§ Again considered in Committee.
§ (Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' burgh,' in line 24, stand part of the Clause."
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
When I was interrupted, I was speaking on the subject of a comment which had fallen from one hon. Member on the other side, in which it seemed to him that the question of sanitary provision was a matter of some hilarity and was not closely linked up with the really efficient and proper organisation of the education services. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) has, I think, in language very well chosen, shown how foolish such a view can be. I would like to remind the Committee that, by bringing these services into line with all the other great social services, such services as the health services, the public assistance services, the lunacy and mental deficiency services, we are going to create an opportunity for dealing afresh with these many problems which are all closely related. All these matters are going to be brought under the purview of one central county authority. Questions of machinery, sites, buildings, finance and law, all these things will, under this new scheme, be dealt with by one unified authority.
If I may make one other observation upon this problem it is this. The ratepayer is after all one and the same person whether he is receiving services for sanitation, lunacy and other services or for education, and it would be, in my judgment, very detrimental to education if you had a consolidated rate including all other services and leaving out only the service of education. I would press very strongly indeed the necessity of bringing education into line with the future great development of what must be reconstituted and powerful authorities in every one of these localities. These newly constituted authorities will have far greater cohesion and influence than any we have yet seen established in local government work in Scotland. From 1632 every point of view it is desirable that, when the ratepayer is called upon to meet these demands which fall upon us all, education should be included in that consolidated rate as part and parcel of his proper duties as a citizen.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
Would it be absolutely impossible to retain the elective principle associated with education administration and get what you are suggesting in connection with financial control? Is it not a fact that we have submitted for your consideration alternatives to the existing order whereby you get control of finance but get the elective principle so far as the administration of education is concerned?
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
As was my duty, I have, of course, considered a great variety of suggestions, and no one could have been more anxious than I have been to meet what might be called legitimate suggestions or easements, so long as the great fabric of the structure of the scheme is maintained. But I cannot honestly see how it is possible to adopt the proposals to which the hon. Gentleman refers and at the same time to preserve one central unified authority in the area, for that is the essential part of the scheme. I believe that the scheme which we are proposing will bring in new and fresh factors which will be a stimulus and a spur to the interest taken in education throughout Scotland. I believe that by the setting up of these Committees under this scheme we can still keep closely in touch with those whose peculiar and particular interest is the progress of education, and that whatever may be thought of the co-option proposals in this particular case of education, it is peculiarly suitable and applicable to the conditions.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
That is a matter of opinion. Any suggestion that this scheme has been produced in order to assimilate it to an English scheme is far from the truth. I observed that one of the critics who spoke this afternoon quoted on this subject, not Scottish newspapers, but the "Times." Do not let us be so ultra-Scottish as to shut out an open and broad-minded consideration of all the aspects of this problem, or set our minds to this or that side of it, but to what is to 1633 be most serviceable. I repeat that I think the greatest disservice that could be done to education is to entrust it to a separate body, whether it is elected or not. If you are to have a further development, say, of adult education, what problem is there more suitable or more applicable to an organisation such as we are setting up, which comes into actual daily contact with the lives and feelings of the very people whom it is designed to serve?
I submit that this proposal is in the best interests of education, and I am supported in that view by the opinion of the teachers of Scotland who, whatever hon. Gentlemen may think, are after all those who have to carry the heat and burden of the day. If they feel that they can work this scheme, as they felt in 1918, and as they continue to feel, because they have expressed their view on it—that they can work to the best advantage under the proposal that I am making, a great deal of the apprehension of those who are only generally interested in this problem is swept away. What are the duties besides provision of teachers which the education authority has to perform? It is the proper allocation and distribution of the funds before disposal, the setting up of schools, the obtaining of land and the development of the service. Under all those circumstances, a unified form and an absence of overlapping in such matters as the feeding of children and medical attendance of children—in all these things it is infinitely better, from the point of view of the ratepayer and the taxpayer, that they should be under one central authority.
§ Mr. BARR
I would like to advance some reasons for this Amendment and in opposition to the scheme of the Government. After having listened very attentively to the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I agree still with the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment, that no substantial educational reason has been advanced for this change. It is not a matter of area. The area is already co-extensive with that of the county council. It is not a question of uniformity of rating, because alike in the towns and in the counties this is already in operation. It is not a question, as has been argued for other services, of the block grant. Here I would like not only to thank him for his 1634 speech, but to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles and South Midlothian (Mr. Westwood) on the very able and expert and noble speech that he made this afternoon. It has been pointed out that 90 per cent. is already in the form of a capitation grant, or is expenditure allowed by the Education Department, or is necessary expenditure; and only 10 per cent. is discretionary.
As a matter of fact we have heard almost nothing, in the whole of this controversy, about the child and about the superior education that is to be given. We have no proof of any superior education. We have not had even an attempt at proof. I recognise that the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), in his short resume of the subject, was quite accurate in saying that in 1872 the burgh school stood ahead of the church school and far more ahead of the adventure school. That is quite correct. It is pointed out in the Report that was given in 1867. But is it not remarkable that, when these burgh schools were in existence and the burghs were dealing with education, and in a large number of the burghs there was very little work in the town councils compared with what there is at the present time, yet in 1872 the statemen still said, "We will not put it into the hands of the burghs; we will keep it by itself, and will thereby preserve the best traditions of Scottish education?" hat is a complete reply to what fell from the -ion. Gentleman who represents the Scottish Universities.
There have been various reasons, other than educational, given for this Measure and this Clause. I was a little entertained when I read the reason given by the Prime Minister in his speech in St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, on 22nd November last. It was as remote from an educational reason as one could possibly imagine. This was what he said:The proposed reform of the Poor Law system in Scotland, amongst many other things, abolishes your present system of ad hoc authorities.The proposed reform, as remote as you can make it, is to carry this with it; no educational argument but an extraneous argument. The only argument was that of the brotherhood of services, to which I shall refer later. My hon. Friend referred to an article in the Education 1635 Journal by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who said this:I will freely admit that the record of the education authorities during the last 10 years has been good. The ad hoc body is undoubtedly useful at the inception of a service, since creative ideas, undivided attention, specialised knowledge and strong driving force are then necessary to overcome inertia and launch a new scheme.But surely initiative and creative ideas are necessary at the present time and for the future—and undivided attention and specialised knowledge and strong driving force? As a matter of fact, if you are not continually advancing in education you are going back. I am speaking not of the machinery of education, but of education itself. A challenge was thrown out at one of the first meetings that the right hon. Gentleman held with the Association of Education Authorities in Scotland, on 2nd October last. Mr. Duncan, who, I think, represented the Aberdeen Authority, threw out this challenge which is still unanswered: he challenged the writer of the White Paper to name one single educational institution which could be better or more fully used by reason of the proposed changes, and to state how a much fuller use could be brought about. He asked the writer of the document to state one single particular where education authorities had failed.
My next reason for supporting this Amendment is that the scheme is casting too great a burden, as things are, on the town councils and on the county councils of to-day. In this particular there is to be no district committee to assist in the work. Education is definitely ruled out from the province of the district committee. It would bring in specialists and experts, we have been told, if we were to elect direct to an education authority. We would be narrowed to one interest, as the hon. Gentleman who represents the Scottish Universities said. You want to bring in people from the market place, it is said. I sat for 11 years on the education authority of Glasgow, and there they were not men of one idea, but men from the market place, men who came up just as much as town councillors or county councillors from contact with daily life.
I must express some regret that in his various schemes, so many of them, the right hon. Gentleman has not done some- 1636 thing to revive local interest. While I justify the Act of 1918, I think we then did lose something of local control, and that something more might have been done. School committees have not functioned as they might have done. Any body which is simply advisory and subsidiary is not likely to be helpful in that regard. That brings me to this further point, and it is one of our main objections to this scheme. You are not able to carry it out without co-option. One of the Ministers, or one speaker yesterday, said that you could pick out these men who had proper experience and could be serviceable in this way. I am bound to say that, as I know the present. county councils, and as I conceive the reconstituted county councils, it will be almost impossible for working-class representatives to be on them in any large number. I cannot conceive that many men will be chosen who will be in sympathy with the great social ideals of democratic advance in education. I cannot conceive that, on the question of free books and other questions of that kind, this proposal will be helpful to or will represent advancing democracy.
I take, as illustration, the city of Glasgow where at present the members of the town council have to attend hundreds of meetings in the course of the year. The average of meetings for members of the education authority was 152, for the last year of which I have record. There are 22 groups of schools which have to be visited, and the result of this system will be that the duty of visitation will fall mainly on those co-opted members who have been described as persons of leisure. To a large extent, the schools will be visited by persons who are not even at the centre of the new system or in touch with what is going on in education. You have 14 standing committees: you have 49 cases where there would be representation on outside bodies; you have an unlimited series of co-options on sub-committees and overlappings in the sub-committees and the co-options. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of overlapping in regard to medical inspection and treatment and in regard to the feeding and clothing of necessitous children. All the information which I can glean, and my own experience indicate that there has been very little overlapping in that respect.
1637 I recall to the Committee that the provision for the feeding of necessitous children was only conceded after a very long struggle, and it was a special provision. It was to be extra treatment, quite apart from any treatment given otherwise and in the ordinary course. It was to be given on special grounds connected with education. It was to meet cases where the child, by reason of poverty, or lack of food or clothing, was not able to take proper advantage of the education provided. Now the Government are putting it over along with other things and they are not preserving its distinction from any pauper taint or any connection with the Poor Law. This provision has been satisfactorily carried out in the past and there has been very little overlapping. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman which I have just mentioned is the only argument for the change which would appear to have any substance, and I think I have shown that, after all, even it is a mere pretext. The right hon Gentleman referred to the consolidated budget, and spoke of the disadvantage of having education singled out, but, even as things are—if it is of any advantage to the ratepayer in knowing his civic duties—we get education, poor rate and town council rates totalled together. Therefore, that argument does not obtain.
I support the Amendment because of the new and heavy duties that will necessarily come upon town councils, county councils and education authorities as they stand. As has been pointed out, there are many provisions of the 1918 Act which have not yet been put into operation. There is the extension of the school age for instance. Then we have not yet had the full value of the provisions as to the employment of children and young persons, and the provisions as to continuation classes are hardly in operation at all. I ask, in view of these accumulating services, is there any limit to the amount of work that can be put on councils or individuals? I would like to use a classic illustration from Virgil in this connection. We read of how the Titans sought to pile Ossa. on Pelion and to pile "leafy Olympus" on Ossa, and of how Jupiter threw down the up-piled mountains. Perhaps it will be better if I give it in the words of Dryden rather than in the original tongue. I think it is very appropriate to the Government's proposal because that proposal means 1638 piling mountain upon mountain of work on the shoulders of both authorities and individuals. The Government are not Titans but their fate will be the same as that of the Titans:With mountains piled on mountains, thrice they strove.To scale the steepy battlements of JoveAnd thrice his lightning and red thunder played,And their demolished works in ruin laid.That is a prophecy for the hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is one other argument which I wish to emphasise. The work of education is in future to be done in committees and not publicly as at present. I remember the long struggle which we had in the school board of Glasgow, extending over many years, to get our meetings held in public. When we did at length hold our meetings in public, it produced a great change in the popular interest shown in the subject and the percentage of those who voted at elections went up gradually. The percentage of those who take an interest in education in Glasgow compares favourably with the figures in other parts of the country. In 1922, 57.1 went to the polls in connection with the Glasgow authority; in 1925, 45.7 and in 1928, 46.9; and in connection with the town council of Glasgow, in 1927 the percentage was 57.3. This proposal as has been pointed out, portends the curtailment of education services on grounds of false economy. The right hon. Gentleman has twitted us with quoting the London "Times" and I propose to give him something from the "Glasgow (Herald" which brings out Very clearly the design of the Government. We understand chat that paper is in very close torch with the designs of the Government. This is evidently designed so that expenditure shall be cut down if it is thought that education is soaring. These people are to act as judges and to adjudicate as to how much should be spent on this or that service. The "Glasgow Herald" of 3rd July last said:This authority, through its finance committee, will secure that each service gets its proper share and that the cost of services does not amount beyond the ratepayer's capacity.That is to be one of the great duties of the reconstituted county councils and town councils. The Lanarkshire education authority in its memorial, referring 1639 to the provision of the Bill for the appointment of a minority ofpersons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the needs of various kinds of schoolssays:It appears from this provision that experience in education is approved in principle so long as it can be effectively controlled by members who do not necessarily possess that qualification.I hold that there is no mandate for this line of policy by the Government. Even to-day we have only had the teachers adduced as in favour of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to 1918, when these proposals were put forward and withdrawn. He says it was owing to pressure from certain quarters; but the then Secretary for Scotland stated his reasons. He said that he had come to the conclusion that there was considerable opposition to the proposals and that indirect election and co-option were not acceptable to public opinion; and that he recognised that his views had not prevailed. He added:I therefore bow to public opinion as I understand it.We have to-day a Secretary of State who does not bow to public opinion. We had in Scottish history a notable man, James Guthrie, of whom it was said that he was "the short man that could not bow." That was a noble quality when directed to a good object; but stubbornness in error and persistence in doing wrong are not good qualities. We do not admire the persistency which is blind, which is acting contrary to the best educational traditions and is resisting the national demand for the preservation of a system that has approved itself. The Government admit that the Measure is unpopular and that this Clause in particular is unpopular. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, shall we quote the "Glasgow Herald" once again? I shall remind hon. Members of what the Prime Minister said at Glasgow on 22nd November, 1928:There is, very naturally, tolerably strong feeling on this matter in many parts of Scotland.When the right hon. Gentleman said as much as that, we know that there must have been considerable resistance to it. The fact of the matter is that we hear nothing but funeral panegyrics on the system which the Government are 1640 destroying. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities gave us one of those panegyrics. I quote from the Prime Minister's panegyric on the system which he is destroying. Referring to the ad hoc system he said:The present system has worked satisfactorily in Scotland for half a century. Your activities are well known to us and I should like, here, to pay a warm tribute to the members of your education authorities and to your parish councils in Scotland for the self-sacrificing work they have done for generations for their country.So that they come, at once to bury Caesar and to praise him. They pronounce the funeral oration on the ad hoc system and say mournfully "We shall never see its like again." The only consolation that we have is that we shall never see this Government's like again. The Secretary of State was a little raw yesterday at an historical allusion made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels). I am confident that he will take in good part the historical allusion with which I am going to close, because I do not propose to apply it specially to himself, but to the Government of which he is a foremost Member. I go back to the year 1399, when Richard II was deposed, and they put into his hands to read this document, which he read out prior to his deposition, that he wasincapable of reigning, and worthy for his great demerits to be deposed.So I am confident that in a few months' time, and particularly in Scotland, in view of what the Government is proposing here, the verdict of the whole country and of Scotland will be that this Government is incapable of ruling, and worthy for its great demerits to be deposed.
§ Sir ROBERT HORNE
If the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr). believes with all the fervour with which he has stated his conviction that this Bill is going to be the death blow to the Government, then I gather that it is something which he would welcome rather than decry, but I confess that I speak with a little diffidence after the Jove who has been scattering, with so much freedom, the mountains which he says have been piled up against him. As far as I am concerned, I do not feel as if I were one of those who were piling up mountains to attack anybody. What we 1641 are trying to do here is not to make any assault upon any system, but to do that which the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) so eloquently claimed that we ought to do, and that is to keep Scotland in the forefront of educational advantages rather than ever to let it lag behind. I am one of those who are somewhat belated converts to the view which the Secretary of State for Scotland has put forward, but I am sure that, whatever side we take in this controversy, we shall all agree that there is nothing upon which Scotsmen have been more ardent than upon the question of education. and there is nothing we are so anxious to see put in as efficient a position as is possible.
Both sides of the Committee will agree about that, and I, for one, believing that the ad hoc system had for long served the country well, would not have thought at this particular moment of changing it. There are various views put forward as to why we should not change it. For example, the hon. Member for Peebles said, "Why should we not take the position which to-day is supported by the whole of the education authorities in Scotland, who are unanimous in demanding that the Government should not embark upon the scheme which is now before the House of Commons?" I can quite well understand the reluctance of the education authorities to replace this system. If I had been a member of an education authority myself, I should have been somewhat resentful of the idea that the system could be in any way made more perfect, and I appreciate entirely the views which have been presented throughout the country by those who have, up till now, carried on the system of education in Scotland with the highest possible efficiency. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the teachers of Scotland, who are the people who have got to produce the results, are unanimously in favour of this scheme, and surely it is upon them that the main responsibility for turning out well educated children in the end rests. I have no doubt that there are education authorities that are moved by those political ideas to which the hon. Member who has just sat down gave vent, but the people who are concerned with making a well educated people are, on the other hand, entirely in favour of the 1642 change which is now suggested in the Bill.
What are the merits of this change? I have heard, during the course of this afternoon, very frequent asseverations from the opposite benches that no argument has been adduced for so completely altering the system upon which elections for educational authorities are conducted in Scotland, but indeed, on the other hand, I have heard no plea for the present system other than the statement that an ad hoc system is the best. There has been no attempt made to prove that it is the best, and all that has been pointed to is the fact that we have done very well up to now, but there has been no claim made that we could not do better under the system suggested. There are many reasons, of which I will adduce only two, why we should begin to reconsider that position. In the first place, I want to say that it must be very well known to everybody who is well acquainted with Scotland to-day that the public are losing interest in elections in Scotland because of the numbers of them that we have had, and you have only to look at the statistics of the votes for our various local authorities and education authorities to see that interest in our local government and in our educational government is as present very tax. You will find a most extraordinarily low poll of the electorate in connection with some of the most important elections.
Like the last speaker, who has been long associated with Glasgow, as I have, I am very glad that the Glasgow figures show better than those of other towns in Scotland. Last year, I think, something like 47 per cent. of the electorate went to the poll for the education authority, although that in itself, in a country like Scotland, interested in education as it is, is a very, very meagre number. We must acknowledge that at the best it does not come very high, but it is as good as it is for many other local bodies. But if you could only have one election, which would encompass a large number of these subjects, you would indeed have; in my view, an interest in all of them put together which would show a, very much better proportion than you have now. But leave Glasgow out, and look for a moment at the other towns in Scotland in the same year. I will take Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, the city in which it is proposed that the new national 1643 Parliament of Scotland should sit, and which is supposed to be, and certainly is, a capital of ancient name and high repute. Why, only 25 per cent. of the electorate voted in Edinburgh at the election for the education authority.
Let us go further north. Let us go to a region which comes nearer to the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend who is the Whip of the Liberal party. Go to Dundee, and you will find there that only 26 per cent. of the electorate voted. Go north still further, to that home of education, Aberdeen, and you will find that there was no election at all—I suppose because the people were mainly interested in the political election that was going on, which was to send a Member to Parliament whom we were all glad to welcome back. But the fact is this, that throughout these great towns of (Scotland the interest in the elections for the education authorities is not of a character that any of us would regard as creditable, and the way in which to increase the interest in these topics is undoubtedly, in my view, to bring the great subjects of your popular service together and have an election in which the great mass of your people will be really interested.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
Will the right hon. Gentleman, then, explain why, in the London County Council election, the percentage is just about 30?
§ Sir R. HORNE
I hope it will be very much better in Scotland than it is in London. We in Scotland have always shown a much more eager interest in popular matters than they have in the South, and I hope we shall continue to do so.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN
As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to Aberdeen, I am sorry to continue the tedious process of correcting his misstatements, but the late Member for Aberdeen was not even dead before the education election was over.
§ Sir R. HORNE
That was not a statement on the merits of the question; it was only a reference to show that I recognised that my hon. Friend has returned to the House. I have reflected greatly upon this question, to the best of my ability, and having, as I 1644 say, started with a prejudice on the opposite side, I have come to the view that we shall do far better, and have a far more efficient service for all purposes, if we have an election which will comprise all these great objects of public interest. Let me take as an example the honourable House in which we all sit. Is it to be said that because we are elected upon an enormous variety of topics, far greater than those which a county council or a town council has to consider, there is any one of them that we are utterly incapable of dealing with, or that we are going to neglect? That, surely, is the last argument which members of a popular assembly would use as against a county council or a town council because it happens to have a large variety of subjects to deal with. It is suggested that, although county councils would deal with many services, education should be left outside, that education should be the step-daughter of all the services. I can think of no way of rendering education, not only less interesting, but perhaps negligible, than by leaving it outside of the great services upon which the highest form of popular local election is going to take place in Scotland. Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion that, so far from adherence to the ad hoc system being for the benefit of education in Scotland, it is time we made a change, in order to create that popular interest which is necessary if we are going to make the education of the people of Scotland thoroughly efficacious, and, indeed, not only efficacious, but keep it ahead of the rest of the world, as it has been in the past.
There is one more point which I will venture to put to the Committee. There are a great number of people in this country who are interested in diverse topics, and particularly there is a vast number interested in education, who would be useful people on educational authorities, but who yet are not willing to run the gamut of popular election and to go through all the trouble which we, for example. go through in order to come to this House. It is not everybody who is willing to endure the fatigue and trouble of an election.
§ Sir R. HORNE
I think the hon. Member will recognise that there are adherents of his own party who are of the particular temperament to which I refer, and indeed does not Parliament constantly show it? If there is any subject of great difficulty or of technical interest, what does Parliament do? It does not depend simply upon those whom popular favour has acclaimed as representatives in the House of Commons. It goes outside, and it appoints Commissions, on which it places the representatives of the particular interests concerned, and it endeavours to get the aid of all the expert evidence obtainable to reinforce the conclusions to which a particular Parliamentary Committee may have come. It is not to be supposed that all the wisdom of the country is collected in representative assemblies. On the contrary, surely we all recognise that there are vast numbers of people, particularly well fitted to give opinions about a variety of things, who yet are not on popular aasemblies.
I welcome the present Bill of the Secretary of State for Scotland for this one reason more than any other. I hear co-option constantly being derided, as if it was some sort of pariah which ought to be thrown out on the streets, but co-option in this matter is a very good thing. Co-option will enable you to get people who take a keen interest in education on to your committees, and many who, as I say, would not go through the trouble of popular election. I am so convinced of the efficacy of what is now being done that I welcome the plan which the Secretary of State for Scotland has put before us, and for no reason more than that we should have the advantage of a great deal of expert help in such matters, which the education authorities have not been able to get in the past. The hon. Member for Peebles said that he would not go back to 1872 as the year when live history began, because he happened to be born in that year.
§ Sir R. HORNE
At any rate, the hon. Member refuses to go back to the beginning of the education system in 1873 because, I suppose it had been born before him. There is an old phrase thatThere were great men before Agamemnon,1646 but the hon. Member will not recognise that there were any men before him or any history before him. Scotland produced an excellent system of education long before we had school boards, and that was done by the influence of the people in Scotland who were interested in education, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles is. Let us not think, therefore, that by electing people by co-option we shall do any harm to education in Scotland; indeed, it may do it a very great service.
§ Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR
I am a little embarrassed, in dealing with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), by finding a little difficulty in knowing which of his arguments we are to take seriously, and which are merely amiable irrelevancies, such as his welcome back of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. W. Benn). He tries to base an. argument on the figures of the voting in education authority elections in Scotland, but the argument cuts both ways. If you take the figures for local elections, you will find that they were not perhaps very dissimilar, but supposing the figures for local elections to be very much larger—
§ Sir R. HORNE
The hon. Baronet must have misunderstood my argument. I referred to many election;; affecting all local authorities, not merely elections for the education authorities.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
I accept the correction, but the fact that there are a great many other elections, or whatever else the reason may be. results in a smaller interest being taken in education than in other local concerns, and it tends to show that if you have one authority to administer education as well as all the other local concerns, the interest taken in education by the voters and therefore the members of the new authority will be smaller, for people will be returned who are interested in other social and civic questions and very few interested in education. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that the people who are concerned in making education a success are unanimously in favour of this change. By that he means the teachers. But the teachers are not unanimous. He means that the Educational Institute of Teachers have 1647 passed a resolution in favour of the change, but they are not the only people concerned. They are not the people mainly concerned. The people mainly concerned are the parents of the children in Scotland. Moreover, the Secretary of State for Scotland told us that the teachers were at least as greatly opposed to the ad hoc authority in 1918 as they are now, implying that they were more greatly opposed in 1918 than now, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead began his speech by saying that he was a recent convert to the ad omnia authority. Therefore, until recently, this argument carried no weight with the right hon. Gentleman, as I hope that it will not do with the Committee to-day. We do not want our educational system damaged. We are proud of the Scottish system. The right hon. Gentleman talked about making it more efficacious and equal to other educational systems of the world—
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
I agree that he wants to make it better; I accept his correction, and I am grateful to him for it. The fact is, however, that it is better, and has long been better and the admiration of the world, and we believe that that cannot be dissociated from the circumstance that it originally was administered by an ah hoc authority. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) gibed at hon. Members on these benches for what he called their conservatism, but his gibe leaves my withers unwrung. Our plans for education are well-known; we have pressed them repeatedly upon the Government on the Education Vote and whenever an opportunity has offered. We object to the particular methods which the Government propose. All movement is not progress: there is movement backwards, and that is why we find ourselves compelled to resist these reactionary proposals. The fact is that we have to defend the ground which has been won by the progressive forces in the past against the reactionary assaults of this Government.
1648 The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities retailed what he thought were the principal arguments against the change which the Government propose, and in order to do this he manufactured out of as brittle material as he could lay his hands upon, some arguments which bore a sort of superficial resemblance to the cogent contentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton). Surely it was his duty to employ his time less in meeting the arguments against the change, and more in giving the Committee the arguments for the change, because the onus of proof must be on those who are trying to alter what has been the foundation of so much educational progress in Scotland. The hon. Member said that the earlier Acts gave unified administration, and that it is now our business to unify this system with the other activities of local government. He went on to say that the burgh schools were the pioneers of education, and that the man who scorns municipal control is forgetful of an honourable chapter of Scottish history, and he referred to Ayr Burghs. Why was Ayr Burghs so successful in ancient days? Because you had there a community deeply interested in education, devoting its energy to educational progress, and a burgh authority devoting time, energy and thought to this question.
Have you got that now I Can you have it now? We know, in point of fact, that our burgh and county councils have now to engage on a whole range of complicated activities. How can they possibly concentrate their thought, energy and attention upon the subject, of education, as it was possible for a burgh council to do in those old days long ago? We are piling upon these burgh councils and county authorities, who have already a far greater complexity of business to undertake than they had centuries ago, a great many new duties. We decided last night that they were to have the work of the parish councils in addition to all the work that they have already. They are to have the work of the boards of control and of the small burghs. We are piling these burdens upon the local authority, and how can any comparison be drawn between the duties which they have to perform, and the opportunities which they have of serving the cause of education, with the opportunities which were at the disposal of the people who 1649 were responsible for educational advance in Ayr centuries ago? The remarkable thing is that a great many of the town councils in Scotland realise it, and they do not want these extra responsibilities. They would like to have some control over finance but, that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) said in his admirable and cogent speech, could easily be arranged without destroying the ad hoc authorities altogether.
Why should these over-burdened men be more efficient than men who are elected solely for the purpose of dealing with questions of education? It is contrary to common sense that they should be more efficient and have as much time to devote to this great question in future on ad omnia authorities as they have had in the past under the ad hoc system. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities asked who were the best kind of people to direct education, and he said the ordinary man with the ordinary range of interests. What better description could there be of the men and women who now man our education authorities? They are ordinary men and women with the ordinary range of interests. Those who will man the authorities of the right hon. Gentleman may be ordinary men and women, but they will have a most extraordinary range of interests spreading over almost every conceivable social and civic activity.
The Secretary of State demurred to any steps being taken to separate or segregate education from the larger social services of the country, but that is exactly what we have been doing in Scotland for centuries with the most admirable results. The system has triumphantly vindicated itself. In Scotland we are proud of the education system which has enabled out-young men and women to go into every country of the world to contribute immensely to the upbuilding of those countries and to the progress of civilisation. It is a remarkable fact that in Scotland more than in any other country, and certainly more than in England, the educational system has done more for the boys and girls in the countryside, and has given them splendid opportunities of which they have made such good use. Sir John Struthers used to say that the remote and sparsely populated county of Caithness led Scotland in education, and he added that Thurso led Caithness. It 1650 is a remarkable fact that in the Aberdeen University examinations last year the three burghs which came out first were Elgin, Buckie and, then, this little burgh of Thurso, away in the far north of Scotland. It is a very remarkable system which gives these results and enables people living in those remote and scattered districts to compete on level terms with and to beat in open competition people from the great towns.
§ Sir A, SINCLAIR
But my argument is not directed particularly to the retention of school boards, because we have not got school boards.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
There was an ad hoc system before we had the system of elections. But under the other system there was this, which you can get now only by means of the ad hoc system, and that is a cencentration of interest on education, because the people who were interested in education were not occupied with this great range of activities which they will have if this Measure is passed into law.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that unless we adopt these proposals there will be no opportunities for bringing various other activities—health activities and so forth—under closer control, and that we ought to prevent overlapping. I am not going into the overlapping argument. He gave us one specific case to-day, the case of the feeding of destitute school children, and on that matter he was most admirably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr). On every platform in Scotland Tories are talking about overlapping, but they never give instances, because although overlapping does occur to a certain extent it is on such an insignificant scale that it would be laughed at if it were put forward as a reason for doing away with education authorities and the rest of the structure of our local government.
Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the consolidated rate, but. as the hon. Member for Peebles said. that could be 1651 dealt with by consultation between the bodies concerned. At the present time these bodies are standing in the dock, and the question is whether they are to be executed by this Committee or not. What is the charge against them? Surely that is a relevant question. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities proved none. He said there was no criticism of the work of the education authorities, and that their record was highly creditable. Then why get rid of instruments of educational progress which have served their purpose so well? He said we should get greater progress in future under the new authorities. I think he is very optimistic. If you have instruments like this, which are working well giving so much satisfaction, and producing such magnificent results, why throw them away in favour of an instrument like that suggested in the Bill, which is not going to be devoted solely, or even mainly, to the service of education, but will be occupied with the whole range of social and civic interests among the people of Scotland?
The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke in rather different language. He did not follow the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities in saying there was no criticism of the work and that the record was highly creditable. He said he would be the last to express anything of a derogatory nature. That is very much more tepid praise, if, indeed, it be regarded as praise at all. If there is anything at the back of the minds of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they have any charge to bring against education authorities, let us have it. If any other Minister is going to reply, let us hear what the charges are, let Ministers give expression to anything of a derogatory nature which they may have at the back of their minds. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities has appealed to us to accept these proposals. He thinks this new body is well suited to foster the interests of education in Scotland. Would he submit his own universities to its control? Would he, for one moment, say that the great work of a university should be directed by people whose actual duties comprise the whole range of other interests?
§ Mr. SKELTON
Is the hon. and gallant Member really suggesting that he would 1652 put the universities under the education authorities? If not. his argument has no point.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
I am suggesting that they are under an ad hoc authority. Just as the education authority is an ad hoc authority for the purposes of educa-tion, so the universities have their ad hoc authorities, and I am suggesting to the hon. Member that he would not care to change that system in the case of the universities. There is no mandate for this proposal from the people of Scotland; I go further, and say there is no Scottish majority for it in this Committee. The Government should either leave this matter to a free vote of this Committee or they should save our time debating this subject by withdrawing the proposals altogether.
§ Sir PATRICK FORD
This question of ad hoc authorities seems to raise some heat. Personally, I cannot understand this tremendous enthusiasm for such a newly-born thing as the ad hoc authority. If we go over the whole noble range of Scottish history and Scottish education we are confronted by the interesting fact that the ad hoc authority was introduced in 1872. There was a long connection between popularly-elected bodies and education before that date. In my own native city of Edinburgh the High School was practically the child of the town council, and when the Edinburgh Academy, an honourable school of which I was a member, was founded in 1826, there was a great outcry that there should be this rival to the town council school, the old and honourable High School of Scotland. Historically, a great deal too much has been made of, and too much has been founded upon, the idea that there is in this ad hoc system something of such antiquity and such proved worth that we cannot go back beyond 1872. When we come down to principles, although the Opposition speak with different voices on the question, it seems to me that in theory they are rather pleading for an ad hoc authority, because at the back of their minds they think that in that way they will get experts to run education. In the government of this country the ad hoc system is not that which we adopt. We are not in the habit of appointing admirals Civil Lords of the Admiralty, or of putting generals at the head of the War Office; in fact, we usually try to put there men with minds 1653 trained on other lines, who can have the advantage of their experts and then give the judgment of a well-trained and balanced mind. That is what we shall have in this matter of education. There will be the highly trained people in the Department, there will be a highly trained body of teachers, and there will be a certain number of co-opted members, and I think it is far better that a body constituted in the way proposed should, subject to Parliament, control the destinies of Scottish education.
In the last few years I do not think that Scottish education has really been quite as effective as it was some years ago. I think that when we get back to more common-sense control we shall do better. In the conduct of the Great War, it was when the civilian mind was brought in, and its ideas sometimes clashed with and sometimes led the routine minds of the people brought up in the professions connected with the conduct of war, that we got the best results in most cases. For that reason, among others, I see no great argument in favour of the ad hoc system. That system would be out of harmony with the whole structure of the Bill. There are hon. Members opposite who admit that there is a good deal which is good in the Bill. If we are to introduce the ad hoc system in connection with education, we shall have to throw open the door in many other directions, and the idea of getting on these authorities a body of men who are chosen for their general intelligence and general business ability in dealing with the subjects in which the ratepayers are interested must inevitably go by the board. I think that as a matter of principle we must support the proposal and that it will be for the benefit of education itself.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I would like to bring the Committee back to the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) who, as has been frequently stated, comes in and makes a speech and then disappears to take part in a multitude of duties—a case such as we are citing in argument against this Bill.
Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) waited until the following speaker had answered him.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) will sit a long while in this House before anyone answers him. At the outset I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to this—that it is a most remarkable thing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead and the hon. Member who represents the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) are both sons of the manse. Education in Scotland has been for centuries, and is to-day, under Protestant control, and I think the public should mark the fact that the two gentlemen who are taking an active and a conspicuous part in the removal of it from that control are the two Members to whom I have referred. I state that lest religious controversies should be introduced into our forthcoming elections owing to the appearance of this Bill, and I hope it will go forth to all parts of Scotland that that control upon which Scotland prides itself so much is being destroyed by the Members of the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead referred to Scotland's anxiety about education. I think I can claim that Scotland has enthusiasm for education, that to the Scottish mind, and particularly to the Scottish working-class mind, education is something sacred, something far too sacred to be dealt with in the tinkering manner in which it is being handled by the Tory Government to-day. The right hon. Gentleman repeated an argument which was used by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He told us that the teachers had declared themselves strongly in favour of this Measure. that the teachers are the people who have been doing this work, and that they are just the people who should guide the House of Commons. Surely that is a very strange doctrine to come from the Tory benches. Acting on the same principle, I should like to ask if the Conservative party would look for light and leading to the miners in regard to the management of the mines? Would they look to the steel-workers on questions relating to steel works, or would they look to the railway workers upon questions affecting the working of the. railways.
I assume that a Member of the Front Bench will reply to this Debate, and I notice that those sitting on the Treasury Bench are already putting their heads 1655 together in order to arrive at some common finding as regards their views on this Bill. In view of the eulogies which have been paid to the teaching profession, I would like to ask if the Government intend to withdraw from the Bill the provision which provides that the teachers are the only people who cannot be co-opted by the education committees in the future. If the Government want men and women who know this work, surely the teachers are the first people whose knowledge and value should be appreciated. Instead of taking that course the Government select the teachers as the very last people to be consulted in regard to educational administration.
Hon. Members opposite have referred to the value of co-opted members on these committees, but my experience is that those wise people who are co-opted are generally people who can never secure election on a local authority. Who will be the judges in the future of the capacity of people to represent them in public life? Are we going to take away the judgment from the people? If the discards, the despised and the rejected of the electorate are to be selected to manage our local affairs, surely that is a departure from the political wisdom that has governed this country for at least one and a-half centuries. It is a remarkable fact that co-opted members very seldom have much influence on the policy of the authority upon which they serve. The mere fact that they cannot be elected puts them in an inferior place in the eyes of the people. Glasgow has had an opportunity of applying this system of co-option, and the Glasgow Corporation have refused to apply it. They have power to co-opt members in the case of the child welfare committee, but they have refused to take advantage of that provision. I submit that all this parading of the co-opted member as being something likely to give us more superior administration than we have had in the past emanates either from ignorance or from an attempt to humbug this Committee.
I thought that we should have received from the Secretary of State for Scotland some sound arguments for proposing this drastic change in the national system of Scotland. Under this Bill, the education authorities are in the dock, and they are being tried for their lives. Under those 1656 circumstances, surely the onus is on the prosecution to show why they should be executed. We have been given no reason at all. The Secretary of State for Scotland commenced his speech by telling us what he told Scotland, but we are much more interested to know what Scotland told the right hon. Gentleman. Scotland has not been seriously consulted. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has consulted various authorities. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in future, when he consults people on education in Scotland, they will not be representatives of education authorities, but they will be the representatives of federations of municipalities and county councils. When you have approximated the education machinery of Scotland to that of England the probability may be that you will have to consult the associations representing the municipalities of England and Scotland combined as well as the representatives of the county councils of England and Scotland combined. We have only four large centres in Scotland out with the county councils, like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen, but the geographical position is vastly different in England where you have a large number of municipalities. I can imagine a multitude of advice coming from all these associations in connection with the education system of the future.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has no authority whatever from the people of Scotland to pursue this Measure, which is a mere mockery of democratic control. The people of this country have little or no say at all as to what the laws of the country should be, and I take this as an instance. Here you have a political party which went to the country in 1924, and they were returned upon every question under the sun except the question of abolishing education authorities. The party opposite at the last election may have told the electors that they intended abolishing the Russians and the Communists, hut nobody ever gave them authority to abolish our education authorities. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that he represents the voice of Scotland. On that point, I would like to re-echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) and say: "If that is the case, then God help poor old Scotland."
We have been told that the existing education authorities have been sue- 1657 cessful. Surely that is not an argument in favour of their abolition, but in favour of their retention. Everybody knows that it is much better to stick to tried and experienced machinery than to scrap it, simply because the scrapping of it suits the political requirements of the Government of the day. As I pointed out yesterday, this Bill does not come from Scotland, and it has nothing Scottish about it. The one and only argument used by the Secretary of State for Scotland was that this Measure was required to complete the great change that is taking place in rating, and it fits in with the De-rating Bill; in fact, it is a cog in the wheel of de-rating. Where did the De-rating Bill come from? It did not come from the Universities of Scotland, or the Pollok Division of Glasgow, or from the Hillhead Division of Glasgow. It was made in Birmingham, where all shoddy goods are made. The De-rating Bill, coming from Birmingham, was polished up in Whitehall, and, after that, the Secretary of State for Scotland consented to adopt the humiliating position into which Scotland has been put under the present Tory Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been told that in order to conform to this Birmingham-made De-rating Bill he must scrap the whole machinery of the country we represent, and he has adopted this policy without consulting the people of Scotland. He has taken this course without any authority at all, and he has been acting entirely on the instructions of the Minister of Health.
We have been given no substantial argument in favour of this Measure. We have just been told that the ad hoe authority is not specially qualified for dealing with education. Are we to take it that the members of a gas committee or a sewage committee are more qualified to deal with education than the people specially elected because they have convinced the electors that they are specially fitted to deal with education? We have been told that men and women with experience in education will be co-opted. My view is that the number of people who will be experienced in education matters will be a diminishing quantity from the day that this Bill is placed on the Statute Book. From the moment you abolish all these education committees, you will abolish 1658 the training ground where you have been giving experience to those engaged in education work. We may take it that within a very few years after the passing of this Bill we shall only be permitted to look to the members of gas committees and electricity committees to find men experienced in education administration.
Even if we. accept the argument put forward by the Government that this Measure is necessary for Scotland on account of the de-rating proposals, will the representative of the Government who is going to reply to this Debate tell us how education will benefit by the proposals in this Bill or by de-rating? I think that is a very important question. If education is to be stripped of all its machinery in order to suit de-rating, I think we are entitled to know what financial sacrifice is being made in return to support education. What do we find in the Clause which we are discussing? We find that the Government contemplate a deficiency in the amount required to administer the education system of Scotland. In Sub-section (2) of this Clause, it says:ascertain the amount of the deficiency in the education fund of their area and such deficiency, so far as required to be defrayed out of rates.This is an obligation put upon them by Act of Parliament and by the Government who are quite satisfied that there will be deficiencies in the education funds throughout the area. If they did not contemplate that, there would be no need to put these obligations on the authorities. When these deficiencies are ascer-tanied, they are to be defrayed out of the rates. The original proposal was:Shall be deferred out of a rate leviable for the purpose.There is an Amendment to strike out the wordsout of a rate leviable for the purpose,but the deficiency is to be defrayed so far as required out of the rates. Does that mean that we are going to have-additional financial assistance for the carrying on of education in Scotland? The rates will be levied on a lower rateable value, and the rates that will be raised will not be imposed on the large employers engaged in productive work who are being de rated. In other words, the shopkeepers and householders and all those engaged in work outside actual 1659 productive occupations will have to pay a higher rate than they would have had to pay but for the introduction of the De-rating Bill in order to meet any deficiency that takes place in the education fund. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go to Scotland and make it perfectly clear that the common people of Scotland are required to pay more rates. I want to point out what is behind that proposal. The whole object of this set of schemes is to retard progress, and to make it more expensive for the people to have education or anything else. The Government are learning by experience in all their elections, Parliamentary and local, that it is unpopular directly to oppose the progress of schemes that are calculated to raise the standard of social comfort. Now they are putting the ratepayers into the firing line, into the very forefront of the battle, and they are hoping that, as a result of the imposition of the whole of the deficiency in the education rate on the lower rateable value which has to be borne by the poorer section of the community, that poorer section, out of sheer selfishness, will oppose progress in educational matters and give us a continuance of Tory rule. That is what is behind the scheme, and that is what is behind every scheme associated with the Measures that we have been discussing for the past two or three months.
I would like this point to be made perfectly clear again by the representative of the Government who speaks. It is a point that was raised in the discussion on the English Bill, and I do not think it was properly cleared up. Let me take the case of Glasgow, because I am one of its representatives. In estimating the loss of rates to the City of Glasgow due to the de-rating scheme, we may take it, I suppose, that the rate for education will be taken into account. Am I to assume that the Government have taken steps to guarantee that, when the general Exchequer grant is being distributed, the amount for education that will be refunded will be equal to the amount for educational purposes that is being taken away by their de-rating scheme? Even if that be so, I want to remind the Committee that during the five years, or at any rate during four of the five years following the coming 1660 into operation of the Bill, every improvement that takes place necessitating greater expenditure on the part of the city in the administration of education will have to come entirely from the rates, and entirely from the rates on the lower rateable value—from the pockets of the poor—in the hope that by robbing them in that way the poor will be a barrier to the progress of education.
One could find hundreds of arguments against this Bill, and hon. Members on the other side have the greatest possible difficulty in finding an argument in support of it. Will the representative of the Government tell us what is the estimated financial saving in Glasgow by the change? We hear about economy. What is to be the extent of the economy? How much is to be saved? Surely, before embarking on a Measure like this, the Government have gone carefully into the matter; or is it the case that even in this matter they have taken the scheme from Whitehall, without seriously examining it and without any authority from Scotland, imposing it on Scotland against the wishes of Scotland and against the wishes of the Scottish Members of the House of Commons. We are entitled to know, as one of my hon. Friends puts it, whether the saving is to be £l, or £l,000 or £10,000. In other words, what is the estimate in pounds, shillings and pence of the sacrifice that Scotland is being asked to make?
As I have said, the people of Scotland are having no voice in this at all. We claimed yesterday, and we repeat it to-day, that Scotland, through its representatives, would not accept this Measure from the House of Commons. If the Government wish to test that, it may be easily decided by leaving this question to the Scottish Members. We are told that Scottish affairs shall be controlled by Scottish sentiment, by the people who represent Scotland. Let the Government try it here. As I have said, there is nothing that is held more sacred in Scotland than this question of education. Members on these benches could thrill the House with admirable instances of boys and girls who in Scotland, under the most difficult conditions, from the slums, from the single-apartment houses of Lanarkshire, have climbed, under our education system right up to the universities. Are we to have any guaran- 1661 tee that in the future fees are not going to he charged in the secondary schools? Are they to be free in Scotland under the changed conditions? These are things that we are entitled to know. I am told that Glasgow is abolishing the fees; will the new authority have power to do that, and shall we have any guarantee that the goods which have been delivered by the ad hoc authorities will not be stolen by the authority that is now to control education. There are many questions like that on which I should like to have a guarantee.
There is another question which is agitating Scotland very much. We are told that this is going to clean and purify and give greater interest in our local elections. Will it? Is it not just as likely that the religious controversy which all right-minded people deplore in Scottish local elections is now going to be carried into all the councils and into all public questions? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to do what he can here—it is something, at least, that he can do—to protect us from that, because it would certainly be an evil of the first magnitude. I hope he will ensure that it will not grow up from the Measure which his magnificent English majority will enable him to press through the House. At the present moment I have two petitions from parish churches in my own constituency. They are anxious, like all the people in Scotland, to have guarantees for the contirruance of religious instruction in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman has met them as far as that part of their demand is concerned, but they also ask—and I, who am not a Protestant, think they are quite justified in asking—that, just as the other religious bodies, the Catholics and Episcopalians, are to have co-opted representation on the education committee, they should have representation also.
It is said that there is no need for representation in their case because they are in a majority now, and it is not necessary to protect the majority against a minority. If they are in a majority now, as they undoubtedly are, what possible harm could be done by giving to them an additional representative? A majority can never become more powerful by the addition of one member. The present Tory Government have not 1662 exhibited any strength because they have had a majority of 200. Every time an election is fought, they go out and put up a candidate to try to get one more. I submit, and I think it is proper that it should come from me, that the parish churches of Scotland are. as much entitled to representation as any other religious denomination, and I demand it on behalf of the parish church people in the constituency that I represent. I hope that the Secretary of State will accede to my request, and will not give it out that, under the provisions of his Bill, as far as co-option is concerned, no Protestant need apply.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the Committee in discussing this question. As one who has some little knowledge of local administration, who has had experience in a county council and in a city council, who has been Minister of Health for England and Wales, I can scarcely retain my patience when I consider the futility of imposing on the nation that I represent a Bill such as we have before us to-day, something that tears up from their very roots the institutions of Scotland. There is a great deal in tradition. It may be said that the parish councils only go back to 1904, or whatever was the date when they were formed; but the parochial powers existed before that, and the parish has always been associated with education in Scotland. Education in Scotland is something that is too pure to be associated with sewers and gas committees and so on. Education is the food of the mind of the people; the Scottish character has been moulded by the educational system of Scotland. Scotland is proud of its education. I do not know how many will agree with me, but I claim that the general standard of education in the City of Glasgow, when due allowance is made for the poverty of the people, for the difficulties in their way, for the need for sending their boys and girls into factories and workshops at the very earliest age that the law will allow in order to assist in the maintenance of the families of which they are members—when all that is allowed for, the standard of education in the City of Glasgow will compare favourably with the standard of education in any part of Britain, or in any part of the world.
1663 I mean by education not merely the test that is applied in an elementary school. In Scotland, we take a wider range of education. Get the statistics from the Scottish libraries, and see how much is contributed there, through the books that are given out, to the education of Scotland. It is a marvellous tribute to the interest of the Scottish people in the betterment of their minds and in the training of their children. That will be seen in Glasgow, and, if an argument is wanted from the House of Commons as to the superiority of the education that prevails in the City of Glasgow, it will be found in the fact that it is the first great city to send a majority of Labour Members to the British House of Commons.
I should have much preferred that this question of the local administration of education should have come before the Committee as a single issue, without being complicated by other matters, such as de-rating and the like. I confess that I have no love whatever for the Government's de-rating proposals, but, be that as it may, I find myself in hearty sympathy with the proposal contained in this Sub-section of Clause 3. In saying that, I am simply giving expression to opinions and conclusions at which I arrived many years ago, long before I was a Member of the House of Commons.
If I may, as one who does not often trespass upon the time of the House, I would crave the indulgence of the Committee that I might give as briefly as possible some account of the reasons which led me to take up the attitude which I now do. Everyone acquainted with Scottish education knows that the Act of 1872 put local administration upon a parish basis, but that system had not been long in operation before its shortcomings were evident. The rising conceptions of education made it quite impossible for those small bodies to see them adequately fulfilled. Over a long series of years a number of proposed Amendments were put forward, and this House itself endeavoured on more than one occasion to rectify the state of matters that then prevailed, but nothing Was done until the time of the War.
In the middle of the War, there was set up a Cabinet Reconstruction Com- 1664 mittee, and it was asked that suggestions with a view to improving our education system should be submitted to that Reconstruction Committee. That being so, the three great professional organisa tions in Scotland appointed a representative joint committee to survey the whole field of education activity. It so happened that I had the honour of being appointed convener of the committee which dealt with local administration. We took a very broad view of our responsibilities, and we considered first of all what area of administration should be adopted. We considered, as was considered in the case of parish councils, whether the case could be met by a combination of counties or by a limited area of service. We found that neither of these would meet the necessities of the case, and we were driven finally to the conclusion that the only satisfactory area would be the county area, and that was adopted. Having decided what in our view was the proper area, we came to consider next what would be the nature of the authority that would administer education in that area, Everyone on that committee had a predisposition to favour what is known as an ad hoc committee. Many of them had worked under it for years, and we were satisfied that in many ways it could meet the necessities of the case. The committee then put forward a statement, which is to be found in their report, published in the year 1916, long before the Government had ever thought of putting forward proposals, that in their view the county ad hoc authority with largely increased powers would work fairly well. That was the policy adopted in the Bill which became the Act of 1918, and the expressions in that committee's report have been amply fulfilled.
The county education authorities, which have been in operation for the last nine years, have undoubtedly worked well on the whole. Some have worked more than well; they have worked admirably. On the other hand, there are, of course, a few which did not perhaps realise the full extent of their responsibilities.
While we recognised that such a system might be reasonably satisfactory, we came unanimously to the conclusion, having regard to the task which would be before the new authorities, that there was a better solution than that which I have just mentioned, not only a better 1665 one, but one which in the opinion of the committee was sooner or later inevitable. That solution, which we favoured then in 1916 and which we stated to be our opinion sooner or later inevitable, is the scheme that was put forward by Mr. Munro, then Secretary for Scotland, in the first draft of the Bill of 1919, and which is embodied in Section 3 of the Bill which we are now discussing.
What were the considerations which led us to make what was confessedly and recognisedly a very drastic departure from Scottish practice? The reason has been given in very admirable terms both by my hon. colleague in the representation of the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) and by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The overriding reason was the larger conception which was being given as time went on to what the term education connoted. The time has long gone by when education was regarded as merely a matter of book learning. We took it that education concerned the whole compendium of the child, that it had a physical, intellectual and moral side, and that all these needed recognition if the State was to have what it desired to produce—good citizens. We recognised that education was not so important that it required a specially elected body to look after itself, but that it was so important that it could not be left out of the great stream and tendency of social service. It was because the question of education was inseparably bound up with health and housing, medical inspection and treatment, recreation and life, it was because all those things came into our view that we came to the conclusion that the municipalising of education was not only desirable and necessary, but indeed inevitable. Those are the reasons which led us to that conclusion, and it was because we saw in the county council and the town council of the great cities the possibility of unifying all those social services that we came to the conclusion which I have stated and which is embodied in Section 3 of the Act now before us.
Reference has been made to the position taken up by the teachers in this matter. Until 1916, the teachers had uniformly declared in their congresses and other meetings for an ad hoc autho- 1666 rity, but, when this committee of which I speak put before them the reasoned conclusion at; which they had arrived, they discussed it at meetings all over the country, and they came to the conclusion in 1916 that in the proposal put forward by us was to be found the best solution available at; the time. As I have said, the case was so strong and things had altered so much since 1872, that in 1918 the then Liberal Secretary for Scotland put forward this particular scheme in the first draft of his Act. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) has said, that he had then to depart from his intentions because of some opposition. No person would have been more astonished than I had the proposal which was contained in our Report been accepted at the very first sight. We knew that it would be a very considerable time before its merits would appeal to the people of Scotland. I naturally think that in this Bill we have a proposal which is on very sound lines. While saying that, I should like to say that I have great respect for those who hold a different opinion. I have listened with interest and pleasure to the many speeches which have been delivered in the defence of the existing authorities. I rejoice that there should be many who find that in their opinion, in their honest; convictions, the present authorities art: worthy of all praise and should be continued in office. That is a well-deserved tribute to the work which those authorities have done. I have worked with ad hoc authorities for many years and my relations with them, officially and personally, have been of the pleasantest type, but I cannot but see that, to me at any rate, there are weaknesses in their position.
There are several arguments which have been put forward as good reasons why we should continue in the present system of directly elected education authorities. A little learning is said to be a dangerous thing, and perhaps a little Latin is a dangerous thing, because the words ad hoc have added to them far more significance than they really would have in a literal translation. We hear people speak, for example, of the ad hoc principle. There is no such thing as an ad hoc principle. There is only an ad hoc method. There is only one principle at the root of all State activity in the 1667 matter of education, and that is that the State can only flourish if it has good citizens, and, if it is to have good citizens, then the children must be properly trained. I take exception to what is said by my hon. and gallant Friend just below me. He said that the people to be consulted were the parents. The parents are important, but they do not come first. The people to be consulted are the children and their interests. That must be the case in any system of education. Another argument put forward is that the present specially elected authority is in the direct tradition and line of Scottish policy. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and, as a patriotic Scotsman, I was greatly delighted to hear him speak so strongly of Scottish tradition and the respect which ought to be paid to it. At the same time, it seemed to me that there was a little inconsistency in the attitude of my right hon. Friend, because while he was defending the traditions of a few centuries in the matter of parochial administration, he was at the same time denouncing the capitalist system which is perhaps the longest and strongest tradition that the world has ever seen.
§ Mr. HARDIE
Is the hon. Member not aware that before the capitalist system in Scotland, we had an educational system, a communal system?
I was only having a jest with my right hon. Friend. After all, how old is the tradition of specially elected bodies to deal with education in Scotland? It dates only from 1872. There was burgh control of education, and there were private benefactions which led to the establishment of education institutions. Even then, we do not know that that tradition goes back to 1872, because from 1872 to 1918, one-seventh of the school population of Scotland were almost entirely outwith the national system. So that the tradition of popularly-elected bodies for the purpose of looking after the education of all the children goes back only to 1919. When one thinks of this argument of tradition, one is somewhat reminded of the American college where the sign went up, "Students are forbidden to play baseball 1668 between the hours of two and four in the afternoon. Note: This tradition will take effect from Monday next. I know I am at variance in opinion with a good many of my friends, politically and otherwise, but this question of having an ad hoc authority is one that cuts through all parties. It has supporters in every party, and we all have one object in common. I am convinced that education, in the mind of Scotland, will hold its own against any other service, and no authority, neither an education authority elected ad hoc nor a county or town council, will attempt to deprive the children of their due heritage. Otherwise, I would ask for the whole education system to be put under the State. I therefore feel that we can look forward to development in our education system, and that we shall not have it in a canal by itself, but that we shall have a flowing and running stream which will bring fresh light in the whole body politic.
Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Some of the points which the hon. Member has made will not bear very close examination. He asked how long the elective system had been in operation. I do not think that is a question this House or the Scottish people have to answer. The question we have to answer is whether a system that has been in operation for nine years or the system proposed by the Government is the better. That leads me to ask the hon. Member a question. Is he in favour of co-option?
It is sometimes said co-option is undemocratic. That, of course, is not the case. It is for the elected body to choose the best method it can of carrying out its policy.
That is a wonderful confession coming from that part of the House. It illustrates very clearly the unity of the Liberal party. The hon. Member also said he had no sympathy with the de-rating proposals of the Government. Notwithstanding that, he was evidently not unwilling that this subject, which to him, as to most of us, is a sacred subject, should be linked up with proposals with which he has no sympathy. That is another wonderful statement. An 1669 hon. Member opposite who spoke earlier blamed my colleagues for pleading for the principle of an ad hoc authority. We are not pleading for a particular method. We are pleading for an arrangement which has proved very successful. Not only are Members on this side of the House unanimous in saying it has proved a great success. Even the hon. Member who has just spoken was very lavish in his praise, as Members of the Government have been. I am certain the Secretary of State must have felt his position rather keenly, sitting between the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary, with the Prime Minister not far distant, and remembering what these three Members of the Government have been saying. It is not only we, but Members in all parts of the House who say that the present system has been a great success, and naturally we are against scrapping it and taking on another system as to the results of which we are very doubtful. If an unbiassed person had been listening to the arguments for and against the Amendment, it cannot be denied that he would give judgment in favour of those who have been putting it forward. From no side has there been any weighty argument used in favour of the proposed change which will bear critical examination. One of the reasons given by the Secretary of State was that it would bring the service of education into line with the other services. One central unified authority, in his opinion, would stimulate interest in education. I think he forgot what was stated by the Lord Advocate last night when he described these proposals as a jigsaw puzzle. There are very many of our people who regard them as unintelligible gibberish which, if they were really understood by Members of the Government—
I am attempting to use an illustration from what occurred when we were discussing the English proposals. I carry it no further than that. The Secretary of State said that the ordinary taxpayer would be very much better off if he had a consolidated budget presented to him annually. Even expert accountants who have been examining the proposals of the Government 1670 find the greatest difficulty in wading through the financial quagmire contained in the proposals. Therefore, I profoundly differ from the right hon. Gentleman when he states that it will be to the advantage of the ordinary taxpayer to have a consolidated -budget presented to him. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the problems of adult education could be best provided for under the Government's proposals, but he did not give us any proof, and I profoundly differ from him on that point. He further stated that not everybody in Scotland is against the Bill. He said that the teachers were in his favour, and that they were more intimately and more closely concerned with our educational problems than other sections of the community. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) has reminded the Secretary of State that there is another section of the community more closely concerned than the teachers, and that is the children. There is another section more intimately and closely concerned in our educational problems than the teachers, and that is the parents. Therefore, the teachers are only third so far as interests in our educational problems are concerned.
I would be prepared to put this issue to the parents in Scotland, and it would be found that the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people would be against the proposals that are being put forward. With the exception of the teachers, every-section of the community in Scotland is against the Government's proposals. I have a large bundle of communications from local authorities in Scotland, including education authorities, all of whom are against the proposals in the Bill for transferring the work of the education authorities to the burgh and county councils. Such a transfer is neither necessary nor expedient to enable the Government to carry through their de-rating proposals. The de-rating proposals should have been carried through without interfering in the slightest degree with the work of the educational authorities, unless this Bill is part of a policy which has some other object in view.
My fear is that the proposals of the Government simply mean the handing over of Scottish local government to one section of the community. If the Bill is to be placed upon the Statute Book it will mean that there is little prospect of 1671 the working classes being able to take the share in local government which they have done under the existing system. If the work of the parish councils and the education authorities and of the smaller burghs is to be handed over to the county councils and the large burghs, it will increase the work of those bodies which is already heavy enough in all conscience. I have here a list of the Acts of Parliament for which our town councils and county councils in Scotland are responsible. It is a list of between 50 and 60 Acts of Parliament, and to the authorities who are responsible for administering so many Acts of Parliament it is now proposed to transfer the educational work. It means that the members of the county councils and of the large burgh councils will have an almost continuous job.
I thank you for that compliment. The county and large burgh councils, with their responsibilities largely increased, will be sitting almost continuously, and as no provision has been made for meeting the out-of-pocket expenses of the body whose field of responsibility is to be enlarged, it means shutting the door to working-class representation. The working-class have overcome a considerable amount of difficulty in order to take a share in that representation in the past, but if the work in the future is to carry additional responsibilities, and that will mean almost continuous service, they will be shut out, unless the Secretary of State is prepared to make the necessary provision for meeting their out-of-pocket expenses. In suggesting that, he should consider very favourably the making of that provision, I would remind him that in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, such a provision was made, and it has enabled a considerable number of working-class representatives to take part in our educational service in Scotland. In transferring the education work to the county and large burgh councils, the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten to transfer from the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, the arrangement that was made for meeting out-of-pocket expenses. Unless be makes the provision which I suggest, I fear that the change will hand over local govern- 1672 ment to a section of the community who are able to meet considerable expense and who will be able to give time to the work, thereby taking out of the hands of the working-class and the middle-class a service in local government in which they have taken a pride. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and I hope that it will be carried. If the Amendment were left to the Scottish representatives, it would be carried.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
We have heard a great deal in this Debate about the views of the education authorities. It is very natural and very human that they should object to a transference of their powers, but they are a very recent body. They have only been in existence for a decade, and I believe that when the original Bill under which they exercise their present powers was drafted it contained the proposal which is now made, and nobody knows very well why it was departed from. One would think, to hear this discussion, that it was the education authority which educated the children. We do not hear much about the teachers. It is the teachers who educate the children, not the education authority. Yet you would think that education was coming to a standstill because the powers of the ad hoc education authority are going to be transferred to these democratic county councils. The last speaker said that there was no allowance for expenses, but Clause 17 expressly provides that expenses can be granted. It states:It shall be lawful for a county council to incur expenditure in paying allowances at uniform rates to be prescribed by the Secretary of State in respect of travelling and other personal expenses necessarily incurred by members of the council or of any committee or sub-committee thereof in attending meetings of such council, committee or sub-committee.
Mr. W. ADAMSON
What I said was that there was no money provision made for paying out-of-pocket expenses, which does not only include travelling expenses. I am well aware that travelling expenses are provided for, but there is also loss of work, loss of time, which no workman can afford to lose, and, indeed, very few of the middle-class can afford to lose.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I always understood that out-of-pocket expenses covered travelling and other personal expenses. I do not think they ought to include the money a man would earn; otherwise, a 1673 man who is earning large wages, or a professional man, would be entitled to a very large amount of remuneration. whereas another man earning a comparatively small wage would get very little. That is not a proposal which I at all events, would like to put before the taxpayers. Clause 17 is certainly going to make the county council more democratic. I believe that in the case of the county which I represent, the education authority found that it would cost something over £100 for every meeting they held, and they very wisely did not meet as often as the Statute enjoined, because it entailed too big a burden on the ratepayers, and I understand that in a recent Act they got power to hold fewer meetings.
Why are the teachers in favour of this proposal? After all, they are the people principally concerned. It is to them that the children are handed over to get their education, and I think they are wise in favouring this proposal, because they will then be dealing with a, body of men who are concerned with the general affairs of the community, and who are therefore much more likely to come to wise decisions. Any man who takes a wide and general view of things is likely to come to saner decisions than a. man appointed for a particular purpose who is apt to forget the other purposes of the community. Under this Bill, there is much less danger of the pure crank, who would be inclined to interfere with the teachers, being placed in a position of authority. One of the criticisms I have heard from an eminent teacher who used to work under the old regime was that when the School Boards came upon the scene a great deal of the liberty of the teacher was taken away, that he lost a great deal of the status he used to have, and was not able to devote his attention to particular scholars what used to be called the "lad o'pairts" who might have come from the poorest homes in the country. He was made to treat all alike. The most-unjust thing in the world is to treat people who are unlike as if they were all the same.
This Bill will restore the liberty of the teachers, because, if it is true that the county councils have so many Acts of Parliament to administer that they are very fully occupied, then they will get through with their education business, 1674 and will not go making work for themselves, and perhaps interfering too much with the teaching profession, which is one of the noblest and best professions. The right thing for an education authority to do is to get the best class of teachers that it can, and then to leave him to his job. We who are not education experts, and make no great profession of profound knowledge of these matters, ought to leave these things to the people directly concerned, and I think you will probably get from men elected for general purposes a wiser, saner, broader view of the education needs of the people than you will get from men elected ad hoc.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
Certainly I apply it to the law. A man who has a good general knowledge of business is the only satisfactory legal adviser, and those of us who are successful in business know that it is as much due to our natural wisdom as to anything we learn from our legal textbooks. While I sympathise with the education authorities in their natural desire to keep their job, I do not believe that as a rule they represent the view of the mass of the people who are principally concerned. I know that the general view in the county which I represent is that the existence of two authorities, when one can perfectly well do all the business that is to be done, is not so likely to lead to economy or efficiency, as the existence of one authority for all purposes. I am perfectly sure that the teaching profession will be better satisfied in dealing with business men, because they are the class of men who should be in charge of education, as of everything else.
§ Mr. BENN
The hon. and learned Gentleman defends now the ad omnia system with as much zeal as he supported the ad hoc system in 1918, when it was proposed and carried in the Education Bill of that year.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
If I supported the ad hoc system in 1918, I shall be very much surprised. I was entirely opposed to the Act of 1918, because I thought it was rushed on the country, and the country was not prepared for it.
§ Mr. BENN
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that he was a faithful follower of the Government of that day, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) who sits next to him was a Minister of the Crown, and, as a Minister of the Crown, supported the ad hoc principle which now he thinks should be superseded.
§ Mr. BENN
As soon as I have completed a sentence with subject, predicate, and object, I shall be delighted to give way, but, first of all, I must be allowed to complete my sentence, and, if I have to select between the views of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman in 1918 and their views in 1929, I prefer to take 1918, and that is what I propose to do on this occasion.
§ Sir R. HORNE
The ad hoc principle was not in controversy in 1918. It is perfectly true that the original Bill was in favour of the ad omnia system, but that was given up and the ad hoc principle adopted.
§ Sir R. HORNE
As I say, the question did not come up. The question was not in controversy at all. The hon. Member cannot say that I supported one principle or another unless he can produce evidence that I advocated one principle rather than another.
§ Mr. FREDERICK THOMSON (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household)
After the Armistice.
§ Sir R. HORNE
I became a member of the Government in December, 1918. This 1676 was passed long before I was ever in the Government.
§ Mr. BENN
I am sorry. It is quite clear I owe the right hon. Gentleman an apology. He was not in the House when this principle was embodied in the Scottish Education Act. That is so, I think.
§ Mr. BENN
Then it is perfectly clear that I was in error, and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I was under the impression that he was a Member of the House, as I was, during the whole of 1918, but, as it is clear that he was not, it is obvious that such support as he gave to the Government was given outside this House, and not specifically for this principle in the Education Bill of 1918.
§ Sir R. HORNE
The hon. Gentleman is determined to be unfair in this matter, and it is very unlike him. First of all, he accuses my hon. and learned Friend, and then me, of having adopted an attitude in favour of the ad hoc principle in 1918. When it appears that I was not in the House, he refers to previous support of this principle. He cannot find any speech of mine made on the education question in 1918, or any support given to any Government in this matter.
§ Sir R. HORNE
The hon. Gentleman describes me as a supporter of the Government. I was not a supporter of the Government except for the purpose of carrying on the War in 1918. It had nothing to do with education.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. BENN
I think the right hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond the necessities of the case. I made the amende honorable. I have withdrawn what I said, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need go into the other question. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman made was, to speak quite plainly, a piece of special pleading. First of all, he charged Members of the Opposition with being imbued with the deepest instincts of Conservatism—
§ Sir R. HORNE
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I never said that Members of the Opposition were imbued with any instinct of Conservatism. He is referring to the speech of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan).
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member for North Aberdeen must really deal with the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. BENN
I think we are getting rather wide of the Amendment. I was endeavouring, however, to reply to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Amendment itself. His second point was that if there was no election it showed that the public had no interest in the question. He cited a case in Aberdeen, but as it was accompanied by such a pleasant compliment I shall not criticise it. If there is no election, he said, it shows that there is no public interest in the question, and if there is an election there is such a lot of turmoil that the really desirable people will not put up. I should put it the other way. If a body is returned without an election then those who do not like to face the turmoil are elected, but if there is an election and there is a great deal of turmoil, it shows that the public interest is justly and rightly aroused. The last thing which the right hon. Gentleman said that he selected as the test of the question was the opinion of the business interests of Scotland. Does he take the opinion of the Miners' Federation on the question of 1678 the mines? Do the Federation of British Industries go to the General Federation of the Trades Union Congress for their opinions?
§ Mr. BENN
The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to retire from the contest if he feels that he is at a disadvantage. Most of the ground has been covered this afternoon, but I desire to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland one or two questions touching particularly the large and important city whose representation I share with the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson) who is sitting on the Government bench. For obvious reasons, the hon. Gentleman cannot make (he criticisms of the Government that are desired by the City of Aberdeen, and therefore I shall have to do it for him. There is one particular thing about the City of Aberdeen, and that is that the two badies concerned—I leave out the parish councils—in the city are both united on this question. It is true that the city council originally passed a resolution giving- a sort of tepid support to the scheme on certain conditions, none of which have been fulfilled; but when it came to the education question, it is equally true that the chairman of that body, Mr. George Duncan, whom the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, opposed the whole scheme on very valid grounds. What is true—and this is the material point—is that both the city council and the education authority are agreed upon a common policy. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why he should go to the City of Aberdeen and impose upon it a system which is opposed by both the bodies concerned, from one of which he proposes to take these duties and on the other of which he proposes to thrust them? The education authority, in the first place, objected to the abolition of the elective system. All the criticisms that have been made about the common service, the general interest, and business men—I do not think much of the business man at any time, and least of all when he interferes in education—
§ Mr. BENN
The whole of those arguments may be good or bad. There may be something to be said for the brotherhood of service referred to by the Prime Minister at Glasgow, but not when you know perfectly well the ad omnia authority is going to be paralysed by being provided with a co-opt, a wooden leg instead of a properly selected growth. That is what condemned the whole speech of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities. I would go a long way with him when he described the idea of a common service of citizens for all purposes, but I was amazed when he went on to say that he was in favour of a co-optive principle, because I have not found in any body in Scotland support for the co-optive principle either in the town councils, or the education authorities, or anywhere else. The first thing that Mr. Duncan and the education authority in Aberdeen said, was: "We do not want the scheme at all; we prefer to go on as we are." Then, finding he was defeated on that, and seeing it was obviously quite hopeless to secure any changes, the question was how far could they agree between themselves—the city council and the education authority.
Let us see exactly how far they have agreed. In the first place, they speak about the enormous new burden of work that is going to be thrown on the city council, and I will give one or two figures merely to prove arithmetically the statement that I have made. On the city council of 34 members you are going to inflict all the work of the 31 members of the parish council and of 20 members of the education committee. That is to say, the work of 51 members is going to be cast on the backs of the existing 34 members of the city council. To take it in another way. The members of the city council at present attend during the year 382 meetings. You are now going to ask them to attend the 210 additional meetings required by the education authority and the 195 meetings required by the parish council, to say nothing of the meetings of the district board of control. These figures were all prepared by the bodies concerned, and are official figures. To put it in still another way. The items with which the town council have had to deal up to the present are 1680 115 a year. Now they will have those of the education authority, which are 957, and of the parish council, 782. You cannot really say, in face of those figures, that these men are going to be able to do the work even with the assistance of less than half the number of co-opted members. What is going to happen? The work is going to fall on the officials. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State cannot possibly deny that. They are to exercise that general supervision which the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) recommends, instead of exercising that citizens' care of detail which is the pride of the administration of many of our local bodies to-day. The education council and the city council unite in asking: "If you must unite these bodies, what are you going to do about extending the membership of the city council?"
The city council asks that their members should be extended. One of the officers of the city council, I think it was the Treasurer, put forward the suggestion that they should have an additional member for every ward. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate if it is possible under this Bill for that to be done. I hesitate to ask for an answer, although I am asking for information; but I shall not get any other chance of asking this question because the Guillotine will fall. Is it possible under this Bill for the city council to make a scheme, and to get an additional member for every ward, or will they have to cope with this increased burden of work?
The Lord Advocate cannot answer. I am not complaining that he cannot, but I say that you are going to thrust on to the City of Aberdeen the expense of promoting a Provisional Order if they wish to enlarge their membership. Why should you do that? In the opinion of the members of the city council, these trusted city fathers, you must have an increased personnel to carry on the work. The Lord Advocate cannot tell us whether under the Bill that can be done, but I think there is no power. It looks very much to us, in the City of Aberdeen, as if the only way to get over the difficulty would be to promote the Provisional Order, with all the trouble and expense that that involves. It is quite unfair to put that upon that body.
1681 There is another point. The education authority and the city council take this view—the city council have taken it from the start: They say: "We do not want to be concerned with education." They accept the view of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire. They say: "We would like to have a general supervision of the finance, but we do not want, we have not the time, to do the educational work which is carried on so admirably by the education authority in the city." Therefore, they say: "If you will agree to submit the budget, we are satisfied." Why on earth should you not let them do it? Why should the Secretary of State step in when the town council does not Want the work?
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson)
I can answer that. As the Bill is drawn, I do not think there is any power to extend the numbers of the town councils in the large towns. Of course, that could be very easily given if it was so desired by an additional Amendment to the Bill.
§ Mr. BENN
I have gained a point, for which I am grateful, if the Government will give consideration to making such an Amendment in the Bill as will enable the city council of Aberdeen to increase its membership to meet the increased burden of work. There is a second point. Supposing that the budget of the education authority were submitted, and the education authority went on with its work, why not be satisfied with that? Why insist that the educational work should be put on the city council with the co-opted members? Again, what about the arrangements for audit? In the matter of audit, I understand that at present local autonomy is greater in the case of the city council than in the case of the education committee. Are you going to introduce the same measure of Government interference for the new enlarged city council as you have for the other body, or are you going to give the 1682 greatest measure of freedom without any such control?
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I should like to answer that question straight away. There are, at present, roughly speaking, three systems. There is the education system, which has a Departmental check; there is the county council system under the 1889 Act, the intermediate system; and there is the system which obtains in the larger burghs. What we propose is that the county council system shall be the uniform system in effect throughout the different bodies.
§ Mr. BENN
I think, if that be so, that that will be good news to those who put their point of view to me from the city of Aberdeen. I should like to ask another question. I have seen some of the auditors' reports on the education authority. Do I understand that when the city council undertakes the work of the authority that the system of audit will be the town council system, and that the educational system of audit, subject to the Education Department's control will give way to the town council system? Is that right?
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
No, so far as the education accounts, are concerned, they will still have Departmental supervision.
§ Mr. BENN
Then what on earth becomes of trusting local authorities. of setting up bodies which will deal with the brotherhood of service? You are going to throw on to the town treasurer, who already carries enormous financial responsibility in a city like Aberdeen. the same departmental interference which you have thought proper to apply to other authorities which were dealing with specialised work and had a special Department of the Government to look after them. It is not treating the financial department of these great cities with respect if you ask them to submit to this sort of detailed Departmental interference. for it is nothing less. Are the education accounts to be subject to the town council audit and the Departmental audit as well?
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I am out of order in discussing the question in this way. There is a special reason for retaining a certain measure of supervision over any education authority and over 1683 education accounts. We can debate that matter fully when we come to it.
§ Mr. BENN
We may or may not be able to debate it fully. There is no guarantee that we shall reach that particular Clause before the Guillotine falls. Then I gather that even in such matters as travelling expenses the Secretary of State proposes to prescribe, not to approve, a scale. I understand that he is going to apply the audit to such a matter as the common good and the trading accounts of the city, which have never been subject to audit before. It is on all these points that the administrators desire information. I have no desire to prolong discussion. I thank the Lord Advocate for what he has told us, and I hope that he will find an opportunity to explain clearly to the Committee, first of all, what provision he is to make for enlarging the personnel of the city; secondly, how the new svstem of audit is going to differ from the old, and whether the plea for greater local autonomy is really going in effect to mean merely departmental interference; and, thirdly, regarding scales of expenses for deputations and so on. It seems superfluous for a Government Department to go to the City of Aberdeen and suggest measures of economy, in which matter the city fathers are acknowledged experts. Seeing that the city council does not want the work and the education authority is anxious to go on with the work, what objection can there be to permit the carrying on of the work by the elected education authority? I am certain that the citizens would be very much gratified if they could find any answer to some of these questions.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I should like to say that the Dundee Town Council is particularly strong on the point that the present town council audit should be maintained. With regard to the general Debate, the points that can be raised have been raised already. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) spoke as if the scheme in the Bill was the proper scheme upon which to arrange all our local authorities, and he argued that we should obtain from it very much better results than from the present system. But this procedure 1684 of the Government is laying upon one centralised authority that which, according to abundant evidence, would mean overloading far beyond its capacity to undertake the work in anything like a satisfactory way. The right hon. Member for Hillhead also referred to the lessened interest in education and other matters. I think he was correct. Anything which involves serious consideration receives less attention from the general body of the people to-day than it received in years past. That is a state of things which unfortunately has existed, but it raises far bigger questions than those which lie behind this particular issue.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that the teachers, upon whose case so much stress has been laid, should be looked to, and he emphasised the fact that it is to them that we look as specially responsible for the education of the children. That is perfectly correct. But how about the children? Is the call for this change arising from the Government, or is it arising because of greater consideration for the child-en than for anything else? I submit that consideration of the children has been left out entirely. Both the Liberal and the Conservative representatives of the Scottish Universities have argued strongly in favour of the proposal in the Clause. It was that position which led me to put a question to one of them (Mr. Buchan) while he was addressing the Committee in the usual high educational tone which deeply impressed hon. Members. The question was: Does he not see that the Universities, in their own specialised position, are entirely free from any of the considerations involved in this Clause? The Universities have held aloof, and those who have been specially interested in them have made them conservative in the widest sense of the term. Nothing is allowed to interfere; they are kept sacred: it is a very difficult matter to reach them. So much so, that we here have emphasised the usual thing about the lad of parts having been at times successful in getting to the University. That has been merely a case of the exception proving the rule. In the worst sense of the term, conservatism has dominated the Universities.
Those connected with the Universities do not introduce anything like municipal 1685 issues in the handling of their institutons. They do not propose to put the Universities under the town council or anything of the kind. They would not mix up with University education such things as sanitation or town council administration. They regard such things as trivialities in comparison. Those who speak on behalf of the Universities know that University and higher education is safeguarded from being mixed up with any of these other matters.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot)
I wonder if the hon. Member realises that we entrust the appointment of professors in the Universities, holding most high and dignified offices, to the ad omnia Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
It is something to be going on with at any rate. It is a little spark of illumination in the gloom which besets the Government, and no one can better introduce those sparks than the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary. But it does not affect my substantial point, that the Universities and the whole subject of special training in the higher sphere of education, are kept entirely apart from these other matters, and that they are not included in the argument which we have heard to-day about other forms of education. The education authorities have been put in the dock. What are the charges against them? Instead of any charge being made against them, testimony has been given to their excellent work by the University representatives on both sides of the House. The teachers, of course, because they have said something in favour of the Government go to the top of the class and take first prize. Those who have managed education affairs get the second prize. Hon. Members opposite can say nothing against them, but are going to dispense with them, nevertheless.
The Government are going to bring in this grand plan of co-option. Anybody who knows anything about our municipal representation knows that co-option provides a sort of consolation prize for those who cannot stand that turmoil about which we have heard so much from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for 1686 Hillhead who seems, himself, able to stand it very well. We know the type of business man who does not want to come down to the standard of the ordinary Parliamentary or municipal election. He wants to be able to meet two or three others who have been co-opted like himself and arrange everything before the meeting begins and then announce what has been settled. For the Government to put forward co-option as the ideal system is to bear out the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). He said that the special point behind the whole scheme was to bring in the type of men who would not need to trouble about the electorate. Such a proposal means blocking the path of progress in regard to democratic representation. Working class representation throughout the years has been taking a stronger hold on our parish councils, education authorities, and municipal bodies. It has filled these Parliamentary beaches where we are now sitting. Its onward march is giving serious anxiety to the Government, and during the present Parliament, with their strong forces, they have tried every scheme to make its further progress as difficult as possible. They have tried in subtle fashion to check that advance. [Interruption.] Yes, they would like to try to deal with the House of Lords, but they have not managed to arrange that. You have co-option of a kind there. We want to get rid of it there, and we do not want any more of it in local bodies.
As I say, we have heard on all sides to-day tributes to Scottish education, not merely as it was before the ad hoc system or as it has been since the ad hoc system, but as it has been all the time. There is a long train of unquestionable evidence, calling forth tributes not only from our own country and England, but from various parts of the Continent, to Scottish education. Yet the Government, without a scrap of evidence, attack the authorities who have handled that matter so effectively. They have sailed in upon the situation and created such difficulties that, when the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) put a question about an important detail, he could not get a full answer straight away. That particular difficulty arises, because, although town councils are well 1687 qualified to take full control of these matters, yet on the question of audit the Government say to them: "You will have to take the county council system of audit." It is worth while for town councils—including Dundee—which have given some evidence of favouring the scheme, to take note of the fact that the Government, as a measure of their appreciation say: "We have you in our grip, and we shall grip you tighter still." The defects of the scheme are plain, notwithstanding the pathetic efforts of those on the other side to dress it up. It is a case now of "all dressed up, and nowhere to go," but at the next General Election this will be one of the strong grounds in Scotland for attacking the Government and doing our best to defeat them thoroughly.
§ Mr. SULLIVAN
I wish to put in a few words in connection with the taking away of the ad hoc authorities in Scottish education. I have been following this discussion closely, and I have heard Scottish education described by a number of people. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) that I know from experience the system of education which prevails. At one time, the parish church or the kirk session was responsible for the appointment of the teacher and the control of the school. I attended such a school, and I suppose I was fairly good at taking up what I was taught, but, in after life, when I engaged in public work, I had the pleasure of trying to teach a certain amount to the man who, earlier, had taught me. He was there to give education, and when it came to the rough and tumble of life it turned out that he was not qualified himself, and he was trying to teach others. I do not want to condemn that system. It produced results, perhaps one in a thousand, and the master for the time being took a special interest in the lad of parts.
I worked under the school boards, and I must say that education was closer to the people under the old school boards. I am not going to condemn the action of the Coalition Government in passing the Education Act of 1918, because education in Scotland is a very touchy question, and I do not think it is possible for any 1688 one political party to deal with it. It is only possible to a coalition of all parties or a Coalition Government, and I hope the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire and the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Home) will think that over. There were two questions that the Coalition dealt with. The first was Home Rule for Ireland, and the other was education. When the 1918 Act was passed, people began to think that they were going to make an advance in education, and I must say that after they got into their stride, they did very well. What happened prior to that was this, that in populous centres they made proper provision for education, but in the outlying and rural districts there was practically no provision made for secondary education.
When the 1918 Act was passed and education came under an ad hoc authority, the standard of education all over was raised, and the school accommodation was improved. They accomplished miracles in the way of raising the standard and improving the school accommodation and the position of the teacher. In doing that, they had to meet a great amount of public condemnation, because undoubtedly they did increase the rates. They do not always get full credit for their work, but they always get full credit for raising the rates, for which they are not really responsible. The Government gave them a scale of teachers' salaries, and they had to operate that scale whether they liked it or not. The authority of which I was a member are still operating the Government scale, and when they are condemned for raising the rates, it is the Government behind them that gave, them the scale. They have done a great amount of good, because there are more children getting secondary education in Scotland to-day than ever before in the history of the country, and there are better facilities and a certain amount of help is given to the people, of which they are taking advantage.
Education work is very difficult, and on the education authority of the county of Lanark it takes two days a week. There is no need for anybody to attempt to deny that. It takes two days per week, without school visitation. I say so, because I have had the experience. The talk about central meetings is sometimes misunderstood. The education authority meets once a month, but it is not the 1689 education authority as such that does the work, but members of the committee, and when the authority meets once a month they approve or otherwise of the committee reports. The committees have to meet, as I have said, probably twice a week; and in addition to that, if they take any interest in their work, they must visit and keep in touch with the various schools of which they are put in charge, and they must also take some interest in the continuation classes. Unfortunately, I think less interest is being taken to-day than under the old school boards, but, at any rate, the education authorities are doing good work.
Now that they have served for about ten years and overcome most of the difficulties, and now that they have reached the stage of getting the benefit of the interest which they do not have to pay on the loans which they took over from the old school boards, the Government step in and say "You have done very well, but we are going to give you the sack." I wonder what is behind it. They have done very well, and there is no condemnation whatever from any quarter of this House, although there is some condemnation in the country. The country people believe that they were responsible for raising the rates, when, as a matter of fact, it was the Government which was responsible, as I have said, and in another way that I do not want to mention. You get some feeling against the authorities in the country, but not amongst the people who believe in education. I do not know why the Government have touched this thing. The present system is doing well, and I believe it was going to be of great advantage to the people, but then the Government step in and want to scrap it and to hand it over to another public authority.
In the division that I represent, the public authority is to be the county council. The Secretary of State for Scotland, I understand, knows something about county administration. On the middle ward of the Lanarkshire County Council, I had to give from two to five days a week in order to do the work and keep in touch with it. It is true that some members do not attend so well, but a county council, like all other bodies, is run by a handful of members who take an interest in the 1690 work and try to keep in touch with it. Their duties are obvious. They have a great county to govern. Even the Government recognie that and have divided the county into three wards, upper, lower and middle, for its proper administration. They have to attend to everything in connection with those areas. Every function of human life is going to be attended to—food inspection, sanitation, the police, and everything—and their work is very difficult just now, as the hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) can testify. In my own case, I had paid £19 6s. each year for a season ticket to attend to county council work, in addition to which there are omnibus fares, and I reckon that in travelling expenses alone I spent fully £30 a year in doing county council work.
The chairman of the Middle Ward of Lanark, who is a supporter of the present Government, said to me, "You are going to give us more work." I said: "The Government are going to give you more work." He then said: "They will have to give us a salary for doing that work." I have done more work on the county council for nothing than I am doing here for £400, and it was harder work because of the nature of the duties. The county council have to take part in so many things. We control eight or nine large hospitals and sanatoria, and we have to take an interest in them, because, if we do not, we are not serving the people who elected us. All this is to be mixed up with education. It will do a big disservice to the county councils who do not want it, and it will do a hurt to education. Moreover, it will renew something of the old strife. With regard to co-option, I do not believe in it. I have sat with co-opted members, and they grumble that they do not have enough power. I do not object to co-opted members on any body, but I object to co-opted members spending money and not having, as I have to do as an elected member, to justify it before the ratepayers. They have no real power, and it is not intended that they should have any real power, and I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to think over this matter.
Education has done fairly well and done much better than the county councils. Up to a short time ago the county councils were very backward, and it was only 1691 pressure put upon them by the Board of Health that compelled them to do their work. They have more work than any authority of which I know, and yet they are to be asked to take up as a sideline the work of education. I have attended nine committee meetings in one day in Glasgow, and the suggestion is that, after I have done all those meetings, I must start on the work of education which is very important. Somebody said that it was the teacher who taught the child, but I can assure the committer that it is the education committee that chooses the teacher, and it is a very important duty. Teachers are very good, and I have a great respect for them as a profession, but, after all, the most ignorant people I have met have been those educated in a rut and teachers, like others, must travel and be well read. The education committee have to be careful to make the proper selection because everything depends on that selection. Yet it is said that you can leave the job to the teacher. Suppose we made the same suggestion in connection with the police force and the miners. I do not know any body of teachers or any schools in any area where they would be able to agree for any length of time and carry on the work.
I have always advocated religious instruction in the schools, and I have taken part in the work of the examinations. I regret to say that some people who ought to have done the work have not been as keen in doing the work as in talking. The complaint has been made from time to time that in the transferred schools they have a guarantee under the 1918 Act which is not given in connection with the public schools. I believe that at that time the Government never believed that it was necessary to put it in the Bill; I do not think that it is necessary yet, but there is no reason why it should not be inserted in the Bill, always provided that. if a parent does not want any form of religious instruction for his child, he should be able to say so. You must give that liberty, and you must give the same right in the public schools as in the transferred schools.
§ Mr. SULLIVAN
It is a question that people have been talking about, and it is one of the reasons why the Government think that they will have a certain amount of support in touching up education again. It would be much better if they allowed it to rest, always keeping in mind that they ought to put in that Amendment with regard to religious instruction. This is a bigger question than the Government have ever realised. County authorities are going to have more control of the work in connection with the county, and they are now to have education. Members have already been provided with travelling expenses, but not with payment for lost time, and there is some difficulty in knowing what that should be. In the case of work under the Minister of Pensions, a certain amount is fixed for members who lose a day's pay. and members of the legal profession have to take the same amount. No distinction is made. One member does not get three guineas and another 7s. (6d. A sum is fixed which is approved by the Department. The members get third-class railway fare and 3s. 4d. if they attend a meeting which requires spending less than eight hours from home, and 6s. 8d. if it is more than eight hours, and, in addition, if they lose wages, they get expenses on a certain scale.
§ Mr. SULLIVAN
This has been the turn that the discussion has taken, but I do not wish to go against your Ruling. The question was addressed from the other side by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, and it is only right that it should be answered. No provision is made in this Bill for loss of time, and yet it is going to be a full-time job for any man who does it. Instead of saving money by this alteration, the Government will increase expenditure. I hope that all the things that we hear in connection with the teachers and other bodies is not in the mind of the Government. I understand that the teaching profession is agreed that they should go under the town councils and the county councils. It is news to me. Is it in the minds of these teachers that they are going to get the status of civil servants, and that the people responsible for paying them are 1693 to have no say? I do not know whether the Government will care to answer that, but the teaching profession has made a mistake. It would be much better if we carried on the present system for a reasonable time, because 10 years is not a long period. The system has been working well, and in the course of time would be improved. It is difficult to believe that the House will reject this Measure, but there is no doubt that it would be rejected if it were left to the Scottish Members, or if it were submitted to the Scottish people. No public authorities want it and no education authorities want it, and that being so it would be much better if the Government withdrew this proposal.
Mr. W MWATSON
I cannot understand why the Government persist in their proposal to abolish the education authorities. The challenge has been made from this side, and no evidence has been brought against the work of the education authorities. As a matter of fact, we have had testimony from the other side that the education authorities have done their work exceedingly well, and why they should not be allowed to continue is a matter for surprise. The people of Scotland recognise that the education authorities have been doing good work, and it is no idle phrase when we say that they are against the proposed change. Not only are the majority of Scottish Members in this House against it, but if the question were put to the people of Scotland there would be no doubt as to what their view would be. As has already been said, the financial arrangements could be carried through without scrapping the education authorities. They could still carry on their work, allowing the county councils to have control of their finances. I believe the education authorities would agree to that if the system we have had for the past 10 years were allowed to continue. It is a system which has given satisfaction, because not only is there fair representation on the education authorities as between district and district, but even minority opinion finds expression. By the system of proportional representation under which education authorities are elected in Scotland, minorities are given their say, and I believe it is due to that fact that the education system has worked so well.
1694 9.0 p.m.
It is proposed that these education authorities should be scrapped and their functions transferred to the county councils. But what county councils? Not the present county councils, because in order to meet some opposition which has been met with, the Secretary of State is bringing forward a proposal to change the composition of the county councils. The landward areas will have to sacrifice some of their representation in order that the burghs, which have been giving the Government some trouble in regard to other matters, may have a greater say in county council administra tion. I prophesy to-night that within the next few weeks the Government will be faced with a new trouble. this time from the county councils. They have been able to point to the fact that the county councils have rather welcomed these educational proposals, but by the time the county councils have examined the change which is to be made in representation on the county councils we shall have complaints from them, and the Secretary of State will be having his attention drawn to certain anomalies in connection with his proposed scheme. I would like to show how the new county councils are to be composed. In the county to which I belong. the county of Fife. we have at present. 47 landward members on the county council, but than number is to be reduced to 34 in order to allow the burghs—
Does not that point arise under another Clause of the Bill We cannot consider the constitution of the county councils under this Clause.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
Would it not be in order to discuss this to enable us to show how difficult it will be to get sufficient men and women with educational knowledge on to the county councils?
There is some limit to what can be discussed on this particular Clause, and the hon. Member knows that he will have full opportunity. if circumstances allow. of discussing the reconstitution of the county councils on another Clause.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
Arising out of vour guidance in connection with this matter, is it not the fact that under Clause 2 the whole work of the administration of education in the counties has to be handed over to these reconstituted county councils and are we not entitled to discuss the impossibility of their doing the work?
The hon. Member is not quite right. The recon-stitution of the county councils comes under an entirely different Clause and cannot be discussed here.
§ Mr. HARDIE
On the margin of the Clause. these words appear:Transfer of functions of education authorities.When we are following up the charge by which the functions of one body are handed on to another body, I would like you to explain how the hon. Member's observations come to be out of order.
I am afraid I do not understand the hon. Member. His point is not quite clear to me. but what is clear to me is that if he wishes to be guided by the marginal notes and will turn to Clause 8 he will see that that provides the occasion for discussing the constitution and reconstitu-tion of the county councils.
That is in accordance with my ruling. The hon. Member apparently agrees with me.
Then the hon. Member will perhaps allow the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) to go on.
§ Mr. WATSON
I was lead into that phase of the discussion by the answer which the Lord Advocate gave to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn). He was asked whether it would be possible under this Bill to extend the numbers on town councils, and he indicated that an Amendment could be moved to the Bill to give town councils the power to increase their numbers, and what I was intending to do was to draw attention to the fact that we are going 1696 to have what is recognised as the purely county representation, that is, the representation from the landward areas, reduced and representation from the burghs increased. But you rule that that phase of the matter cannot be discussed at present, and so I will not pursue it, but reserve my remarks for a future occasion.
On the broad general question, I hope that the Government are going to give a great deal more consideration to the undoubted expression of opinion of the people of Scotland on the question of education and the control of education than they have done up to now. It is very extraordinary, after the experience which the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate and his assistants have had at their meetings with the education authorities in Scotland, that they should have persisted in proposing this change. We could have understood their action if they had done something to meet the position of the parish councils who put up such a good case against being wiped out of existence. Since the Bill was introduced, we have found that the Government have introduced a change whereby district councils are to take the place of parish councils. We might as well continue the old education authority system rather than have this new system of district councils under the county councils. There is no difference in that change so far as I can see, and the Government would be well advised if they were to drop their proposals wiping out the parish councils and centralising everything in the hands of the county council.
If the work of administering the Poor Law and education is going to be undertaken by the county council, then the office of a county councillor will have to be a whole-time job. It will mean that a county councillor will have to attend council meetings in addition to numerous committee meetings, and he will have to devote his whole time to public work. In the end, that will mean the payment of the members of county councils in addition to their expenses, and consequently there will be no economy under this Bill. Instead of economy, we shall have greater expenditure in connection with public administration than we have had under the old system, which had the advantage of a large amount of voluntary work. Under the new system, we are going to have greater centralisation, but there 1697 will be a considerable amount of increased expenditure, and I do not think the new system will be as economical or more democratic than the old system. I am going to oppose the change proposed under this Bill, and within a very short time I am sure you will hear loud complaints from the county councils about the changes which have been proposed in their constitution.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
The case against the Government has been very admirably put from this side of the House, and I am sure the Government will agree that their case could not have been stated better than it was stated by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan). Yesterday we were considering the abolition of a body which had to deal with the health services of the country, and I was surprised that the Under-Secretary did not state the case of the Health Department in relation to the co-ordination of the health services. Surely within the framework of the Government scheme there is not the slightest connection between doing away with the education authorities and the desires of the Government in relation to the general propositions of this Bill. No case has been made out for enlarging the areas, and there will still remain 33 counties and four large burghs. There is no change in regard to finance, because the block grant system does not affect educational finance except that it may re-act in areas where the increase of educational expenditure is adversely affected by the lower yield of a penny rate. No case has been made out on the ground of the inefficiency of the old system either during the discussion in the country or on the Floor of this House.
There is only one argument in favour of this scheme, and it is that it deals with overlapping. That argument takes two forms. The first one relates to school medical service, and the second to the feeding and clothing of school children. It is interesting to those who have taken an interest in both Bills to find that the very interesting Onslow Report which has been so largely incorporated in Part IV of the English Bill on this very point of school medical services expressly turns down the Government proposal, because the Onslow Committee, when discussing the unification of the 1698 health services, lays down that the school medical services should remain in charge of the education authority. Surely there could be no case for overturning the whole structure of the education system in Scotland.
I was very interested to hear the admirable speech made by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities who paid a high tribute to the present authorities, but he hoped to get a better scheme under this Bill. That statement reminded me of a great Debate on another subject in pre-war days when a change was advocated by Lord Balfour, because he said it had hope and the promise of employment in its favour. That policy gave us dear bread and cheap hope. We are all meeting with difficulty, because this question has not been before the Scottish electorate within the last nine years. However active hon. Members have been in canvassing their constituents, we do not know what the bulk of the electors will say about this Measure. I have done my best to ascertain public opinion on it and there seems to me to be three bodies of opinion. I am rather inclined to contest the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) and I do not think he is right in saying that the teachers of Scotland are unanimously in favour of this Measure.
I did not say anything as to whether any number of teachers were in favour of this Bill or not.
I did not say that the teachers were unanimous, but I did say that they supported the policy which I put forward in 1916. I pointed out that I was not supporting this policy because the teachers supported it, but I said that it was a policy for which I was responsible in 1916, and that the teachers adopted that policy without opposition in 1916.
§ Mr. BROWN
I am very glad that I raised this point, because what I have stated was the impression given to the Committee by the hon. Member's remarks. If that is not so, then we are on common ground. I know more than one teacher in my constituency who is not in favour of the change. No one, 1699 as I say, is entitled to speak either for a constituency, or for the whole body of teachers, or for any other body except those which have expressly met to discuss the matter, like the corporations of the large burghs and county councils and the education authorities, as to what their precise view is. What we are entitled to do is to take the opinion of representative bodies, and I would call the attention of the Committee to one very important body in my own constituency, which cannot be called a biased body, namely, the Port of Leith Association. That is an entirely non-party body, consisting of representatives of all sections of the community. It was called into being after the amalgamation with Edinburgh, in order to keep alive the spirit of old Leith. I have received no communication on this question of education from any teacher in my Division; the only communications that I have had have been by conversations with individual teachers during my visits to the constitueney; but the Port of Leith Association, a non-party body of citizens, has sent me this letter as an ex-pression of the ordinary public opinion which has been voiced so frequently on the other side of the Committee to-day:Dear Mr. BROWN,—The executive council of this association has had under consideration, the intention of the Government, in their proposals to reform local government in Scotland, to dispense with education authorities in their ad hoc administrative capacity. I am to convey the unanimous opinion of the council that, under any scheme of reform, the retention of education authorities ad hoc is an essential pre-requisite in connection with the maintenance of education in Scotland, as presently administered by elected representatives who find it necessary to exclude themselves from other public administrative duties in order to specialise in the work of conserving to the people those educational facilities which have made Scotland the envy of the world. The view of the council is that education in Scotland would be very adversely affected by the introduction of an ad omnia administrative system.Yours sincerely,ARCH. CARSWELL,Hon. Secretary.Our objection is the one alluded to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. M. Watson), namely, the objection to a new authority undefined in numbers. We want to know what the new authorities will be in the counties. We know what 1700 the county councils will be, but we art not sure as to the other part. We do know what is going to happen in Edinburgh. In Edinburgh there are 100 elementary schools, of which 14 are in my constituency. At present, there are 34 members of the Edinburgh Education Authority, elected on purpose for this work, including seven from Leith. There are only 71 members of the Edinburgh Corporation, and this Committee is throwing over to those 71 members—and no process of re-constitution is proposed there under the Bill—the administration of the whole of the health services except National Health Insurance, the school medical service, and all the Poor Law services. Now we are to have an education authority composed of two elements. One will consist of certain of the 71 members of the Corporation. who will be set apart for educational work if the view which I think ought to prevail does prevail in subsequent discussions, namely, that, if an education committee is set up, it ought to be for that purpose only; and the other element will consist of co-opted members. There are these 103 schools in the city, there are continuation schools, there is the interest of 57,000 elementary scholars and 22,000 continuation scholars, and there is the question of the management of the schools, which are now staffed in one way or another by nearly 3,000 persons in Edinburgh. That is all to be thrown over to members of this body plus co-opted persons. How is it possible for the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) to say that he hopes to get more efficient education administration from such a body as is proposed in the Bill than can be got from the 34 people who are directly elected, and who give almost the whole of their public time to this service?
Whatever ideals may be behind the minds of the Scottish Board of Health and the English Ministry of Health in asking for the unification of the whole of the health services of the kingdom in their battle with what Bunyan once called the Captain of the Men of Death, I am certain that, in order to get control of the school medical service, or such co-operation with the counties on the one hand and the large burghs on the other, it was not necessary to take this dubious step of undoing the good work which, as is admitted on all 1701 hands, has been done by the present education authorities, and giving their duties over to bodies which are already overburdened. If the Under-Secretary stresses once more the question of overlapping, I would ask him, as the special representative of the Scottish Board of Health, whether, in the discharge of his duties in that capacity, he has never known overlapping to exist between committees of a corporation? Has he never known of three or four committees wanting the roads done up at times most inconvenient to the citizens, without coordination or consultation or understanding? This plea of overlapping in regard to the school medical service may have a plausible surface, but it affords no adequate foundation for such a drastic change in this most vital of all services, the release of the creative ability of the children in these schools.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I was somewhat annoyed, Mr. Herbert, when you called on the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on the last occasion when I rose to speak, but now I thank you for postponing my intervention, because I am able to speak after having heard the three Liberal policies on the question of Scottish education. As I listened to the third one, which was my favourite, it reminded me of a friend of mine who went to Paisley races. in the good old days when Paisley races were held. Immediately he arrived on the field, he backed a particular horse. Then he met someone who had better information about another horse, and he thought he had better go and back that one also. Then he got a third opinion, and so he put a bet on the third horse as well. He had, therefore, three bets. There were only four horses, and the fourth one won. [Interruption.] I think that there is a true policy, but it is not either of those of the Liberal party. It is extraordinary and somewhat humbling to think that, although we have been boasting about our Scottish education, the only Scottish Liberal who understands Scottish de-rating and the proposed changes in local administration is an Englishman who obviously was educated in this country.
There is, in my view, in all quarters of the Committee, a tendency to over-idealise the Scottish education of the past. I have had Scottish education all round about me since I was an infant. 1702 I was born in the home of an underpaid Scottish schoolmaster, and i know the seamy side of Scottish education from the schoolmasters point of view. I can remember when my father died after having had charge for many years of a school which did all that work that has been boasted about. It actually took the youngster from five years of age, kept him at school, and sent him to Glasgow University. It gave him the complete training from start to finish. The scavenger's son, the merchant's son, the banker' son were all educated side by side in the same class. When he died, I remember the highest wage he was earning at that time was something like £3 10s. a week for that very great service which has been so lauded here by all sections of the House. I can remember how proud and pleased he was when, after years of work on a teachers' committee, he was able to come home in triumph and tell my mother that they had at last extracted she concession that they were to be superannuated with a sum which amounted to £40 a year. So I am not quite so enthusiastic about the good old days of Scottish education.
Nor am I so enthusiastic about the present days. When I qualified and started to teach under the Glasgow Education Authority, I was a graduate in arts of Glasgow University, not the most learned of my contemporaries, but in my view a fairly capable representative. I was paid 36s. a week and, if I had continued in that profession and things had remained absolutely the same, I would, provided I had been of absolutely good conduct and blameless character, which seems to me a very difficult thing to achieve, have attained to the princely sum of about £3 a week as an assistant teacher. I started my own elementary school education in a school which, strangely enough, is situated in the constituency represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was badly conceived and built, and it was one of those good old parochial schools that dated away back before 1872, so far back that in the front of it there is still the Latin inscription of its name "Academia parochialis de Pollok." That dated away back long before the School Board. It lived through the parochial system, it lived through the ad hoc school board system, it has lived 1703 through 10 years of the education authority system, and it is still the same badly conceived, equally ill-constructed, unhygienic, dirty building that it was in the beginning. It certainly did conform to that ideal of Scottish education that did pervade our school system and our university system. There was the conception of hard work, simple life, lofty ideals. I do not know about the lofty ideals, but there certainly was the hard work and the simplicity of life, both for the teacher and for the youngster, in the Scottish elementary schools.
We are doing a most important thing here to-day. I am not against it. It has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) when he alluded to the sectarian aspect. The traditions of Scottish education do not merely go back to John Knox, but they go away back into pre-Reformation days. Scottish education owes its origin and its inspiration to Roman Catholicism. John Knox took it over and developed the system under Protestantism. Right up until to-day Scottish education has always been intended to subserve the religious end. To-day under a Tory Government we are making the change. It has been stated by more than one hon. Member that we now cease to try to subserve the ends of religion, the ideals, the ethical ends, the ends of human perfection, and we now start to try in our education service to subserve the ends of the market place. That has been stated by speakers on the other side, as being the one strong argument for this change, that we are taking away our education from the specialised control of the education authorities.
There can be no argument against the education authority on the ground that it is not the place of the common man, because it is a publicly elected body on which a common man may sit if he so desires and the community so desires. Scotland generally however has decided that that education authority for the most part shall not be composed of the merchant, or shopkeeper, or even the artisan. Scotland has decided, when it had the opportunities under the old School Board system and when it had the opportunities under the education 1704 authority system, that the men who-should sit in control of Scottish education or who invariably should form a large proportion of the members should be the clergymen, either of the Protestant Presbyterian denomination or of the Roman Catholic so that the whole inspiration and drive of Scottish education should be a religious one.
I personally am not going to stand here as the defender of official orthodox religion in Scotland. I would personally be very glad to see every professional clergyman of whatever denomination swept off the control of education in Scotland. In my own little way in electioneering for education authorities, I did my very best to do it, and very unsuccessfully, so strong was Scottish opinion on the subject. While I could sweep Members of Parliament out of Glasgow very easily, I could not sweep clergymen out of the education authority, so strong was Scottish public opinion on this question. Hon. Members on the other side who come from Scotland know that this is the case. I am not saying that the Government are not on sound lines in attempting to get away from this specialised control. I am not going to stand as the defender of one form of sectarian religion or another. I do not want to stand here as the defender of the view that the purpose of education is not to subserve the ends of the market place or the factory, but that it should be directed towards the end of achieving human perfection as nearly as we can get to it. It is, in my view. a retrograde step, when we tend to bring the whole thing down to the level of mere utilitarianism.
On the practical side of the problem, I have seen, in my own experience, great improvements taking place in Scottish education administration. When I started as a pupil in school, there were youngsters of nine permitted to go to work half time in the mills. Anyone could leave school at 11 or 12 years of age on attaining to a very meagre standard of general knowledge. I have seen the school age raised to 14. I have seen the half-time system absolutely abolished. I have seen quite a number of good new schools erected, and during all that time I have seen a tremendous improvement in the training and the general education of the teachers who are taking charge 1705 of the children. I have seen also a considerable improvement in the financial status of the teachers enaged in the work. But every single one of these changes came from here and not from the local governing body at all. The raising of the school age, the raising of teachers' salaries, the insistence on proper school buildings, any reduction in the size of classes that has taken place has come from here.
While the two hon. Members for the Scottish Universities were speaking in support of the Bill, I only wished the right hon. Baronet (Sir H. Craik), who used to represent the Scottish Universities, had been present. I should have liked to hear his voice on this matter, because he was one of the few Conservatives I have seen who was not afraid to voice his own principles even when they were disagreeable to his Front Bench. He had an unrivalled experience of Scottish education, and the man who holds that key position of Secretary to the Scottish Education Department is the greatest factor in Scottish educational life. He tells the Government what to do and, when the Government have got it through the House, he tells the authorities that they have to do what the Government tell them. I want to congratulate the gentleman who has just taken over that position in recent months. When I heard of his appointment, knowing of his work in education circles, I was very much rejoiced that the Secretary of State had seen fit to place him in that post.
When one remembers the great services performed by the late Sir Henry Craik and by his successor, Sir John Struthers, and the gentleman who has just left, one must remember that always when these men wanted to stimulate progress—and they did stimulate progress—every one of them in turn in some way or another stimulated education progress; even under reactionary Governments they did what they could—they had to go direct, either in person or through their inspectors, to the local people who were engaged in education. They could maintain contact with the school board members, the clerks of school boards, the directors of education, headmasters of schools, and representative members of the teaching profession. Now, under this scheme, a representative of the Depart- 1706 ment, to stimulate something new, has to penetrate to the town clerk, from the town clerk to the appropriate committee, from the appropriate committee back to the particular clerk who is in charge of education, and through half-a-dozen channels before he can get to the point where the stimulus that he wants to apply can begin to prove effective.
I am certain that Scottish public opinion is absolutely against this Measure. I am not prepared to say that on occasion the Government should not quite courageously come forward and say to public opinion: "We, who are in charge of affairs, have not to follow you but to lead you. We have to get you to see that this is absolutely necessary for the improvement of the service." That is the real work of government. It is not to follow, but to lead. But before a Government does it it must be tremendously sure that what it is going to do is in line with the best ideals of the nation that it is governing, and that it must, in addition, be productive of fruitful results in the very near future. I do not often speak as being a very special expert on anything, but I can claim to have a knowledge on this subject which is not shared by many. I have been a pupil, I have: been a teacher, I have been secretary of a teachers' organisation, and I have been an administrator of Scottish education, and I am satisfied that to-day, for a very cheap reason. merely for the desire to fit it harmoniously into the de-ratine scheme, which again I believe to be very ill-considered—merely to achieve that very trivial end—the Scottish Members of the Government are doing something which is not for the good of Scotland and which will be whole-heartedly resented by the Scottish people.
§ Major ELLIOT
A speech from the hon. Member who has just spoken must always be regarded as equivalent to a Front Bench speech. He is a spiritual Front Bencher, even if the has never found his place on that august seat. It is quite possible that he never will find his place upon it. It may be that a seat on a revolutionary tribunal is more to his liking, and that he will never be satisfied until and unless he finds himself in that honourable but perilous position. The hon. Member has put a case before the Committee which demands an answer 1707 as soon as it may be practicable to give it. I cannot pretend that I shall be capable of giving it, because I have not that close and special knowledge of the subject which adds the accuracy of fact which he does not always possess to that play of phantasy which the whole Committee will agree he can summon whenever it pleases him to do so. He pointed out, and I think with truth, though stressing it may be a little, the super-omnipotence of the bureaucrat, as one would expect from an hon. Member holding his particular views. He pointed out that, whatever might be done locally or in Parliament or elsewhere, the persons whose views he trusted were the permanent officials, the great Permanent Secretary. Sir Henry Craik, Sir John Struthers, Sir George Macdonald, and he paid a gracious tribute to the new recruit who has come in to fill the shoes of these great readers. He said that those were the persons whose views he desired to have. Those were the persons whose views he would follow, and by whom he would be guided.
§ Major ELLIOT
The views which he desired to consult. Naturally, he would take to himself the final privilege of judgment, but of all the views to which he would defer, he said that the views of these great permanent civil servants were the views which he would most praise and honour. He made, then, a somewhat rash statement, because he said that merely to fit into a de-rating scheme, merely to fit into some purely material idea, this Bill and this particular Clause are being brought forward. It must be within the knowledge of many hon. Members and the Secretary of State himself has pointed out that he took part in the Debates 10 years ago when, after a long period of slack water, the tide again began to rise, it was determined to reconsider and revise the whole range of Scottish education. When, after the great War, we sat down to frame a scheme which would be the most fitting scheme for the education of the generations which were to come. It was then, that with full knowledge and responsibility of the great civil servants of Scotland to whom the hon. Member himself would appeal, laid down a scheme which was not a scheme for an ad hoc authority 1708 but an ad omnia authority such as we are proposing in this Bill. The scheme was proposed at that time, not to fit in with any petty idea, such as the hon. Member speaks of; it was not proposed at that time to fit into some scheme produced by a Brummagem Minister and put forward by a subservient schoolboy of a Secretary of State. In those days. we were discussing the matter with full and untrammelled consideration, quite apart from any suggestion of rating. within a department, with the full weight of departmental investigation and authority behind it. Then it was said that the day of the ad hoc adminis tration is past and the day of the ad omnia administration has come.
The hon. Member has appealed to Caesar. By Caesar he must be judged. He brought forward an interesting contention of great historical power and great present force, when he pointed out that education must not subserve the ideals of the market place. That is true. He said that the ideals of Scotland, the educational ideals of Scotland had been religious in character, and he held that up to high praise. Yes, but he said that the ideal which we must subserve is the ideal of human perfection. True, but in recent years we are beginning to realise, what Scottish education has too often neglected in the past, that human perfection is not merely a matter of the cultivated mind, but is also a matter of the sound physical body. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Quite so. Then let us pursue that line of policy.
§ Major ELLIOT
Not to the exclusion of the other. Mens sana in corpore sano does not mean a sound mind only. One of the things which may be said of the Scottish educational system is that in the past it has, perhaps, concentrated its attention too exclusively upon mens sana, forgetting that corpus sanum comes before that, and that unless you have a sound body it is utterly impossible to have a sound mind. I put against the ecclesiastical ideal and tradition the ideals and principles which my late profession, the medical profession, not less honourable and ancient than the hon. Member's late profession, is bringing forward. In the profession of medicine 1709 we say, assuredly, that unless you bring in all the factors to the sum of human perfection, you will not succeed in producing the fully educated school children which we all desire to produce.
§ Mr. MAXTON
That was what I was endeavouring to say. When I spoke of human perfection as an ideal I was, naturally, assuming bodily and mental perfection. An ecclesiastical view of spiritual perfection as apart from body and mind is one that is imcomprehensible to me.
§ Major ELLIOT
Then the hon. Member and myself are in agreement on the point. It may be that I was led away by his aesthetic and ecclesiastical appearance, in contrast with the somewhat vulgar robustness which characterises myself. If he is pursuing the ideal of physical as well as intellectual perfection, may I be allowed to say that he has, perhaps, fallen rather shorter of the one ideal than of the other. He will see, however, that we are agreed upon this point. What is the relation of this argument to the Bill Surely it is this, that not one but many authorities have laid it down as fundamental—this will interest the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown)—that the school medical service must be under the control of the local authority which runs the health services for that area. The hon. Member for Leith asked me why we did not adopt the suggestion of the Onslow Commission. I will not insult him by asking him if he has read the Report by the Munro Committee on this very question.
§ Major ELLIOT
I will not for a moment admit the contention of my hon. Friend that any English Commission's Report is to be held, necessarily, as applicable to a Scottish subject. The Munro Report specifically examined this question, and I am astonished that the hon. Member should suggest that the step which we propose is inadvisable, especially as it is a step recommended and signed by most respectable and dignified members of his own party. It is a suggestion signed by a gentleman who is an eminent county councillor besides having been previously a member of this House—Mr. Joseph Johnstone, Member for Renfrew, who sees no difficulty in taking over these 1710 services. It is signed by my predecessor in office, the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Stewart), the hon. Member who was responsible for the health of Scotland. It is also signed by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan), who spoke on the subject a short time ago. All these gentlemen signed a recommendation that this fundamental activity of the education authority should be withdrawn from them and handed over to the local authority, the city council or the town council. That is our answer to those who say, "Why make any change? Why not leave things in Scotland as they are?"
§ Major ELLIOT
Surely the point the hon. Member put strongly was that the Onslow Commission said that this should not be done, and that therefore it should not be done.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Major ELLIOT
Then he was advancing two different policies which were moving in two different directons. We are all agreed, first of all, that the great Civil Servants have recommended this change, the change from an ad hoc authority to an ad omnia authority. We are all agreed that important lay committees have recommended one of the main changes introduced by this Bill, the transfer of the health services from the ad hoc. to the ad omnia authority, and I do say that when the case is so clear that the Committee almost unanimously recommended—certainly all the gentlemen to whom I have referred recommend—this great and important change, then half the case for the ad hoc authority has gone by the board already. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), who was afflicted with a strange access of pessimism, which made him complain that all forms of higher thinking and higher activity are under an eclipse and under a blight just now -a poor outlook for the success of his party at the next Election, according to his own ideals, if that be so—brings forward as his main difficulty that we are making this change so as to fit in with an English idea and an English ideal. We have now, I think, conelu- 1711 sively disproved that. I have quoted the view, to carry it no further, of our great Scots Civil Servants, and that is buttressed in an important respect, that of health services, by the report of one of the most representative Committees that ever sat in Scotland considering this very point. This matter of the education of the people of Scotland is, perhaps, one of the most important things with which we shall have to deal under this Bill and undoubtedly, although it is a change for which this Bill offers facilities, unless the change can be justified in itself, it would be quite unwarranted for us to bring it forward and to submit it to the verdict of this House of Commons. The change, no doubt, involves difficulties. It takes us along the thorny path which lies before anyone who enters upon the task of trying to improve the education of the people of Scotland, but we thought it our duty to enter upon that task, to make that change, and to bring forward now for the consideration of Parliament the change that was pressed upon Scotland by its responsible advisers in 1918, and turned down then, not on its merits, but because the then Secretary for Scotland thought that the opposition at that time was too strong. [An HON MEMBER: "It is strong to-day."] Strong it may be, but it is not impossible that the Secretary of State for Scotland to-day is stronger than the Secretary for Scotland was on that occasion.
The general case has been most effectively put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities, and I do not think one could do better than to leave him to answer his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). But there are one or two points which these two hon. Members perhaps have not considered, to which I might now ask them to devote their attention. We hear eloquent praises of the Scottish educational system, and the hon. Member for Caithness went so far as to say that Caithness led the educational system of Scotland, and that Thurso led the educational system of Caithness. How did the hon. Baronet react to that verdict? I was looking up the educational record of the hon. 1712 Baronet to see what was the educational institution and the educational system from which he derived his eloquence. Was it some great Scottish school, or a great Scottish University to which he passed when he left that school? I find the answer in a little book, with which we are all Lamiliar. I find that Eton is his school and Sandhurst is his college. I examine the educational record of my Friend the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and I find the clue of his attachment to the educational system which he praises. His school is St. Paul's and his college is Trinity Hall, Cambridge. The hon. Baronet spoke at length upon the necessity of parents having close and immediate contact with the education of their children. Well, let us take one of these parents, who, I think the hon. Baronet will agree, is of great importance in the life of the child. Let us take the mother. Let us take the women of the country. I wonder whether he can answer me. How many women are on the education authority of Caithness? How many women are on the education authority of Sutherland?
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
I can answer that—if it were an element in my argument—there are none. My argument was not that the women had to serve on this authority, but that they had to choose what members should represent their wishes on the authority.
§ Major ELLIOT
The hon. Baronet admits that on this supreme authority there is no woman. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows how many women there are on the education authority of Orkney?
§ Major ELLIOT
How many are there on the education authority of Shetland? The hon. Gentleman seems to have taken to the defence of these institutions without, perhaps, fully acquainting himself with the shortcomings of the institutions as compared with the manifest advantages of the change which we are proposing. I can tell him that there is no woman at all on one of these authorities, and only one woman on the other.
§ Major ELLIOT
Does the hon. Baronet, in these days, pretend that he can escape the dilemma by saying that of course there is no woman there, but that the women have a chance to choose their representatives? I say that under the proposals of this Clause and of our Bill a woman must be on the education committee. I ask the Committee, with confidence, to follow us into the Lobby in favour of a provision which makes it compulsory for a woman to be on the education authority which is to guide the education of children. I have every confidence that that is a provision which will commend itself both to the Committee now and to the electorate at a later stage.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
What guarantee is. there under the scheme which the Government are suggesting should take the place of the existing system of organisation that any woman will have the right of having control of any kind of the expenditure in connection with education?
§ Major ELLIOT
We were talking of the administration, which, as everybody agrees, is a thing of primary importance. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) would be the first to attack me if I were to suggest that there were to be co-opted members upon an authority responsible for the finances. The hon. Member, in his speech, was making the case most strongly that co-opted members should not be on the central financial authority. I am pointing out that on the body which is to deal with the administration of the schools, our Bill, for the first time, makes it obligatory that some woman's voice should be heard.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how it is possible to give the control that he suggests under the scheme, when he says that the whole power of dealing with the staff and primarily with bursars must remain in the hands of the elected body?
§ Major ELLIOT
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we discussed this matter on the Second Beading, and I was able to point out to him that his apprehension as to the removal of power was unfounded.
§ Major ELLIOT
The parish councils are not under consideration at the moment. I do not wish to trespass too long on the time of the Committee—
§ Major ELLIOT
I admit that it is interesting, but there are other interesting points too, and there are many other Members who desire to speak.
§ Major ELLIOT
We have the general position that the education authority of Scotland has been deemed by more than one authority, on more than one occasion, to be ripe for reform, that the method which we are bringing forward is a method which was not suggested by anyone else, but by our own responsible authorities, the great civil servants, who have to render to us their advice. Nobody denies that, not even the hon. Member for Dundee. The question is: Is it worth while to make this great change for the sake of the benefits which we expect to derive from it? It is, and deeply worth while. At this moment, a recasting of local government is taking place in Scotland, and we hope and expect an extension and enlargement of the powers of the central bodies—the county councils and the town councils—that will raise them to a position of prestige and dignity which they have never enjoyed before. Their hands are being freed by a new grant, to a very large extent, from many of the niggling controls which it was necessary to place on them when the system of the percentage grant was introduced.
Furthermore, we are in our health Clauses on the Paper making it possible to alter the health system of Scotland along the lines which the health reformers have been demanding for many-years past. When all these great changes are taking place it would be folly, and criminal, to leave out of account the 800.000 schoolchildren who are truly the flower of Scotland, and who are the people on whom we rely for the whole national life of Scotland 1715 in the years to come. The time has gone past when it is possible to treat the mind of the child apart from the body of the child. To do that we must have the close and intimate connection of the great new authority which is responsible, not ad hoc for health, but ad omnia. As health is one of the major functions, if health is not too important a subject to put into the hands of this great new authority, then education is not too important, either. If we can entrust this new authority with the terrible and powerful responsibility of the tender years of the child life of Scotland from one to five, and with the life of the adults of Scotland from school age to death, with the bodies of Scotsmen and Scotswomen, it would be going back on all that we are bringing forward, and on the whole theory of health as one of the most important of modern functions, to say that the body is a secondary thing, that an ad omnia authority can take charge of the bodies of the people of Scotland, but that in respect of this question of book learning there is something so sacred that it has got to be removed entirely from the ambit of that authority and to be put under different control.
Our theory and conviction is that the body is as sacred as the mind, and that if we can make a strong, fit, and burly generation of young Scots, then we shall have done something to which the making of the mind of the Scotsman and Scotswoman is not a secondary thing. That is our contention, and it is the contention of the great medical school. Call it. if you will, a materialistic ideal: we do not regard it as such. We say that the formation of the fit citizen cannot be carried out unless the continuous super vision of the citizen all the way through is entrusted to one responsible authority-and we say that the authority that is carrying through that great supervision should be and can be made an authority of sufficient power and sufficient idealism in outlook to warrant it being entrusted with the great task of the formation of the mind as well as the formation of the body.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
We have listened to the Under-Secretary of State with a great deal of interest. I am greatly surprised to hear that it is the material welfare of 1716 these boys and girls in Scotland that is of so much importance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his chiefs. I want to make one comment and one comment only on his speech. Those Gentlemen who are so concerned about the sound bodies of the children of Scotland will allow the parish council to pay only 2s. a week as an allowance for these children. The Secretary of State will not allow the parish council to pay as much as the Employment Exchange pay on behalf of the children. For the hon. and gallant Gentleman to stand at that box and talk, as he has done to-night, about the health of the children of Scotland, when he and his chief are responsible for the starvation of these children—
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I think it is very relevant, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made the plea that in this change they are concerned for the health of the children of Scotland. I do not believe it. I do not think there are many hon. Members on this side who believe that it is the health of the children with which the Government are concerned in the changes that they are proposing. It is all a nice bit of special pleading, but there has been no real argument adduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for doing away with these education authorities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to get behind some of the things that were said by ray hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in order to make out a case, but the answer is in the allowances that the Government are prepared to make for the children. I believe that the people in Scotland will judge the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that my hon. Friend had appealed to Caesar, and to Caesar he would go. He meant Caesar as the permanent chiefs at the Education Department. Yes, but there is the other Caesar outside. I simply remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Ides of March are not yet come.
§ Mr. HARDIE
The arguments put forward by the Government have not been convincing. The Government, for instance, in dealing with safeguarding, put upon industry the obligation of proving whether safeguarding was needed or not. But in this case there 1717 has been no investigation; no consultation has taken place with the public of Scotland. If safeguarding, so email in itself, demands that proof shall be given, why is it that in education consideration is not given to some public representative method of knowing whether this change is demanded or not? The Secretary of State for Scotland knows that this Measure is not demanded in Scotland. But the worst thing of all is that by this Measure we are wiping out direct democratic control over these
§ matters in Scotland. It does not matter how many or how few vote at the elections. What we protest against is taking away the democratic right to vote in connection with any public body in Scotland.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'burgh,' in line 24, stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 114.1719
|Division No. 164.]||AYES.||[10.20 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Fade, Sir Bertram G.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Fielden, E. B.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Ford, Sir P. J.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Moore, Sir Newton J.|
|Apsley, Lord||Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Gates, Percy||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Gower, Sir Robert||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter).|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Grant, Sir J. A.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Berry, Sir George||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Oakley, T.|
|Betterton, Henry B||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Bevan, S. J.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'W, E)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Perring, Sir William George|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Hacking, Douglas H.||Pitcher, G.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hall, Capt. w. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hanbury, C.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Harland, A.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Brown, Col. D. C (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hills, Major John Waller||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Brown, Brig -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hilton, Cecil||Ropner, Major L.|
|Buchan, John||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.)||Ross, R. D.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry s.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Rye, F. G.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C K.||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Savery, S. S.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hurst, Gerald B.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Cochrane, Commander Ho*. A. D.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C)|
|Couper, J. B.||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Smithers, Waldron|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lamb, J. Q.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cowan, Sir WM Henry (Islington, N.)||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Livingstone, A. M.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Long, Major Eric||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Looker, Herbert William||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. M.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||McLean, Major A.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Dawson, Sir Phillip||Macmillan, Captain H.||Sugden, sir Wilfrid|
|Dixey, A. C.||Macquisten, F. A.||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn||Titchfield, Major the Marquees of|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Margesson, Captain D.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Ellis, R. G.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Ward, Lt.-Col, A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Meller, R. J.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Fairfax, Captain [...] Q.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley).|
|Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Watts, Sir Thomas||Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Well, S. R.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)||Withers, John James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)||Wolmer, Viscount||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.|
|Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Groves, T.,||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Grundy, T. W.||Ritson, J.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hardie, George D.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Barnes, A.||Harris, Percy A.||Scurr, John|
|Barr, J.||Hayday, Arthur||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Bellamy, A.||Hirst, G. H.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Shinwell, E.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hollins, A.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Bromfield, William||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Smillie, Robert|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kelly, W. T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Clark, A. B.||Kennedy, T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kirkwood, D.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Compton, Joseph||Lansbury, George||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Cove, W. G.||Lawson, John James||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Dennison, R.||Lee, F.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Duncan, C.||Longbottom, A. W.||Townend, A. E.|
|Dunnico, H.||Lowth T||Viant, S. P.|
|Edge, Sir William||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Watson, W. M. ( Dunfermline)|
|Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Mackinder, W.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|England, Colonel A.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Welsh, J. C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Westwood, J.|
|Forrest, W.||Maxton, James||Wheatley. Rt. Hon. J.|
|Gardner, J. P.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Morris, R. H.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gillett, George M.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mosley, Sir Oswald||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Murnin, H.||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenall, T.||Oliver, George Harold||Wright, W.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Col)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Griffith. F. Kingsley||Potts, John S.||Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Ernest Brown.|
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "burgh" in line 24, to the end of the Subsection.
I move this so that we can have a Division on retaining to the education authorities in the county the right to carry on.
§ It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the1720
§ Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 117.1723
|Division No. 165.]||AYES.||[10.30 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)|
|Albery, Irving James||Blundell, F. N.||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)||Brassey, Sir Leonard||Chapman, Sir S|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Briggs, J. Harold||Clayton, G. C.|
|Apsley, Lord||Briscoe, Richard George||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Cooper, A. Duff|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Couper, J. B.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Brown, Maj. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Courtauld, Major J. S.|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.||Buchan, John||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)|
|Berry, Sir George||Bullock, Captain M.||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Carver, Major W. H.||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)|
|Bevan, S. J.||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)|
|Crooksbank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (stoke New'gton)||Rye, F. G.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Davison, Sir W. H (Kensington, S.)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Knox, Sir Alfred||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Lamb, J. Q.||Savery, S. S.|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Long, Major Eric||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Looker, Herbert William||Skelton, A. N.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)|
|Ellis, R. G.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||McLean, Major A.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D,||Macquisten, F. A.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Fielden, E. B.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Margesson, Capt. D.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Gates, Percy||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton||Meller, R. J.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden.)||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Grant, Sir J. A.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R, (Ayr)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'ths'W, E)||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Vaughan, Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hacking, Douglas H.||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Nelson, Sir Frank||Warrender, Sir victor|
|Hanbury, C.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Harland, A.||Nuttall, Ellis||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Oakley, T.||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Walls, S. R.|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||William, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Perring, sir William George||Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Wilson, Sir C H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Hilton, Cecil||Pilcher, G.||Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Power, Sir John Cecil||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Price, Major C. W. M.||Withers, John James|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Raine, Sir Walter||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Roberts, E. H G. (Flint)||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)|
|Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Ropner, Major L.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.|
|Hurst, Gerald B.||Ross, R. D.||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||England, Colonel A.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Fenby, T. D.||Kennedy, T.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Forrest, W.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Gardner, J. P.||Kirkwood, D.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Gibbins, Joseph||Lansbury, George|
|Barnes, A.||Gillett, George M.||Lawson, John James|
|Barr, J||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lee, F.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Bellamy, A.||Greenall, T.||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)||Lowth, T.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)|
|Bromfield, William||Griffith, F. Kingsley||Mackinder, W.|
|Bromley, J.||Groves, T.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Grundy, T. W.||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Maxton, James|
|Buchanan, G.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)|
|Cape, Thomas||Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Morris, R. H.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hardie, George D.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)|
|Clark, A. B.||Harris, Percy A.||Mosley Sir Oswald|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hayday, Arthur||Murnin, H.|
|Clynes, Right Hon. John R.||Hirst, G. H.||Oliver, George Harold|
|Compton, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Cove, W. G.||Hollins, A.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Dennison, R.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Potts, John S.|
|Duncan, C.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Dunnico, H.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Ritson, J.|
|Edge, Sir William||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Stamford, T. W.||Westwood, J.|
|Saklatvala, Shapurji||Stephen, Campbell||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Scurr, John||Sullivan, J.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Sutton, J. E.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Thomas, Rt. Hon. Jamas H. (Derby)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Windsor, Walter|
|Shinwell, E.||Tomilnson, R. P.||Wright, W.|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Townend, A. E.|
|Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Viant, S. P.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.|
|Smillie, Robert||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Welsh, J. C.|
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
In page 3, line 38, leave out the words "leviable for the purpose," and insert
instead thereof the words:
to be levied for the purpose in accordance with the provisions of this Act."—[Stir J. Gilmour.]
§ appointment of a chief constable and of constables), shall not apply except to—
- (a) a large burgh which at the date of the passing of this Act maintains a separate police force; or
- (b) a burgh with respect to which it shall at any time be proved in accordance with the said Section that it has a population of not less than 50,000, and every burgh other than as aforesaid shall be supplied with constables by the county in which it is situate under the provisions of the Act of 1889 and shall cease to maintain or to be entitled to maintain a separate police force: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply as regards any county or any burgh situate therein so long as the Police (Scotland) Act, 185" does not apply to that county."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes. 112.1725
|Division No. 166.]||AYES.||[10.40 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Clayton, G. C.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Albery, Irving James||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Grant, Sir J. A.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Cooper, A. Duff||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Couper, J. B.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's w, E)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hacking, Douglas H.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hanbury, C.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Harland, A.|
|Berry, Sir George||Dalkeith, Earl of||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Bevan, S. J.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henlsy)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W )||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Dixey, A. C.||Hills, Major John Waller|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Hilton, Cecil|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Elliot, Major Waiter E.||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Ellis, R. G.||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||England, Colonel A||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N)|
|Buchan, John||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Hunter Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Fielden, E. B.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Forrest, W.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Fraser, Captain Ian||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Ganzoni Sir John||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Gates, Percy||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Perring, Sir William George||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Lamb, J Q.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Streatfeild. Captain S. R.|
|Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Looker, Herbert William||Pilcher, G.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Power, Sir John Cecil||Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen||Price, Major C. W. M.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Raine, Sir Walter||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Thomson, F.C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|McLean, Major A.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Macmillan, Captain H.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Ropner, Major L.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Ross, R. D.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Margesson, Captain D.||Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Rye, F. G.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Salmon, Major I.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Meller, R. J.||Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Sandeman, N. Stewart||Wells, S. R.|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Mitchell, Sir W Lane (Streatham)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave G.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Savery, S. S.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)||Wilson, Sir c. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Moore, Sir Newton J.||Shepperson, E. W.||Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)|
|Moreing, Captain A. H.||Skelton, A. N||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||withers, John James|
|Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Nelson, Sir Frank||Smithers, Waldron||Womersley, W J.|
|Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S.D. L. (Exeter)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Spencer-Clay, Colonel H.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Oakley, T.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Steel, Major Samuel Strang||Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)||Groves, T.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Grundy, T. W.||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield. Hillsbro')||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Scurr, John|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hardie, George D.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Barnes, A.||Harris, Percy A.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barr, J.||Hayday, Arthur||Shinwell, E.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hirst, G. H.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Bellamy, A.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, south)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Hollins, A.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smillie, Robert|
|Bromfield, William||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bromley, J.||John, William (Rhondda. West)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Buchanan, G.||Kelly, W. T.||Sullivan, J.|
|Cape, Thomas||Kennedy, T.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kirkwood, D||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Clark, A. B.||Lansbury, George||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawson, John James||Tomlinson, R P.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lee, F||Townend, A. E.|
|Compton, Joseph||Livingstone, A. M.||Viant, S. P.|
|Cove, W. G.||Longbottom, A. W.||Watson, W. M. Dunfermline)|
|Dennison, R.||Lowth, T.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Duncan, C.||Mackinder, W||Welsh, J. C.|
|Dunnico, H.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Westwood, J.|
|Edge, Sir William||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Fenby, T. D.||Morris, R. H.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gardner, J. P.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Mosley, Sir Oswald||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Gillett, George M.||Murnin, H.||Windsor, Walter|
|Graham, D. M (Lanark, Hamilton)||Oliver, George Harold||Wright W.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Greenall, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)||Potts, John S.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Ritson, J.|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."1726
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 110.1729
|Division No. 167.]||AYES.||[10 49 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Ganzoni, Sir John||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Albery, Irving James||Gates, Percy||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Perring, Sir William George|
|Alexander, Sir Win, (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Gower, Sir Robert||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Grant, Sir J. A.||Plicher, G.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Balowin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Hacking, Douglas H.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Berry, Sir George||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Hanbury, c.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Bevan, S. J.||Harland, A.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Ross, R. D.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Rye, F. G.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hills, Major John Waller||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hilton, Cecil||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Savery, S. S.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Sha[...], Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Messley)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. ( Berks, Newb'y)||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Buchan, John||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Smith-Carington Neville W.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hurst, Gerald B.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Knox, Sir Alfred||Stuart, Crlchton-, Lord C.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Lamb, J. Q.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Looker, Herbert William||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Couper, J. B.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Tasker, R. Inigo|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||McLean, Major A.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Macmillan, Captain H.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Macquisten, F. A.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Margesson, Captain D.||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Dixey, A. C.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Wells, S. R.|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Meller, R. J.||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, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Ellis, R. G.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)|
|England, Colonel A.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Withers, John James|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Forrest, W.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Nuttall, Ellis||Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Oakley, T.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Bellamy, A.||Buchanan, G.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Benn, Wedgwood||Cape, Thomas|
|Ammon, Charles George||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Charleton, H. C.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Bromfield, William||Clark, A. B.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Bromley, J.||Cluse, W. S.|
|Barr, J.||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.|
|Compton, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Shiels Dr. Drummond|
|Cove, W. G.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Shinwell, E.|
|Dennison, R.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Duncan, C.||Kelly, W. T.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Dunnico, H.||Kennedy, T.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Edge, Sir William||Kirkwood, D.||Smillie, Robert|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lansbury, George||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)||Lawson, John James||Stamford, T. W.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Lee, F.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Gardner, J. P.||Longbottom, A. W.||Stewart, J. (St. Rolfox)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Lowth, T.||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Gillett, George M.||Mackinder, W.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Greenall, T.||Maxton, James||Townend, A. E.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Viant, S. P.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morris, R. H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Groves, T.||Mosley, Sir Oswald||Welsh, J. C.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Murnin, H.||Westwood, J|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Oliver, George Harold||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Potts, John S.||Williams, Dr J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Hardie, George D.||Ritson, J.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Harris, Percy A.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Windsor, Walter|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sakiatvala, Shapurji||Wright, W.|
|Hirst, G. H.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Scurr, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hollins, A.||Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|