- (1) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to district councils, the reconstituted county council of every county shall, on or before the first of day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty, prepare and submit to the Secretary of State, for his approval a scheme (in tins Section called a "district council scheme") dividing the landward part of the county into districts in such manner that each district shall comprise one or more electoral divisions, and the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (4), (5) and (6) of Section fourteen of this Act shall with the necessary modifications apply to schemes under this Subsection and any new scheme altering the boundaries of a district nay make provision for financial adjustments, and for doing anything which may be required or be expedient for the proper carrying into effect of the new scheme.
- (2) There shall be established for every district a district council which shall consist of the number of members specified in the district council scheme. The members of the county council for the electoral divisions within the district shall be ex-officio members of the district council, and the other members of the district council shall be elected for the electoral divisions within the district or for wards forming part thereof as may be provided in the scheme.
- (3) The first election of members of the district council shall take place on the eighth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, and the members so elected shall hold office until the next election of members, which shall take place on the first Tuesday of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
- (4) For the purposes of the first election of members of district councils the statutory provisions regulating the election of county councillors in landward parts of counties shall apply, subject to such modifications and adaptations as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe, and for the purposes of the second and subsequent elections of members of district councils the statutory provisions regulating the election of parish councillors in landward parishes and the landward parts of parishes (including the provisions of Section eighteen of the Act of 1894) shall apply, subject to such modifications and adaptations as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe, and such orders shall provide that the expenses of elections of district councils shall be repaid to the county councils by the district councils.
- (5) In the case of each of the counties of Kinross and Nairn the provisions of this Section shall not apply unless the council of the county so determine, and, if the county council do not so determine, references in this Act to a district council and to the district of a district council shall he respectively construed as references to the county council and to the county: provided that where the county council shall, after the commencement of this Act, determine that the provisions of this Section shall apply, the scheme shall make the like provision as in the case of a new scheme altering the boundaries of a district—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert)I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under Clause 1 of the Bill, as amended, there is a reference to "the district council (constituted as herein after provided)," and this Clause, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, is to give effect to that provision. In the first Sub-section provision is made for a scheme to be prepared and submitted, and subsequent Sub-sections deal with the constitution of the district councils. In Sub-section (5) special provision is made for the counties of Kinross and Nairn. In addition to their statutory powers, it is, of course, anticipated that under the power of delegation in the Bill as now framed, other and important matters will be delegated to the district councils.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 5, to leave out the words "landward part of the."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Clause must be read a Second time before the hon. Member moves his Amendment.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONBut may I not, as in previous cases, discuss it?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member can speak on the question "That the Clause be read a Second time," but I understood him to say he was going to move his Amendment.
§ M. JOHNSTONIf I am not in order in begging to move, then I will not use those words, but will proceed without using them.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am sure the hon. Member understands what the position is. Of course, if he makes a speech devoted entirely to his Amendment, and goes into it in any great detail, he will not expect to make another speech, on moving it., but will only for, mally move the Amendment.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONCertainly. As a matter of fact., our object on this side of the Committee all through has been to secure the consideration of important parts of the Bill, and, as you will have observed through the past week, we have never been guilty of the slightest obstruction. I have suggested the deletion of the words "landward part of the" in order to draw the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary situation which will arise if the Clause now moved becomes part of an Act of Parliament. Inside a Scottish county we are now going to have certainly three, and possibly four, separate districts for Poor Law relief. It is almost incredible that changes of this nature are being slipped through this House and put on the Statute Book of this country without any discussion at all. Let us take, for example, an average county. Poor Relief has to be administered by large burghs through their town councils. That is one system. Now we are going to have a system under which, in the landward parts of the counties, district councils are to be set up. Those district councils, we hope and expect, will have the administration of Poor Law relief handed over to them, but, if not, they might as well not be formed.
There are two systems—in the large cities and burghs, the town councils; in 1603 the landward areas, the district committees. Now what about the small burghs? They are to be neither fish, flesh, fowl nor good red herring. The small burghs are not in this Clause which is now before the Committee. They are not included in the district council scheme. It is quite true that, under Clause 13 of the Bill, the county councils may, by agreement with the small burghs, devolve the Poor Law functions on the town council of the small burgh, but only if the town council of the small burgh agrees. If it does not agree—and this cannot be imposed upon it without its consent—then we are going to have the Poor Law relief administration in the small burgh administered from a county town. That is the third system. There is a fourth system under which, if the council of a small burgh agrees to fall in with the county councils scheme—if I am wrong I should like to be corrected now—
§ The LORD ADVOCATEOne point I noticed is this. The district councils and the small burghs are in exactly the same position with regard to delegation. The county council cannot force Poor Law relief administration on the district council.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI think I have forgotten more about this subject than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has learnt.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEProve it.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI am going to prove it. I am going to say that under your county council scheme the county council sets up a district council. This district council has then to be popularly elected for the purpose as set out by the scheme as passed by the county council. Is that denied?
§ Mr. SKELTONThe district councils are to be set up in the rural districts to carry on the work which was given to parish councils under the original Parish Councils Act.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThese district councils are to be set up to undertake the functions which are specified in this Bill, plus the functions which are to be devolved upon them by the county council, and which are not yet specified. There is no use in having any mystification 1604 about this. Anybody who has operated or attempted to operate the Poor Law system knows that there is a possibility of four separate systems of Poor Law administration inside the average county in Scotland. It is absurd—[Interruption]. Is there any denial of this?
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI am not going to open an argument with the hon. Member.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThe right hon. and learned Gentleman had better not. [interruption.] If we are going to have civility, let it be on both sides.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI prefer to give what I think the more correct account after the hon. Member has spoken.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThat is a legitimate way to answer. I say that in the large burghs the town councils have got a statutory right to administer Poor Law relief. I say further, that under this scheme, in the landward areas alone, there are to be set up elected councils, and that only at the discretion of the county council have they the administration of Poor Law relief. The third point is that in the small burghs the town councils have not now statutory power to administer Poor Law relief, and they are not to be set up under this scheme. Therefore, it is only by voluntary agreement between the town council of the small burgh and the county council that the small burgh may deal with Poor Law relief, and if the small burgh does not so agree, then the county council will itself have the duty of administering Poor Law relief, instead of the small burgh. If the town council of the small burgh and the county council do agree, then, obviously, there will be four separate methods of administering Poor Law relief set up within one county of Scotland. I submit that sheer chaos and anarchy of this kind ought not to be passed by this Committee, but that we ought to take whatever steps are open to us to secure from the Government such Amendments to the Bill as will ensure for all time coming, or at least during the lifetime of this Measure, that what little democracy in administration we possess in our Scottish burghs shall not be filched from us.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEThe hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) ignored a very important part of the scheme. As regards delegation of Poor Law functions, the small burgh and the district council will be in identically the same position. Any delegation must be voluntarily agreed on the part of both the county council and the town council of the small burgh, in the one case, and equally on the part of the county council and the district council in the other case. I agree that according as they do or do not agree, you will have delegation or you will not, but the hon. Member seems to forget one of the most vital reasons for this Bill, and that is that the indoor administration of Poor Law relief shall be managed and administered over larger areas. I had thought there was practically unanimous agreement in regard to that in this Committee, and that, on the other hand, there was a general feeling that the administration of out-door relief might be an appropriate subject for a smaller administrative area of distribution.
Hon. Members opposite seem to be somewhat suspicious in this matter, but I assume that all we are concerned with here is the better and more helpful administration of the Poor Law, and I do not think we have any right to assume that the local authorities are going to be guided by any other interests or principles than that of the general good. It may very well be that in certain areas a delegation even of the out-door poor relief is not wise or helpful or convenient, and it is for that reason that we have left it for the county council to frame the schemes, stating, among other things, what things they propose to delegate; but either my right hon Friend the Secretary of State or I made it quite clear that the angle of view from which, in approving a scheme, my right hon. Friend would approach this question of delegation would be on the footing that in-door poor relief should be retained, as it must be, by the central authority, but that out-door relief should be one of the things to be delegated. To make a hard-and-fast rule in the matter, however, would be unwise and unstatesmanlike.
It follows from that—and so far I accept the hon. Member's argument—that you may have a variety, but the question 1606 is whether it is a reasonable scheme of administration, and I submit that this is the most reasonable form of administration we could get. If I may refer to the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member, the result of its acceptance would be to put small burghs into the area covered by the district councils. One of the reasons for setting up district councils was in order that the landward areas might have something similar to the small burgh administration in the rural parts of the county. The small burghs have their small burgh administration under the Bill; they will have even more powers than the district councils will have. I submit that this is a move which should be welcomed by everybody, and I hope the Committee will accept the Clause.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI should like to remind the Committee that the proposal now before us is attributable to a change of attitude on the part of the Government. The Committee may recall that this proposition of district councils was forced upon the attention of the Government because of the opposition in Committee —and opposition not confined to one quarter alone—to the original scheme, which provided for centralisation; that is to say, complete power in the hands of the county council and the establishment of committees under the jurisdiction of the county council for the purpose of administering such functions as came within the jurisdiction of that body. That was the original proposal, and now we are considering something which is regarded by the Government apparently as a substantial improvement upon that original proposal. When the subject of district councils was first brought before us, I pointed out that what would follow would be a variation of method in respect of administration. Whether it had regard to the administration of the Poor Law or to any other function that came within the ambit of these bodies, there was bound to be a lack of unification. Variation was inevitable, and the Lord Advocate, in the reply which he has just made to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), proved conclusively the truth of what I have been saying.
As I understand the purpose of this Measure, it is to establish a measure of centralisation. We need not discuss for 1607 the moment the merits of that proposition. The Lord Advocate has just said that, as far as institutional treatment is concerned, that is a matter that should be brought under the control of presumably a county council, because it can only be adequately treated over a wider area. Therefore, it is clear that the intention of the Government and of this scheme was centralisation, as far as that was humanly possible. Now what is proposed? We are to have district councils established, and they are to have certain powers, which depend, in the main, upon the form that the schemes may take. The county council, to begin with, has to prepare schemes, and as a result of these schemes we may find that one part of an area where a district council is established may be responsible for Poor Law administration, and quite contiguous to that area another district council, elected in precisely the same fashion, may have no such powers of administration placed in its hands.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate said it was entirely wrong of us to entertain suspicions. It altogether depends on the circumstances. If we entertain suspicions about the Government, we are condemned, but if the Government entertain suspicions about us, that is their manner, and I presume we must offer no complaint; but if I venture to entertain a suspicion in this connection, I hope the Lord Advocate will kindly lend me his ear, a thing he very rarely does. Perhaps on this very important matter he might do so, for even we who can only lay claim to some practical experience of administration in local government in Scotland can express a point of view that is worth at least the consideration of the Lord Advocate.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREOn a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman addressing his remarks to you, Mr. Herbert, and not to the Lord Advocate?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think the hon. and gallant Member need raise that point of order at this moment.
§ Mr. SHINWELLIf I was perhaps a little wide of the subject, I was led there by the reference which the Lord Advocate made to the suspicions we were alleged to entertain in respect of the actions of 1608 the Government. I suspect that the preparation and acceptance of a scheme, and the decision in respect of the delegation of powers, either as regards Poor Law or any other matter, will depend—perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell me whether I speak correctly or not, or whether there is anything in my suspicion—upon the representation on these district councils. It may be that one district council may have a larger number of Labour members than another, and if it had, and it was thought that in the administration of outdoor relief it might be inclined to he lavish on occasions, then there would be no powers placed in its hands for the administration of outdoor relief, whereas quite contiguous to that district there might be a district council that was regarded as quite satisfactory by the Lord Advocate and his friends, and these powers would be placed in its hands. That is my suspicion, and I think there is substantial ground for entertaining such a suspicion, but in any event, entirely apart from worthy or unworthy motives, if this scheme is to work satisfactorily—and, after all, we must accept the basis of the scheme now, as we cannot change it at this time—then the essence of it must be, as far as is possible, a large amount of centralisation and, in addition, where there is to be delegation of powers, that they shall be specifically defined. That is very important.
It should be clearly laid down at this stage that if district councils are to be established, they should be empowered to function in respect of Dowers which are common to the whole area. That is a perfectly reasonable proposal. Perhaps in the county of West Lothian, and in many other counties in Scotland, there might be a dozen district councils, half-a-dozen of whom were responsible for the administration of outdoor relief and half-a-dozen of whom were precluded from doing anything of the kind, and, that being my view, I urge upon the Government the need for re-casting this new Clause and presenting it to us in a form which enables local government administrators in Scotland to know exactly what they will be called upon to do. Lastly, I submit that it is doubtful whether anyone can say what the powers of these district councils are to be. The whole thing is clouded by doubt, and district councils will not know what 1609 powers they are to be called upon to discharge. In the circumstances, I think we are entitled to press our claim that this matter should be at all events reconsidered, even if the proposal cannot be withdrawn, and that on the Report stage the Government should come to the House with a fresh proposal.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI should be very glad if the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General would make clear one or two points. I agree, as do all supporters of the Government, with the general principles of the Clause; we are glad that district councils are to be set up and that the elective principle has been, as far as possible, retained; but what I am rather worried about is this: what is to be the position of the burghal parishes where there is no agreed delegation of authority from the county councils? The local councils send nominees to the county councils in respect of the transferred services, but here we have Poor Law services transferred to these new county authorities without the burghal parishes having any nominees on those authorities. That seems rather unfair to the members of these ex-parish councils who, after all, have spent their lives in performing this arduous and delicate job of administering Poor Law relief, and are the people who know most about it and have the most intimate sympathy with, and knowledge of, those whom they are serving. I would like the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General to give us some assurance that the principle of sending nominees from the local councils to these new county authorities will be maintained where there is no delegation of authority, agreed or otherwise, so as to secure that these smaller authorities may maintain their connection with the people whom they are serving. I hope that before the Report stage the Secretary of State will consider the question of placing more powers and more authority in the hands of the district councils—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot discuss the question of powers on this Clause. This Clause has nothing to do with the powers of the district councils, but only with their constitution.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI accept your Ruling, Sir, and I will try to put that 1610 point forward on another occasion. I conclude by repeating my plea that we may get further information as to the position of the burghal parishes.
§ Mr. W. M. WATSONThis Clause is a considerable improvement on the Bill as it was originally presented to us. To a certain extent it has met the criticism levelled against the Bill on Second Reading to the effect that there was too much centralisation. This Clause allows of a certain amount of decentralisation, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has pointed out, I am afraid it will lead to so much decentralisation that we shall have confusion. There is no doubt that a much better scheme could have been devised. I do not see why a scheme should not be drafted under which small burghs can get representation on the district councils for the purposes of Poor Law administration. I could have understood the attitude of the Government if the whole scheme of district councils had been something new. I assume that what is in the mind of the Government is that these district councils are to take the place of the district committees of the county councils, of which we have had experience since the Act of 1889. I am sorry we cannot, on this Clause, discuss the functions or the powers of these district councils, but I am assuming that the work done by the district committees in bygone years is to be done in future by the district councils. If that be so, I see no difficulty in giving the burghs representation on those district councils. The burghs within the areas covered by the district committees of the county councils have had representation on those district committees for purposes in which those burghs were particularly interested. If a burgh was financially interested in any matter which came before the district committee, the representatives from that burgh had the right both to speak and to vote on that question.
Why should not a scheme be devised under which the administration of the Poor Law would be handed over to the district councils, and representation be given to the burghs on those councils? Under the Bill as it is framed we shall have Poor Law administration handed over to the district councils. It may be handed over to some of the bigger burghs 1611 within a particular area covered by a district council, and it may be withheld from some of the smaller burghs within that area. Take the Dunfermline district of the County of Fife. In that district there are burghs which I do not suppose the county council would think of asking to undertake the administration of the Poor Law, burghs with a population of 500 or 600. Seeing that provision is being made for these small burghs being represented on the county council, why should they not have a say on the district council in the administration of the Poor Law in their area? If the Lord Advocate would meet us to that extent I am certain he would find that it would prove to be the better scheme. You would have your Poor Law committee established under the district council, upon which there would be representation not only from the landward area of the district, but representation as well from the burghs within the area, and then you would have one authority dealing with the administration of the Poor Law in that particular area. Over these district councils you would have the county councils supervising their work. It would be a much simpler system than we shall have under this scheme. I suppose there would be no difficulty about a county council agreeing to a burgh with a population of 10,000 or 15,000 having the administration of the Poor Law within its own area, but is the Lord Advocate quite sure that the town council of such a burgh would be anxious to undertake that work? Would not these burghs be quite satisfied to have their representatives on the district council, taking their part in the work of administering the Poor Law over the whole area? I am certain that even the burghs with 10,000 or 15,000 population would be satisfied with representation on the district councils in the administration of the Poor Law.
Not only that, but under this Bill other functions are to be, or are expected to be, transferred to the district councils. I assume that these district councils are going to function for the county council as the district committees functioned in by-gone years, and that in certain districts the district councils will be asked to supervise the roads in their areas. I assume the district councils are going to be something like the district com- 1612 mittees; if they are not, the sooner we know what the district councils are to do the better. If the district councils are to be set up for the administration of the Poor Law and one or two other trifling matters, the sooner we abandon the whole scheme of district councils the better it will be. When I first saw this scheme and saw that the district councils might delegate certain duties, I assumed that those district councils were to have the status of the district committees, and, if that be so, there is no reason why they should not undertake the administration of the roads and other things which may be transferred to them by the county councils.
I hope the Government will reconsider this matter, and that under this district council system we shall have something on the lines of the district committees which have worked so well hitherto. I am certain the Lord Advocate will agree that the district committees have done good work. They have made it possible for the county councils to function. The county councils could not function without the district committees, and unless the district councils are to have something like the powers of the district committees, plus the administration of the Poor Law, I am afraid the whole scheme will be very much of a farce. I appeal to the Lord Advocate to make arrangements whereby the burghs within the area of a district council have representation on it for purposes in which those burghs are financially interested. We do not claim that the burgh representatives should interfere with the work of the district councils in matters in which they are not financially concerned, but, seeing the Government have agreed that burghs are to have representation on the county councils, what earthly objection can there be to their getting representation on the district councils for purposes in which their burghs are financially interested? Again I hope this matter will be reconsidered, because otherwise we are going to have a complicated system of administration of the Poor Law.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI would like to point out that Clause 13, as amended, now provides not only for the delegation of powers to the town council of any small burgh, or the district council, but, thirdly, to a joint committee of such a town council and district council 1613 That, it seems to me, covers the case which the hon. Member is putting forward.
§ Mr. WATSONThat is all very well, but that simply proves what my hon. Friend has been pointing out, that under the provisions as drafted we are going to have a complicated scheme when, all the time, we could have a perfectly clear and definite scheme if the Government would only say clearly that the district councils are to have certain definite powers and that those powers must be transferred to them from the county council.
§ Mr. SKELTONI find it very hard to follow what is in the minds of the Labour party on this matter. Are they for centralisation, or are they not? With regard to the administration of the Poor Law, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) pointed out that in his reckoning there were going to be four different systems within a county. The easiest way to have eliminated one of his four would have been to have insisted at the proper point in Committee upon burghs of over 20,000 population being combined with the counties for purposes of Poor Law administration, but, as far as I recollect, no suggestion of that sort was made. The position taken up by the Labour party has all along been that we are wresting from the burghs of Scotland all sorts of powers and privileges which they have had immemorially and hereby doing an undemocratic act. Now, apparently, in regard to Poor Law—
§ Mr. JOHNSTONNobody has said anything in the least like it.
§ Mr. SKELTONI think that the hon. Gentleman speaks rather hastily. In his powerful argument about the four differents systems, his point surely was that so many different systems were bad and that there should be a reduction to some smaller number. The complaint is that there are four different systems of Poor Law within the county, and, when I say that one of these could have been eliminated by taking away Poor Law powers from the burghs of over 20,000 population, I am told that I am interpreting the hon. Gentleman's speech in an unjustifiable way.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThe hon. Gentleman said that we apparently want to take 1614 away these powers. We have never talked about taking away the powers.
§ Mr. SKELTONI do not make myself sufficiently plain. What I said was that the hon. Gentleman complained of the multiplicity of systems, and that one of the first ways of reducing the number would be to take Poor Law powers away from burghs of over 20,000 population, but no such suggestion has been made. The position of the party above the Gangway throughout the Committee stage was that we were taking away too many powers. That is a contradiction. My hon. Friend must agree that the powers of Poor Law administration in the burghs of over 20,000 must stand, and he must agree that no proposal to remove the powers from these burghs was made, so that his criticisms seem to have been answered in advance by the supineness of his party on this point. I do not follow the difficulty of understanding what I say.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI have often admired the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him on many points in the administration of public affairs in Scotland, but he has simply not got the hang of what we are after.
§ Mr. SKELTONAt all events, one of the four systems, to the numerousness of which the hon. Gentleman objects, is due to the fact that Poor Law powers have been left to the burghs of over 20,000. Let us come to the other systems. The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. M. Watson) that more definite power should be given to the district council with regard to the Poor Law. That is again the exact opposite of centralisation. The criticism of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) against the system which the Government have proposed is based upon the fact that he does not realise the difference between having four different systems as he described it, arid the system which has been laid down by the Government of having Poor Law control concentrated in the county council, except in the case of the burghs of 20,000 population, and the delegating of powers by the county council under different circumstances to different agencies. That is a thoroughly sound and happy combination between centralisation and the maintenance of local knowledge and local touch. As far as I understand the ques- 1615 tions connected with the Poor Law, the problem which Poor Law reformers are constantly trying to solve is to have centralisation and at the same time to maintain the local touch.
Take the two cases of which the hon. Member for Dundee spoke. He seemed to think that the two cases are the small burghs and the country districts. The small burghs will secure the local touch by delegation to their town councils, but in the country districts, until the Government introduced this district council, there was no equivalent representative body which would be democratic in nature and yet supply the local touch. Therefore, the four systems resolve themselves into this. The first is the burgh of 20,000, which is well qualified to have full control of Poor Law in its area; of the other three, the only one that can be described as a system is the county council with its complete control of the Poor Law. The other two systems are simply methods of delegation to agencies which will supply the local touch. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to call it a system, he might have added a fifth, because the Lord Advocate reminded him of the useful provision that the small burgh and the district council can combine for the work of Poor Law. To talk of this arrangement as four systems is manifestly inaccurate. I agree that in a county which contains a burgh of 20,000 it would be correct to talk of two systems, one the burghal Poor Law and the other the county Poor Law; but where there is no burgh of 20,000, there is only one Poor Law system, although there may be minor differences in regard to the actual agencies through which Poor Law relief is administered. It is not worthy of the interest which hon. Members above the Gangway take in the Poor Law system and its reform for them to give so distorted and utterly untrue an account of the system of the Government.
§ Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRI agree that to understand this Clause properly one must go back to its genesis, to the time when the Minister of Health said to the Secretary of State for Scotland: "I have made a change in Poor Law administration in England, and you must make a change in Scotland." The Secretary of State said: "We are quite satisfied with our system." Then the 1616 Minister of Health said: "You are all out of date; popular control and free elections and all that is pre-war; the idea of democracy is Liberal eye-wash. What you want is an enlightened bureaucracy; that is the up-to-date thing." So the Secretary of State rummaged about among the machine of Scottish local government and introduced, in the first version of the Bill, a real, proper, sealed pattern, up-to-date system of centralised local—
§ Mr. SKELTONSurely the hon. Baronet must know that in the English system the parish councils were left untouched.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI know that perfectly well, but all I was saying—
§ Mr. SKELTONOh, no!
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRThe hon. Member knows that, if I were to deal with it, it would lead me into an enormously long speech. He knows that the parish council in England is a totally different body, with totally different functions and different responsibilities from the parish councils in Scotland, with powers which are much more limited, playing a different part—
§ Mr. SKELTONrose—
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR—and with a different kind of function from the Scottish parish council. I was saying that the Secretary of State in his first draft of the Bill introduced a proper, logical, sealed pattern idea of centralised administration running all through our local government. Then he encountered a storm. Public opinion would not stand it, and, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland, the rural districts were determined to retain some form of democratic control of their local affairs. Therefore, we have the Lord Advocate introducing this Clause, and we find the Government again fiddling with the delicate and important mechanism of Scottish local government which has stood the people of Scotland so well, and which the Government show so little signs of understanding. The parish councils which the Lord Advocate is asking us to abolish received from a Committee appointed either by Mr. Bonar Law's Government or by the 1617 present Prime Minister's first Government a commendation of the work which they have done in the Report which was published in 1923 by the Consultations Council on the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. It was declared in the Report that parish councils were essential to the efficient working of local administration in the Highlands of Scotland—
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRYes, these are the bodies which are being done away with to make room for them.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI do remember it, and the people of Scotland will remember it at the General Election. The parish councils having been wiped away, we now come to consider the machinery which the Government propose to substitute. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton) speaks about the contradiction in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). There is no contradiction. Nobody ever suggested or wants to suggest on this side that the powers of the large burghs should be interfered with; what we suggest is that the right way to have tackled this thing would have been to have left they powers with the parish councils. The hon. Member declares that the powers which are given to the district councils are the same as those that the parish councils have had. We in the Highlands, however, attach considerable importance to the fact that the district councils are not being given the charge of the burial grounds and the churchyards in the parish which the parish councils have looked after ever since they were constituted.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEOn a point of Order. We have already settled what, powers are to be transferred to these bodies.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI was thinking I should have to interrupt the hon. Baronet in a moment. He must confine himself strictly to the Clause.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRA long argument has been going on between the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) as to whether large burghs, county councils, parish councils or district councils, should have the powers of the Poor Law.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is quite true, and that is the reason why, up to a certain point, I had not interrupted the hon. Baronet.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI will accept your Ruling, Sir, but I can assure you that in the Highlands we attach much importance to looking after our burial grounds just as we do to the proper administration of the Poor Law. There is no provision in this new constitution for retaining parochial identity. That is what was important in the old scheme. That is what gave the old parish councils a good deal of their driving power and their inspiration, the idea of emulation and rivalry in the service they. gave to the public, and the economy with which that service could be given. You do not get that in this new scheme. You will have these parishes carved about and chopped up, and you will lose a great deal of the local interest and drive in the administration of these local bodies in the Highlands and rural districts which comes from parochial patriotism and pride in the interests of the small parochial community. I am very glad the question of the small burghs has been raised, because you have what is known as the parish council of the small burgh, which includes a good deal outside the actual burgh for including which I do not see provision under this scheme. I do not wish to pursue that, because I understand the hon. Member for Dundee is going to move an Amendment which deals with that point specifically. I see in this scheme none of the attractive and alluring prospects of economy and efficiency which were held out to us when the new scheme was brought in. I do not believe in all this centralisation, but I can quite see that there is an argument. All that has gone by the board. So what are we going to get for this change that you are going to make, for the loss of parochial identity which we are going to suffer? I see nothing at all.
1619 The Lord Advocate has talked about suspicion. I never suggested that he personally entertained any suspicion of these local authorities, but the whole scheme is based upon suspicion of the efficiency and the satisfactory service which these bodies are able to give. He does not believe that freedom and responsibility give good public service. He believes that we can only get those things from an enlightened bureaucracy. That is a conception to which I take exception, and that is all I meant when I talked about the suspicion of the Government. Of course, you can get good results from a certain measure of centralisation, and that is being carried on in a voluntary way all over the country at present, and it should be assisted and encouraged where it adds to efficiency. The hon. Member for Perth said how much he was in favour of centralisation and it was apparent how much he had learnt upon the subject from the Socialist party, and it is not surprising, because, of course, they are very strongly in favour of centralised bureaucratic systems of control. You really can get democratic control of the actual Government, particularly in Poor Law questions—democratic control of the actual Poor Law officials, democratic control of the local affairs of the parish or the small community or whatever it may be, and centralisation of institutions serving a number of Poor Law areas. That is what you are getting under a democratic and free system at present, and you are not getting anything in exchange for what you are losing under the Measure introduced by the Government. Therefore, I strongly object to the proposal which the Government are bringing forward. It is true that it is a little better than the original idea which they had of sweeping away all the machinery for enabling the people to govern themselves in their small communities, particularly in the rural districts. It is better than the proposals that were in the Bill in its original form, but still we are losing a great deal by losing our parish system of local government, and I cannot see that we are getting anything in exchange.
§ Brigadier-General CHARTERISThe hon. Baronet has repeated the speech 1620 which he has given us several times. The last time I heard it was on the more appropriate occasion of the Second Reading, but, between then and now, he does not appear to have accumulated any more evidence of anything wrong with the Bill.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRI am confined to this point.
§ Brigadier-General CHARTERISI tried hard to find a point.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRYou say I made it three times.
§ Brigadier-General CHARTERISEach time the hon. Baronet has made the speech, I have made an effort, but each time I have had the same difficulty. He says that Scotland is losing a great deal by the loss of parochial identity.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not follow what he alleges is inappropriate to the Committee stage.
§ Brigadier-General CHARTERISIn opening the Debate the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), as far as I can see, claimed that we are establishing four different systems of administering the Poor Law in every county. There is a certain confusion of ideas. I think what the hon. Member was trying to establish was that there were four different agencies whereby the same system might be administered within one county. That is true. You have, of course, different agencies inside a county administering the Poor Law under one system. That is where this proposal has such a great advantage over that which it is superseding. You will have in future different agencies, but you will have one measure of control. If you take it as a matter of agency, the number of agencies you are introducing is infinitely less. The hon. Baronet referred to the number of parishes that had done loyal service, but surely it is fair and right that Parliament should take steps to bring institutions up-to-date. Surely those who have served loyally and well under the old system will serve equally well under the new. The hon. Member for Dundee traversed the statement of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) that the Labour party were prepared to take away from the burghs something that- 1621 they have at present. Undoubtedly that seems to be the case. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee proposes to transfer to the district councils powers which at present the small burghs are exercising and have exercised for immemorial years. It will make such a sad confusion that the Bill will be entirely unworkable. Not only so, but we have already dealt with the very powers that the hon. Member proposes to deal with. I think he will be well-advised to withdraw the Amendment which he has not yet moved.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEIt is even more of a muddle than the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests, because the Bill already, in obliterating the parish councils in the small burghs, has transferred all the parish councils' power to the county councils. The only things that district councils can get under the Clause are the powers that are to be transferred to them by Clause 1 (2), and those are only landward parish council powers, and it is proposed to set up district councils for an area for which no powers are transferred. How that is going to work out I do not know.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI think it ought to be said in defence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that, however frequently he makes the speech we have heard, it contains so many interesting points and is delivered in so fascinating a manner that we are only too pleased to listen to it again. I rose, however, for the purpose, not of paying compliments, but of satisfying the anxiety of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), who appeared to desire enlightenment in respect of our proposals. To begin with, we asked for no change. It is the Government that was responsible for proposing a change. We were quite willing to retain the existing system, but the change was forced upon us by the Government's proposal. At all events so it is alleged. The Government say that centralization is better than the existing system. We say: "Very well, let us see your scheme." Then the Government say to apply their proposal it is essential for the centralised authority to operate through district committees. Afterwards it is discovered that there is a flaw in the scheme and the Government say "We now propose to set up district councils." We are now 1622 dealing with that issue. It is not right for the Lord Advocate to say that it is for us to bring forward concrete proposals. We are dealing with a proposal for which the Government is responsible.
Let us examine that proposal very briefly. The Lord Advocate says to begin with that functions already decided upon, which we cannot discuss now, are to be transferred to the district councils. What are those functions? They are laid down in the Bill. Has it occurred to the Lord Advocate that while functions in the abstract are to be transferred no specific functions are to be transferred to any particular district council. That is our case against the Lord Advocate. One district council may have Poor Law powers transferred to it and another district council may have other powers.
§ Brigadier-General CHARTERISIs the hon. Member in order in making the same speech twice over?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have not yet recognised the hon. Member's speech as one which I have heard before.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThe hon. and gallant Member must not accuse me of the same misdemeanour which he saw in the speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet, and he is obviously wrong. The Lord Advocate proposes to transfer certain functions, but they are not specific and well defined. Some councils may have transferred to them certain functions, and other councils may be precluded from exercising those functions. Therefore we have an infinite variety of functions, a very fascinating variety, which it may not be desirable to apply to local government in Scotland. I ask the Lord Advocate whether the district councils under this scheme to whom these functions are to be transferred are to have entrusted to them the same functions in all cases, or are we to have a condition of things where there will be a thousand district councils in Scotland all empowered to deal with different functions under the scheme.
I think that is a specific question which the Under-Secretary will understand. There is nothing foggy or involved in that issue and much depends on the answer. I contend that if we are to have a scheme we are entitled to know how it is likely to operate. I do not say that 1623 we should be told all the details, but we should have a clear line of approach. We should know the nature of the ground over which we are expected to travel, and I ask for the sake of local government administration in Scotland and to dispel the anxiety which obviously exists in Scotland with respect to this proposal that we should have a clear answer to the question which I have put to the Lord Advocate.
§ Sir ROBERT HAMILTONA good deal of the Debate has ranged round what seems to me to be a misdescription of the Clause by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). The hon. Member spoke of different schemes, but these are not different schemes. The Government have decided to centralise; they have had to create agencies, and what we are now discussing are the agencies for carrying out their policy. You have had your large burghs and small burghs, and combined district councils, and you have a large number of agencies carrying out centralised work. What the Lord Advocate has just said is that we have already transferred the powers to these authorities, and that statement must carry great weight. May I point out that if my hon. Friend presses his Amendment it will leave the small burgh in the air.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONBefore this Clause is added to the Bill, I should like to point out that the Bill is entirely different from the Measure which was originally introduced, in fact it is a new Bill. The Lord Advocate seems to have completely misapprehended the situation which will arise under this proposal in certain parts of Scotland. Take a burgh of 12,000 inhabitants. There will be a district council administering Poor Law relief in that burgh of 12,000 inhabitants, and there will be no guarantee that the statutory guardians will have Poor Law relief to administer. There will be no guarantee that the scheme put forward by the county council would meet with the approval of the town council, and they might refuse to administer Poor Law relief. I need not explain that a system under which these things are possible reflects no credit either upon the Government or the Committee which allows such a state of things to be established. The Lord Advocate says the town council of a small burgh and the district council of the 1624 large burgh will be placed on a similar footing for all practical purposes, but that is not so, because the small burgh has a separate statutory existence now. It need not accept any suggestion from the county council. It need not accept the county council's scheme, and its existence is entirely independent of the county council.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONBut surely that is a plain statement of facts. Those councils have a statutory existence at the present time quite separate from the county council. In the case of the district council to be set up under this Clause the county council will specify the number of members on that district council, and they will fix the duties which the district councillors have to perform. Those district councils are set up under the aegis and control of the county council, and therefore it is incorrect to say that the council of the small burgh and the district council are on a similar footing.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI directly challenge my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) to justify what he has just said. Under this Bill the councils to which he has referred have a separate existence apart from the county council. They will have separate statutory duties which the county council cannot touch. They will have power to rate, and they are identical in that respect. Both of them will have an equal claim in regard to the powers delegated under Clause 13, and they are on the same footing whether they are district councils, small burghs or joint committees. To seek to draw a distinction like that which has been drawn by the hon. Member for Dundee is a misreading of the Clause. We give the council a separate statutory right of its own and separate power to rate just in the same way as the small burgh has, and, in addition, it may have those duties delegated to it under Clause 13.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIs it not a fact that the district council is to have its numbers fixed by the county council?
§ The LORD ADVOCATEThe county councils submit the scheme for the approval of the Secretary of State, and 1625 the numbers of the small burgh councils in many cases are fixed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIs it not a fact that the numbers of the small burghs are in no cases fixed by the county council?
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.