§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I beg to move, in page 51, line 22, to leave out the word "Section" and to insert instead thereof the word "Sub-section."
This must be a clerical error. It was never intended to limit to the period 31st December, 1931, anything else but the power to remove difficulties.
§ Amendment agreed to.1508
Mr. R. W. SMITH
I beg to move, in page 51, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (2).
This Amendment raises the same point that was raised on the English Bill; the giving of unlimited power to the Secretary of State to make adaptations or modifications of the provisions of any Act of Parliament. Certain modifications may be necessary in order to bring the Act into force, but it seems to me rather strange that in this Bill we should have a Clause giving more power to the Secretary of State than were given to the Minister of Health under the English Bill. I do not think these powers should be so wide. The first part of this Clause is almost exactly the same as the English Bill, but the English Bill does not contain this Sub-section (2) which says that:The Secretary of State may by order make provision for any matters incidental to or consequential on any provision of this Act, including any incidental or consequential adaptations or modifications of the provisions of any Act of Parliament.I hope the Lord Advocate will give us a promise that there will be some modification of this Sub-section.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I should have thought that this was the most humble and inoffensive power that could be given. It is only where it is "incidental to or consequential on" this Act that this power can be exercised, and, subject to the provisions of Subsection (4), it has to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. This is a very minor matter. The Subsection does not give any general power to alter an Act of Parliament in any shape or form.
§ Amendment nagatived.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I beg to move, in page 51, line at the end, to insert the words:or in order to make an equitable adjustment or apportionment of any expenditure or payment under the local Act consequent on the carrying into effect of the provisions of this Act.This Amendment is necessary in order to meet such a case as occurs in Glasgow, where under the local Acts there is an arrangement whereby Glasgow provides sewerage services in adjoining areas. The authorities in these areas are required to levy a rate of the same amount as that levied in Glasgow, and pay it 1509 over to Glasgow. Under the provisions of Clauses 19, in the matter of the consolidated rate, there will in future be no separate rate in these cases and it is necessary to make provision to meet existing conditions. It is thought that Sub-section (3) of this Clause is hardly wide enough to cover that case.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. R. W. SMITH
I beg to move, in page 51, line 35, to leave out the word "Section," and to insert instead thereof the word "Act."
I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to accept this Amendment. In Clause 53 he has taken out the word "Section"; that I presume only applies to Part II of the Bill. Apparently Orders made under Part I of the Bill do not require to be laid on the Table of the House of Commons. In Clause 10, Subsection (6) the Secretary of State may:by order do anything whatsoever which may be necessary or expedient for the proper carrying into effect of anything done under the foregoing provisions of this Section, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, the making of any consequential adaptation or modification of any statutory enactmentHe may do that by Order, and without laying it before Parliament. Again in Clause 11, Sub-section (2), an Order may be made for the combination of local authorities, but there is no provision that such an Order shall be laid on the Table of the House. If the Secretary of State is going to take powers to combine local authorities compulsorily, it seems to me that such an Order should be laid on the Table of this House. As the Bill stands that does not take place; and I am moving this Amendment in order to provide that these Orders under the first part of this Bill shall be laid on the Table of the House as well as those under Part II. If it is agreed that Orders under Part II of the Bill should be laid before Parliament, surely Orders made under Part I ought to be laid as well. In the English Bill Orders made under the Clause giving power to the Minister to combine local authorities compulsorily have to be laid on the Table of the House, and I think this is also a case where these Orders should be laid before Parliament.
§ 2.0 p.m.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I appreciate, of course, the reasons which prompt my hon. Friend in suggesting this Amendment, but in regard to the particular instance he gave, that is Sub-section (6) of Clause 10, it is an exact repetition of what has been in the Act of 1889 all these years. With regard to the necessity of having some more speedy method of fixing the actual divisions in Clause 8, or the number of councillors, my hon. Friend does not suggest that it is necessary to lay such things before Parliament. I am quite willing to try and meet him, and I will, therefore, go carefully through the Bill again and see whether there are cases of some Orders which ought in fairness to be covered by this particular Clause. Obviously, there are some Orders which do not require to come before Parliament, but I am quite prepared to undertake to go carefully through the Bill again and see whether there are further Orders which ought to be laid before Parliament and, if so, to propose the necessary Amendments.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
There is a strong feeling in the Division which I represent with regard to this particular phase of the Bill. The Lord Advocate has pointed out that the system has long been in vogue, but the trouble is that it is now proposed to intensify the process. He has certainly proposed to survey the Bill again and modify in some way these powers, but we should not be doing our duty as Parliamentary representatives if we did not face the situation. Indeed, it is being tackled in another place not usually considered to be very keen on such matters. When an institution like that which is known as "another place," gives a lead in a matter like this, we should be lacking in our duty if we did not support the proposal, especially as it comes from a supporter of the Government. We do not want to have officialism given the powers that they have here, to work this machine and to "work" the Minister.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I quite agree that I am against the Clause as a whole, but in the meantime the hon. Member 1511 who moved this Amendment has given us an opportunity for saying that these powers should be confined as he has suggested.
Mr. R. W. SMITH
In view of what the Lord Advocate has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. It was only the more important Orders which I had in mind.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
There is no need for such a Motion. The Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," has to be put, and the hon. Member can vote against it. These Motions are put on the Paper under a misapprehension. In Committee, the Question has to be put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and there is no need to put down a Motion for the omission of the Clause. As a matter of fact, I do not know why such Motions appear on the Paper at all. In Committee, a Clause has to be put separately except in the case of a special Order under the Guillotine, and hon. Members can then oppose it, but no precedence can be secured by putting down a Notice of Motion to omit the Clause.
§ Mr. MAXTON
On a point of Order. Do I understand your statement to mean that in future such a Motion will not appear on the Order Paper?
I do not know that it does mean that, because this is one of the anomalies which forms such jewels in the British Constitution. I wanted to point it out, because hon. Members are continually putting down Motions to omit Clauses, and such Motions an unnecessary. On Report, of course, it is different.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
In any case, we have made assurance doubly sure that there shall be no chance of the Clause slipping through without an attempt being made to curtail the tremendous powers which the Secretary of State seeks to take in this Bill. We are not arguing about the merits or demerits of the particular Clause. We are dealing with the fact that 1512 57 Clauses of the Bill have now gone through Committee, and that the Secretary of State here takes power, if he chooses, to upset any single Clause or to alter any Clause or to put in any new Clause. Hemay, by order, remove the difficulty, or do any other thing which appears to him necessary—Surely that is wide enough—or expedient for bringing the said provisions into operation, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act—He is taking powers to modify an Act of Parliament—so far as may appear to him necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.Then the Secretary of State goes on to say that he will not exercise those powers after December, 1931, but from the date of the passing of this Bill until December, 1931, he proposes to do anything that he jolly well chooses, whatever this Parliament may have decided to enforce his interpretation of what may be necessary under this Bill. Then in Sub-section (2) we find that:The Secretary of State may, by order, make provision for any matters incidental to, or consequential on, any provision of this Act, including any incidental or consequential adaptations or provisions of any Act of Parliament.He is not only concerned with this Act, but any Act of Parliament that he may choose to modify. Then Sub-section (3) says:The Secretary of State may, by order, make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act as may seem to him to be necessary in order to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act.So that local Acts of Parliament, under which contracts involving thousands of pounds may have been entered into, and which have been secured in this House sometimes at very considerable expense, are to be amended at the sweet will and whim of the Secretary of State. Then Sub-section (4) says:Every order made under the foregoing provisions of this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat, after any such order is laid before it, praying that the order may be annulled, it shall henceforth he void.An Order is to lie on the Table of the House for 23 days. We know what that 1513 means. We know that many things slip through, because local authorities are unaware of the tremendous consequences which may lie buried in some of these Orders. Subject to that qualification, the Secretary of State under this Clause practically takes power to tear up this Bill or to amend it, and not only to amend it but to amend other Acts of Parliament, and to make Orders to do anything that he chooses, whatever the House may have decided. I am under no delusions as to how far the House of Commons or the people of Scotland have had anything to do with this Bill. I know that the people of Scotland were never consulted about the, Bill. I know that it was never mentioned at the last General Election. I know that there is no Member of Parliament for Scotland who had it in his election address. I know that the local authorities were not consulted. I know that the small burghs, the education authorities and all the rest of them had this thing come on them like a clap of thunder in the night.
The hon. Member seems now to be saying what is more fitting for a Third Reading speech.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
With great deference, I am seeking to show that this public Bill has had no public assent, and has been crushed through this House, that it has not received the assent of the local authorities of Scotland, that it has been bitterly opposed by the public boards and authorities which will have to administer the Bill, and that these are the people who know most about it.
The hon. Member is raising a very high constitutional question which is, it seems to me, applicable to any Bill, however acceptable that Bill may be to local authorities and others. It is a question which goes far beyond the particular circumstances of this Bill, and I suggest that he must confine himself to that aspect of the matter.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I accept your 'ruling, Sir, and will confine myself to pointing out that the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking powers to override Acts of Parliament passed by majorities in the House of Commons—however those majorities have been 1514 secured. That will be a matter for discussion on some other occasion. But what is the sense in hon. Members of this House sneering at the Spanish system, or the Russian system, or the Italian system, if this kind of thing is to continue? I say nothing about the present Secretary of State for Scotland as an individual. We are all sorry at the cause of his absence from these discussions, but one individual cannot possibly supervise the multitude of departments concerned in the administration of public affairs in Scotland. Poor Law, education, municipal administration, lunacy, and all the rest—one human being cannot possibly supervise these subjects. Therefore, he has a bureaucracy. He has a staff, no doubt a highly-skilled, very capable and very conscientious staff but not responsible to a democracy.
There is a hierarchy of officials and those officers are bound, in the nature of things, to impose upon this one man who cannot defend himself against them, because he has not the time. It would be physically impossible for him to do so. They can impose their will on the Secretary of State, and, therefore, it is not the Secretary of State who is going to amend these Acts of Parliament; it is a bureaucracy installed either at Dover House or at Edinburgh. If the Committee concede powers such as those asked for in the Clause, they should remember that they are giving those powers, not to the Secretary of State, but to a non-responsible and non-elected bureaucracy. Parliament might as well be suspended. This Bill is being crushed through by means of the Guillotine. Clauses of it have never been discussed and can never be discussed. It is being passed in defiance of the express wish and desire, as far as it can be ascertained, of the people of Scotland. And now the Secretary of State asks for power to amend the Bill itself, to amend other Acts of Parliament not specified, and to amend local legislation not specified, at his own sweet will. The Bill never went before the Scottish Grand Committee. It is being put through, as I say, in defiance of the Scottish people, and the last indignity, the last great humiliation imposed upon us is that one individual is to have powers such as are sought for in Clause 58.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I wish the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) had left aside the statement on which you, Sir, very properly stopped him, as to what was in people's election addresses and what was not in them. A great many things were not in election addresses. For example, there was no mention of the general strike in election addresses.
I would remind the hon. and learned Member that it was at that point that I stopped the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I hope it is not necessary to say more.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I have only mentioned that matter because with the rest of the hon. Member's statement I am in hearty concurrence. If this Clause is to become law, why take all the trouble and the time about these other parts of the Bill? Why not have made it the first Clause of the Bill? That would have saved a great deal of trouble. A similar Clause was sought to be imposed on Parliament in the English Bill, and this appears to me to indicate some confusion in regard to the draftsmanship of both the English and the Scottish Bills. It is as much as to say, "We are not satisfied with our job; we feel that these Bills contain many cracks and flaws, and we had better put in a provision enabling us to patch them all up if it turns out in the working that such is the case." But It is an impossible sort of Clause to ask Parliament to pass. You might allow a certain amount of elasticity here and there, but to say, as this Clause says, that the Secretary is to have power tomake provision for any matters incidental to or consequential on any provision of this Act, including any incidental or consequential adaptations or modifications of any Acts of Parliament.is going too far. In ordinary law, if you pass a new Act which is inconsistent with an old Act, you take the older Act and examine it and proceed in accordance with the terms of the new one in relation to the old one. There are delicate legal gradations about express or implied intention but to give a power of this kind, not as the hon. Member for Dundee has pointed out to a single individual, but to a department and to some one particular official in a department, is an extraordinary proceeding. Departments do extraordinary things. One of the Scottish departments the other day, did an extraordinary thing which is 1516 causing tremendous excitement in Scotland and it has done this thing on its own authority and against the report of one of the Government's own Committees. We never know what a department will do.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
And when you attempt to raise a matter of this kind you are immediately met by the statement "You must not attack our permanent officials because they cannot defend themselves." Can they not? They can attack the democracy and it is for the people and the representatives of the people to defend themselves against the permanent officials. I can hardly believe that the Secretary of State and his legal advisers can have examined this Clause. Think of the enormous aggregation of local Acts to which it could apply. Think of all this being in the power of some individual in the Scottish Office. It is all very well to say that it has to come up before Parliament and lie for 28 days, but a discussion in Parliament on one of these Orders would be like using a steam hammer to crack a nut. Parliament has not the time for a discussion of that kind unless something very gross in an Order calls for alteration. I would ask the Lord Advocate and those who represent the Secretary of State for Scotland here to take this Clause into serious consideration and to see if it cannot at any rate be modified. I am told that the corresponding English Clause has been modified and this Clause should be modified in the same way if that is the best we can do but my feeling is that it would be much better to drop the Clause altogether.
It is not necessary. There are plenty of regulations and rules giving the Secretary of State power to regulate this and that matter in connection with particular subjects. There should not be this general universal sweeping power to say, "If anybody happens to have made a mistake, we can put it right with our own hands and tell Parliament about it afterwards." The whole Clause is fundamentally unconstitutional. As the hon. Member for Dundee has said, the Spanish dictatorship or the Italian or even the Russian dictatorships would be nothing to this. We have, of course, to remember that Secretaries of State for Scotland 1517 are always reasonable, and that the mass of our people are rational, and it is not necessary to paint too bad a picture of the results of a power of this kind being given to the Secretary of State. But if I had the misfortune to be Secretary of State for Scotland, I would certainly deal drastically with the official responsible for the drafting of this Clause, and I would ask him what he meant by such an extraordinary and unconstitutional proposal.
§ Sir R. HAMILTON
if this Clause had been found in a Chinese Bill, we should have, said, What interesting and amusing people the Chinese are They pass a Bill giving power to a Secretary of State to wave his wand, if he sees, to difficulty, and to make an Order and say, Difficulty, avaunt and the difficulty disappears. They give him every power, if he does not like a Bill, to alter the Bill. How amusing the whole thing is, but then, the Chinese are not free and democratic, and they do not understand things in the same way as we do in this country." But, surely, this is a most impossible Clause to put in any Bill. The Lord Advocate is a lawyer, and I am sure he cannot attempt to defend a power of this sort, giving the Secretary of State power to modify the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and any other Act. I quite realise that in a complicated Bill like this there are great difficulties in bringing it into working order, but there must be some limit to the powers given to the Secretary of State, and I would say to the House of Commons that they would be giving up their powers once and for all if they passed a Clause like this allowing a Secretary of State to modify that which this House has passed.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
May I say at once that I am sure the Committee will realise that I am handicapped by the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understood it was his intention to have a modified Clause drafted. It is quite obvious that there are certain things which you must give scope for putting right in a complicated Bill like this, when all the local conditions cannot possibly be ascertained at once. I mean that in minor matters there must be a certain latitude given. I know exactly what my right hon. Friend's mind on the matter 1518 was. His mind was very much the mind that I should have expected of any Member of this Committee, and that is that he himself, as Secretary of State, did not want to have the responsibility for anything that could possibly be put on the shoulders of Parliament, but that where they were really matters that could not be referred to Parliament, but ought to be carried out by the Secretary of State—I mean matters of pure administration and not really of legislation, —there ought to be a modified power reserved in order to secure that power to him, so as to see that the Bill could be worked out.
Unfortunately, as the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend was unable to carry on his duties, and I was not called in, and I am afraid it has slipped over, but that undoubtedly is the attitude of my right hon. Friend and what he intended to do. I agree that some modification of this Clause is necessary, although I say at once that some of the statements and some of the readings of this Clause which have been suggested to-day are very exaggerated, because everything is limited in some way or other, and there is no general legislative power given. In fact, it is not as wide as the original English Clause was. It is limited, though it may riot be limited enough. Having told the Committee what the attitude of my right hon. Friend is, I hope they will accept the assurance that my right hon. Friend will certainly attend to the matter and will certainly be aware of what the views of the Committee as a whole are in this matter. Further than that, I am afraid I cannot go.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to withdraw the Clause at this moment?
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Does he not propose to withdraw it now and to see what he can produce on the Report stage?
§ Mr. HARDIE
I think the Clause is absolutely necessary to the Bill. From the very beginning of the Bill those who were interested in the debates could see that the Clauses could not work and that 1519 no part of the Bill hung together. There is no possible way of working this Bill without giving power to the Secretary of State to do anything he likes to make it work, and the Bill as it stands is absolutely unworkable without the powers given in this Clause. I shall vote against such power being given to any man but it shows that we have been imposed upon by the people who call themselves superior people, the Government people, the blue-blooded people, with more brains than we have. We understand that when you bring in a Bill you bring it in with a definite function of some kind, but this Bill is indefinite, both in its statement and in its functions, and you cannot have it worked unless you have some power given to a man to say, "This wheel is too big, and the machine cannot work unless I take it out and put in a new one." We had a formula this morning which was going to be the great driving power in the whole structure of this Measure, and what happened? An Amendment was moved by the Government to leave out part of the formula in the shape of the quinquennium, so that that great essential part of the machine was wiped out, proving conclusively what I say.
You have this other power left, and it simply means that everything that stands in the way of what was in the minds of those who drew up this Bill, any obstacle that comes along that it is possible to wipe out, Will be wiped out. That is not legislation, which, if it means anything, means a clear conception of a Bill and of what you seek to change. Here it is so muddy that no one can see clearly even the meaning of a Clause, and because there is no clarity you have to give this power to the Secretary of State to do anything that may be necessary. That is the best argument that this Bill has been drawn up without a clear understanding, that it is a fake, and there is no wisdom or logic in it. Logic is the outcome of a clear understanding, and there is nothing of that kind in this Bill. I hope the Committee will vote solidly against this Clause.
§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEY
As an Englishman, I only interfere in a discussion on this Bill because the discussion raises a question that is common to practically all 1520 Bills that apply to both England and Scotland. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), who was definitely in favour of preserving the power of this House. The legislative power should be vested in Parliament and nowhere else. I have been in the House a considerable number of years now, and in recent years the Civil Service have been assuming, because they are the people who draft the Bills, power to confer on themselves legislative powers, which are carried out in a hole and corner manner, without publicity, and without knowledge, which might vitally affect the interests of the subjects of this realm. To that, I am entirely opposed, and any Measure that encroaches on the prerogative of Parliament to be the sole legislative power, or any Measure that seeks to curtail that power, will have my unqualified opposition. The Lord Advocate was, as a reasonable man, very reasonable in the speech that he made, and if this Clause did in fact carry out the limitations that he suggested, if it was only to apply to administrative action and not to alter the law, I should be at one with him, but he was, in my opinion, inaccurate when he stated that this Clause did not go as far as the English Clause. In my view, it goes a very great deal further than the English Clause, to which so much objection was taken, in the autocratic powers that it confers on the Department. There is only one limitation—a substantial limitation, no doubt—in the general powers that he is seeking. That is in the first words of Sub-section (1)-If any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act,That is a very wide provision. The Minister himself is to be the sole judge of whether any difficulty has arisen. He has to say that the difficulty has arisen which enables him to put into force these powers. It is an extraordinary power for this House to delegate to any individual.the Secretary of State may by order remove the difficulty or do any other thing which appears to him necessary or expedient for bringing the said provisions into operation, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to him "—He is to be the sole judge. There is to be no control in the Law Courts or anywhere else.
1521as may appear to him necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.That is extraordinary, but the matter of this new Clause goes further than the English Bill, for Sub-section (2) says:The Secretary of State may by order make provision for any matters incidental to or consequential on any provision of this Act,"—What on earth the meaning of those words is I cannot imagine. They are the widest possible words.including any incidental or consequential adaptations or modifications of the provisions "—What ofof any Act of Parliament.Not of this Act, but of any Act. It is to be left to the sole discretion of the Minister. I make this protest, because I sincerely hope that the Lord Advocate will very seriously consider some modification of this provision, and that in another place, at any rate, the whole question of the attempt to usurp these powers for the Civil Service will be considered, and that some general power—because I am inclined to agree with the Lord Advocate that in bringing in a large Measure of this kind some power to ease the wheels, to deal with minor matters and matters of pure administration, is necessary—shall be given in words to provide that there shall he no alteration in, or diminution of, the legislative power of an Act of Parliament. Subject to that limitation, I agree that some general form of words should be put in, and I hope that another place, at any rate, if we do not do so here, may work out such a Clause.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I was very glad to find, from the Lord Advocate's statement, that the Secretary of State for Scotland himself does not desire to have such a wipe scope. That, I think, is confirmation of a point I made in an earlier discussion, that we had been in Scotland largely led along the lines laid down by an English Minister. I find now that my point is established, although the Under-Secretary was very keen in resenting it, at the time. The Minister of Health, in dealing with the English Bill, has in some degree modified the position, and to some extent there is a modification here. It is satisfactory, however, to hear such a deliverance as that to which we have just 1522 listened from the other side of the Committee as regards the momentous importance of this decision, and there should be a very strong expression of opinion, from the representatives of Scotland concerning this particular extension of a power which we recognise as having grown steadily over the years.
A point has been made about the criticism of the House of Commons in regard to carrying through legislation far too readily by, means of the Guillotine, and that criticism has been strengthened by the claim that those who hold the view of our constitutionalism being a bit of a farce are in this connection certainly supported very effectively. If you are going to let this sort of thing go through without strong opposition, then there will be on our part a failure, and a failure we shall have some difficulty in defending against those who are anxious to under mine our constitutional system. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that all parties in the House should sustain the claim that no Secretary of State should have such powers because, for one thing, as has already been pointed out, it is not simply the particular individual who may hold the office, but in reality the departmental system which is getting hold of the Parliamentary machine and controlling it to such a degree that it is really despoiling the true influence of our democatio institutions. There ought to be a frank recognition of the fact that, while we are extending the franchise, and bringing in new elements to control, as far as the franchise does give control of our Parliamentary life, unless we check it the departmental power is steadily gaining hold of the Parliamentary machine to a degree that will make utterly ridiculous even this vast extension of the franchise. We ought rigidly to maintain opposition to anything of this kind.
No one here, I suppose, would for a moment disparage at all those who have the control, as far as that control is legitimate, in the Civil Service. We have an excellent staff doing their duty thoroughly, but if it is the desire, which I maintain has been shown throughout the whole of this Bill, to make a complete upheaval of our local government system, I am thoroughly in agreement with the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), when he argued that 1523 in truth the Secretary of State for Scotland would logically require the powers that are given in this Clause, because of the detachment that exists beween several of the Clauses in the Bill and because also of the extraordinary ramifications of the whole Measure. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have the power to say to a town council or a county council: "You are not doing your duty; you ought to be doing this," or: "You must do that," or: "You are pursuing a course or making such an expenditure which I maintain, in view of all the circumstances in your particular area, ought not to be allowed, and you must stop it." Therefore, logically, this power given to the Secretary of State needs to be upheld, but those of us who have been in opposition to the Bill as a whole, and more especially on the issue which we are now considering, are bound —especially in view of the reply of the Lord Advocate—to vote against the Clause.
Mr. W. ADAMSON
I am sure that the other Members of the Committee, like myself, were quite pleased to hear the Lord Advocate intimate that the Secretary of State for Scotland and he had talked over this Clause. Evidently, they have come to the conclusion that they will have great difficulty in getting the Committee to consent to give to the Secretary of State the powers which the Clause confers upon him, and they have some idea of modifying those powers. The Lord Advocate, in giving us his opinion, however, did not indicate that any modification that might be made would be of the nature suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). That hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was necessary to have some minor power reserved to the Secretary of state to enable him to overcome difficulties that might arise in the working out of this Act of Parliament. We had no indication of that kind from the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate simply said that he would discuss this matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he gave us no indication that the Amendment to be made between now and the Report stage would be of such a substantial character as to meet with the approval of either side of 1524 the Committee. I take it from what has been said by hon. Members supporting the Government, as well as by hon. Members on our own side, that they are of opinion that the powers given here are of far too vital a character to be placed in the hands either of the Secretary of State for Scotland or of any other single individual. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead pointed out some of the powers reserved to the Secretary of State, and I am not going over that ground again. In addition to those powers, the Clause also gives the power to make orders so far as any local Act of Parliament is concerned.
The Government and the Tory party have been claiming that this Bill, if 'it becomes law, will give more power to the local authorities. This Clause justifies our opposition and gives the lie to a statement of that kind, because here you have the Secretary of State reserving to himself the power to deal with and modify any local Act of Parliament, and to take away the power which the local authorities already possess instead of giving them more power. There is only one virtue in this Clause. If it passes in anything like its present form, some future Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to use these powers to wipe out this Act of Parliament altogether. The Act will be found impracticable to work, and the power will be left to some future Secretary of State to wipe out the whole thing.
§ Captain FANSHAWE
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and who has told us that this Clause will leave some abiding power in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I would point out that, as I read it, the Clause certainly stops here:If any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act.Therefore, I believe those words will ensure that the Clause only gives certain powers of certain kinds to the Secretary of State, by which he will be able to sweep aside all obstructions to the setting up the machine upon which the House will have decided when the Bill becomes an Act. I am borne out in that view by going a little further on, and seeing the words:The powers conferred by this Section shall not be exercised after the thirty-first day of December, 1931.
§ Captain FANSHAWE
That may be. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) that it may be necessary, later on, to recast in a little way the following Sub-sections, but we have had an assurance from the Lord Advocate that he is not quite satisfied with the drafting of this particular Clause. At the same time, I do not think that the Committee can overlook the fact that these are not permanent, powers given to the Secretary of State but are only powers for giving assistance to the local bodies in drawing up their schemes.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the last sentence of Sub-section (1), he will see that only that Sub-section is limited to 1931. The subsequent. Sub-sections are under no limitation at all.
§ Captain FANSHAWE
If the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) had given me the honour of his attention a little earlier in my remarks, and had listened to the hon. Member for St. Rollox, he would have' known that I was in agreement with the point which he has raised, and so, obviously, was the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate has told us that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland are going into the matter to make it quite clear. I am in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, but in regard to setting up schemes by local authorities we have already discussed all that in Clause 14. where it definitely lays down the time by which the schemes have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval. We need not go back on Clause 14, but it is obvious that, if the local authorities are going to have full, power to set up proper schemes, the Secretary of State, on his side, must demand certain powers for a limited time to remove obstructions. I believe that that is what this Clause seeks to do. If what I say be the case, then we can leave the matter quite safely in the hands of the Lord Advocate, and we shall find that, after consultation between him and the Secretary of State for Scotland, these first words of the Clause will be made more definite, so as to govern the whole Clause. I think the Committee might 1526 give the Secretary of State strong powers of administration, so that the machine which we are setting up may be put into working order without undue delay or friction.
§ Mr. BARR
It is quite true that, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just, said, there are certain limitations on this power, particularly in regard to date. But it has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) that this limitation in the matter of dates in the first Sub-section is only up to the end of 1931. But that limitation gives considerable scope to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who can do a great deal of damage between now and the end of 1931, supposing he were to continue as Secretary of State for that time. Secondly, the power is limited in regard to bringing into operation the provision of this Bill and what relates thereto, but beyond that the powers are exceedingly wide. Not only can the Secretary of State modify the provisions of this Act of Parliament but he can also modify any incidental or consequential adaptations and modifications of the provisions of any Act of Parliament. He can interfere with local Acts of Parliament. These are very numerous and they are sure to be effected in a very vital way by the in bringing of the operation of this Act.
Therefore, in that regard, the right hon. Gentleman has powers, as has been already said to-day, that should not be given to any one man or to any one Department. They range over a very wide field and permit of an interference that I think would be disastrous and would be a precedent in the constitutional history of this country. It is because I feel that, that I think we should take steps to-day to secure that these widening powers should not be given to the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the same way as we desire that they should not be given to the Minister of Health in England. I think it was in the reign of George III that a resolution was passed stating that the power of the Crown "has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." I think we can apply that to the Secretary of State for Scotland and say that his power has increased, is increasing, and, in matters of this kind, should be diminished.
§ Mr. BARR
I did not intend to use that particular quotation when I rose to speak, and I did not have the advantage of looking it up, but I am pleased to find that I was so accurate that I missed only one word, in my recollection of a quotation travelling back to the time of George III. I will venture upon another quotation, and with that I will resume my seat, and I hope that I will be as nearly accurate this time as I was the last time. I think it was when James VI came to be James I of England that he boasted what he could do by his pen and he said:Here I sit and govern Scotland by my pen.…which others could not do by the sword.I think that in this Clause the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken power to govern Scotland by his pen. We are not content that Scotland should be governed even by the pen of the House of Commons and by the control of these Houses of Parliament and still more do we object to one individual however much we may respect and honour him, attempting to govern Scotland by his pen, or to cancel and alter and, in some cases, practically to obliterate local and general Acts of Parliament.
Mr. R. W. SMITH
I do not propose to take up much time as I have already spoken to my Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1), but I should like to say how glad I was to hear from the Lord Advocate that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not entirely pleased with the wording of this Clause. That means that the power's are too wide, and that opinion appears to be shared by the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was for that reason that I put my Amendment down to leave out Subsection (1). As there seems to be some desire to limit the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland I would suggest one way in which I think it might be clone. The second paragraph of Subsection (1) limits these powers in that they can only be used until 1931.I would suggest that that period 1931 should apply not only to Sub-section (1) but also to Sub-section (2) and to Sub-section (3). In that way the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to be able to arrive at what is necessary in the way of amending Acts of Parliament 1528 within that time, and I think it would be a very great safeguard that the powers of the Secretary of State should not be unlimited for years to come. I think it would be a good thing if the second paragraph of Sub-section (1) were moved from the bottom of the first paragraph of that Sub-section and put at the end of the third Sub-section, in order that the provisions of that paragraph might also apply to the succeeding paragraphs. In the English Bill the time within which any alteration is allowed to be made is 31st December, 1930, but in this Bill we have up till 1931. If they can amend and make adjustments in the English Bill to the various Acts of Parliament by the end of 1930, I fail to see why that could not be done in the case of Scotland.
§ Major ELLIOT
The suggestion which has been made by my hon. Friend, who, as we all know, has taken considerable interest in the subject and has raised constitutional points, is a suggestion which certainly merits consideration. I think the suggestion that the date should he added in the case of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) is a reasonable suggestion which might well be considered. Whether it may be the same date as the date which is in Sub-section (1) of course I cannot say; not having the knowledge of my right hon. and learned Friend, it would he improper for me to dogmatise on the subject. But I have been in consultation with our advisers, and I think there is no doubt that the mind of the Secretary of State for Scotland had been moving along that line. It should be quite possible for us to make the limitation in date cover Subsection (2) and Sub-section (3) as well. I do not want to go further than that at the moment, but I throw out these points as showing that, when the Lord Advocate promised to look into the matter with the Secretary of State, he was not merely promising to look into it in a negative kind of way, but with a genuine desire to modify it along the lines which the Committee have pressed upon the Government this morning. In giving that indication, I hope it will be regarded as proof of the bona fides of the Government, and that the Committee will accept the assurance of the Lord Advocate that he will go into it with a genuine desire to modify the Clause in conformity with the principles which the House of Commons 1529 have already accepted, and of which the Committee have given an illustration this morning.
§ Mr. STEWART
One is almost tempted to accept the position as laid down by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) and accepted by the Under-Secretary. It is more than probable that by 1931 a new Secretary of State will be in office. [Interrpution] I said it was more than probable. I do not go further than that. It may be that the outlook of the new Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary may be somewhat different from that of the present Secretary of State and Under-Secretary, but these will have between 1929 and 1931 to make what alterations they think proper in the main Act and in the local Act, and thereby to strengthen the position from their point of view, though very much weakening it from the point of view of us on this side of the House. We on this side of the House, who may then be in office, would then have practically no power to say "yea" or "nay" to the nefarious work which they would have done. I want to protect the House from that possibility. There is one proviso which I think is inequitable and unworkable, and that is the idea of carrying out this work by 31st December, 1931, because no man in the position in which the Under-Secretary is just now nor any Law Officer connected with the Scottish Office, can possibly foresee what will emerge either in connection with the principal Act or any local Act having a bearing on this, the greatest change in local government which has taken place in our time.
I suggest to the powers that be that they should take heed of what they are doing in fulfilment of their claim that they desire to maintain and strengthen democracy and strengthen the power of local government, because if there is one thing in this Bill which strengthens bureaucracy more than anything else it is 1530 Clause 58. That nullifies, to an exceptional degree, the powers of the local authorities or even of this House, because although there is a provision in it that an Order is to be laid on the Table of the House we all know what that amounts to in practice. Really the Clause gives to the Secretary of State the most autocratic powers which have existed since the days referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), when Scotland and England were governed by the wisest fool in Christendom. We ought not to allow of the possibility of history repeating itself, and I suggest to the Government that they should withdraw this provision and make a fresh proposal on the Report stage. They ought to withdraw it without reservation, for it is bad in essence, and it is hon. Members opposite who will ultimately discover that to be the case. The Government are making something like a boomerang, something they think will hit and control us; but boomerangs come back again, and it is possible that this one will strike in a direction very different from that which is intended.
§ Sir EDMUND TURTON
I do not wish to speak on this Clause except from the constitutional point of view, and in that respect I wish to say that I am perfectly horrified at the Clause we are discussing. I quite agree that it is immaterial whether on this question we are dealing with the present Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State who has been foreshadowed in two or three years' time. We are responsible for legislation, and we have no right to put temptation in the way of any Minister to be guided by officials who are no doubt very well meaning and well intentioned, but who might be so misguided as to suggest certain methods in the carrying out of this Bill which might be entirely contrary to anything which hon. Members would wish to see put forward. In a matter of this kind we ought to be very careful.
It has been well said that in matters of this kind we go from precedent to precedent, and I was very sorry when the English Bill was being discussed to learn that the Clause which so many of us objected to in the English Bill was founded on the Rating and Valuation Bill of two years ago. That is going to be used against us if we allow this Clause to go 1531 through without protest. Legislation is carried on in a somewhat haphazard fashion. Clauses are carried without proper discussion and in the case of the English and Scottish Local Government Bills unquestionably many Clauses have gone through without adequate or full discussion. Therefore, in order to ensure the proper carrying out of this Measure in accordance with the intentions of the party which has brought it forward, you must give some power to the Minister within certain well regulated and defined limits.
I do not believe that in any quarter of the House there would be found any hon. Member who would say that the Minister should not be allowed a certain amount of administrative liberty in order to carry out the intentions of this Bill, and in order to see that they are properly carried out. One cannot help noticing not only in the Debate this afternoon, but also in the Debates which took place in Committee and on the Report stage of the English Bill that there was a great amount of destructive observations against the Clause, but I did not notice very many constructive suggestions. I cannot conceive why it would not be possible with those precedents in mind to see if a Standing Committee of both Houses could not be established with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, and these matters might be referred to such a Committee.
There would be three possibilities. In the first place, they could say "yes" to any proposition placed before the Committee. They might decide that the difficulty was one which obviously ought to be met, that the subject should be dealt with at once, or they could defer it until Parliament was again sitting. Thirdly, the Standing Committee could refuse to grant the application. I think a proposal of that kind could he carried out with the general assent and consent of all sides of the House. In the meantime until we get some Standing Order of that sort I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to introduce limiting words, and certainly a date more in accordance with what we have inserted in the English Bill so that the Minister will be restricted to dealing with administrative difficulties and those alone. I apologise to my hon. Friends representing Scotland for interfering in what is 1532 essentially a Scottish matter, but I approach this question from a constitutional point of view as an old Member of Parliament and I hate giving bureaucracy the powers that are now being given to them.
§ Sir P. FORD
Whilst I was glad to have assurances from the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that in regard to this proposal their intentions were just and honourable, I must say that in my opinion there will have to be a large amount of redrafting of this Clause before it will be acceptable to this Committee. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has left the impression on the Committee that what is required is merely the putting in of dates in Sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) as well as in Sub-section (1). As the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) pointed out, a date is not the sole protection, because the Secretary of State need not go on repeating the offence, if it be an offence; he can do a good deal of damage if he is misguided, either by his Department or otherwise, before the date. It ought not to be beyond the ability of the Lord Advocate, the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary, with Departmental assistance, to make clear what are the provisions that they need in Sub-section (1). I think their intentions are in accord with those of the Committee, but they are not expressed in the Clause, and are not sufficiently safeguarded by the date.
The other Sub-sections are much more ominous. I do not think for a moment that, as was suggested from the Front Bench opposite, this was some device for scoring off the Opposition. As practical men we have far more to do than that; we are not electioneering, but are trying to get a workable Measure. But, with the most admirable intentions, there has been very bad drafting here, and it is a matter that is more serious in principle, as well as in detail, than seems to be recognised by those on the Front Government Bench. I am certain, however, that if they will give their minds to it, they will be able to produce something which will be acceptable to the House.
§ Dr. SHIELS
One thing that is of interest in this connection is that, while we Scotsmen believe that Scotland is a 1533 more democratic country, and has more democratic traditions, than the country South of the Tweed, the provisions of this Bill are even more drastic than in the corresponding English Measure, as is also, indeed, the case with the alterations in local government which the Bill makes. It is very difficult to understand why that should be. Everything in these Sub-sections is contrary to the whole tradition of Scotland. In connection with our Scottish Church, in connection with Scottish education, we have always objected to anything in the nature of hierarchy or dictatorship by the Government, and, therefore, it is natural that this Clause should arouse special indignation in the people of Scotland. We are very glad that our plea has been reinforced by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton), who has intervened so effectively, in our Debate this afternoon, and I think it ought to be pointed out that it is obvious that we on this side are moved solely by democratic considerations, because, if what we anticipate came to pass, a Secretary of State for Scotland of another political persuasion might have power to do a great many things which, to our minds, would be admirable and useful, by means of this Clause. We are, however, prepared to have the democratic method, and we are very glad to think that this chorus of protest is likely to produce a Clause, if any Clause of the kind be needed, more in accord with the tradition and democratic sentiment of the people of Scotland.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I want to make the object of this Clause quite clear, because my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) does not seem to appreciate the extent of the observations that I made. I am entirely in agreement with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Under Secretary has
§ said, and do not see any difficulty in putting a limiting date in dub-sections (2) and (3). I hope I made quite clear to the Committee the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, namely, that he does not want to relieve Parliament of responsibility for anything which can possibly be left on the shoulders of Parliament, and that it was only in so far as it was absolutely essential to carry out what are really administrative and not legislative matters that he wanted to retain the Clause. Therefore, the Clause must be retained for some purposes. I said that it was in view of that attitude that a revision of the Clause would be undertaken. I have repeated it in case sonic hon. Members might perhaps not have clearly understood what I was in tending to say and in case other hon. Members might not have been present when I said it. That is the attitude of the Government.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Seeing that the Lord Advocate has twice said in this House that the Clause as it stands is not the Clause which the Secretary of State for Scotland arid the Government hope to see finally in the Act, is there any necessity why they should push this Clause through to-day? Is it not possible for the Lord Advocate to withdraw this Clause which he does not intend to be placed permanently in the Act and bring forward, on the Report stage, some form of words which may be considered by the House on their merits. As the thing stands now, he is actually asking the House of Commons to put through, on the Committee stage, a Clause which on his own admission neither he nor the Government intend shall remain permanent.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 91.1535
|Division No. 225.]||AYES.||[3.23 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Berry, Sir George||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)|
|Albery, Irving James||Brass, Captain W.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Brassey, Sir Leonard||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Clayton, G. C.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Brings, J. Harold||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Ashley, Li-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Briscoe, Richard George||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Conway, Sir W. Martin|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Couper, J. B.|
|Balfour, George (Hainpstead)||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Buckingham, Sir H.||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Bullock, Captain M.||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Campbell, E. T.||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lloyd, Cyril E (Dudley)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Looker, Herbert William||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Falls, Sir Bertram Q.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Savery, S. S.|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)|
|Ferrnoy, Lord||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Macintyre, I.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unly., Belfast)|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||McLean, Major A.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n A Kinc'dlne.C.)|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Macquisten, F. A.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Gates, Percy||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Margesson, Captain D.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Meller, R. J.||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Grotrlan, H. Brent||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Streatfelld, Captain S. R.|
|Hamilton, Sir George||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Hanbury, C.||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Murchison, Sir Kenneth||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Tinne, J. A.|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M||Nuttall, Ellis||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Henderson.Capt.R.R. (Oxt'd, Henley)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Ward Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Herbert, S.(York.N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Pilcher, G.||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Power, Sir John Cecil||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Wells, S. R.|
|Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Ramsden, E.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'tS'y)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Iveagh, Countess of||Ropner, Major L.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Ross, R. D.|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Rye, F. G.||Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Bowyer.|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Salmon, Major I.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hardle, George D.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewie|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayes, John Henry||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Barnes, A.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Barr, J.||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Batey, Joseph||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snell, Harry|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Bellamy, A.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Kelly, W. T.||Strauss, E. A.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Kennedy, T.||Sutton. J. E.|
|Broad, F. A.||Lawrence, Susan||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Bromley, J.||Lawson, John James||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Lee, F.||Thome, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry s.||Lowth, T.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Charieton, H. C.||Lunn, William||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cluse, W. S.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R||MacLaren, Andrew||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Cove, W. G.||Malone, C. L'Estrangc (N'thampton)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Maxton, James||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Welsh, J. C.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Westwood, J.|
|Day, Harry||Murnin, H.||Whiteley, W.|
|Dennison, R.||Naylor, T. E.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Duncan, C.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, T. (York Don Valley)|
|Dunnico, H.||Palin, John Henry||Windsor, Walter|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Paling, W.||Wright, W.|
|England, Colonel A.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Forrest, W.||Potts, John S.|
|Gardner, J. P.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)||Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Charles Edwards.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colnl)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|