§ Mr. HARDIE
I beg to move, in Clause 1, page 1, line G, to leave out the words "the Scottish Board of Health."
It is quite true that the subjects individually have been discussed in Committee to a very great, extent, but I think the importance of the changes to be made justifies the length of the Committee Debates upon them. If it were simply a question of the reorganisation of Offices, there would not have been this long period of discussion in Committee, but there is much more in it than that. The reorganisation of anything means that you still retain the principles, but that you change over in their working out, but the changes now suggested by this Bill are that we extinguish certain Scottish Offices, and in their place there is going to be appointed a special civil servant. It is against this that we have made our biggest fight. If the Secretary of State for Scotland could at any time have brought forward arguments to show that these Departments were inefficient in administration, not only would the time of the Committee have been saved, but we might not have been discussing the matter further to-night. Not a single 1957 instance, however, of the inefficiency of any of these Offices that he seeks to wipe out did the right hon. Gentleman bring forward.
From the Scotsman's point of view, if there is anything in nationalism at all, we very much regret that any Secretary of State for Scotland should, not only in this case, but in the last five years, have taken every opportunity of taking away some of these things that belong to Scotland. We feel that there is something tragic in these national contacts being wiped out. If the right hon. Gentleman had been wanting to persuade the change, if he had come first with a definite statement of the inefficiency of these offices, if he had stated that Scotland could not produce the type of mentality necessary to undertake the responsibility of these offices, we might have had a basis of reality for the discussion, but we have not been provided with a single instance of the kind. All that we are told, in that language that sounds, when it is heard, as if a doomed man had written it, is that certain things will happen "on the appointed day." That brings us back, especially those of us who come from the same land as the Secretary of State for Scotland, to those Sunday mornings in the old Church when we heard words such as these: "On the appointed day." It always seems to me when I hear these words spoken, or see them in print, that there is some sense of doom carried forward with them.On the appointed day, the Scottish Board of Health, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Prison Commissioners for Scotland shall cease to exist.It is almost biblical, and yet it carries with it that sense of doom, even in the last phrase—"shall cease to exist." I cannot understand any man claiming to be a Scotsman who even takes a part in trying to wipe out anything that is national, and what is more native to nationality that a nation's instinctive right to govern, to administer, its own affairs? I can think of nothing more degrading to a nation than to feel that it is being treated as if there was not the mentality in Scotland to carry forward Scotland's work in administration. It does not require the Secretary of State for Scotland or anybody else to tell us the results of the work of these Departments. The work that they have done will always 1958 live as monuments of concentrated effort from a national point of view, because I never forget the difficulties under which these various Departments have had to work. There was always that contact with Whitehall that just prevented the fullest development that one would expect from a Scotsman looking after his own national affairs. In the Committee upstairs, there were Amendments opposing all these deletions, and may I repeat once and for all that there never has been any demand from Scotland for these changes?
If there had been evidence from these various departments of certain inefficiencies, of cases where a department was not working properly, or where there was some slackness about the control of individuals, all tending towards the necessity for a reconstruction or reorganisation, there would have been some ground for the Secretary of State proceeding. But this evidence did not exist, and because a Tory Government were seeking in every way to decentralise all that was left of Scottish administration, they conceived the idea that, in order to rob Scotland of its last offices, they could use the Secretary of State for Scotland in order to put in a political system. It is not to be a question now of whether a man has that intimate knowledge that comes from long training in a department; he has not to have an intimate knowledge of Scotland or Scottish affairs, he is to be a certain class of Civil servant. Of course, Toryism stands for all that is undemocratic, and I can quite see their point of view, that if they get a despot in the shape of a Civil servant, they will be able to do things that will meet with the approval of reaction in Toryism.
§ Mr. HARDIE
It cannot be described in the English language. I am now studying another language, which I am told contains words that might equal the sense, or the lack of it, in the Tory party regarding these things.
§ Mr. HARDIE
I am sorry that it is not a language belonging to the British Isles. We have not been able to cultivate a language capable of expressing the depth and degradation of Toryism. There seems to be a concerted and 1959 determined effort to destroy what is left of administration in Scotland. What was contained in the King's Speech shows that the Cabinet have made up their minds that, now they have got a man who will do it, to use every means in their power to do it. We are told that there is no ill-feeling between the three nations that make up Great Britain. I accept that as a phrase, but how can I accept it when this kind of thing is introduced into the King's Speech? The King's Speech is supposed to be an Address from representatives of all parts of the island, and yet we have in it an intimation that one part is to be decapitated, as far as certain offices are concerned. The Secretary of State has implied more than once that the change sought was merely an addition. In Committee on this Bill, the Secretary of State said:When people talk about bureaucracy, what does it really imply? The responsibility which I have to Parliament is not, in fact, going to be altered in any way by this Measure. All I am asking is for a more efficient machine. Somebody said that access to responsible officials or to expert officials would be denied. That is not the case. These offices will be organised with a responsible head, responsible to the Minister and responsible for the advice which he gives to the Minister. There will be the various Departments in the offices just as there are now dealing with this or that aspect of health or of housing, and the beads of each of these Departments will be drawn from the Civil Service as they are drawn to-day.When the right hon. Gentleman said that, he did not mean that the Civil servants as they were drawn to-day were the heads of these Departments, and that others were subordinate to them. He went on to say:They will have access not only to the bead of the Department who advises the Minister, but if there is any difference of opinion or contrary view expressed, they will have access to the Minister himself. In fact, while you abolish the Board system you will retain within the offices as the departmental ordinary procedure just as it takes place in other offices to-day, those consultations between the heads of Departments which are essential."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 21st March, 1928: col. 10.]The Secretary of State knows that this is not in keeping with what is taking place. He has had representations in regard not only to the alterations that are to be made by the change, but also 1960 to the change that is to be made in the conditions, and he has probably received a communication from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. They draw attention to that to which I drew attention in Committee, namely, the subordination which is to take place. Reorganisation, if it meant reorganisation, would not have meant that something new was to come in and to be over the rest, and so bring in this subordination. It would seem by what has taken place and by the right hon. Gentleman's speech that there is some little irregularity, and the evidence of that irregularity is contained in this document, which says:—This subordination has recently been challenged by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, but reference to the Lord Advocate's speech on the Second Reading shows that the intention is to apply rigidly the permanent secretary system as it obtains in England, under which the technical experts will be reduced to the position of mere consultants with no executive authority or right of appeal to the Minister where their advice is being over-ruled.I am not contesting that if the administrative side is to over-ride the technical side, the technical men should have the right to put their case to the Minister direct. Not only on this subject, but on every subject in the House when the question of the technical men has come up, I have fought for this. There is no use in a Government paying large sums to technical men and then keeping them like cows in a shed to milk information from them when required. I object to the continual running between the Front Bench and the Government advisers behind the Speaker's Chair. These men with real knowledge are asked for their opinion by the heads of the Department on the political side, who are supposed to be above them. The man on the Front Bench is supposed to be a man with an unbiased mind—that means an empty mind. This technical man, with full knowledge, is asked to explain something, and he explains it, but they do not understand him, and so they turn him down. That is what happens 99 times out of 100 in Government affairs. I know it because I have tested it out in this House. Surely the Secretary of State will have something to say on that point, because if the technical adviser is going to be crushed and kept down, and never to get to the head of a Department, it will mean that we shall never get the harmony which is 1961 absolutely necessary in a Department before good work can be done. Why should we lay down conditions which treat the officials of a Department as though they were a row of doors—No. 1 is the boss, and No. 2 is the fellow next to him. I know from experience of public work that whenever you try to follow on those lines you get friction; the machine will not work smoothly, and that must produce bad results. All this is to take place "on the appointed day."
During the Committee proceedings there was some contention in regard to this question of subordination. At first the Secretary of State was not quite clear on the matter. He did not think he was going to have any defence such as I am describing, but either he or the Lord Advocate is wrong, and I will leave them to fight it out. During the Second Reading Debate the Lord Advocate said:the existing members of the various Boards are retained in the Departments and will find their place under the changed form of administration. They will not have the same responsibility which they had, along with the Chairman, as members of the Board; they will be subordinate to the permanent head of the Department, but they will be there.…These experts will still be retained in the Department, but they will only be acting in a subordinate or advisory position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1928; col. 917, Vol. 214.]All that has been said at public meetings outside about not taking away this or that is not supported by the facts which are to be found in reports of the proceedings in this House. I know there are many other hon. Members who will be taking part in the discussion to-night——
§ Mr. HARDIE
I am not responsible for the other side. [Interruption]. Perhaps it is out of order for the Liberal party to be present. On this question of the technical man, I say I would rather see the technical man sitting there by right, the right of his knowledge. What an insult it must be to a man with technical knowledge when some man says to him, "I will condescend to discuss something that you know and that I do not know." That is too often the position, and not alone in Boards like the Board of Health and the Board of Agriculture. I know a farmer who is one of the biggest experts in his own line. Just imagine this big, fine fellow, with fine red beard, and hair 1962 the colour of that of the Secretary of State, coming into an office with all the breezes of the countryside about him—called into consultation with some thing who has never seen more than the inside of a college, who is called an expert civil servant. This man begins to ask the man who knows some questions. I can just imagine what that friend of mine would say. [Interruption]. I will not say it here, but, put in Sunday language, he would say, "My lad, I never discuss what I know with those who do not know, unless as a master to a pupil." And that would be the finish.
We cannot be too careful about the proposals in this Bill, because once we let this Measure go we have lost our grip on the situation. In the hall outside this Chamber there is a large picture dealing with an historical incident when certain Scotsmen sold the Scottish people for a mess of pottage. As I have told the Secretary of State, if he does not alter—and while there is life there is hope—the only thing left will be to complete that picture downstairs by painting him in at the back. I would like to have the job of painting him in the picture. Having regard to this Bill and all that it contains, I should see him, when I was completing that picture, not as Sir John Gilmour, Secretary of State for Scotland, but I should see him as a tool of the Tory party with horns and cloven feet—as Auld Nickie, which means his Satanic Majesty. If the administrative official is to override the technical adviser, in all fairness the latter ought to have the right of going direct to the Minister. That is the practice which exists in the Ministry of Health in England. Sir George Newman and the other medical experts would not consent to be subjected as these experts of the Scottish Department are to be. They always have direct access to the Minister of Health, not only to be heard, but to decide. They decide medically, and the other fellow, who does not understand the medical side, decides politically. That is the position.
I want to point out to the Secretary of State for Scotland that in my view if a thing is good enough for England it should be good enough for Scotland. Has the right hon. Gentleman lost all interest in Scottish affairs and all respect for the Scottish people, because he is now 1963 putting Scotland on a lower rung of the ladder in organisation than the Ministry of Health in England? Many comments have been made about the administration of the offices which are dealt with in this Measure, and I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his reply, to say definitely whether there have been complaints about the Scottish Board of Health, because this is a point upon which the public ought to be informed. If the right hon. Gentleman would answer this question it might take away our opposition.
Those who are putting these proposals forward know that we know that they cannot put up such a defence. Considering the conditions which obtain in Scotland no one can deny that the Scottish Board of Health have done wonders, and in sanitation they have shown the way to other countries. What is going to happen under the reconstructed Board of Health as regards the work which is now being carried on by that organisation? This is a much bigger question than it appears on paper. Those of us who do a little travelling in the remote parts of Scotland know what is meant by a definite knowledge not only of the medical side of these questions but of the existing conditions, and we know that the success of the administration will not be ensured by appointing a civil servant without the necessary contact with these things.
It is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to show us where the inefficiency exists which has caused him to make proposals for the reconstruction of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. That Board has fought against many difficulties in regard to the land system and other questions. An Agricultural Board working freely in Scotland can give good results, but under the system proposed, where are you going to get any information which will be worth having? You will not get such information from the men who have only seen the inside of a University. You can only get the information you require from the men who know, and those who know are the men who have been engaged in the work for a long time. If we had a Board free from dictation by political heads I am sure Scotland would take its place with any other country in the world. It is no 1964 use having a very highly-skilled college-bred man with a certificate showing so many years' attendance at a college unless that man can bring with him agricultural common-sense, and that cannot be got at the University. Mr. Speir is a Scotsman who would be the measure that I should use in measuring out what I believe is necessary in the case of agricultural knowledge. You should have a free board of skilled men and allow the contact between these men and the Government to be a type of machinery that would control expenditure and that which it would obviously be wrong to do. Let the skilled men be free and then you will get the full advantage of their skill. Who can say that the appointment of a new head to deal with the prisons of Scotland is going to be an improvement? In this House not many weeks ago an English Member complimented the Scottish Prison Commissioners on their Report, and he said that Report was not only much larger but superior to the English Report.
Notwithstanding this evidence, the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to destroy the Scottish Prison Commissioners, although in the past they have been the envy of other countries. How can a civil servant deal effectively with the difficulties that arise in connection with crime and criminals? The Commissioners have had close contact with these things, and they have been associated with the movement which has aimed at doing something for the criminal class. They have tried, and they have done their best to find work which is most suitable for the class of people in our prisons. How much of that spirit would you get from a man who is attracted to the position merely on account of the high salary, but who possesses no real capacity for the work? When I want any information about prisons I communicate directly with the prison authorities. I think England has a great deal to learn on this matter from the Scottish Prison Commissioners, and I am surprised at the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Cabinet putting forward these proposals. Instead of adopting this policy, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have said to the Cabinet: "Let us keep the organisation we have, and then we will show you what the human touch can do." Instead of doing that, the Secretary of State for 1965 Scotland seems to have slunk into the corner at the bidding of the Prime Minister. I only wish we had a Scottish Secretary of State who would fight the Cabinet on behalf of his own country and its institutions, but we have got such a Scottish Secretary. All this has been used as another step in the progress that I was pointing out—the progress during the last five years in doing everything to take from Scotland its real contact with government. I am not allowed to use the language that I would like to use in trying to describe how I feel. There is Scottish poetry that I could quote which would make the right hon. Gentleman blush, if that were possible, to think that, in the last stage of real national responsibility a Scotsman should sell, not only himelf, but his fellows I thought that those days belonged to a dim and buried past, but it seems that even now we have a remnant of that mind in the Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Mr. WRIGHT
I beg to second the Amendment.
In rising to support the observations which have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), I feel that I am doing so under some little difficulty. It is an amazing thing to me that when such an important change is proposed, there should be less than a score of Members out of 615 in this House at nine o'clock. There are only two Cabinet Ministers sitting on the Government Bench at the present time——
§ Mr. WRIGHT
Yes, the Secretary of State and a Law Officer—one and a half. We have had a good deal about percentages this evening and we will not quarrel over that aspect of the question. When this question was being considered by the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, I opposed the change very earnestly and to the best of my ability, and I am so far consistent that I intend to oppose it to the best of my ability this evening. I know quite well, from close contact with a number of men responsible for the administration of local affairs in Scotland, that they are entirely averse to the change that is to take place, and I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland is under an obligation to show that there has been some demand for it from Scotland. 1966 It is a shocking thing to ignore the public opinion of between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 people, and put them under the heel, as this proposal will, of a Cabinet which consists almost entirely of Englishmen.
There can be no doubt, in my mind at any rate, that there is considerable alarm, which, perhaps, has not manifested itself in Scotland, but which does exist among those who are most closely in touch with the people of Scotland in regard to this proposed change. Having regard to the needs of Scotland, I was surprised to find that in the Gracious Speech from the Throne the question of rating and this particular Bill found a prominent place, because those who know the needs of Scotland know quite well that an entirely different set of questions should have been considered during this Session. As a matter of fact, I am very doubtful whether the proposed rearrangement of rating and valuation will touch the fringe of the problem which concerns the great majority of the people of Scotland, and it seems to me that the Bill which we are considering to-night is an entirely reactionary one and an entirely retrograde step. Take, for instance, the question that I put to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Standing Committee. Agriculture ought to be the basic industry of every nation, because it is on the food produced that we live. We need food daily, and Scotland is only producing a small proportion of that which it requires. It is capable of producing far more without any additional expert advice. If we acted upon the scientific knowledge and expert advice already available, far more could be produced from the soil and waters of Scotland than is being produced at the present time. Why not act upon the knowledge that we have, rather than strive to obtain additional knowledge which may never he used, since the existing knowledge is not used at the present time?
The question which I put to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Standing Committee, and to which he did not vouchsafe an answer on that occasion, but which I hope he will answer in this Debate, was as to what special scientific or agricultural knowledge this gentleman whom he proposes to appoint from the Civil Service as the head of this Department 1967 will possess which will give him some special qualification for this particular kind of work. If he has not such knowledge, there is no special virtue in appointing him. The great need of Scotland just now, so far as the majority of the industrial workers are concerned, is to be able to absorb the 140,000 people who are unemployed, the vast number who are only partly employed, and the people who are finding themselves destitute and even worse because of the conditions which prevail. Will the changes proposed in this Bill touch the fringe of any of these questions? I submit that they will not, and that an entirely different set of circumstances is required.
I want to come finally to a question upon which I said a few words in the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills—the question of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland. From the Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland for the year 1927, I find that the number of persons admitted to prison had increased in 1926, partly due to the labour troubles in that year. The Report says that the total number of admissions in 1927 was 16,460, as against 17,690 in 1926, and 15,802 in 1925. Will the reorganisation of this Department have any effect in decreasing the number of people who are in prison in Scotland? On the contrary, I think it is highly probable that it will have the reverse effect, because the people who know the conditions and are in close contact with these people will have ceased to function so far as these matters are concerned. There is evidence in the present Report that the Scottish Office ought to be tackling the unemployment problem to a very much greater extent, because it has a bearing upon the number of people who find their way to prison. The Report says:The Governors make inquiries through the Police and also of the parents of those concerned. Note has previously been made of the large proportion who have lost one or both parents in early life. This fact again entered into the reports for 1927. The part played by unemployment in relation to crime committed by young persons is also brought out in a striking manner by a return obtained from Polmont regarding previous employment of 50 inmates received in consecutive order. It is observed that almost all those sentenced to Polmont Institution were out of employment at the time they committed the crime. An analysis 1968 of the figures shows that the average age at admission was 18 years two months.Forty-three were idle at the time of committing the offence; four were employed selling newspapers; and only three were in other employment.The further fact is mentioned in the Report that boys are dismissed from their employment on reaching the age of 18, when a higher rate of insurance becomes payable, and thus they are driven from pillar to post without employment, and associate with evil companions, until they find themselves in prison and get that worst of all starts early in life on the downward road which deprives them in some cases of any future prospects. I think I remember some lines which seem to apply to these people:They're lost to love and honour,They're lost to hope and truth;They're dropping down the ladder rung by rung;And the measure of their torture is the measure of their youth,Alas! they knew the worst too young.The Government are to some extent putting upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Scotland the responsibility for the degradation and the loss of the fine spirit and character of these boys when they grow up to manhood, because they have missed in early life that opportunity which ought to have been provided for them. It is an extremely shocking state of affairs, and all who wish well for their country should strive to ameliorate these conditions. There is another point which is constantly brought out in Scotland in particular. People who live there know well how at public meetings it is often declared what a very superior system of education prevails in Scotland as compared with England.
§ Mr. WRIGHT
I have heard that observation on many occasions and, if the hon. Gentleman has not heard it, he has not attended many public meetings in Scotland in the last 20 years. But, assuming that the statement is correct, it ought to apply to those who are responsible for the government of Scotland.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present——1969
§ Mr. WRIGHT
This customary farce of two score Members walking into the Chamber for two minutes, and then departing again is another instance of how not only the Scottish Office but also this very Chamber is out-of-date so far as our Debates are concerned.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dennis Herbert)
The hon. Member must remember that we are not now discussing the constitution of this Chamber.
§ Mr. WRIGHT
I know that, but I think it was worth saying. It is a great pity the people of Scotland are not here to see it. But I leave that aspect of the question. I was pointing out that, if there be any logic at all in the statement of the superiority of the education that prevails in Scotland, it ought to apply with equal force to those who are responsible for local government, and, if that be true, I cannot understand the object of the Secretary of State in seeking to abolish these Offices. There is one other point so far as the Prison Commissioners are concerned. This report in dealing with the health of prisoners says:Eighty-one cases of insanity were reported, as compared with 71 last year; 72 of these were insane before admission to prison.So they have a number of people in England and in Scotland who were arrested as people who were responsible for their conduct, and it is afterwards discovered that they ought not to have been there at all.68 were untried and four were convicted prisoners; 20 were reported as feebleminded, and of these 11 were handed over to inspectors of poor on discharge.That reveals a very shocking state of affairs. If I could believe for a moment that, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals were going to improve the social, moral and intellectual position of the people, I should support them wholeheartedly. Having lived there for wellnigh 30 years, I have seen some of the awful conditions that prevail, and in few places are they worse than in my own division of Rutherglen, and I know from the local officials that they look with alarm on this proposal that has been made. I know how utterly futile any appeal of mine to the Secretary of State will be. At an earlier stage to-day he made a special appeal to us on these benches, in a great peroration, 1970 that if we could advance any arguments or bring forward any data which would weigh with him or the Government, he would listen to thorn. My answer is that for five and a half years we have hammered him again and again with arguments and data that could not be disputed and in not one single case, as far as I know, has it ever had the faintest effect upon him or the Government. Therefore, I have no hope that any appeal of mine will have effect, but at any rate we have the satisfaction of registering our protest against this change that is about to be made.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I spoke at considerable length on the Second Reading and I supported the Bill. I have watched the proceedings in Committee and otherwise with very great interest, and I have heard no argument advanced which has made me alter my opinion. I regret very much that I cannot see eye to eye with my colleagues from Scotland above the Gangway. If I thought for a moment that the passage of the Bill belittled in any way the feeling of Scottish nationality that we all have, I should be the first to resist it. I understand that we are discussing the three Amendments on the Paper—the maintenance or abolition of the Board of Health, the Board of Agriculture, and the Prison Commission. I am rather sorry in a way that these three are taken together, but I bow to the ruling; of the Chair, and I think, in the interests of good discussion, it is probably right so to discuss them together. I have already expressed my views pretty strongly about the Board of Agriculture. I am quite convinced, after long experience of watching its work, that the best interests of the Scottish small land holding system and of settlement upon the land will be best served not by a Board but by a Land Settlement Officer, as is proposed under the Bill.
I was very much struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright), who has just left the House. I strongly object to calling attention to the absence of hon. Members who, very likely, apart from a particular moment when a count is asked for, have been in the Chamber all the afternoon and evening. I was very much struck by this speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member who, 1971 quite obviously, meant what he said, and spoke with great conviction and sincerity. He made a special appeal for the maintenance of the Prison Commission, and I have no doubt that in Scotland there is a very great feeling that the Prison Commission should be maintained as it is. They have shown over a great number of years very great sensitiveness with regard to their duties and remarkable ability, and, above all—and I think it is a most necessary quality in this connection—very great human sympathy.
But the question at once arises, could the same good work be performed by a cheaper and more efficient organisation? That is the point. Could it be more economical with the same efficiency? I think those are questions which at this time in our political history we have got to ask ourselves and to answer honestly and fairly. I have had experience in my political career of a great number of boards when I was Chief Secretary for Ireland. I frankly tell the House that I did not find the board system an efficient one. I found that when you had to deal with a Board you had to deal not with a unit but with a great number of individuals called a unit by the Legislature. Instead of efficiency and up-to-dateness, I found very often inefficiency and retrogression. I always found that when a board was at all efficient, it had been made efficient by one man and I am perfectly certain that that may be the experience of the Scottish Office. If that be so, I for one should hesitate a long time before I contended against the weight of experience. In this case, I am prepared to accept the view of experienced officials and to accept the proposed Amendment of the Legislature and to have instead of boards, individuals directly responsible to the responsible Minister in the House of Commons.
I do not think there is anything so bad for the State and for the efficient working of the State as to have a Board that is really not responsible to anybody. If you have directly under you and appointed by you and under your control, a carefully-selected man who knows his work, I am quite convinced, in my own mind, after a good deal of experience, that in that way you get efficiency which you do not otherwise get. 1972 Take, for example, the case of the Board of Agriculture. I have nothing to say against the individuals composing that Board, and I quite admit to each and all of them the characteristics of efficiency and ability, but when you give into the control of a Board of this kind a vast amount of money, there is not the same efficiency and care in spending as you have under an official directly responsible to the State. I have pointed in this House time and again to the expenditure of the Board of Agriculture. I believe last year the amount spent by the Board was £450,000 and they put only from 100 to 125 people on the land. Yet the salaries and expenses of that Board amounted to £120,000.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am always willing to submit to any correction which the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) deigns to make to me, but I have gone very carefully into these figures and I think I am right. I think the amount was £120,000.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
The hon. and learned Member still persists in saying it did not include travelling expenses. If it did not, it only makes my case all the stronger. The fact remains that a board of that kind does not have the same efficient control of expenditure with the same efficient results, and I am very strongly of opinion that the proposal made by the Liberal Land Report which was just recently issued, is the proposal which now the Secretary of State for Scotland is adopting in regard to the Board of Agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "A new Coalition."] I do not mind a coalition of efficiency at any time. I may be prepared to coalesce with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) provided he wishes to see something done in the interest of the country as a whole and to see that something is efficiently performed. There is no doubt about it; this Committee which investigated the case of the Board of Agriculture was a purely independent Committee. It was a Committee which had no axe to grind and which probably had no love or great respect for the Scottish Office for all I know, but 1973 the fact remains that that Committee did, after careful and impartial consideration, come to the conclusion that the most effective way of dealing with the land settlement problem of Scotland was the proposal now before the House for the reorganisation of the Scottish Boards. Therefore, I, for one, support that part of the Bill.
Now let me say where I find some little difficulty. I have a little difficulty in regard to the Board of Health, for I confess that if I had the opportunity of speaking on the Board of Health separately I should probably find myself inclined to vote against the proposal for abolishing it. I have watched with great interest the work of that Board, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having so efficient a Board. I do not think there is a report which appears from any Government Department of the same value or merit as the report which is annually produced by the Scottish Board of Health. "By their fruits ye shall know them"—and I know that the late Lord High Commissioner for Scotland, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) recognises that. I am quite convinced that the Scottish nation as a whole has every reason to be proud of the work which that Board does, but we are dealing now with the general proposition whether in the interests of efficiency or not we should consider the advisability of maintaining the Board system. As I have already said, I have very great objection to the board system, though if it were going to deprive us of our feeling of Scottish nationality, I would even probably support the board system, but I am at variance with my hon. Friends above the Gangway. I do not think for a moment that it affects the question of Scottish nationality. I had a guarantee on the Second Reading that every young Scotsman who is fit to compete for a place in the new Scottish organisation system, will be entitled to compete and entitled to get his place.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
But there are a great many Scotsmen who are not satisfied with having the limited objectives in the Scottish Office, and who want to come down and sit in examinations 1974 which make the whole world and the British Empire open to them. Consequently, I should hate to feel that my Scottish fellow-countrymen, young and fresh from school and the Universities, should be limited merely to the Scottish Office. Scotland has paid far too big a price for the Empire to be limited, to that field. Consequently, as long as you get that guarantee that no Scotsman will be ineligible for the highest office in a Scottish Government Department, then I say that is a point gained.
There is one other point. There is no doubt at all that when you have a reorganisation on so gigantic a scale—for it is on a gigantic scale—you are bound to have a good deal of anxiety in the minds of the existing officers in the various Departments. We have had experience of the somewhat cruel treatment of officers in various State Departments. When reorganisation has taken place, they have not been looked after and have not been provided for. I would like again to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland the demand of the House of Commons—not the desirability, but the demand of the House of Commons—that every single man who may be affected adversely by this reorganisation should be looked after financially. I know that it may be placing the right lion. Gentleman in a difficulty, but I think it is the will of the House of Commons that every man who is in any way adversely affected, either by being asked to retire too soon or by being affected in his pension, should be looked after. I should like to get that guarantee from the right hon. Gentleman. Apart from these adverse observations, so far as the Board of Health is concerned, I am on the whole in favour of this Bill. I think it is a Bill which is going to make for efficiency, and I think it is a Bill which, in the interests of economy and efficiency ought to be supported. [Interruption.] I note that the hon. and gallant Gentleman above the Gangway is the only Welshman present, and he moved a count a few minutes ago.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to repeat the offensive, remarks he made before. He called attention to someone who was not in the Chamber. I have not continuously left 1975 the Chamber for more than 10 minutes since Prayers, and I was entitled to see that Scotland should have other representatives present, because the present Government intend to do exactly with Wales as they are doing with Scotland.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am exceedingly sorry, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will accept my abject apology. I am very sorry, but I did think that it was rather strange that the one Welshman in the Chamber should have interrupted a Scottish Debate. Having said that, I am quite satisfied, and I am glad to see that my hon. and gallant Friend is too. I am going to say again that I support this Bill for the reasons that I have given.
§ Mr. SKELTON
On the Second Reading of this Bill, it fell to me to make one or two observations and I also spoke in the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, and, therefore, I do not propose to detain the House at this stage for more than a minute or two. I do not find myself in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), who gives the Bill a general approval, but disapproves of one of its most important features. I am afraid that my disapproval remains practically unaltered, and is quite complete. I see no substance in the argument that boards are inefficient. With slight alterations, the fact is that in the Board of Admiralty here we have one of the most efficient Departments, although the Board of Admiralty may not be exactly on the same footing as the Scottish Board which it is proposed to abolish. This is a proposition which cannot be maintained, in face of the fact that the Government Departments which are most efficient, namely, the Revenue Department and Admiralty Department, are boards. Even if it were true that you could not get efficiency with boards it would only be of very small assistance to the whole question which is here involved. The question which is involved and the question which is at the back of this Bill is whether or not it is wise under the peculiar constitutional relations that exist between England and Scotland to have your central 1976 government of Scotland based on a purely departmental method. With the fullest consideration I can give, reinforced by many views from many quarters of Scotland where one did not expect support, I remain of opinion that there has been for Scotland a very great advantage in a system which brought into direct contact with its administration a considerable number of people drawn from various sections and districts in the country.
It does not matter in England, with your Parliament sitting in London. A Department, from that point of view, is all that is required. The situation is not the same in Scotland, and it is to my mind a matter of more than doubtful wisdom to take away from the government of Scotland, even although it only be on its administrative side, certain features which link up a large and widespread body of opinion with the work of the central administration of Scotland. No argument has been put forward, it seems to me, which touches that point. I am confident that you will find, as a result of these changes, that the interest in Scottish administration will become less, that the Scottish administration will throw a much less wide net over the population, and that you will get a real loss of connection between the popular mind and central administration. It may be said, and indeed it can almost be said with force, that as a connecting link between the popular mind, it cannot be of great importance that you have a Board of Agriculture with three or four heads and a Board of Health with three or four heads and so on.
But that is not the end of it. The other aspect of it is, that your Departmental men are necessarily men who from their youth have been trained in the Civil Service. I do not think that they have become purely denationalised, but I do say, and I believe I am saying it in truth, that they have lost, by being members of that great body of general civil servants, a certain degree of their Scottish turn of mind and their Scottish habits of thought and their intimate contact with Scotland. That is the point. That is what you gain by your Board system. You draw into it from time to time men eminent in other fields in Scotland, lay Scotsmen as opposed to civil servants. I am sure that by that method of drawing into the administration of Scotland from time to time, men not 1977 from mere boyhood but from adult manhood who have been doing devoted work in Scotland, you get far greater connection between Scotland as a whole and its administration than you will do if you rely entirely upon the Civil Service. The importance of that, as I see it, is vital.
I am not one of those who believe in the benefit of Scottish Home Rule to Scotland, to England or to the Empire. Other hon. Members will not agree with me. My view is, and I claim to know something about the situation as well as other Scotsmen, that in the present stage of Scottish development or Empire development Scottish Home Rule is not a desirable thing in itself; but I am certain that it is a good thing to keep contact between Scotland as a whole and its administration, and I am very loth from the point of view that I have mentioned, namely, the feeling that the time has not come for Scottish Home Rule, to take away from Scotland just now in any department of government any special Scottish features which exist. It is along that line of thought that I have never been able to give the proposals of this Bill my personal approval. I cannot deny that at the back of my mind there is a thought that here is a step which looks very reasonable, which appeals to a Member of this House with so much experience as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty, who argued about the efficiency of the Department headed by one man, and about slow methods and so forth. That is an argument of far less specific gravity in the subject we are discussing, namely, the administration of Scotland under a united Parliament, and I am sure that it is an argument of far less vitality and force than the argument that it is most important to keep some contact between lay Scotland and its government.
I was amazed at the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty dealt with the question of the Board of Agriculture. He said that it spent, approximately, £430,000 last year and only brought into existence 125 small holdings. Surely he must know that a great deal of that £430,000 is earmarked for other purposes, and it is not fair to a Board which in adverse circumstances——
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I said that there was an allowance of £120,000 for travelling expenditure and only 125 men settled.
§ Mr. SKELTON
I am dealing not with the amount of travelling expenses, but with the total amount expended.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
My hon. Friend must remember that I was assuming that to settle men on the land they had to travel about, and that allowances and expenses are incurred in settling the men on the land. I say that it is a very poor return to settle 125 men on the land when you have £120,000 travelling expenses.
§ Mr. SKELTON
I must have misunderstood my right hon. Friend. I thought he was comparing, in the first place, the figure of £430,000, which is the total expenditure, with the number of men settled. Even taking the travelling expenses, although I have not looked into that matter closely, I think those travelling expenses are for purposes other than land settlement only. Therefore, I doubt whether it is fair to compare the figure of 125 men settled with £120,000 expenses. I must say in defence of a Board which is apparently drawing very near to its last breath, and I think it should be said in this House before this Bill passes, that land settlement in Scotland under the Board of Agriculture, taking one year with another, has been not less economical, but more economical than it has been in England. Although the figures of the actual cost of the erection of a holding are difficult to arrive at, there seems to be no doubt that the cost of the erection of a holding under the Board of Agriculture in Scotland has been far less than it was under the Department of Agriculture, when it was in their hands. Therefore, in the battle of Department versus Board, the Board wins easily on that point. The cost has been not only far less than when the settlements were undertaken by the Department of Agriculture in England, but less than settlement undertaken by the county councils, with all their local knowledge.
I think it is most unfair and most unjust to treat the work of land settlement by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland as a work which merits condemnation on account of extravagance or on account of inefficiency. When we recollect that 1979 the proportion of failures in Scotland has been very much less than in England, it shows that even where one would suppose that local knowledge was most vitally important and would make an immense amount of difference, namely, in the selection of the holders, this much maligned Board of Agriculture has been able to hold its own with the highly-specialised committees of the county councils, who have known the men from their youth upwards. Therefore, in my judgment, to make an excuse, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty practically did——
§ Mr. SKELTON
The villain of the piece, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was the Board of Agriculture. He has selected the wrong villain of the piece. If he wanted to find the real villain of the piece in regard to land settlement in Scotland it is the villain upon which the Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland placed their hand—it was the Liberal legislation of 1911 which, in the lowlands where land settlement was its most vital feature, introduced into lowland agriculture practically the crofting system, which every lowland landlord and every lowland farmer knew was as vicious a system of tenure as one could have, because it rests on the principle of dual ownership. I hope that my fears about the Bill are ill-founded, because it would be an ill day if any step taken by a Unionist Government brought nearer by a single inch the possibility of home rule for Scotland.
§ Mr. JAMES BROWN
My hon. Friend who has just spoken has stood up for Scotland. Any man who stands up for Scotland is a friend of Scotland. This is not so much a party question as a question for all Scotsmen who love their country. Scotsmen are sent to this House to represent Scottish people and to uphold Scottish institutions, where those institutions have proved to be good and have never been proved to be inefficient and I cannot understand their mentality, whether elected as Unionist, Liberal or Labour representatives, in coming here and applauding the idea of taking away practically the only link with our people 1980 that has been left to us. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has said many things. I think he must give me credit for knowing something about Scotland. I remember an incident in the Scriptures when a person was sent for by a heathen King to come and curse Israel. The light hon. Gentleman rose to curse the Bill, but I am not sure that before he had finished he was not blessing the Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman gave his case away.
Great play has been made on the word efficiency. What is efficiency? I am sure no one would say that we should give up efficiency for the sake of a few paltry pounds. We have no idea of the vast amount of money that is spent frivolously in many directions, and if we allowed Scotland to spend more freely in the way she would like, I do not think we should be doing anything out of the way at all. It is argued that there will be more efficiency when Boards in Scotland become Departments under the State Will small holdings go on more merrily? Will there be more rural transport? Will anything more be done to assist Scottish agriculture under a Department than was done under the Board system? The Board of Agriculture has been doing its very best under adverse circumstances. I am afraid the Board of Agriculture got less money to spend than it should have had, and I wish the Secretary of State would stand up more boldly and claim more for Scotland. I might have to modify that—I do not know what he has claimed. He may have claimed a great deal; we do know that he has not got anything like what he ought to have got to spend on that one Department alone.
What have these Boards done that they should be eliminated, and why are Departments to be set up instead? England has her own Departments with Ministers responsible to the House of Commons and to the country. There is the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister of Health, the Prison Commissioners; you have all these things in England and yet we in Scotland are to be deprived of the last remnant of our nationality and are to be fobbed off with Departments. On one rather unhappy occasion for some people, although I am still unrepentant, I said that it would take days to discuss any one of the questions raised by the Board of Health, the Board of Agriculture 1981 and the Prison Commission. I am not going to enlarge on that topic this evening, but I want to say that I am not going to give a silent vote to-night and I hope the hon. and learned Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) will have the courage of his convictions to go into the Lobby with us in order to show that there is at least one Scottish Unionist who will stand by and claim the rights of Scotland. I think the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) will also be all right when the test comes.
Scotland is paying very dearly indeed for the last election, and I am certain, in spite of all the red letters that might have been printed and issued, in spite of all the defamatory leaflets issued against the Labour party, that not one would have voted Unionist if he had known that this Bill was coming along which practically denationalises Scotland. I feel so strongly on this matter that I dare not let myself go; I have not language at my disposal. I cannot understand how Scotsmen, doing Scottish business, looking after the interests of Scotland, can put their country aside simply because of party ties. We should look after our country and see that efficiency is maintained. I maintain that the present Boards, bad as they are, because we do not get anything like we ought to get, are much better, will prove far more efficient and be more economical than Departments, and I trust that at the eleventh hour the Secretary of State will not allow Scotland to be subjected to this humiliation. It is a humiliation, and I am sure that in the days to come the people of Scotland will see that it has been a humiliation and will deal drastically with hon. Members who dared to take away the only remnant left of Scottish nationality.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I have listened with interest to this Debate, as I am sure have all Members of the House. If I felt for a single moment that I was taking an action which would denationalise my country, any action which would deny to the Scottish people the right and freedom to take part in forming the machine which governs their country, I should not be standing at this Box bringing this Measure before the House of Commons This Bill does not spring from a Cabinet desirous of inflicting 1982 injury upon Scotland. Its origin is with those who are responsible for the government of Scotland, and I take my full share in that responsibility. The proposition was put before the Cabinet by myself and those who advised me, and I desire to put very plainly to this House, and through the House of Commons to Scotland, the reasons why I am asking the House to assent to it. What is it that we are all concerned with? Surely it is in moving with the circumstances in which we live and making such changes in the machinery as we may think will make for greater efficiency.
I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), who has had experience of government by boards on a fairly large scale in Ireland, and one of the first things I did on taking office was to go over to Ireland and consult with some of those who were carrying on the administration in Ireland to ascertain what they thought of the system. I probed into the reasons which actuated them in abolishing the system of boards and putting in departments. Of course, all this would not have been sufficient. It was clear that I had to make these propositions to Parliament upon grounds which seemed good to me as responsible for the administration as I found it. What did I find? In the first place, whether hon. Gentlemen like it or not, the essential fact to remember is that the real controlling power lies in this House, and that as long as you have a United Kingdom and Parliament it is bound to lie in this House. The responsibility must be with the Government of the day to Parliament, and the Minister must be responsible to Parliament. Whether it is a board system or a departmental system that is the essence of our Parliamentary system of Government. It seems, however, to have been forgotten by some of the hon. Members who have spoken.
If that is the case—and I think it is indisputably the case—what is the problem that lies before us? You have your Scottish Office at Dover House. In that office you must have a number of officials who are capable of advising the Minister upon certain aspects of the problem. To that office must come from the departments in Edinburgh, working in Edinburgh as boards or departments, on the 1983 problems with which we have to deal from time to time there must come to London those who speak with knowledge of the local circumstances. It is, of course, obvious that in the working out of that system there will be access to the Minister not only by those who are beads of departments or boards, but by technical advisers and officers. I say frankly that since I have been in my present position I have found that there was nothing which debarred any single technical officer who had any question or problem which he thought ought to be put to the Minister—nothing to prevent his putting it to the Minister.
Let me take one of the points which it is of importance to remember—the problem of housing with which the Board of Health are entrusted. It is one of the most important problems. The Director of Housing has not been a member of the Board of Health, but everyone who knows what has been going on knows full well that the Director of Housing has had access to myself and to the Under-Secretary, not only here in London but in Edinburgh on many occasions. Under the system of departments which I am setting up, there is nothing to prevent an arrangement by which the technical officer shall come into the closest possible touch with myself, with the Under-Secretary, or with the heads of that department. I have said before that in my judgment a responsible head, with the full responsibility of his office and with the knowledge that he has to give advice to his Minister, is infinitely preferable to a system of boards. That is borne out by every inquiry and commission which has studied this matter. Therefore, I am not moving in this matter without a very great measure of support.
Some hon. Members have said to me that I have not said to this House or to the Committee upstairs that there have been deliberate matters of inefficiency on the part of members of the boards. Those who understand in the smallest degree the responsibilities of a Minister in my position, who has to answer to this House for all the acts of those who are under him, whether a board or not a board, knows full well that it is I who take full responsibility both for good deeds and for any mistakes, and I am bound to take that responsibility. It is impossible 1984 for me here to do other than speak in generalities on these matters. It would never do, it would be highly improper, if I were to make any direct references to the things of which I am cognisant. But it is quite right that I should say that, judging these things in general, I have found that when a decision was required on a matter of urgency it was infinitely preferable to have a head of the department to whom I could go with the feeling that he could advise me, after consultation, no doubt, with those working with him, but advising me directly on his own responsibility, what steps I should take.
Under a system of boards you go to the chairman of the board and you say to him: "I think that so-and-so should be done, and it is very desirable that it should be done as rapidly as possible, in the interests of the State and of the service." and he is bound to call his board together and discuss with them whether this particular method of solving the problem is the right or the wrong method. What happens? Because of that system you have a problem debated by a board and possibly a division of opinion arising on the board. It may be either that a compromise is reached, and the result is that the recommendation to the Minister is a compromise of which he is not able to judge the pros and cons; or he gets a recommendation from the board in which there may be a majority report and a minority report, and then the Minister has to make up his mind which side of the board he would support, the majority or the minority, whether with the chairman of the board in the minority or with the chairman of the board in the majority. That is a system which, I think I can demonstrate to the House, is fundamentally unsound. It leads to delay, and it is not the most efficient way of dealing with these problems.
What are we proposing to do? We are proposing to substitute for this board system—which was established to meet other circumstances in other times—a system which is common to every one of the departments in England, which has existed, and with satisfaction, in regard to education in Scotland, where you have had the official at the head of that department responsible to the Minister. There have been all sorts of things said 1985 about efficiency or non-efficiency—contradictory statements as to whether the general public in Scotland have had reason to complain of this or that department—but as the Minister responsible I know full well that there has never been a week in the years that I have held my present office that I have not received criticisms or complaints about this department or the other. In the circumstances, what justification is there for hon. Gentlemen, who have pelted me with questions about the inadequacy of this or the delay of that, saying to me that I had no right to come to the House and suggest to them a method by which we shall obtain greater efficiency?
How are we to obtain it? I believe that we will obtain it, first of all, by abolishing the direct system of patronage. I do not want here to say that the use of patronage in making these appointments has been unfair, but I do say that if you are to have any measure of patronage it ought to be a limited measure of patronage which shall be subject to the Civil Service Commissioners. We have worked hitherto under a policy of patronage which had none of these restrictions. People talk to me about finding men who are in touch with local feeling and with a knowledge of agriculture, or of education, or of health matters, but what you want in these departments are people who have some knowledge of administration. Will anyone tell me that in the case of agriculture for instance, you are going to get people, drawn from even the highest farming class in Scotland, who can bring into the board concerned sufficient knowledge to deal with all circumstances of all types in Scotland, or that a man can make himself a "know-all" in regard to any of these subjects? That is not possible, and any attempt at a method of government of that kind will fail utterly. What you want is a man of sound judgment with a knowledge of administration and a training in administration, who, when various interests come before a government department, can weigh and sift the arguments pro and con and give his judgment without bias towards one side or the other, and recommend to the Minister the course which he thinks right.
1986 We have heard much about the technical experts. I am not averse from, nor will any regulation which I make prevent, intercourse between the experts and those responsible for administration. But is the House of Commons to give up its right to the final word? Parliament must direct policy and control the experts. We know that the expert is often carried beyond the bounds of what is possible in finance or in relation to actual affairs. Is the expert always to have his way? I know many hon. Gentlemen opposite who would be the first to deny the right of the military or naval experts to carry out what they would desire, if they had their way. So it would be with the man of science. If the medical man had his way, he might possibly impose upon Parliament and the country a system—eminently desirable no doubt in itself—but so extravagant or so much in advance of the time that Parliament could not tolerate it. I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite to show me that what they are asking for is practical. We are prepared to give the technical expert every opportunity of expressing his views, of being in close consultation with the head of his Department and with the Minister, and of putting fully his point of view, but the final word must be with the Minister responsible to Parliament.
§ Mr. HARDIE
I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to what I said and I think he is, unintentionally, misrepresenting what I said. I was pleading that the expert should not be shut out as he is to-day. It is not a question of saying that the expert is to decide. We are still dealing with administration and my speech was based on the idea of retaining the body which is going to give you the largest number of people who can take in expert views. There is no good in presenting expert views of farming, for example, to those who know nothing about the subject.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
If you want to get expert views upon agriculture, you have to go to the bodies who are constantly working in connection with agriculture.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
Those bodies can place their views before the Department, but it is not in the Department nor in the Board that you find the expert knowledge. The duty of the Department or the Board is to judge and weigh these matters. It has been said that it would be desirable if an undertaking were given that those in the present Boards will be fairly treated in the changes that are being made. That undoubtedly will be done. In the case of the Board of Agriculture there is no intention of removing the present Chairman of the Board. He will automatically become the head of the Department, for such time as the age limit permits.
If I turn to the Prison Commissioners, both the present holders of the Prison Commission will eventually retire on the appointed day, which will be the day chosen with reference to the easiest course for making the change over. These two are approaching, if they have not already approached closely, the age of retirement. If I turn to the Board of Health, there the Chairman of the old Board, unfortunately, through ill-health, has had to go, and the medical member, Sir Leslie Mackenzie, who is well known to Members of this House, has retired. There has never been a time in the history of the administration of the offices in Scotland when this change over could be made more easily, with less disturbance, and with less difficulty, as far as the individuals are concerned, and it is very largely because of that very fact that we desire the House now to give us this opportunity to strengthen and improve the administration in the sole interest of efficiency.
§ Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS
I think we realise the frankness and straightforwardness of the Secretary of State for Scotland in accepting full responsibility for having put this proposal before the Cabinet and before this House. We admire his courage, but, at the same time, I think we are all of us, on this side, of the opinion that he is letting Scotland down in this matter, and, unfortunately, it is not the first time that Scotland has been let down by this Government. This is only the culmination of a series of acts which have all tended towards either taking away some of the privileges which Scotland enjoyed, 1988 or making it still more like a province of England. The right hon. Gentleman said that we must change with the times, but he has not shown us that the taking away of a Board system and replacing it by a Departmental system is necessarily going with the times. I think it is the present Government which have set up an Electricity Commission and a Broadcasting Commission. They have set up Boards to deal with these matters, and surely these are very modern and very important things. If they have thought it was not desirable to put one person in charge of these matters, but to have a number of people round a table discussing and deciding on ways and means, I think it shows that something has yet to be said for the Board system.
The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) again expressed his approval of the Bill, but with a good deal of modification this time, and I think it is obvious that a study of the Measure has convinced him that the case for it is not quite so strong. After all, it is a very tragic spectacle that the Liberal Members for Scotland have ceased to stand up for the liberties and independence of Scotland, and that they are content to take the subordinate and lowly position which this Conservative Government seem determined to assign to our country. I think the right hon. Gentleman, in giving us the case of Ireland, was not giving us the case of a country which could be compared properly with Scotland in this matter, because there is no doubt that the Board system does suit the genius of the Scottish people. I agreed very much with what the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) said so well, and I am sure we appreciate the courage which he showed and which it always takes for an individual to differ from his party. He, obviously, spoke quite conscientiously and with a great deal of knowledge when he opposed this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman made a good deal of the fact that the real controlling power is Parliament, but we all know that Parliament is becoming less and less a controlling power with each Bill that comes to the House. Administration is becoming now much more important, and Ministers are getting a great deal more power and liberty to work by regulations, and a great many things which are of importance in the administration of the 1989 country never come before Parliament at all. Therefore, it is not quite true to say that everything which happens in the administration of Scotland will necessarily and primarily come before Parliament, because that is not the case.
I was much interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about technical men. This is a subject of great importance. It is of increasing importance, because in all Departments of Government and administration the technical expert is becoming more important, and his place in regard to other administrative bodies is becoming increasingly studied and recognised. In spite of all that the right hon. Gentleman says, that he will consult the experts and that he will be in touch with the technical people, this Bill does not show any method by which that can be accomplished. In the Beard of Health at present there are the head of the Medical Department, the head of the National Health Insurance Department, the head of the Pensions Department and the head of the Law Department. All these heads of departments will have to take one step back when this Bill is passed. Their decisions and their advice will come to the Minister by way of the new head of the Department, who will be a civil servant, and have no technical knowledge, and he will not be in a position to give any greater weight to the advice of his experts than will the right hon. Gentleman himself. As a matter of fact, all that the right hon. Gentleman is getting by this system is somebody else to make up his mind for him, with no better authority and no better ability to do it, but probably rather less. That person will be in the same position as regards knowledge of these matter as the right hon. Gentleman, and all that will happen will be that these technical men, instead of having direct access to the Minister, will have to go through these civil servants.
The Minister says that there is no reason why he should not deal with the experts direct. Where is the discipline of the department to be then? If the head of the department is to be the head, he has the right to see the Minister. If, behind his back, any of the heads of the technical department are to see the Minister, and give perhaps different advice to that of the head of the department, where will the discipline of the 1990 department be? The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that he will not lose touch with his technical experts, and will still keep the discipline of his department, will not work in practice. It is interesting to know that this question of the technical and administrative men is becoming a matter of very great importance throughout many branches of our public life. That is why I regard this Bill as such a backward step. I have recently had some experience in hearing the views of technical officers in our Colonial Service. That service at first was clearly an administrative and a clerical service; technical men were not there at all, but during the last few generations we have had agricultural and forestry experts, doctors and other technical people, and it is a matter of great moment to them, and is being seriously considered in various connections, how they are going to be placed in relation to the administrators and civil servants who have an older footing in the service.
This Bill proposes a method which is retrograde and against the whole tendency of the recommendations of those who have studied the subject, and it seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman tries to get over the difficulty by consulting the technical experts independently he will create chaos and cause a lack of discipline in the various Departments. The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the difficulty that arises if there is a division of opinion on the Board. Then is the opportunity for him to make up his mind, after hearing first one side and then the other. Personally, I would much rather hear two sides of a question, and then make up my mind on it, than take a finished opinion from an individual who was no more qualified to give it than I was, although I had to be responsible for it.
I was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty referred to the Board of Health, because its case represents one of the greatest tragedies of this Bill. The Board of Health is the most efficient and up-to-date Government Department which I know. It has done a great deal of work, not only in the mere administration of its Department, but in stimulating and strengthening Scottish local authorities in various ways; and, having regard to other Departments of which we know something, I think the change can only 1991 mean less efficiency and not more. In this connection I would like to ask why there has been such delay in filling up the medical post on that Board which is vacant? I wonder whether we shall see a real evidence of the Anglicising of the Scottish system by the transfer to the Board of someone from the Ministry of Health? I would like to know why promotion is not being made from among those in the Department at the present time who are eligible for that post?
One of the great features of the work of the Boards in Scotland has been their success with local authorities. Scottish local authorities are sometimes a little difficult to manage. They are independent, they are sensitive, and they do not like too many instructions from the central authority. It has been one of the principal functions of this Board not only to anticipate the needs of local authorities, but to meet them when they were not satisfied, and they have done that work with a great deal of success. If they now come up against the ukases of a typical Whitehall bureaucrat, there will be a good deal of trouble for the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think it is of much use to hope for the withdrawal of this Bill, but I feel that it is the duty of those of us who are Scotsmen, and who object to and resent this change, to make our protest here; and I hope that at some other time, when conditions are more favourable, and when a wiser Government is in power, that we may find a reversion to that system which, as I have said, is suitable to the genius of the Scottish people, is essentially Scottish in character, and helps to perpetuate and to carry out those traditions of the Scottish people of which we are all proud.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
During the course of the Committee proceedings, the whole of this subject was very well discussed and thoroughly analysed, and now we feel that it is essential for us to make a strong protest against these proposals. The Secretary of State for Scotland has already given us an indication of dissent as regards his experience in the administration of the office which he holds. There is one justification for our position, and it is one which is qualified by his own predecessor's authority. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West 1992 Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), on having the case presented to him, said that he had experienced no difficulty in managing the administrative business of his office under present conditions. The right hon. Gentleman may think that opinion is of little value, but it is the opinion of one who has held the position of Secretary for Scotland, and so far as his qualifications are concerned, I do not think anyone will take exception to them now, because he has put up a case which is not in agreement with that of the right hon. Gentleman.
The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that he must have one man in particular who is going to scrutinise and thoroughly examine the work of a particular Department. I think it would be a far more reasonable attitude to adopt that under the present system of Boards you should have men specially well qualified, indeed specialists in the consideration of these important issues who should do their utmost to focus all the evidence which they can bring to bear and all their own personal experience. This should be presented to the Government, and I think that would be by far the best course to adopt. If you are going to say, as evidently is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, that as a matter of fact during the career of the right hon. Gentleman and the present Government this system has failed entirely, and that that is the reason why he feels it is necessary to take that course, then we could reasonably arrive at the conclusion that perhaps there is some deficiency in the right hon. Gentleman's own findings as regards the case which has been presented to him.
If we take the Prison Commissioners we have very strong views that these men have done special service for Scotland. I might mention the situation which is prevalent at the moment in Glasgow where a gang of those considered to be ruffians have armed themselves, and have had very strong condemnation meted out to them from a Judge of the land. There has been a special call to the magistrates of Glasgow asking them to deal very severely with these cases. The answer made by one of the magistrates was that if these lads could find employment they were not likely to be armed in a way which has produced such serious trouble to the community. Such a case, in my 1993 view, is a very effective one for the consideration of a board, and not one suitable for the consideration of an official who would have simply to adjudicate upon the point and advise the Minister. Such a board, to which the Secretary of State for Scotland has frequently paid a tribute, consists of those who have very largely made a life study of criminality and have used their influence, backed up by their personal knowledge, in order to give advice in certain directions not only in the interests of those who are suffering imprisonment but also as to how they shall be led in the future. The question of the Prison Commissioners is of even more importance than that of the other two Boards, because, rather than looking at this matter in the formal sort of way in which it would be dealt with by an official, as contrasted with those who have at heart the personal interests of these who come under such serious condemnation from the law of the land, it is of the utmost value to the country that there should be a board giving special consideration to these issues and directing the mind of the Government thereon.
From the wider point of view of the Board of Health, the Board of Agriculture and the Prison Commissioners, the strength of our case lies in the fact that
§ Scotland, situated as she is, requires those Boards to be available in Edinburgh for consultation with those who represent the local authorities. As a previous speaker has pointed out, the case is not the same as in England, where you have a Parliament situated in London, and it does raise the wider issue of greater powers for Scotland which would enable her to deal with these matters in a very different way. It is possible that that issue may be accelerated. Indeed, my own view is that the carrying of this Bill will accelerate the growing demand for that power which Scotland really requires, so that she may have her advisers, her Departments and her specialists going into the interests of the country at large. We do feel that the Government are handing over these matters to a mere circumscribed bureaucracy which is gaining a greater hold upon the control of affairs, not only in Scotland but in the country generally, and that there is greater need for the expansion of the minds of those who will help us to adjudicate upon these issues in a far more effectual fashion than this Bill is able to do.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 94.1995
|Division No. 266.]||AYES.||[10.45 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Christie, J. A.||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Clarry, Reginald George||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Glyn, Major R. G. C.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||God, Sir Park|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Colfox, Major Wm. Philip||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Apsley, Lord||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Cope, Major Sir William||Grant, Sir J. A.|
|Atkinson, C.||Couper, J. B.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)||Hacking, Douglas H.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hamilton, Sir George|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hammersley, S. S.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hannan, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Bethel, A.||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Harland, A.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian|
|Brass, Captain W.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Dixey, A. C.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Drewe, C.||Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hilton, Cecil|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Edge, Sir William||Holt, Captain H. P.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Burman, J. B.||England, Colonel A.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Everard, W. Lindsay||Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Fenby, T. D||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Fielden, E. B.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Ford, Sir P. J.||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Charteris, Brigadler-General J.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Nuttall, Ellis||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Oakley, T.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Owen, Major G.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Pennefather, Sir John||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Penny, Frederick George||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Lamb, J. Q||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)||Sueter, Rear Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Little, Dr. E. Graham||Philipson, Mabel||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Power, Sir John Cecil||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Long, Major Eric||Preston, William||Templeton, W. P.|
|Looker, Herbert William||Price, Major C. W. M.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Lougher, Lewis||Radford, E. A.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vert||Raine, Sir Walter||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Ramsden, E.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Waddington, R.|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|MacIntyre, Ian||Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|McLean, Major A.||Remer, J. R.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Wavland, Sir William A.|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Wells, S. R.|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Ropner, Major L.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Rye, F. G.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Sandeman, N. Stewart||Womersley, W. J.|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dgt & Hyde)|
|Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph||Savory, S. S.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Nelson, Sir Frank||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Scurr, John|
|Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Sexton, James|
|Amman, Charles George||Hardie, George D.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barnes, A.||Hirst, G. H.||Shinwell, E.|
|Barr, J.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Such, Charles H.|
|Batey, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Broad. F. A.||Kelly, W. T.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bromfield, William||Kennedy, T.||Snell, Harry|
|Bromley, J.||Lansbury, George||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Lawrence, Susan||Stephen, Campbell|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Lawson, John James||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Lee, F.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lindley, F. W.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Compton, Joseph||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||Lunn, William||Townend, A. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Mackinder. W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Watson, W. M. (Dumfermilne)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Day, Harry||Murnin, H.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Duncan, C.||Naylor, T. E.||Westwood, J.|
|Gardner, J. P.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Palin, John Henry||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Paling, W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Gillett, George M.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wright, W.|
|Gosling, Harry||Potts, John S.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Greenall, T.||Ritson, J.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Sakiatvala, Shapurji||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Groves, T.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Grundy, T. W.||Scrymgeour, E.|
§ Mr. HARDIE
I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "the Board of Agriculture for Scotland."
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 202: Noes, 92.1997
|Division No. 267.]||AYES.||[10.52 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Oakley, T.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Owen, Major G.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||God, Sir Park||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Gower, Sir Robert||Penny, Frederick George|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Apsley, Lord||Grant, Sir J. A.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Atkinson, C.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Philipson, Mabel|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Hacking, Douglas H.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Hamilton, Sir George||Preston, William|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Hammersley, S. S.||Radford, E. A.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Bethel, A.||Harland, A.||Ramsden, E.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Remer, J. R.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Roberts. E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hilton, Cecil||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Holt, Captain H. P.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Rye, F. G.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Samuel, Samuel (W'deworth, Putney)|
|Burman, J. B.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hurd, Percy A.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Chapman, Sir S.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Jephcott, A. R.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Christie, J. A.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)||Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Knox, Sir Alfred||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Lamb. J. Q.||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Cope, Major Sir William||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Couper, J. B||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Long, Major Eric||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)||Looker, Herbert William||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lougher, Lewis||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Crooks. J. Smedley (Deritend)||Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere||Templeton, W. P.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Macintyre, Ian||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||McLean, Major A.||Waddington, R.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Dawson, Sir Phillip||Macquisten, F, A.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Dixey, A. C.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Wayland. Sir William A.|
|Drewe, C.||Marriott, Sir J, A. R.||Wells, S. R|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Edge, Sir William||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford. Lichfield)|
|England, Colonel A.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Morden, Colonel Walter Grant||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Fenhy, T. D.||Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph||Worthington, Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Captain Wallace and Captain Margesson.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Duncan, C.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Charleton, H. C.||Gardner. J. P.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Compton, Joseph||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Barr, J.||Connolly, M.||Gillett, George M.|
|Batey, Joseph||Cove, W. G.||Gosling, Harry|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Crawfurd, H. E.||Greenall, T.|
|Broad, F. A.||Dalton, Hugh||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)|
|Bromfield, William||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)|
|Bromley, J.||Day, Harry||Groves, T.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Murnin, H.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Hall, F. (York., W. R., Normanton)||Naylor, T. E.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Oliver, George Harold||Sutton, J. E.|
|Hardie, George D.||Palin, John Henry||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Henderson, Rt Hon. A. (Burnley)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hirst, G. H.||Potts, John S.||Townend, A. E.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Ritson, J.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Viant, S. P.|
|Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Sakiatvala, Shapurji||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Kelly, W. T.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Kennedy, T.||Scrymgeour, E.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Lansbury, George||Scurr, John||Westwood, J.|
|Lawrence, Susan||Sexton, James||Whiteley, W.|
|Lawson, John James||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Lee, F.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Lindley, F. W.||Shinwell, E.||Windsor, Walter|
|Lowth, T.||Sitch, Charles H.||Wright, W.|
|Lunn, William||Skelton, A. N.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Mackinder, W.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Snell, Harry||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
§ Mr. HARDIE
I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "and the Prison Commissioners for Scotland."
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 93.2001
|Division No. 268.]||AYES.||[11.0 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Jephcott, A. R|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.||Dixey, A. C.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Drewe, C.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Apsley, Lord||Eden, Captain Anthony||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Edge, Sir William||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Atkinson, C.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||England, Colonel A.||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Long, Major Eric|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Fenby, T. D.||Looker, Herbert William|
|Bennett, A. J.||Fielden, E. B.||Lougher, Lewis|
|Bethel, A.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||MacIntyre, Ian|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||McLean, Major A.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Goff, Sir Park||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Gower, Sir Robert||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Grant, Sir J. A.||Margesson, Captain D|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Burman, J. B.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hacking, Douglas H.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hamilton, Sir George||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hammersley, S. S.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Harland, A.||Morden, Col. W. Grant|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Christie, J. A.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Colfox, Major William Phillips||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Nicholson. O. (Westminster)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hilton, Cecil||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Couper, J. B.||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Oakley, T.|
|Cowan, Sir Win, Henry (Islingtn., N.)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Owen, Major G.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hurd, Percy A.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Philipson, Mabel|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Preston, William|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)||Waddington, R.|
|Radford, E. A.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Raine, Sir Walter||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Ramsden, E.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Smithers, Waldron||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wells, S. R.|
|Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Remer, J. R.||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Steel, Major Samuel Strang||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Ropner, Major L.||Storry-Denns, R.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Rye, F, G.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Tasker, R. Inigo.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Sandeman, N. Stewart||Templeton, W. P.|
|Sanderson, Sir Frank||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Major Sir William Cope and Sir Victor Warrender.|
|Savery, S. S.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Grundy, T. W.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Scurr, John|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Sexton James|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hardie, George D.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Barnes, A.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, G. H.||Shinwell, E.|
|Batey, Joseph||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||John, William (Rhonda, West)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Broad, F. A.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Snell, Harry|
|Bromfield, William||Kelly, W. T.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Bromley, J.||Kennedy, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Lansbury, George||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)||Lawrence, Susan||Sutton, J. E.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Lawson, John James||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lee, F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Compton, Joseph||Lindley, F. W.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Connolly, M.||Lowth, T.||Townend, A. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||Lunn, William||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Viant, S. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Mackinder, W.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Day, Harry||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Duncan, C.||Murnin, H.||Westwood, J.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Naylor, T. E.||Whiteley, W.|
|Gardner, J. P.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Palin, John Henry||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Windsor, Walter|
|Gillett, George M.||Potts, John S.||Wright, W.|
|Gosling, Harry||Ritson, J.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Greenall, T.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Sakiatvala, Shapurji||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Groves, T.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.|