HC Deb 25 February 1929 vol 225 cc1679-713
The LORD ADVOCATE

I beg to move, in page 59, line 12, at the end, to insert the words: except that expenditure on any function for the purpose of which a large burgh is included within a county, shall so far as such expenditure relates to the large burgh be assumed to be expenditure by the town council of the burgh. At the present time services for such purposes as education and the police are supplied by requisition. In estimating the losses which arise in a large burgh it is only fair that their proportion of expenditure on police and education should be regarded as if it was their expenditure for the purpose of calculating the losses in the large burgh. The purpose of this proviso is to make clear that where a large burgh is included within a county for any special purpose any expenses incurred shall be deemed to be incurred directly for calculating the losses of de-rating in that large burgh.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN

I would like to ask if this Amendment will cover a case which exists in Aberdeen in regard to the harbours and docks which are policed under some special financial arrangement. I would like to know if the General Exchequer Grant will suffer by the amount of this expenditure. If the Lord Advocate's reply is that this proviso applies to Aberdeen I shall be very glad, and the town council of Aberdeen will appreciate it very much. At the present time the policing of the harbour and docks is subject to a special rate, and if the sums spent on policing is going to count for de-rating we shall be very pleased. If this police expenditure is going to be reckoned as ordinary police expenditure will the Secretary for Scotland count it as an expenditure which will rank for the equivalent police grant? We want to know whether this expenditure will be counted for de-rating purposes thus relieving the Commissioners and increasing the General Exchequer Grant.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I am afraid the only assurance I can give, as far as the Amendment under discussion is concerned, is that it has nothing to do with the case raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. W. Benn). Take the question of police expenditure. Take a case where a large burgh forms part of the county for this purpose, and does not maintain a separate police force. That proportion is recovered by the county from the large burgh. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that that expenditure shall be deemed direct expenditure of the large burgh for the purpose of calculating de-rating losses. That does not appear to affect the question raised by the hon. Member as to the arrangement with the large burgh for a dock undertaking because that is outwith the present Amendment.

Mr. BENN

Could the case of Aberdeen which I have mentioned not be made to come within this Amendment? We did not have an opportunity of discussing this question under Clause 31, and I am asking, in as much as the two cases are in pari materia whether the Lord Advocate is aware that this Measure is going to deprive the City of Aberdeen of £3,000 a, year if we do not get this concession.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The present Amendment can only depend on the relations between the county authority and the large burgh, and it does not affect the large burgh with police of their own making arrangements by means of a local Act with the dock undertaking. I cannot see that the Amendment which we are discussing has anything to do with that question.

Mr. BENN

I still think, within the very narrow limits within which we are working, that the best thing is to raise it here. I do not know whether it is in order to ask the Chair whether the next Amendment is likely to be called?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has received the right answer from the Lord Advocate, and, his question having been answered, I must rule that he cannot discuss it further on this particular Amendment.

Mr. BENN

You will observe that large local interests are affected in this matter, and it is my duty to raise it at any opportunity that seems at all likely. I do not know whether it would be in order to ask whether the next Amendment is likely to be called, but, if it is, that would relieve our minds and provide a further opportunity for the Lord Advocate to deal with the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I should be very sorry indeed to prevent the hon. Member from having an opportunity of doing his duty. He was trying in the most gallant way to do so on this Amendment, but I am afraid I must terminate his efforts. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown)—in page 59, line 28, at the end, to insert the words: (3) In every case where any authority owning freight-transport lands and heritages within any rating area (in this paragraph called a 'freight-transport authority') provides under any local Act such public services as would otherwise be provided by a local authority and where, in recognition thereof, special provisions are made in a local Act with respect to a rate levied by such local authority under a local Act or under a public general Act there shall, in estimating and certifying the expenditure in respect of the standard year which would have fallen to be borne by rates levied in such rating area, be included in such expenditure, the approved expenditure disbursed by such local authority upon such part, if any, of the police force of such local authority as is provided by them under the powers of such local Act at the expense of such freight-transport authority, in so far as such special provisions have been made in recognition of the providing by such freight-transport authority of such a part of the public service of policing as would otherwise have been provided by such local authority, and notwithstanding that such expenditure is reimbursed to them by such freight-transport authority "— is clearly out of order, as it would be outside the Financial Resolution.

Mr. BENN

Then it comes to this, that on the Amendment which the Government have moved it is impossible for the City of Aberdeen, and other cities in a like case, to get redress, while on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) it is impossible to act, because it is out of order. That seems to be the situation.

Mr. HARDIE

The words immediately preceding the point at which it is proposed to insert this Amendment are as follows: the expenditure in respect of the standard year which would have fallen to be borne by rates levied in that area on the assumption that the expenditure on the transferred functions was expenditure by the transferee authority. Does the expenditure referred to in this Amendment mean expenditure during the Standard year, or does it mean expenditure during any one of the periods of three, four five and five years? When the Bill came out, there were to be three periods of five years each, but that has been changed to the four periods I have mentioned. I want to know whether the standard year mentioned here is the year preceding that spoken of in the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE

If the hon. Member will turn to Clause 55 of the Bill, he will find, at page 50, that Standard year' means the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.

Mr. HARDIE

Since the standard year is fixed, what is the meaning of having other periods coming after, if they are not to be used its forms of measurement? If the measurement of a sum is to be fixed at a certain date, and that is to be the date all through, why appoint other periods that are called measuring periods? When expenditure is incurred, is it to be measured by the expenditure of the preceding year? The answer is, "No," and I am told that if I turn to Clause 55 I shall find that it is a year already fixed. If the standard of measurement is already fixed at a certain period, why is it necessary to have further extensions? If expenditure is incurred under contract this year, say for a new dock or bridge, the work may not be finished for five or ten years, but the expenditure, I take it, would be measured by the fixed date in the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am afraid I cannot see how this comes under the Amendment before the Committee. As far as I can understand, the hon. Member is trying to discuss something connected with the standard year, but no question of the standard year arises on the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE

If the preceding words of the Schedule were deleted, this other part which is being moved as an Amendment would have no connection with the Schedule.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That has nothing to do with it. It is not proposed to delete the preceding words at all. The hon. Member must confine himself to the words proposed to be inserted.

Mr. HARDIE

The words proposed to be inserted refer to expenditure which has to be measured by the standard year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Yes, but the hon. Member cannot discuss the standard year. This Amendment is not concerned with that.

Mr. HARDIE

Yes, but how are we going to know that expenditure on any function for the purpose of which a large burgh is included within a county, shall so far as such expenditure relates to the large burgh be assumed to be expenditure by the town council of the burgh? Under what system of measurement is that to be related to the burgh, large or small, or to the county? If there is no definition of it here, the Bill is going to be still more muddled than it is. I am asking what the relationship is. If there be no relationship, why have the Government put down this Amendment? If I cannot relate this to the other parts that are being added to, it means that it cannot read in sequence, and, therefore, cannot have any relation to the preceding words in the Bill. I understand the Lord Advocate to say that that is silly. I quite agree that it is. Perhaps a statement could be made showing exactly what is meant by the addition.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The addition has nothing whatever to do with the extent of the revision at the end of the fixed grant period, either of the general Exchequer contribution or of the additional contribution. That is an entirely separate matter, and does riot come in here at all. This Amendment is merely to determine what shall be counted as expenditure by the burgh in calculating the losses on account of de-rating. I may add that the revision at the end of the various fixed grant periods is necessary, if you are going to take into account the relative proportions between the general Exchequer contribution and the amount of rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure, in the year preceding the fixed grant period in question. The purpose of the revision is to ensure that the guarantee given to the local authorities under Clause 38 and subsequent Clauses shall be made effective at the beginning of each fixed grant period, and that the revised basis may operate for the term of the fixed grant period following.

Mr. HARDIE

Are we to understand that, when expenditure is incurred which goes into two periods of fixed grant measurement, the period between the first two fixed points measures the expenditure on that part of the contract, and that between the next two fixed points measures the next part of the expenditure?

The LORD ADVOCATE

It is the year preceding.

Mr. HARDIE

Take the year preceding—

This DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The whole question of what year it is for is not in order at all. I have already called the hon. Member's attention to that fact.

Mr. HARDIE

We are trying to do our best to follow this. We may be a bit dull, but, on an Amendment which we first of all find cannot be related to what it is to be added to, is it fair to say that there is any possible means of arguing the question if you just stick to these words?

Mr. STEPHEN

Surely, this Amendment qualifies the method of reckoning the expenditure in respect of the standard year, which is the expenditure with which the Bill deals. I cannot see any meaning in it otherwise. Now we are putting in this part at the end in order to define something which previously was left somewhat vague. The Lord Advocate mentioned police expenditure as an illustration in connection with this matter, and he showed how, it might be reckoned as expenditure by the town council of the burgh or as expenditure under the county council. I understand that the purpose of the Amendment is to make clear where the reckoning of that expenditure is to come in, whether it is to go into the account of the one or of the other. If that is the meaning of the Amendment, surely it is a qualification of the expenditure in respect of a standard year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) who raised those points was, I think, seeking to safeguard the interests of the burgh against the county in respect of this accounting.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am obliged to the hon. Member for putting his views on the subject. No doubt it does qualify the expenditure for the standard year, but that does not give a, right to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) to discuss the standard year. I rule that definitely out as a point that cannot be discussed on this Amendment.

Mr. STEPHEN

I was not proposing to discuss the expenditure of the standard year, and I do not think—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

May I ask the hon. Member whether he is still rising, as he did at first, on a point of Order, or does he propose to speak on this Amendment?

Mr. STEPHEN

I was proposing to speak on the Amendment. I am sorry if I did not make it clear to you that I intended to speak on the Amendment, because, I think, I can manage to introduce a certain amount of clarity as to the purpose of this Amendment. It is a matter of great importance with regard to reckonings in this way that the burgh should not lose as against the county by expenditure being reckoned as applying to the burgh and not to the county. I would like an assurance from the Lord Advocate that the burgh is not going to be put into a worse position than the county council.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The main purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that the burgh shall have credited to it the expenditure which the burgh is really making. It is to secure that the burgh shall have the benefit of what really is burgh expenditure although it is done through the channels of the county council in this particular instance.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I beg to move, in page 60, line 18, at the end, to insert the words: (2) The amounts aforesaid shall be estimated and certified as if the road grants had been payable in respect of the standard year at the rates at which they were payable immediately before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty. This Amendment is rendered necessary by reason of the announcement of the Ministry of Transport that the road grants were going to be increased, and it is in order to make sure that the local authorities shall get the full benefit of that increase, because that increase takes effect only towards the end of the standard year. If we put in this Amendment to make sure that the rates of road grants shall be the rates existing at the last day, so to speak, of the standard year, it will ensure giving to the local authorities the benefit of the highest rates on which the road grants are payable. It is because of the recent increase—a very material increase—in the amount of road grants that this Amendment has been thought advisable.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I beg to, move, in page 61, line 7, at the end, to, insert the words: In ascertaining the rateable value of a county or large burgh for the purpose of this paragraph account shall not be taken of—

  1. (a) any lands and heritages the occupier of winch is exempted from the payment of rates in respect thereof by virtue of a provision contained in a public-general Act (other than a provision only empowering the council to grant exemption; and
  2. (b) such lands and heritages (not being lands and heritages occupied by the council of the county or burgh) as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe being lands and heritages the occupier of which is exempted from the payment of rates in respect thereof by virtue of any such provision as aforesaid contained in a local Act."
It is proposed to insert these words at the suggestion of the Edinburgh Corporation, to make clear that in cases where there are lands and heritages the occupiers of which are exempt from the payment of rates, they should not be taken into account in any de-rating provisions. Cases where exemption is under a public general Act are easily dealt with, but in the ease of local Acts, as usual, the matter will require to be dealt with specially by order of the Secretary of. State.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 61, line 8, leave out the word "number," and insert instead thereof the word "numbers."

In line 10, leave out the word "quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period."— [The Lord Advocate.]

Mr. SHINWELL

I beg to move, in page 61, line 10, to leave out the word "men," and to insert instead thereof the word "persons."

The purpose of my Amendment is to include women as one of the factors in calculating the amount of grant which is to be provided for the various authorities in respect of the unemployment factor. According to the Schedule, the only factor in this connection which is considered is the number of unemployed insured men. It must be obvious that that does not take cognisance of the total number of unemployed. It is the intention of the Government to move an Amendment later—after the word "men," insert the words "and of unemployed insured women"—which, to some extent, meets the point of view which I am putting before the Committee; but it does not go far enough. I am not certain whether I can discuss that Amendment at this stage. If I am precluded from discussing that Amendment, I should like the opportunity when the Lord Advocate moves it, of offering some observations in regard to it. For the moment I would point out that although we have accepted the principle of political equality, in that we have accorded to women beyond the age of 21 the right to vote and to express their opinion in respect to the administration of national affairs, we are in this provision excluding them from a most important consideration, namely, that of determining the needs of a particular district. That seems to me to be manifestly unsound, and if it were accepted by the Committee without protest, and it went through, it would mean that many districts would not receive the amount of grant, based on this particular factor, to which they would be entitled.

It may be argued by the right hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him on this matter, that the only unemployed person who should be taken into account should be the person who pays rates. I presume that is the kind of argument that would be adduced. Clearly, there may be something in that argument, but as against it I would point out that there are many unemployed women who maintain households, and are, therefore, ratepayers. So far as they are concerned, they ought to be included in this category. Even where women are not ratepayers in a direct sense, when they are unemployed they add to the general burden cast upon the community, if and when they require to make application for relief, and when they become recipients of relief. Having regard to all these considerations, it appears to me that no case can be made out for excluding unemployed women from this particular provision. If we are to take the amount of unemployment in a district as the important factor in determining the needs of the district for the purposes of State grant, we are entitled to expect the Government to include all unemployment and not merely a part of it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I should like to support the Amendment. The concession that has been given is not sufficient. The situation is very striking, and I should like to give a few figures in regard to it. In the country generally, there are 72.5 per cent. of insured persons who are male workers, and only 27.5 per cent. who are females. In Dundee, the corresponding figures are 52 per cent. and 48 per cent., respectively. An analysis of the textile and clothing trades shows that female labour is much in excess of male labour, the areas most affected being Dundee, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. In textiles, the male percentage is 38.9 and the female percentage 61.1. In the clothing trade, the percentage is males, 34 per cent., and females, 66 per cent. In Dundee, the unemployed women are considerably in excess of the corresponding figures for seven other Scottish towns, namely, Aberdeen, Clydebank, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Greenock, Motherwell, Wishaw and Paisley. Whereas the unemployed women workers of Scotland numbered 22,979 on the 29th October, no fewer than 2,262, or 10 per cent., were in Dundee. With such figures applicable to various parts of the country, there is strong ground for taking the unemployed male and female workers together for the purposes of the scheme, seeing that the amount of unemployment is made a basis of relief. The argument has been made that this would, perhaps, involve giving a second reckoning in certain cases, but that point requires more elucidation than we have yet heard. A strong claim has certainly been made out for unemployment as a whole to be recognised by the Government. It may be said that we cannot hope to get anything better than has been given to England; nevertheless, it remains for us, if possible, to improve what is a very unsatisfactory position.

The LORD ADVOCATE

We do not seem to be much at issue on this question. The Amendment would render the expression, "unemployed insured persons," whereas with the Government Amendment the expression would be, "unemployed insured men and women." I do not know any persons other than men and women with whom we need to be concerned. Therefore, there is not much between us. I appreciate the importance of the principle which has been raised by both hon. Members, but I think their criticisms are based somewhat on a misunderstanding. The purpose of this weighting factor in the formula and the purpose of the factor is not for unemployment generally, but to give the weighting for abnormal unemployment. For that purpose, clearly, to take holusbolus everyone who is in receipt of Poor Law relief would not be doing justice to districts which are suffering from abnormal as distinct from normal unemployment. It may be said that while we are taking the insured unemployed, we are neglecting domestic service and agricultural employment. The answer to that argument is, that neither in domestic service nor in agricultural employment is there any abnormal unemployment, so far as I know. Therefore, no injustice is done by excluding it. It is very important to bear in mind that we do not limit the class taken to unemployed insured persons who are drawing benefit. We include in this calculation all the unemployed insured persons, whether they are drawing benefit or not. It is very important to bear that fact in mind. To take as an illustration, the unemployed insured man who loses his benefit or is held not to be entitled to benefit, but comes in under Poor. Law relief, will come on the definition, although he is not actually drawing benefit. It is very important to remember that.

I would like the Committee to follow our reasons for using this loading factor. It is for the purpose of giving effect to abnormal unemployment in particular districts. We are satisfied that the ideal test would be the number of unemployed with dependants, whether male or female. But if you follow too strictly that line, and take only the unemployed insured persons who have dependants, that is, the unemployed insured breadwinners, whether male or female, you would do a great injustice to towns, especially to the textile towns such as Bradford, where there is a large amount of female unemployment of an abnormal nature. We decided that it would be much fairer to take the total unemployed insured men, whether they were actually in receipt of benefit or not, and add a percentage for women. We are proposing to add 10 per cent., and, in fact, that addition in the amount of weighting will more than cover any additions which would have been given by including what I will call female breadwinners. In actual proof it works out much fairer, and it gives a very fair result as to the respective proportion of abnormal unemployment where the female element comes in. For that reason, not because it is in the English Bill, but on its merits, we submit to the Committee that our proposals are fair. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment; the proposal in the Government Amendment covers men and women.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I can quite understand that every abnormality upsets a formula. If you set up a rule you cannot apply it to abnormal districts. In the district which I represent we certainly have an abnormal situation, as practically half the employed persons are women. Obviously, when you get a situation like that it is important in a Measure of this kind that a city with such abnormal employment should not suffer financially. The Lord Advocate in reply to this discussion made no mention as to how the formula will operate in an area like Dundee, where half the entire working population are women.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I can tell the hon. Member now. In fact, Dundee is an area in which the addition of the 10 per cent. on account of women makes the greatest addition. The present percentage is 13.7, but being increased by 1.4 it goes up to 15.1.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I speak for myself in this matter, but I must say that I am out of my depth and I expect most hon. Members are in the same position. I am not much worried as to whether this formula will or will not give us the exact 20s. in the which has been promised, because a future Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in a position to correct the errors and redress the evils it may impose. A Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to level up districts which have suffered severe losses as a result of the operation of this Bill. It is perfectly obvious that there are some districts, which because of the abnormal amount of unemployment, cannot tell where they will stand. I know two or three city treasurers who have informed me that they are at their wits end to know where they will stand financially at the end of the first period. Extraordinary unemployment will upset this formula. An extraordinary amount of unemployment amongst women will upset it. All sorts of things will upset it. All that the Lord Advocate can do on this Amendment is to give us an assurance that the statisticians upon whom he relies may advise him that an abnormal city like Dundee need not possibly fear financial ruin at the end of six months.

Mr. STEPHEN

I desire to support the Amendment. I was not impressed very much by the Lord Advocate's reply. He takes the ground that the Govern-merit's Amendment is better, and that you will have all unemployed insured persons within the orbit of the Clause. Is that really the case? Under the Employment Insurance Act you have a class from 16 years to 18 years of age, and also a class from 18 years to 21 years. I should like to know whether the Government's Amendment, if it is carried, will include these two classes. The Lord Advocate says that this has really to do with districts in which there is abnormal unemployment and that it is an attempt to make provision to provide relief for those districts. Abnormal unemployment may reflect itself in an abnormal number of young people unemployed, or an abnormal number of men or women unemployd, or an abnormal combination of young people and men unemployed; or an abnormal combination of young people and women unemployed; or there may be an abnormal condition in which practically every one of the different sections is represented. I believe it is necessary that that should be taken into account.

I want to be clear as to the position. Is provision to be made for the district in which there may be a great many young people unemployed? In Glasgow there are a great many people under 21 years of age who are unemployed. Under this Bill power is taken to make claims upon persons for maintenance of relatives in the case of hospital treatment. That fact shows how important it is to have the matter cleared. If a householder is in hospital obtaining treatment the members of his family may be called upon to make these payments. Consequently they have to take account of what provision is being made with regard to rating proposals. What should be considered is the number of people in the household. While it may be true that the householder pays the rates, every member of the household who is in employment contributes towards that payment, because he contributes so much to the household maintenance. That brings me back to the question of how we are to make provision for the districts in which there is abnormal unemployment. The fair basis for a formula would take count of the whole number of unemployed people in a district. I am not altogether in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) that if the formula is wrong, this Government or another Government can afterwards correct it and put in different factors, and that everything will be all right. I think that any other Government will sweep away this formula altogether.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It would not be in order for the hon. Member to proceed with that argument any further.

Mr. BUCHANAN

On a point of Order. Is it customary, before an hon. Member develops his argument, for the Chair to interrupt him?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Mr. Stephen.

Mr. STEPHEN

I am sorry I could not finish my sentence. There has been so much reference already to the formula, that I wanted to say that the Amendment concerns one of its factors, the weighting factor of unemployment. If the Government do not accept the Amendment and include persons instead of unemployed insured men and women, the formula will be even more unworkable than would otherwise be the case. I think I have row put the case in a way to which the Deputy-Chairman will not take exception. It has been stated that in taking the number of unemployed insured men and women there would be included not only those who are receiving benefit but those who are not. I wonder how it is going to be done. It is obvious that there are many people who have ceased to draw unemployment benefit and have ceased to register at the Exchanges. It is very common knowledge that, when the total figure for unemployment is about 1,500,000, the real number is probably nearer 2,000,000, because so many of those who have ceased to draw benefit throughout a long period of unemployment have ceased to register at the Exchanges at all. Does the Lord Advocate say that the number will include those who are not drawing benefits as well as those who are? Does he include those who are over 65 years of age and are unemployed? Will he include those who have ceased to be registered?

The other day, in answer to a question, the Minister of Labour said that he could not distinguish, from those registered at the exchanges, the number drawing benefit and the number not drawing benefit. It is necessary, therefore, that we should get more definite information. To take the proportion of women at 10 per cent. is absurd. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, the Lord Advocate said that, Dundee was one of the cases provided for, and he gave figures which showed that there was an alteration from 13.4 to 15.8, and added, in effect, "This is one of the cases in which there is the necessary correction." I submit that on the basis of Dundee the figure for other parts of the Bell should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25 instead of 15 if you are to have a proper correcting factor. I am aware that an attempt was made to get a formula which would have a scientific appearance, which would seem to take into account the number of unemployed people in a district and which would give the impression of making provision for the difficult circumstances in which certain districts are at present placed. But the fact that only certain classes of unemployed are included shows how irrational is this proposal. It is not a scientific formula at all.

This algebraic formula, if examined, reveals itself to be a pseudo-scientific attempt to deal with the matter in such a way as to bewilder the public. If a case can be made out for bringing in a weighting figure for unemployment, obviously it is not sufficient to include only unemployed insured men. It ought to include the whole body of unemployed who constitute a burden upon the district. To take only one section of this army of unemployed people, to base a figure on that and then to correct it for Scotland in the light of something which has occurred in Bradford shows how unscientifically the Government are dealing with the matter. Unless the Lord Advocate tells me that the various classes of people which I have already mentioned are also going to be covered by this proposal, I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. HARDIE

The word of art "abnormality" has been introduced by the Lord Advocate and I wish to put a case to him on that, point. We know that in industrial areas there are huge works where the driving power occasionally breaks down. In a case of that kind two or three weeks may be required to make the necessary repairs, and, in the meantime, perhaps as many as 2,000 men will be thrown out of employment. Is that a normal or an abnormal condition? Will the Lord Advocate explain how such a sudden influx of thousands of unemployed people is to be dealt with under the rules for determining weighted population. The Lord Advocate said it only applied where there was abnormal unemployment.

The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.

Mr. HARDIE

Then I must have misunderstood him, but I think the Bill itself elsewhere speaks of this method being only for finding abnormal unemployment. But it is quite easy to see that where there is a breakdown of the kind which I have described, there is no addition to the number of miles of road in a district, and there is no increase in the number of children under five, and since these are two of the factors to be taken into account, will the Lord Advocate explain what is the relation between these various factors and what is the exact sense in which he uses the word "abnormality"? In my constituency breakdowns of this kind often occurred and a large works may be shut down. Whether it is normal or abnormal, how are you going to measure the unemployment in a case like that, unless by the ordinary means of the Employment Exchange. Further, to say that the fixing of the number of women unemployed has to be consequential on the number of men unemployed, is quite unfair. Why should there be any differentiation between the sexes in determining this matter of unemployment? All this procedure, I suggest, is simply trying to hide the simple facts in a formula.

The fact is that there are unemployed people registered in the Employment Exchange. You do not require any formula, or anything about miles of road, or the number of children under five, or any of that kind of thing in order to find out that there are unemployed people requiring succour. This question has not been faced by anyone on the Government Front Bench up to the present. No one will say why the Government will not take the exact figures, as they are to be found in the Employment Exchanges. The place to find the number of unemployed is in the Exchange. We are told here that the idea of weighting the population is in order to ascertain a certain number under the terms of the Schedule and then it is said: there shall be ascertained the percentage represented by the proportion which that number bears to the average estimated population of the county or burgh, etc.

But the fact of 2,000 men being thrown out of work suddenly by a stoppage of machinery or something of that kind does not add to the population, or the road mileage, or the number of children. Why do the Government fear to face the question? It is all very well to make it appear that everybody is ignorant except those who drew up the formula. This is a political dodge to make it appear that those who criticise the Government's proposals have not brains to understand the formula. But some of us have practical experience, and if those responsible for the formula had done some work with their hands, they might have a greater relation to realities with their heads. It did not require an algebraic equation to find out how much the brewers should get. There was no question of sex or age or percentage of population in that case. If you were a brewer you got your share of £400,000, and it was just the same with the landlords. In one case the Lord Advocate refers to "abnormality," and in the next case we are told about miles of road and numbers of children and all that kind of thing. What is the meaning of all this unless it is to try to mystify us? I challenge the Front Bench. If they understand this thing, and if it is so clear to them, let them make it equally clear, so that the rest of the Committee can understand it.

Question put, "That the word 'men' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 78.

Division No. 232.] AYES. [9.26 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Broun-Lindsay, Major H. England, Colonel A.
Albery, Irving James Buckingham, Sir H. Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Burman, J. B. Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Campbell, E. T. Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Cassels, J. D. Ford, Sir P. J.
Apsley, Lord Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Chapman, Sir S. Forrest, W.
Atholl, Duchess of Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Foster, Sir Harry s.
Atkinson, C. Christie, J. A. Gates, Percy
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Clayton, G. C. Goff, Sir Park
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cobb, Sir Cyril Gower, Sir Robert
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Berry, Sir George Coltox, Major William Phillips Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Betterton, Henry B. Conway, Sir W. Martin Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Bevan, S. J. Cooper, A. Dull Gunston, Captain D. W.
Blundell, F. N. Cope, Major Sir William Hacking, Douglas H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Couper, J. B. Hamilton, Sir George
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Courtauld, Major J. 8. Hammersley, S. S.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Braithwalte, Major A. N. Dalkeith, Earl of Harrison, G J. C
Brass, Captain W. Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Davies. Dr. Vernon Haslam, Henry C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Edmondson, Major A. J. Henderson, Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Ellis, R. G. Henderson, Lieut. Col. Sir Vivian
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p. Meyer, Sir Frank Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Shepperson, E. W.
Herbert, S. (York. N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belf'st.)
Hills, Major John Waller Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Skeiton, A. N.
Hilton, Cecil Moore, Lieut..Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Moore, Sir Newton J. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Moreing, Captain A. H. Storry-Deans, R.
Hopkins, J. W. W. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Murchison, Sir Kenneth Styles, Captain H. Walter
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.) Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Nelson, Sir Frank Tasker, R. Inigo.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Neville, sir Reginald J. Templeton, W. P.
Iveagh, Countess of Nuttall, Ellis Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Oakley, T. Wallace, Captain D. E.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Knox, Sir Alfred Perkins, Colonel E, K. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W
Lamb, J. Q. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstapic) Warrender, Sir Victor
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Loder, J. de V. Pilcher, G. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Long, Major Eric Power, Sir John Cecil Watts, Sir Thomas
Lougher, Lewis Price, Major C. W. M. Wayland, Sir William A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera Ralne, Sir Walter Wells, S. R.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) White, Lieut. Col. Sir G Dairymple
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
MacIntyre, Ian Ruggles-Brisc, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
McLean, Major A. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Withers, John James
Macquisten, F. A. Rye, F. G. Womersley, W. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Margesson, Captain D. Sanderson, Sir Frank TELLERS FOB THE AYES.—
Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Savery, S. S. Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major The
Marquess of Titchfield.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayday, Arthur Potts, John S.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hayes, John Henry Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Ritson, J.
Batey, Joseph Hirst, G. H. Scrymgeour, E.
Bellamy, A. Hollins, A. Sexton, James
Benn, Wedgwood Hore-Belisha, Leslie Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Shield. G. W.
Broad, F A John, William (Rhondda, West) Shinwell, E.
Bromfield, William Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Buchanan, G. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Charleton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, T. Snell, Harry
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kirkwood. D Stephen, Campbell
Comnton, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cove, W. G. Lawson, John James Strauss, E. A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Longbottom, A. W. Sutton, J. E.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Lowth, T. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Dennison, R. Lunn, William Tinker, John Joseph
Duncan, C. Mackinder, W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. MacLaren, Andrew Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Gillett George M. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Guvan) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Griffith, F. Kingsley MacNeill-Weir, L. Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grundy, T. W. Montague, Frederick Windsor, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Oliver, George Harold
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Owen, Major G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hardle, George D. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

Amendments made:

In page 61, line 10, after the word "men," insert the words: and of unemployed insured women.

In line 13, leave out the words "that number," and insert instead thereof the words: the number of unemployed insured men increased by ten per cent, of the number of unemployed insured women."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) to insert words at the end of line 24, and to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), go together.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

I beg to move, in page 61, line 24, at the end, to insert the words: by a number equal to the number of miles of road in the appropriate year multiplied by fifty. These Amendments are of great importance to counties in Scotland with a small population. Under the provisions of the Bill, where the population of a county is greater than 100 persons to the mile of road, the loading factor is expressed as the ratio of 50 to the number of persons per mile of roads. Where the population is less than 100 to the mile of roads then the curve is contracted, and the population, as increased by the children and the rateable value factors, is raised by the percentage deficiency below 200. Those counties for which I speak, and especially the Highland counties of Scotland—but it applies also to a very large number of Lowland and other sparsely populated counties in Scotland—are bearing at the present time an immense burden of rates, and the life is being crushed out of the countryside. The burden has risen very steeply indeed since the War, and in many respects we have been unable to make the same advances in health matters and with regard to the reconditioning of our roads as has been made by the counties which are more fortunately situated. I may mention, for example, that the County of Sutherland has found itself unable to work the Housing of Rural Workers Act, and in the County of Caithness we have no child welfare or maternity services. There is one in the burgh of Wick but none in the county as a whole.

We have been absolutely unable, owing to this great burden of rates, to obtain the same level of public services as other and more fortunate counties have obtained. Even the roads are very far behind the standard of other counties. That is to some extent true of our main roads, but it is also true of our by-roads, which actually serve the agricultural population, roads which ought to be taken over by the county, but which the county at the present time simply cannot afford to take over, roads which are really needed by the native people of the county in order to get about their ordinary avocations. There are other factors in the formula, but the two fundamental factors are the number of children under five years of age per 1,000 of the population and the rateable value factor. The number of children in the Highland counties under five years of age per 1,000 of the population is, unhappily, very small, for the reason that owing to the depopulation of the Highlands, and owing to the fact that the young men and women cannot get holdings and find places for themselves, cannot fit themselves into the economic life of their county, there is a diminishing number of children. Young men have to go abroad. They have to emigrate or go into the big cities before they get married; and in all our schools there is at the present time a diminishing population. Therefore, we are unable to obtain the value which we ought to obtain from that particular factor.

Then there is the factor of the rateable value per head of the population. Our rateable value per head is low enough, and, therefore, we do well under that factor. If you take these two factors alone, the fact that the second is more favourable to us than the first does not quite counterbalance the unfavourableness of the first, and, therefore, we do rather worse than the average under those two fundamental factors affecting the distribution of the grants among the counties of Scotland. When we come to the unemployment factor, that does not help, because, although there is a good deal of unemployment and a great deal of under-employment and distress, it is among people who are not insured, and does not figure on the lists of the Employment Exchanges, and, therefore, we do not get very much benefit under the unemployment factor. But this factor does help other counties and other parts of Scotland substantially. For example, it helps, and rightly helps, those places that we call black spots, where there is a great deal of unemployment, and I do not grudge it them, but nobody in their senses would demand that where there is a particular amount of unemployment, because the unemployment is very high you should cut down the unemployment factor, contract the curve, and give less to the black spots where the unemployment is worst, yet that is just what this factor does as regards the roads. Where the population is most sparse, where they have the least resources, where they are most scattered over a large area, and where all kinds of services are, therefore, correspondingly expensive, there, where they feel the pinch most, the curve is contracted and this factor in the formula has less value.

I have some reason to guess what the reply of the Lord Advocate is going to be. It will be the reply that has been given to me before. He will say, "Yes, but in counties like yours you get an enormous relief—56d. per head." But let us examine that a little further. It is not the case that we shall get 56d. a head. We shall get nothing like it. I have heard it said by prominent Tory speakers in my constituency that we shall get 4s. 8d. in the £ reduction in rates, but I know that that is a statement which the Lord Advocate would not make. He will say that we get a reduction of 56d. per head, but that is not true. I will rot say it is a fraud, but it is certainly a delusion. You have to make some very considerable deductions. There is, first of ail, the deduction of the Highland grant to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) drew attention last week.

The LORD ADVOCATE

Is that the £10,000 in respect of which you are going to get the £80,000?

Sir A. SINCLAIR

The Lord Advocate interrupts, and it shows that he has not followed my argument.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I asked a, question.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

The Lord Advocate followed my argument in a general sense, but interrupted in order to get a more particular explanation.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I asked: Is that the £10,i100 in respect of which you are going to get the £80,000?

Sir A. SINCLAIR

The fallacy lies in the words "in respect of which." It is not true that we are getting anything in respect of losing the Highland grant at all, but in respect of the formula, on the same basis as all other counties are getting their money. No other county is losing anything before it gets its block grant, but we are to lose £10,000 a year, which we have had ever since 1889, and that is grossly unfair to the Highland counties. I am very glad to have managed at last to explain it to the Lord Advocate, and to show that it is in the use of those words "in respect of which" that he has fallen into the error. Whether it be fair or not that we should lose that £10,000, the only point that is relevant to this argument is the fact that we do lose it, and that is what cannot be denied. Therefore, if you are to estimate what our gain is, you have first of all to deduct the losses. I am very glad that I have managed to carry the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health with me on this point. We all know his agile brain, and I am glad that he, at any rate, is able to grasp this point.

At the present time, there is, on the one hand, a gain of 56d. On the other hand, there is the loss of the Highland grant, which in the case of Sutherland amounts to 11d. per head and in the case of Caithness to 10d.; and then there will be the cost of the travelling allowances, which in those two counties will be enormous. People will have to travel 40 miles or more to attend the meetings of the county authority, and the cost of that is going to amount to £500 in the case of Caithness and £400 in the case of Sutherland. That is an official estimate, but I believe it is an under-estimate, but even if we accept that low figure it will mean that we must deduct from the gain 5d. in the case of Sutherland and 2½d in Caithness. Then, I understand, broken time is to be paid for, which will mean another deduction of 2d. in the case of Sutherland and of 1d. in Caithness.

Then there is the question of commitments into which these counties have entered, expenditure on which does not come into the standard year and, therefore, will not rank for the block grant. In the case of Sutherland there are sonic housing undertakings in that condition. Both counties have been concentrating lately on trying to get their main roads into good order and neglecting the side roads, and there will be a good deal of expenditure on the side roads in the coming years which will not rank in the block grant and will not earn such a high grant from the Ministry of Transport as does expenditure on the main roads. There is also the fact that there are no maternity and welfare services in those counties. Caithness, too, has incurred commitments amounting to over £5,000 under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, none of which ranks for calculation in the block grant.

The LORD ADVOCATE

Housing does not come into the calculation at all.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

Oh. yes, indeed it does. [Interruption.] Rather, I should say, that is my point, that it does not come into the calculation at all. The expenditure they have incurred will not enter into the calculations for the block grant, and it will have to be paid for out of the rates, although the rateable value in the county of Caithness has been so reduced that the yield of 1d. rate is no more than £153. How much of this benefit will remain to the counties of Caithness and Sutherland? On a conservative estimate, according to these calculations, it is reduced by 23d. from 56d. leaving 33d., which is under 3s.; and if this expenditure on housing, and this other expenditure, has to be met, it will be reduced to vanishing point, and then we shall get the rates going up steeply, seeing that a penny rate yields only £153. After making allowance for the block grant, it would take more than 3d. in the pound to raise even £500.

That is the position from which we demand to be rescued. It is not exceptional treatment for which we ask, but merely the elimination of a provision which discriminates unfavourably and unfairly against these sparsely-populated counties with their heavy burdens. I have here figures which have been worked out—not by me, because I do not claim to be a great mathematician—but by one of the greatest mathematicians in this country. Let me quote them to the Committee to illustrate my point. Where the population in a county is 100 to the mile or over, the additional weighting of the population is 50, but where it is under 100 to the mile then the curve is contracted. Moray gets only 49.5, Argyll gets only 38.5, Nairn 38, Kircudbright 36, Berwick 35.5, Inverness 31 and Sutherland 23. If this Amendment which I am proposing is accepted, then the weighting for all counties will be exactly the same. Why have not the Government adopted this plan before? This is how the Financial Memorandum explains it. It is proposed there that above the level of 100 persons per mile, the loading factor should be expressed as the ratio of 50 to the number of persons per mile of road. Then it goes on to say: Were this basis applied to counties with very sparse population the loading would reach an excessive figure. But it does not. I have the figures here, and the loading does not in any single case reach an excessive figure, in the case of Sutherland, the gain would be a matter of £2,270, that is the second highest figure. That is no more than this county, with its sparse population and its low valuation, requires in order to obtain for itself the services which are common in the other counties. The only higher figure is that for Inverness, which is £5,130. Therefore I say that it is not the truth, as stated in the formula, that if this basis were applied to counties with very sparse population the loading would reach an excessive figure.

It may be asked what this will cost. It will cost only 1d. per head of the population in the other counties, and at that cost we could give these sparsely populated counties the full value of this factor, and with it some real hope of securing under this Bill an opportunity of placing themselves on a sound foundation. There are only 12 counties which get the full benefit of tins formula, and there are 19 counties which do not—Moray, Banff, Caithness, Peebles, Kinross, Dumfries, Aberdeen, Dumbarton, Ross and Cromarty, Roxburgh, Perth, Wig-town, Kincardine, Argyle, Nairn, Kircudbright, Berwick, Inverness and Sutherland. All these counties get substantially worse treatment than they are entitled to and would get if this fact of population were fairly applied on the same basis to all the counties of Scotland. I might have claimed with justice that in calculating the mileage of roads in the counties, we should not merely take into account the county roads, hut the byroads and the parish roads. In the Highland counties, the county councils would be willing to take over some of these roads, but they simply cannot afford it, because of the burden of the roads at the present time. I do not, however, claim that to-night. I merely claim this rectification of the formula as an act of justice to counties with a low valuation and sparse population.

We all very much regret the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and wish him a complete recovery from his illness and an early return to the House, but I have a special reason for regretting his absence, because I am sure that if he could have been here to listen to these arguments, and those which my hon. Friends will bring forward, he would have acceded to the demand which we make. I know that it is embarrassing to the Lord Advocate to ask him to grant a demand like this at a moment's notice. I say, therefore, that if he will indicate that this matter will be considered favourably and sympathetically between now and the Report stage, I will not press my Amendment. I attach real importance to it, and if the Government do not accept it, an act of gross injustice will be done to the Highland counties, and I am convinced that they will find the Government scheme a delusion.

10.0.p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I should have expected that, if the hon. Baronet had really desired to convince the Committee, he would not only have tried to convince them that the Government method was wrong, but have spent a little time in showing the reasons for the particular method selected by the Amendment, I still remain in complete ignorance of what justification there is for the Amendment, and I propose to defend the Government position. The Amendment, in my view, proceeds on a misapprehension as to the purpose of the factors in the formula. There are three main factors of the formula to begin with. There is population, a necessary factor; there is the question of the number of children under five, which is taken as a test to provide the best index of the poverty and needs of a district for local government services; and the third main factor is the question of rateable value, and the reason for taking that into account is obvious. Then there are two minor or more local tests: first, the unemployment factor, which is an important one; and second, the factor which has more relevance to the question of the county districts with which we are now concerned, namely, the density factor. The natural test to take; if we wanted density, would be the average number of persons per square mile, but it is obvious that that would not give a very true picture because in the Highlands—although possibly not Caithness-shire—there are large tracts of uninhabited country among the hills and elsewhere which would be included in an average of persons per square mile. The next suggestion, and the one which the Government have adopted, is to combine the length of highways in the country with the number of population. We consider that that gives a very fair test of sparsity or density of population. The Amendment, as far as I heard it—and it has not really been explained—suggests that the purpose of this weighting factor is to give a contribution towards road expenditure, because the only thing at which it looks is the number of miles of road.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

I really must interrupt, for the right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted what I said.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I am trying to interpret what the hon. Baronet did not say.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

I went through all the factors, and I made it quite clear that this was not aimed to help the roads, but was the only factor which substantially helped populations like those in the Highland counties, where the population is so sparse and scattered.

The LORD ADVOCATE

This Amendment proceeds on the length of roads and has nothing to do with population at all The only thing that it does is to take the mileage of roads and multiply it by 50 irrespective of the population. What has that to do with population? The hon. Baronet did not favour us with any explanation, and it was on what he said and what he failed to say that I ventured to make that rather daring inference from the terms of the Amendment. Whether it be his intention or not, it takes mileage into account whether the population is dense or not. That is quite an indefensible position. It is true that I might be content with that answer, but I am not going to be, and I hope to convince the Committee that the Government proposal is a fair one. We want to get at some test which would help the difficulties which the sparse population has from the fact that it is not concentrated and cannot easily get services or provide services in the area because of the long distances to go, and probably other elements. The main element there may be, relatively to the population, an unreasonable length of road. We took the view that the number of persons per mile of road was a very fair test, and we came to the conclusion, on working out a series of tests, that the first ground of this formula, namely, where the number of persons per mile of road was under a hundred to express it as a fraction—namely, the difference between the number of persons per mile of road and 200. When we come to populations which were not so sparse, but had over 100, then, if we continue that same ratio in weighting, this factor would disappear and you would get no weighting 200 persons per mile of road. The fraction would then be 200/200. We thought that was not quite fair. What we did was to flatten the curve in that direction and not in the other. We flattened it when you get over 100, and not under 100. We flattened it so that it should not disappear when you get to 200 persons per mile of road. The Committee will bear in mind that this is not a question of an absolute grant. It is a question of a clear allocation as between different areas with a certain amount of weighting corresponding to their relative density or sparseness. With regard to the £10,000 to which the hon. Baronet has referred, that has been taken into account as a discontinued grant and 100 per cent. is allowed for it. What possible grievance there can be I cannot see.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

The point is that if you say the benefit the people are getting by the scheme of the Government is so much they think that is the net benefit, whereas the truth is that the grant has been swallowed in the new block grant.

The LORD ADVOCATE

That is not so at all. The gain that is expressed in these figures is the net gain, when you have taken into account the rates that are now asked and the grants that are now asked. In the case of the county of Caithness, we are taking into account not only the rates but the grants that are now lost, and amongst them is this very £10,000.

Sir R. HAMILTON

May I go back to the actual formula. I presume it was the intention of the Government to see that there was extra weighting where the population was sparse, but when we come to work it out we cannot get away from the fact that, when you get under 100 per mile, there is far less weighting than when you get to 300 and 400. I have a graph which has been worked out by a mathematician. When you have 100, 200, 400, 600, up to 1,000 persons per mile, the weighting is exactly the same—50—but when you get under 100 and get down to 50, the weighting is 37. When you have 20 per mile it drops to 18. If it was the intention of the Government to make up for the sparseness of the population, surely the graph would have been drawn in such a way that at least those counties which have a population of under 100 per mile of road should be not less well off than those that have a bigger population per mile. The number of children and the unemployment do not affect the matter. The important question is the density or sparseness of the population. I challenge the Lord Advocate to deny that, where you get a sparsely populated county, the weighting for density of population per mile of road is less than in a more thickly populated county.

The LORD ADVOCATE

This is a matter of words. What I say without fear of contradiction is that in a district where the population is 40 per mile of road, the relief is greater than where the population is 60 or 120 to the mile of road.

Sir R. HAMILTON

That is not so according to the weighting.

The LORD ADVOCATE

That is the very point put, I suspect, by the same expert to our expert at the Treasury.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

Who was that expert?

The LORD ADVOCATE

The expert of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Sir M. Macdonald).

Sir R. HAMILTON

Will the Lord Advocate admit that this figure is correct, that where you have n per mile the weighting is 37?

The LORD ADVOCATE

That was suggested to me on behalf of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire and we requested that he should send his expert to see our expert at the Treasury. He saw him, and I am informed that, when he left, he expressed himself satisfied that the Treasury was right and he was wrong.

Sir R. HAMILTON

It was the hon. Member himself who drafted the Amendment. He is not here to-night but he requested that it should be moved. I cannot put it higher and I leave it at that. I should like to be corrected whether it is not a fact that, on this formula, with a population of 50 per mile of road you get 37. [An HON. MEMBER: "75."] That is 75 per cent. You are mixing up the percentages.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The Lord Advocate took the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) rather to task for taking the length of road, but it was he himself who began it. You get it in the formula in the financial memorandum. This length of road is the only substantial thing we get in the lowland parts of the country. And it is no good jeering at the cost. I know a district where a penny rate only yields £160, and the rates are four shillings. Of course we want all the relief of rates we can possibly get and we are justified in asking for it. The financial memorandum says: It is proposed, therefore, that above the level of 100 persons per mile of road, the loading factor should be expressed as the ratio of 50 to the number of persons per mile of road. Thus, with a population per mile of road of 400, the loading would be 50/400=⅛=12½per cent. Were this basis applied to counties with very sparse population the loading would reach an excessive figure. What is 1,000 per cent.? One shilling is more than 1,000 per cent. of a penny and some of our districts are so sparsely populated that 1,000 per cent. is not too much if you are going to get any benefit. With all due respect, to what the Lord Advocate has said, may I point out that I have worked out some figures, and I find that where there is 400 of population it makes 12½ per cent., 200 55 per cent., and 100 50 per cent. When you get down to 50, it is 75 per cent. and at 20 it is 90 per cent. With regard to what the Lord Advocate has said about the statement of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald), all I can say is that the expert at the Treasury is defective in his mathematics; he is also defective in his hearing, and his figures do not bear the stamp of genuineness on the face of them. This subject is not one for discussion in an assembly like this where hon. Members state what the experts have said. I would like to ask the Lord Advocate to refer the question to mathematicians in order to see if the facts are not as we state, because the figures treat us very unfairly. On this question I do not mind what the Lord Advocate says because he has admitted that he is not a mathematician and I affirm that I am one.

Mr. HARDIE

To-night I have already dealt with another part of what is called the formula, but I never get any reply to questions in this connection. It is agreed that the number less than that which gives 200, when the number of miles of road is the basis, plus the other factors, shall be taken, but, when it suits the Government, it is made up to 200. Where there is a sparsity of population such that there are fewer than 200 people per mile of road, why do not the Government take the 200 as the basis of calculation? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health laughs at that, but, if he had been born across the Border, he would have known what logic was, and those who do not know that are always pleased to pose as learned on something that they do not themselves understand. That is the sort of attitude of mind that there is in this type of thing that they are trying to impose upon the public.

The factor, so far as weighting population is concerned in relation to roads, means that anything below 200 represents sparsity, but anything above 200 represents density, but, when your datum line runs through and bisects at the point of 100, you then say that you must bring in a differential factor, and that differential factor is said to be represented by the diversified current which is the kind of current that touches nowhere but leads everywhere, and is such a happy find for the politician. The Front Government Bench have had no time to make even a single effort to answer these questions. When you put 50 over any number above 200, what do you do? You are supposed to find the percentage, but that percentage may have no relation at all to the unemployed in that area. I know of a district where 700 men were put out of work yesterday through a breakdown of machinery, and there are more than 400 people to the mile in that area. The factor of which I am speaking is the one that is supposed to deal with an abnormal occurrence of that kind. The moment you have such an accumulation of unemployed is that normal or abnormal?

The CHAIRMAN

This Amendment seeks to insert the words: by a number equal to the number of miles of road in the appropriate year multiplied by fifty. the object being that the population shall be increased in a certain proportion according to the number of miles of road. I do not see that the unemployment factor comes in.

Mr. HARDIE

If the roads are being taken as a basis of calculation, this is connected with the density factor, and, since we are dealing with the density factor, we must deal with the basis of that factor.

The CHAIRMAN

In a matter of this simplicity, I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. HARDIE

Here you have a number of unemployed in an area already measured by the number of miles of road without increasing the number of the population. If 2,000 people are thrown out of work to-night by a mill breaking down, that has got to be faced in that area, and the density factor takes no account of that possibility, which may happen at any time. What is the use of the people opposite,

whether they call themselves politicians or not, trying to fool other people by asserting that we do not need Employment Exchanges to deal with the unemployed, or a census to determine the number of children. It is said that we do not need all these things. We are paying very handsomely for the upkeep of institutions in order that accurate information can be obtained. If this country had been in such a chaotic state that we could not get to know the figures in regard to the number of unemployed, the number of children and the rateable value per head, there might have been some sense in saying that we must find a method whereby all this information could he produced. I would like the Lord Advocate to be good enough to answer one or two of these questions, especially the one with regard to a certain influx of unemployed claims in a community with an increasing or decreasing population.

Question put, "That those words he there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 187.

Division No. 233.] AYES. [10.29 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayday, Arthur Potts, John S.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hayes, John Henry Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ammon, Charles George Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Riley, Ben
Barnes, A. Hirst, G. H. Ritson, J.
Batey, Joseph Hollins, A. Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives)
Bellamy, A. Hore-Bellsha, Leslie Scrymgeour, E.
Benn, Wedgwood John, William (Rhondda, West) Scurr, John
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Sexton, James
Broad, F. A Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Bromfield, William Kelly, W. T. Shield, G. W.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kennedy, T. Shinwell, E.
Buchanan, G. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Charleton, H. C. Kirkwood, D. Smith. Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, George Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Compton, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Snell, Harry
Cove, W G. Lawson, John James Stephen, Campbell
Day, Harry Lindley, F. W. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Dennison, R. Longbottom, A. W. Sutton, J. E.
Duncan, C. Lowth, T. Thomas, Rt. Hon. fames H. (Derby)
England, Colonel A. Lunn, William Tinker, John Joseph
Forrest, W. Mackinder, W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gardner, J. P. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Macquisten, F. A. Whiteley, W.
Gillett, George M. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Montague, Frederick Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Griffiths, T. (Monmoulh, Pontypool) Murnin, H. Windsor, Waiter
Grundy, T. W Naylor, T. E.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Oliver, George Harold TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Palln, John Henry Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen.
Hardle, George D. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Apsley, Lord Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Albery, Irving James Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Betterton, Henry B.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Atholl, Duchess of Bevan, S. J.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Geat'l) Atkinson, C. Blundell, F. N.
Amery, Rt Hon, Leopold C. M. S. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Balniel, Lord Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Hammersley, S. S. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Brass, Captain W. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Harrison, G. J. C. Pitcher, G.
Briscoe, Richard George Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Power, Sir John Cecil
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Pownall, Sir Assheton
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hastam, Henry C. Price, Major C. W. M.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hinderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley) Raine, Sir Walter
Buckingham, Sir H. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Burman, J. B. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Campbell, E. T. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cassels J. D. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Ropner, Major L.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wk'by) Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hilts, Major John Waller Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.C) Hilton, Cecil Rye, F. G.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Salmon, Major I.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Chapman, Sir S. Hopkins, J. W. W. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J, Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Christie, J. A. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sanderson, Sir Frank
Clayton, G. C. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Savery, S. S.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Iveagh, Countess of Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew,W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Jones, Sir G. w. H.(Stoke New'gton) Shepperson, E. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel King, Commodore Henry Douglas Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ,, Belief)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Skelton, A. N.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Knox, Sir Alfred Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cooper, A. Duff Lamb, J. Q. Smithers, Waldron
Cope, Major Sir William Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Couper, J. B. Loder, J. de V. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Lougher, Lewis Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers Storry-Deans, R.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Stuart. Hon. J (Moray and Nairn)
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro) Lumley, L. R. Styles, Captain H. Walter
Dalkeith, Earl of MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset,Yeovil) Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Tasker, R. Inigo.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Macintyre, Ian Templeton, W. P.
Eden, Captain Anthony McLean, Major A. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Edmondson, Major A. J. Macmillan, Captain H. Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of
Ellis, R. G. Mac Robert, Alexander M. Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Erskina, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steet Warrender, Sir Victor
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Margesson, Captain D. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Ford, Sir P. J. Meyer, Sir Frank Watts, Sir Thomas
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Wayland, Sir William A.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Wells, S. R.
Fraser, Captain Ian Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Williams. A. M. (Cornvall, Northern)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Moore, Sir Newton J. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Gates, Percy Moreing, Captain A. H. Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Goff, Sir Park Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Winterton, Rt. Hon. Eari
Gower, Sir Robert Murchison, Sir Kenneth Withers, John James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Womersley, W. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Nelson, Sir Frank Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Grotrian, H. Brent Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gunston, Captain D. W. Nuttall, Ellis Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Wallace.
Hacking, Douglas H. Oakley, T.
Hamilton, Sir George Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Seventh Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on, any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been, given and the Questions necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.

Consequential Amendments made,