyed none; and we received some information for ourselves, which showed that the matter was not so serious as it was represented to us. We pressed upon the local authorities the duty, which was certainly laid upon them, to take action; and so far as we can we 1279 believe we have done our best to cause the local authorities to bring about a remedy. The Member for Orkney and Shetland also called my attention to topics relating to fishing in the Moray Firth, and to the general subject of trawling and the constitution of the Fisheries Board.
7.0 P.M.
I think these matters will come on when we reach the Fishery Vote. A number of my colleagues here are greatly interested in this subject, and desire to offer criticisms; and I think we will have an interesting discussion later in the evening. My hon. Friend also called attention to what, I agree, is a very important question which was raised as to the working of the Old Age Pensions Act. He said, truly, that in a great many instances old people were denied their 5s. on the ground that they had given up their crofts into the hands of successors, who might be a son or a someone of that kind; and he asked that inquiry should be made into the circumstances of those people in order that we might deal fairly by them. I was a member of the Local Government Board and Solicitor-General about the time the Act came into operation, and I had a good deal to do with its administration in the earlier stages. The view was held by some that a man when he reached the age of seventy years and upwards was entitled to give up his croft and claim his 5s. I was not able to take that view on a just construction of the statute, and in view of the intentions of this House when the Act was passed, and I can only say that each case must be inquired into on its merits, and the board or pensions committee must do their best to find out in each case whether the property was given away for the express purpose of obtaining the pension or in the ordinary natural course of events. I do not see how any general rule can be laid down, and I do not think that any general rule if it were laid down could be carried out. I think it is just one of the duties of the pensions committee, and the Local Government Board must do their best to review the decision. We have no desire to lay down any hard and fast rule that there is to be no inquiry after the pensions committee has decided, and the Local Government Board are asked to review their decision. I think it is still open to the Local Government Board to make inquiry. I have directed that to be done in many cases, and that course is still followed. The hon. 1280 Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs has raised a variety of topics. He asked whether the Scottish Office was devoting its attention to the question of the relation between local and Imperial taxation, the increasing burden of local taxation, and the distribution of the burdens between the taxpayer and the ratepayer? Yes, we are. But it is a very large, difficult, and complicated question, which will very early engage the attention of the Imperial Parliament. It is not confined to the special claim of Scotland as against other parts of the country. I think that everyone will agree that there is no larger, more difficult, and more complicated question lying in front of the legislative body of this country than the adjustment of the relations between local and Imperial taxation, so as to see that the burdens are fairly distributed over the shoulders of those who ought to bear them. Then the hon. Member asked me if there had been any strengthening of the Local Government Board for Scotland in order to enable them to cope with the additional work which now falls to be performed in connection with Rosyth and the housing of the men, and their town-planning scheme. The hon. Member knows that the Local Government Board has been strengthened.

§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)
There is a separate Vote relating to this matter.

§ Mr. URE
I admit it is somewhat away from the point, but I bow to your ruling.

§ Mr. WATT
How about free speech?

§ Mr. URE
In regard to your ruling, Mr. Emmott, the reason why I adverted to this question was that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs has spoken at length upon it, and the Secretary for Scotland is President of the Local Government Board and the responsible head of the Local Government Board.

§ Mr. PIRIE
The whole thing has been so irregular that it really does not much matter.

§ Mr. AINSWORTH
You were not in the Chair, Sir, at the time the question was asked that the right hon. Gentleman is answering. It was supposed to be in order when it was asked. Surely it is in order to give an answer.

§ Mr. URE
I will not pursue the subject. My hon. Friend has also asked a question as to the Royal Commission on the Registration of Titles. No one can say that 1281 all the Members of that Commission were of one mind. There were almost as many reports as Members of the Commission, but there was a large measure of common agreement amongst them. The Secretary for Scotland's intention is to invite the legal bodies in Scotland to formulate their views upon the question of conveyancing and to present them when matured to the Scottish Office. I promise, thereupon to bring in legislation to give effect, as far as I possibly can, to the common measure of agreement in the conclusions of the Commission.

§ Mr. MORTON
Your Bill will carry out their Report?

§ Mr. URE
I have not yet seen the report of the legal bodies. I have only seen the Report of the Commission. My hon. Friend knows better than anybody else in the House how difficult and complicated the question is. But I think he will agree that we have done the right thing when we have asked the experts to formulate their views. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lanark called attention to the housing arrangements, to the neglect of the sanitation in the mining districts. This is a matter which should be dealt with by the local sanitary authorities. I am personally deeply interested in the subject, for my own Constituency is largely a mining constituency. If specific instances are brought to my notice I will, of course, bring pressure to bear upon the local authority to compel them to do their statutory duty under the Public Health Act, and to secure an improvement in the housing of the mining population—which is a most important section of our industrial community. Then the hon. Gentleman called attention to what he called the neglect of the local authorities to enforce the statute of 1903 in regard to the employment of children. Here again I would invite specific instances, so that we may know who are the local authorities upon whom to bring pressure to bear. We shall do our best to compel the local authorities to do their duty if we know who they are.
I come now to an entirely different series of matters, ranging mostly from north to south of the West Highlands. My hon. Friend dropped a sympathetic tear over the condition of Benbecula, a place remote from civilisation, separate from the mainland, and amid stormy surroundings. But we have to consider that there should be some proportion preserved between expenditure and benefits to be secured. It only because the expenditure upon lights 1282 and piers in Benbecula and Barra would be out of all proportion to the benefits to be secured that we had to hold our hands. All these matters have been very carefully considered by the Congested Districts Board, and they really could not face the expenditure. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness has called attention to some matters relating to Mallaig, and other parts of his constituency. There again I am unable to say other than that the Congested Districts Board has very carefully gone into the consideration of this question, and has refused to incur the expense for the very same reason that it would be out of all proportion to the ad vantage to be secured.

§ Mr. HUNT
There were between £30,000 and £40,000 spent on Barra. The Congested Districts Board gets £35,000 a year.

§ Mr. URE
My contention is that there would be a very large sum required, and that to spend a small sum would be simply to throw away the money.

§ Mr. HUNT
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much it would be?

§ Mr. URE
I am informed—I am not speaking with certainty—that it would be something like £1,500. The Congested Districts Board has very carefully considered this question£and they must be careful in the expenditure of the comparatively modest sum which they have at their disposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities has made a complaint to which I, as one of his constituents, would give a very willing and ready ear, especially as it concerns my own alma mater. I was startled to be told that the Secretary for Scotland had actually refused my alma mater more money which it was thought ought to be given, but as my hon. Friend knows very well, the University of Glasgow has been very handsomely treated. The authorities there have received a very substantial sum from the Treasury, which is not yet, I understand, spent. When they have expended that sum I have no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland will be willing to lend an ear to any fresh demand which may be made by the Universities.

§ Mr. WATT
Do they get as much as the Irish Universities, or anything like it?

§ Mr. URE
My hon. Friend must understand that you do not apportion a grant in this matter by a system of arithmetical proportion. You measure the grants by 1283 the needs and the results of the University. That leads me to the complaint that has been made more than once in the course of Debate this afternoon as to the supposed inequality of treatment as between England and Scotland in regard to the police grant. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion of inequality. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh, oh."] I am just as patriotic as hon. Members and as eager to get as much for my country as they are.

§ Mr. MORTON
We can give the right hon. Gentleman the figures.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
The Clause which I quoted says that payment is to be in addition to any sums otherwise paid under any Act.

§ Mr. URE
The hon. Gentleman knows that the money which the Universities have already received has not yet been spent, and it would be foolish to pay out even to these Universities more money when they have not yet spent what they had. As regards the supposed inequality between England and Scotland in relation to the police grant, the police pay is a first charge upon the local taxation money in England, but in Scotland it is not. What we do not get for our police we get for education, and if we do not get more money for our education than for our police that is our look-out. We may change our views, and think the police more deserving than education, but these are matters for the Scotch Members to consider. But there is no inequality of treatment between one country and the other.

§ Mr. WATT
The cost of education falls upon the owners and the occupiers, whereas the police rate falls upon the owners only.

§ Mr. URE
Assuming that statement for a moment to be correct, and that it makes a difference in the distribution of burden, it makes no difference in the question in which hon. Members are interested—namely, the relative treatment of the two countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness Burghs asked some questions about the rate paid in Inverness. If he had given notice yesterday I could have answered him, but I can only now say we will take notice of the complaint, and consider the case of Inverness. I say the same with regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen and my hon. Friend the 1284 Member for Central Edinburgh, who inquired about the reformatory and industrial schools and about the mortality among children. It is a little premature to go into that until we see how the Children's Act of 1908 is working. It is well to pause a little and see what the effect of that Act will be in regard to these schools.

Mr. PRICE
With regard to the question of mortality amongst children, my point is that the Scottish Office might issue circulars pointing out that something should be done to reduce the death-rate. Some local authorities have taken action in that direction with good results.

§ Mr. URE
That requires consideration and attention, but I deprecate altogether that the Children's Act has done nothing to reduce the death-rate among children. It has a great deal to do with it. My hon. Friend also suggested that some improvement should be made in the King's Park in Edinburgh. I suppose I am one of the Members of this Committee that makes the most use of the King's Park. There is scarcely a week that I am not in it, and I have never seen any room for improvement. It is the most beautiful park I have ever seen in its way. I draw no comparison between it and the Phœnix Park, or St. James's Park, but it has great natural beauties, and I deprecate spending public money in making ornamental paths or forming ornamental sheets of water. It seems to me there is no room for any such thing in the King's Park, Edinburgh. I do not propose now to make any remarks upon the question of the closure of the Moray Firth to trawlers, and I think therefore I have exhausted all the questions which have been put to me.

§ Mr. PIRIE
It can hardly be expected that an humble individual like myself should be able to answer the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who with all the cleverness and practice of an able member of the legal profession is able to cloud the facts under eloquent verbiage. The right hon. Gentleman opened his speech by assuring us that all was well with Scotland, and he pointed out that no hon. Member had spoken to him about any complaints which they wished to put forward. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the trouble to look down the Order Paper, he would see no less than nine Amendments to be moved for a reduction of the Vote. It is an anomalous thing that an arrange- 1285 ment should have been come to by which these Debates should not have been carried to their conclusion by insisting on a Division. Why should certain Members from Scotland have given a pledge to that effect when the majority of them are falsely accused of not being in favour of the Scotch Land Bill? We have been falsely accused of wishing to postpone the Land Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The question of the Land Bill has nothing whatever to do with these Estimates.

§ Mr. PIRIE
I was only anxious to explain the fact as to the pledge which was given about not going to a Division, and I was anxious that the truth should be known. I protest against the unfair position in which we are placed, and I say that no one is more culpable in that respect than the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has not touched upon the absence of the Scotch Secretary or upon the limitations put upon Scotch Members in this discussion this afternoon, in which every Member has been called to order. It is an unprecedented scandal of the greatest magnitude.

§ Mr. HUNT
The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to the island of Benbecula; why has not money been spent upon that island when money has been spent upon the island of Barra? Why cannot the necessary small sum of money be employed there in order to provide a daily mail service, which is very necessary for the benefit of the inhabitants? Barra has two ports where a boat calls, and it is very hard upon the people of Benbecula that they should not be afforded these necessary facilities.

§ Mr. URE
The answer is that the Congested Districts Board consider that money which might be well spent on one island might be thrown away if it were similarly spent on another.

§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON
There is one question which I want to put to the Lord Advocate, but before doing so I want to enter my caveat against the assumption that the Government of Scotland is a model one. To my mind it is a model to avoid, not because there are not many admirable individuals connected with it, but because the system as a whole is probably the worst among civilised Governments. The question I want to put to the Lord Advocate is this: whether he is aware of the great complaints made of the 1286 cumbersome character and great expense of private Bill inquiries as now conducted for Scotland, and whether anything can be done, apart from legislation, to reduce these expenses and to reduce the trouble to suitors and opponents of measures in carrying through their operations? An inquiry in Scotland owing to the intricate regulations really makes the present system far more costly and cumbersome than when we had to go through the ordinary Committee of Parliament. I ask whether something could not be done to improve the system.

§ Colonel GREIG
I desire to put a question to the Lord Advocate which has been put before him on other occasions. It arises out of an accident that occurred in the constituency of an hon. Gentleman opposite. At one of the village fairs that takes place annually in Scotland a fatality occurred in connection with one of the shooting galleries which was erected there. I have heard of various accidents of this character that occurred on like occasions in Scotland. I am not aware whether the local authorities have any power in Scotland to licence or register these galleries or other instruments of that sort, and I want to know is there any opportunity under the law of Scotland for local authorities to intervene in cases of this kind, and to see that proper regulations are laid down in order to prevent accidents occurring. The Lord Advocate will recollect the case I mean. It caused considerable discussion in the neighbourhood in which it occurred, and a case was originally raised in this House, I think, by the hon. Member for Buteshire.

§ Mr. URE
I recollect the incident to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and it was an exceedingly lamentable incident. None such ever occurred before and none has ever occurred since, and although the local authorities have power, I think, to regulate by means of by-laws these shooting galleries, I am not sure that the local authorities of the county in which this occurred have passed by-laws to this effect. We are in communication with them. I think the power is possessed by the local authorities not to intervene and interfere, but to proceed by by-laws and to punish those who infringe them. The hon. Member asked me whether anything can be done to reduce expenditure under the Private Bill Procedure Act for Scotland. A great deal may be done, but it can only be done by the parties concerned and the solicitor. It largely lies 1287 in their hands to control and limit the amount of expenditure. It is not really the machinery of the Act that is the cause of the great expenditure, but it lies in other directions which are in the hands and under the control of the parties who are conducting the inquiries. If they will exercise the pruning knife I have no doubt they will be able to reduce the costs to within reasonable dimensions. You never can conduct inquiries of this kind without considerable expenditure, because you require expert witnesses whose services are much sought after, and consequently they are highly remunerated. I think my hon. Friend will find that the remedy for this expenditure is largely in the hands of the parties, and is not due to the machinery of the Act. With regard to the machinery of the Act, I know that some difference of opinion prevails, but I think the majority of expert opinion is in favour of the view that the machinery of the Act works really very well when administered.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I wish to ask whether we shall be able to take some of the fishery questions and matters relating to education later on? With regard to what has been said about taking a Division, the circumstances are not in the least different to what they were last year when an opportunity was given for a Division, and hon. Members opposite did not avail themselves of it.

§ Mr. PIRIE
That statement is absolutely without foundation, because there were three or four Divisions taken against the Government.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
Not upon the Votes for the Secretary for Scotland's salary.

§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT
If the hon. Member will refer to Division List 104 he will see that a Division took place on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
Yes, and that was upon an Amendment moved by an hon. Friend behind me. I think we might be allowed now to get on with the discussion of some other questions.

§ Mr. MORTON
I think we have a right to complain that the Lord Advocate has not taken any notice whatever of some of the points we have raised. I cannot understand why he did not reply with regard to the House Letting and Rating Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That has nothing to do with Committee of Supply.

§ Mr. PIRIE
May I remind the hon. Member that there was a Division last year in which Sir Walter Menzies and Captain Waring were the tellers.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
That was not on the Scotch Estimates.

§ Mr. PIRIE
Yes, it was upon the Scotch Estimates.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
Was it not upon the salary of the Secretary for Scotland.

§ Mr. MORTON
The Lord Advocate said he had no notice about some of the questions which had been brought forward. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why he had no notice. It is no use giving him notice. I asked him last year a question about the turning of some agricultural land in Scotland into a deer forest. I asked the question twelve months ago last Easter, and I have not got an answer yet. Evidently the right hon. Gentleman's influence with the Scottish Office is not very great. I suggested that this Vote should be postponed until we got the Congested Districts Board Report so that we should have an opportunity of properly discussing it, and the right hon. Gentleman has not even answered that question. It is certainly not unusual with Irish Votes to leave them open so that we can raise particular questions again upon another occasion. If we allow this Vote to be taken now after we get the Report to which I have referred, even if we get another day, we cannot discuss that particular question. I know I cannot make the right hon. Gentleman reply, but considering that these matters have to do with the Government of Scotland I think the right hon. Gentleman might have the courtesy to reply to the questions which are put to him.

§ Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
On former occasions when we have made a comparison of the expenditure allowed in England with that of Scotland we have always been told that the balance is made up to Scotland in what she receives for education. We never have had, either from the Lord Advocate or anyone else a clear statement of the exact proportion which Scotland does receive as compared with England.

§ Mr. YOUNGER
That is contained in the Schedule of the Act of 1889.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Has the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate any administrative power over the question which the hon. Member is discussing?

§ Mr. PRINGLE
It is the duty of the Scotch Office to obtain from the Treasury as much money as possible.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not for the Lord Advocate.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I want some assurance from the Lord Advocate in regard to the police. The cost of the English police was very much increased by an Act passed last Session, and I want an assurance that if we do not receive a similar contribution to Scotch expenditure on the police something in proportion should be paid to other branches of Scotch expenditure. I think that is only fair.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Scottish Office cannot do that. All that the Lord Advocate can answer for is the administration of the Secretary for Scotland.

§ Mr. MORTON
Surely we can ask the Secretary for Scotland to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more money.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I understand that this matter of expenditure is a question between the Department and the Treasury. On the Navy Estimates we are allowed to complain of the amount allotted to the Navy, although Those Estimates have been arranged between the Admiralty and the Treasury. I submit that I am in order in asking that the Scottish Office in dealing with the Treasury should insist that a certain amount should be contributed by the Treasury in accordance with Scottish needs. It has been the custom in all branches of the Civil Service in Scotland not to pay the same rates as are paid to English Civil servants. The explanation given for this is that the cost of living is dearer in Scotland than in England. We know very well that with the exception of London the cost of living in Scotland is as high, taking the average, as in any other part of England. Consequently there is no justification whatsoever for this lower scale of pay.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Are the Civil servants in question included in the Estimate we are discussing, or are they not? If they are not included in this Vote the 1290 matter cannot be discussed. Which are the particular Civil servants the hon. Member means?

§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON
The Scottish Office takes responsibility through its Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland for the condition of efficiency of the Scottish police.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That has nothing to do with the question we are considering. I was referring to the question of the pay of Civil servants.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
There are a number of Civil servants whose salaries are charged under the Vote for the Scottish Office generally, but if you rule that I cannot raise this point upon this Vote I may say that I intend to raise it on every other Vote; so that the probability is we shall save a little time if the discussion is taken generally on the salary of the Secretary for Scotland.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member cannot treat the question generally in that way. If he wishes to complain of certain salaries which are included in this Vote he is in order, but if he wishes to complain generally he is not, in order.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
All I wanted to do was to save the time of the Committee. The point I was raising arises under the Prisons Vote, and I will raise it when that Vote comes on.

§ Mr. WATT
I must protest against the complacency of the Lord Advocate in his reply to the questions which have been put to him. The Lord Advocate took no notice whatever of my observations in his reply. He trusted to his memory—and he possesses a wonderful memory—but like most memories it has its defects. In these circumstances I desire to say that I shall insist on the Motion for a reduction which I have proposed if I can get a teller, and I believe the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire will stand with me in the breach. These discussions show a clear indication how much Home Rule is needed for Scotland, in order that the affairs of Scotland may be satisfactorily administered. There are sixteen departments over which the Secretary for Scotland is chief, and in discussing his salary we are not permitted to touch any of these sixteen departments. Therefore, the struggle we have in making a speech is visible to the naked eye. I certainly thought, when we got a Scotch representative as a Lord of 1291 the Treasury, the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland), the Secretary for Scotland would have an easier task, but I am sorry to say the influence of the hon. Member as a Lord of the Treasury has not been noticeable in what we have got. I rose to say that in my view Scotland, to put it negatively, is not the best-governed country in the world, and to indicate, in saying I insist on a Division, that I am not in any way bound by any pledge.

§ Mr. PIRIE
I profoundly regret that owing to the pledge I gave, it will be impossible for me to support him if my hon. Friend goes to a Division. It was passed at a meeting by a majority of fifteen Scotch National Members in order to secure to-morrow that we should not divide. That is what we pledged ourselves to, and, because I gave that pledge, I am sorry, and I hope my hon. Friend will understand, I cannot go into the Lobby to express my protest against the misleading speech of the Lord Advocate which, instead of making the case better, has made it worse.

§ Mr. MORTON
I am sorry to have to join my hon. Friend in this Division, but I am going to do it as a protest against the way the Lord Advocate has treated us to-night. Surely we have a right to be answered by these officials of ours. They ought not to be our masters. They take our salary, and they are our servants, and we are entitled, so long as we keep in order, to ask for replies on points we seldom have an opportunity of putting before the Committee. I have pointed out that the Lord Advocate did not send me on a communication he promised twelve months ago. He seems to treat that as a very ordinary state of things and makes no reply. The Division in which I shall be happy to join my hon. Friend will not be so much against the Secretary for Scotland as against the inability of the Lord Advocate to answer, as well as the fact that he will not answer. That is where our complaint comes in. The Lord Advocate knows nothing about the matter. He guesses at some things, I suppose, but he is not in a position to know, and therefore I rather excuse him. He ought, however, to try and answer, and he ought to bear in mind we are here representing the Kingdom of Scotland and the Scottish people. The large bulk of us have no axes of our own to grind and have no object except to promote the interests of our Constituents. I brought forward to-night 1292 a number of matters in connection with Sutherland, which we say require attention to prevent further depopulation. The Lord Advocate, who represents the Secretary for Scotland, has no reply to make, and that is the way Scotland is misgoverned. Then some hon. Gentlemen, I believe it was the Lord Advocate himself, suggested it is such a model government. I agree with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro-Ferguson). It is not a model Government. See how we are treated. Our Secretary is sent away, and we get no answer from the Lord Advocate. I am driven, therefore, to support my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) as a protest, not against the Secretary for Scotland, but against the way we have been treated by the Lord Advocate.

§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON
I hope my hon. Friend will not divide. There was an understanding at a very large meeting—I think the largest meeting of Scotch Members we have ever held—that in the circumstances we would not divide, and the Lord Advocate has expressed his opinion this evening in favour of another day being given. I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (the Master of Elibank) has also realised that the conditions under which the Debate has been conducted to-day are not satisfactory, and we ought to have another day on Scotch Estimates before the end of the Session. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends, and I entirely disagree with the Lord Advocate as to the character of our present system of government in Scotland, but in the circumstances I do not think we ought to go to a Division. Those bound by the understanding certainly could not support it, and I hope, therefore, the reduction will not be pressed to a Division.

§ Lord BALCARRES
I had not the advantage of hearing the Lord Advocate's speech, but I gather from the statement of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs that the Lord Advocate indicated his desire to provide a second day for Scotch Estimates.

§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON
He gave no pledge, but he indicated he thought it was reasonable. Of course, I should like an understanding, but he did express his own personal desire for a second day.

§ Mr. URE
I said I shared the hopes and expectations of my hon. Friend.

§ Lord BALCARRES
I do not think it misrepresents his view to say that he indicated a desire, especially as he now says he shares the hopes and expectations of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I merely wish to enter this caveat. Unless the practice, universal in the past Parliament but one, but never put into effect since 1906, to add three extra days of Supply to those provided under our Standing Orders, be revived, it rests primarily with the Opposition to determine what subjects are to be discussed in Supply. That understanding was accepted by the House of Commons ten or a dozen years ago. I enter this caveat, especially in view of the fact that some agreement has been come to by hon. Gentlemen amongst themselves not to divide. The debate has in consequence been somewhat unreal in its character, and I therefore think myself justified in entering, on behalf of the Opposition generally, that word of warning.

§ Mr. MORTON
Shall I be in order in moving that this Vote he postponed with a view to having another day in Committee.

§ The CHAIRMAN
No. The hon. Member cannot do that. It is open to withdraw the Vote by general consent of the Committee if the Lord Advocate asks for it, but it cannot be done in any other way. Otherwise it must be decided.