HC Deb 12 June 1947 vol 438 cc1404-27
Mr. Maclay

I beg to move, in page line 6, to leave out "Great Britain," and to insert "England and Wales."

There are three other Amendments on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of other hon. Members—in page 32, line 7; in page 38, line 32, and in page 42, line 16, all of which are linked together, and I would like to deal with all of them in my speech. The effect of the Amendment I have moved would be to make this Bill apply only to England and Wales, and leave the way clear—and I say this deliberately—for a separate Bill for Scotland. I do not necessarily imply that Scotland should go back to the status quo, or should go on as they are now, but the case I want to make is that there is a real need for a separate Bill for Scotland on this occasion.

Legislation for Scotland by means of a Scottish application Clause is very often justifiable. It may be justifiable on grounds of urgency, or because all that is necessary is to make the Bill applicable to Scotland in accordance with Scottish law, or perhaps to adapt it in points of minor detail to the peculiar circumstances of Scotland. A Scottish application Clause cannot, however, be suitable when it contains a very different principle from that which is embodied in the English Clauses, and that I submit is the case in this Bill. I should like to make that clear to hon. Members, because I think that not only my Scottish colleagues on both sides of the House, but even English Members as well will be interested in this matter, and I hope they will all support what we are doing when they see what has happened owing to this peculiar method of legislating for Scotland.

Clause 5 of the Bill makes provision for the making of schemes of combination by fire authorities, and Clause 6 gives the Home Secretary power to make schemes where he considers it expedient and if the local authorities have not produced a satisfactory scheme, or any scheme at all. Even that power of the Home Secretary is subject to a numerical qualification which I will not go into—it is all in the Bill—and still further it is subject to a public local inquiry if there is objection. That is all very reasonably democratic. The principles in these clauses have been dealt with with considerable unanimity on all sides of the House and with the local authorities concerned, but these Clauses do not apply to Scotland. In Scotland the areas are laid down by Clause 36 and by the Fourth Schedule to the Bill, and there is no conceivable right' of public inquiry or anything of that sort. That is the fundamental difference between the English and the Scottish parts of the Bill, which makes the whole thing unsuitable for application to Scotland by means of the application Clause.

6.30 p.m.

During the Committee stage, owing to the work that was going on in the House and owing to the fact that only a small number of Scottish Members could be appointed to the Standing Committee, this Scottish application Clause could not be gone into in great detail. It is a difficult thing to do when one has cross-references back to English Clauses, and where there is inadequate representation, not in quality, but in numbers, on the Standing Committee. The issue in this case is one of self-determination. England has been granted self-determination in this matter to a large extent. Self-determination is a principle we all subscribe to, although we may except reluctantly certain people who may not be sufficiently mature politically for the right of self-determination. I would not like to hear either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Joint Under-Secretary of State argue for one minute that the people of Scotland are politically less mature than the people of England. I really think it is more than a little hard that Scots should be denied in this matter the right of self-determination, which is granted to their cousins across the Border. I hope the Secretary of State will deal clearly with that matter.

I want now to come to another point which it is very important we should get clear. Clauses 19 and 20 apply to Scotland, but we can follow what has happened in relation to these two Clauses in recent months so that hon. Members will 'see why we in Scotland are disturbed about this matter. Clause 19 is concerned with the procedure and qualifications for appointments and promotions, and is linked up with the appointments of fire masters or whatever they may be called. The Clause applies to Scotland. This point was discussed in Standing Committee upstairs, but I should like briefly to refer to it because it relates to my next point. We find, as was pointed out in Standing Committee, that in spite of this Clause being applicable to Scotland, which would imply that areas in Scotland have the right to choose their own fire masters, something happened in Scotland to suggest that these men had been appointed by the Secretary of State under the title of "firemasters designate." I see that that was ingeniously and properly answered by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the Standing Committee upstairs when he said: The fire authorities in the future will be empowered to make their own appointments subject to certain procedure. He then went on to say, further down the column: I repeat, therefore, what the Secretary of State has done in Scotland today, he was perfectly free to do with the National Fire Service and no one has said that he is not free to do that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 13th May, 1947; C. 266.] In other words, the point made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State was that these firemasters designate were appointed in relation to the continuing National Fire Service in the interim period, and were not necessarily applicable to the new scheme when this Bill goes through. That is a good enough point, but one wonders whether it is not a case where the performance of the hon. Gentleman was slightly in advance of his desires. When we come to Clause 20, it becomes more interesting, because Clause 20 deals with fire brigade establishments to be determined in accordance with approved schemes. During the Committee stage the Home Secretary withdrew the original Clause 20 and substituted the present Clause 20, which seems to give the right to areas to make their own establishment schemes and submit them to the Secretary of State. What has happened in this respect in Scotland? I am afraid that this was something which was not mentioned upstairs, but it relates to my argument. So far back as 15th February, a letter was sent by the Scottish Home Department to a town clerk of a town in the East of Scotland, from which I would like to quote the following paragraph: I am directed by the Secretary of State to refer to previous correspondence about the proposed transfer of the fire service to local authority control…"— those are the operative words, "local authority control"— and to say, for the information of your town council, that, after careful consideration of the fire risks to be covered in the proposed Angus (No. 9) Fire Area in the light of the best technical advice available regarding the appropriate standards of fire cover and of the actual experience of the National Fire Service, it appears to him that the following disposition of men and appliances would be appropriate for the peacetime requirements: Then follows a complete list of establishment, including firemen, leading firemen, section leaders and company officers, etc. I would be glad to show this letter to the Under-Secretary of State if he desires to see it. Then I turn over the page and I find this, In order that the recruitment of suitable permanent firemen up to the approved establishments may be completed, the Secretary of State will be glad to receive as soon as possible any observations which your council may wish to offer on the proposed disposition of whole-time men in the area. That is all very handsome, but it is not Clause 20 of this Bill. The point there is that we know that Clause 36 is in the Bill and we know that Clauses 19 and 20 apply to Scotland. However, something has already happened, and it looks as if the whole issue has been prejudged, and I submit that under both Clause 19 and Clause 20 the same thing has happened. One might say that we are always pressing the Scottish Office to get on with the job and not waste time. On this occasion they have certainly got on with the job four months in advance of the Bill. While possibly commendable in certain conditions, I do not think it makes good sense here. What I want to make clear, before I come to my main point, is that with these things happening one can understand that the local authorities in Scotland are thoroughly upset, unlike their English counterparts, who seem to be content. The Scottish local authorities do not know whether the fire masters are appointed by the Secretary of State, and they do not know whether the establishment scheme laid down in February of this year, or suggested by the Department, is going to be maintained. One can hardly blame them for being upset, nor will the Secretary of State be surprised that the council of an ancient burgh long famed for its interest in freedom should have broken off diplomatic relations on this subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take a lesson from the Foreign Secretary in his own Government and will continue to hold out olive branches to try to establish even distant relations through emissaries if he cannot get diplomatic relations in full restored.

I come to the final and main point. Here we have a Bill dealing with local authorities who have up to now handled the fire problems of the country. Surely, it is essential, if we are going to get a workable Bill, to take the local authorities reasonably along with us. It is not good enough to say, "We can never get agreement with them and we must impose something on them." That appeared to be the position in England and Wales where it also looked as if no solution would be found. However, it seems now that a solution was forthcoming. It is essential that the Scottish application Clause should be deleted from the Bill, and that the Secretary of State should present to this House a separate Bill for Scotland. In the interval before doing so, he should get the opinion again of the local authorities and work out some workable proposition acceptable to them.

There are two bodies which represent the local authorities of Scotland. One is the Convention of Royal Burghs and the other the Association of County Councils. Between them they represent nearly all the county councils and local authorities in Scotland. Both have placed it flatly on record that they do not like this Bill. I quoted at some length upstairs a statement by the Convention of Royal Burghs. I do not propose to repeat it here, but since that date there has been a further statement by the Association of County Councils of Scotland, dated 20th May. In this statement they say flatly that that association also has reached the conclusion by a large majority that "rather than accept the provisions of the Bill" —in other words, they turn the Bill down altogether. They then go on to make a proposal which would not necessarily be harmonious with that of the Convention of Royal Burghs, because the Association of County Councils say that they prefer that the service should be maintained on a national basis.

All I am asking is that the Scottish Clauses should be taken clean out of the Bill, which should be made applicable to England and Wales only, and that the Secretary of State should make a new attempt to come to some sensible working arrangement with the local authorities in Scotland. If he does not do this, he is really overriding the wishes of the elected representatives of the people, because the local authorities are the bodies appointed by the electors to deal with fire matters. I think that that is a correct statement from the technical and constitutional position, and here we have the Government ridingroughshod over the elected representatives of the people, and I cannot believe that the Secretary of State will wish to go down into history with that kind of reputation.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

I beg to second the Amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has put his case so clearly that it will require very few words of mine to support it. I think and hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will realise the depth of feeling that exists on this subject among local authorities of Scotland, both burghs and counties. I want to make it perfectly clear that I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House do not oppose the principle of the Bill, but we certainly wish to have the matter of Scottish application reconsidered and a Bill introduced separately for Scotland. I ventured to say on Second Reading that this was a perfect example of the mixing up of legislation for Scotland and England which could only end in trouble. There is row the state of trouble which one foresaw at that time.

The fact that both the local authority organisations in Scotland object strongly should be sufficient evidence that all is not well, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give this point real consideration. I hope he will agree that the Bill should be withdrawn so far as it concerns Scotland and quickly reorganised into a new Bill which will be produced as a brand new Measure. We cannot afford to ignore the local authorities in matters like this because it is they who have to run the show, and those who run the show should, after all, have the greatest possible consideration. I for one am not at all satisfied that there was proper or, certainly, sufficient consultation with the local authorities before the areas specified in Schedule 4 were decided upon. I realised that there was consultation with what I believe is called the Fire Council, but that was not from the fire fighting point of view and did not, I suggest, really give full voice to the local authorities as a whole.

We have listened this afternoon to what I may term pæans of praise from English Members to the British Home Secretary. What were they praising? They were praising the Home Secretary for giving to England the very thing which the Secretary of State for Scotland denies us in Scotland, and I think, having heard that, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State should realise how pleased the English Members are that the Home Secretary should have done this and how pleased we should be if the Secretary of State had the same consideration for Scotland. I support this Amendment very sincerely because I believe that it is essential if the administration in Scotland is to be efficient and the local authorities are to have proper recognition as the authorities who have to do the job. I hope that the smile on the face of the Secretary of State indicates that he will be as kind as the Home Secretary has been to the English hon. Members, and I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

I should like to support the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. On the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State justified the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill on the grounds that there was no vital departure on the matter of principle. I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has already shown that there has been a vital departure. After all, the English system lays down the means for voluntary combination between local fire authorities and goes on to establish a method of compulsory combination by the Home Secretary on three conditions. The first case in which this compulsory combination can take place is after a local inquiry has been held; the second after the matter has been laid before the House; and the third where at least one of the bodies which it is proposed to combine does not represent a population of more than 100,000.

6.45 p.m.

The difference between that and the application to Scotland is enormous, because for Scotland the groups have already been decided. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will tell us that this was done only after full consultation. No one will deny that there was consultation, and I know that the Joint Under-Secretary was at pains to have consultation. What happened in fact, however, was that he laid his idea before the bodies concerned, and although they did not express any violent opposition at the time, on second thoughts—without any propaganda or any violent campaign—both the convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils have seen fit to place on record the fact that they are opposed to this Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary may say, "Well, if this is the view which is taken, it was always open to you to amend the Schedules. If the form of administration that is proposed for Scotland is not in accordance with the wishes of Scotland it would have been possible to put down Amendments to the Schedules." That is not the point. The point is that this has been imposed upon the local authorities. As my hon. Friend has already stated, in actual fact it would have been extremely difficult to carry any kind of Amendment or to examine in detail in the Committee upstairs or, indeed, here in the House, the form of administration that is proposed in the Fourth Schedule or to make any suggestions which would have enabled hon. Members on either side to debate the matter as intelligently as would have been possible if there had been a local inquiry and a scheme had been specifically laid before the House.

The next thing we shall be told is what will be the effect if this Amendment is carried. Quite obviously the effect is that, for the time being at any rate, the National Fire Service remains in operation in Scotland. What is wrong with that? It simply becomes the Scottish National Fire Service, and it can operate until some new Bill is brought in to produce an answer more in keeping with the wishes of the people of Scotland if the people of Scotland decide that they do not wish the National Fire Service to operate under the control of the county councils. During the Committee stage upstairs the Joint Under-Secretary said this: It will be found that the rateable value in the areas of the joint committees in Scotland bears a comparison with the rateable value of the bigger county councils in England and Wales, and, indeed, with some of the bigger burghs that are to be fire authorities in their own right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 20th day, 1947. c. 334–5.] That is true, but the rest of his case was based upon the fact that the areas to be covered in proportion to the population and rateable value are so very much greater. Therefore, what is really being done is to impose on Scotland. perhaps through geographical necessity, a very much larger fire cover for a very much smaller population.

The Secretary of State for Scotland said in the Second Reading Debate: It is remarkable, and a great credit to the local authorities concerned, that upon this unsatisfactory basis"— which was the rateable value— so adequate an auxiliary service was built up before and immediately after the outbreak of war. He went on: But wartime experience showed clearly that in Scotland, as in England and in Wales, a broader-based organisation was essential …"[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1492.] "Wartime experience." Therefore, if it was to meet normal peacetime requirements it should be a burden on the national authorities and not local authorities. In other words, quite definitely a different scheme is required for Scotland. In fact, a different scheme for Scotland is contained in the Bill. I, therefore, very strongly support the suggestion that there should be a separate Bill for Scotland. This is one of the cases in which a separate Bill for Scotland ought to be produced. Scotland should not be treated as it is in this Bill where a separate scheme is provided in a Measure also dealing with England and Wales.

Mr. Watson

I served on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill. As has already been said, while we had assurances from the Home Secretary that he was on terms of cordial relations with the representatives of the English local authorities and that there had been adequate discussions and also agreements, we could get no assurances that such a situation existed in regard to Scotland. I am not going to say at this stage that I am prepared to support the Amendment, but, at the same time, I have to confess that this Measure is a most unsatisfactory one for Scotland. I read the Hill when it came out first, and when we discussed it in Committee I found the greatest difficulty in applying the Clauses to the conditions in Scotland. It was not until the Chairman reminded me that the Clauses did not apply to Scotland at all that I was relieved of trying to fit in the proposed arrangements with our Scottish conditions. That is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the situation in Scotland.

The Bill tells us that the Secretary of State will consult the Scottish local fire authorities with regard to the appointment of the fire officers. That is all very well, but I drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that without the Bill being an Act of Parliament, without any consultations with the fire authorities, which cannot take place until this Bill becomes an Act, the Secretary of State had appointed his firemasters. He had divided Scotland into areas and appointed fire-masters to each of those areas. It is all very well to say that these men have no prescriptive right to the offices they hold after this becomes an Act of Parliament. but if the Secretary of State considered that in his judgment the men he has appointed were the best men for these offices, he will have some difficulty in explaining why he can pass them over when the time comes for him to make these "firemasters designate," as they are at present called, into firemasters. That matter gives me some little concern. It is the most unsatisfactory Measure applying to the whole of the United Kingdom that I have yet seen.

In the last Clause on which the Home Secretary spoke we find a considerable amount of reference to local government conditions in England. Those conditions do not apply to Scotland. Our Scottish conditions are entirely different. I am certain that a much better scheme could have been devised and that we could have had a Bill applying only to Scotland. There is so much in this Bill which describes English conditions—English county councils, English non-county boroughs and so on. What do we in Scotland know about non-county boroughs? What do we in Scotland know about county boroughs? We have large burghs and we have small burghs. It is true that we have district councils, such as they are, with practically no powers, looking after such things as rights of way and doing odd jobs about the parish. The district councils in Scotland are bodies of practically no consequence. Yet in the last Clause passed by this House, we have the district councils in England, bodies of some consequence, given representation on the fire authorities to be set up under the English scheme. The conditions in Scotland are entirely different, and it would have been very much better to have in another Measure a description of Scottish local government conditions comparable with the description of English local government conditions in this Bill.

I do not want to detain the House, because the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr Maclay) has gone fully into-the matter. The only other thing I want to say is that whereas 75 per cent. of the cost of running this scheme has to be borne by the local ratepayers, the control will remain pretty much in the hands of the central body. I do not mind the central body having a say in the running of such a scheme, but when 75 per cent. of the cost of running it has to be borne by the local authorities, I think they are entitled to a great deal more say in it than they have under this Measure. With regard to training, not only has the central authority the power of setting the standard of the scheme, 75 per cent. of which has to be borne by the local ratepayers, but the local authority will have to come up to that standard before getting the 25 per cent. promised under the scheme. As far as Scotland is concerned, this is a most unsatisfactory Measure, and while we have gone too far now with it to have any hope of getting a separate Bill for Scotland, the Measure is certainly not the sort of Measure that we ought to have had to deal with the situation in Scotland.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). I am bound to say, in passing, that while I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson), I was discouraged to hear him say that, although he approved of the Amendment, he thought it was now too late to give it his support in the Division Lobby. I am particularly disappointed because he is an expert on local government matters in Scotland. He has served for a long time on a local body and anything he says by way of criticism must be taken seriously to heart by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In view of what' the hon. Member said about the inadvisability of including Scotland in this Bill, I should have thought that he could have taken the bold course, if there is to be a Division, and have given us his support in the Division Lobby. Thereby he would have interpreted the wishes of the large majority of people in Scotland, and particularly of the hon. Gentleman's own constituents, in the way that we on this side of the House believe that those wishes could best be interpreted, namely, by supporting this Amendment in the Division Lobby, if the Secretary of State for Scotland is not prepared to accept it. I hope he will be with us, but I have no great faith that he will go into the Lobby.

After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs and to the pleas from this side of the House, hope the right hon. Gentleman will be more seized than he has been up to the present of the strong feeling engendered, and still felt, in all parts of Scotland about being included in this Bill with England and Wales. Particularly has the feeling run high, because it is undoubtedly true that the right of self-determination, as the application Clause and the Fourth Schedule stand, is being denied to the people of Scotland and not to the people of England and Wales. It is hardly necessary to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, with your great knowledge of Scotland, that the principle of self-determination has been strongly cherished there, and I am indeed surprised that the present political representatives of the Scottish Socialists, who claim to be good democrats, should sponsor a Measure—that is, if they deny us the acceptance of this Amendment—which seeks to deprive the people of Scotland of something in the way of self-determination which the Home Secretary and his English colleagues are prepared to give to England and Wales. All the great bodies, burghs, and county local authorities, in Scotland have declared against the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill. Only four weeks ago I was addressing a meeting in an important centre in the part of Scotland the representation of which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson) who spoke a few minutes ago. My chairman, who is one of the baffles of Dumfries, when questions were invited, subjected me to long heckling—which is unusual for a chairman—about including Scotland in this Measure.

If this Amendment were accepted, what would happen? It would merely mean that, so far as Scotland is concerned, things would go on as they are for some months until the Government brought in a separate Measure which, while it would embody the principle contained in this Bill, would make the necessary modifications and applications to Scotland. This is not a very long Measure, but it is interesting to note that the application Clause for Scotland covers some six pages. That is ample evidence of the contention we make that it is inadvisable to include Scotland in this Measure by way of application Clause. If the right hon Gentleman is not in a position to accept the Amendment, I hope that my hon. Friends will press for a Division, when they will certainly have my support in the Lobby.

Mr. Carmichael (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I hope the House will not think that, because of our geographical position here, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) and I are in political agreement on this subject. I rise first to clear up a point which should be cleared up, and then to be guided on another. I do not accept the view that there is serious indignation in Scotland about the Bill. I think that is false. I speak of the fire brigades service in Scotland with some little experience extending over some 17 years. I am not asking for a separate Bill for Scotland, although only a few weeks ago I was associated with a proposal in the House that Scotland should be excluded from an important Measure. I do not remember getting any support from this side of the House on that occasion, although it would appear that the principle I enunciated at that time is now being accepted by this side. I think it should be said that the old fire service in Scotland prior to the war was a bad and haphazard service. All kinds of chances were taken. There was no equipment of any kind in the counties to deal with emergencies. I know, as a member of the Glasgow authority, that we were called upon time and time again to assist areas which had no equipment. I am equally satisfied that the National Fire Service had many faults. Democratic control at times was almost completely divorced from it, and there was a tendency up and down the country for many little Hitlers to grow up as fire-masters, fire chiefs and fire commanders. The Bill, at least, tends to bring about a form of organisation in Scotland Tat will give us a decent fire service with democratic control. Having said that, I do not deny that it might have been possible for the Scottish Members to have evolved a much better Bill completely divorced from the English Bill, but that, of course, is a matter for the Government.

The point to which I wish particularly to draw the attention of the Secretary of State concerns Glasgow. I have looked through the Bill, I have examined the Fourth Schedule, and Glasgow is not mentioned. However, I am not so ignorant as to assume that Glasgow is completely neglected. I regret that in this new arrangement the financial position is as it is, and that the Government should accept 25 per cent. of the responsibility, and leave 75 per cent. to the local authority. They could have applied the principle that is applied in the Police Acts. The police have a grant of 75 per cent. If there is any possibility of making a concession in regard to finance, all local authorities in Scotland would appreciate it. In many ways, the Measure is a big advance on any former Measure, although I have a slight sympathy with hon. Members who think that we could have evolved a better Bill than our friends across the Border.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

It is remarkable that all Members who have addressed the House from all parties have expressed grave dissatisfaction with the Bill, the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson), the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), and hon. Members on this side of the House included. This seems to show that the argument we have been putting forward for a long time against tacking Scotland on to English Bills is not, as has sometimes been represented, a sentimental or political argument, but a practical argument. I have no doubt at all that if we had had a separate Scottish Fire Services Bill, and taken it upstairs to the Scottish Grand Committee, we would never have got into this tangle. It is not too late to do that now. It does not matter if we get a year out of step; there might be some slight financial adjustments, but after all, that would not be serious. It would be much better to drop Scotland out of this Bill, and let matters go on as they are for another few months. Then the right hon. Gentleman could come forward at the beginning of next Session with a new Bill. There is always time at the beginning of a Session to get a small Bill through, and it could be more in accord with democratic sentiment in Scotland.

I do not want to overstress the importance of local authorities. I would not say that the views of a local authority ought to be decisive on questions of international, or even national magnitude but, when we come to questions of this kind, questions which formerly were within their province, it seems unjustified to go ahead in face of united opposition. Surely, it is a unique thing to have local authorities coming forward and objecting to being given functions. Local authorities frequently object on many grounds to being deprived of functions, but I have never heard of a case of local authorities coming forward with such unanimity and saying "Do not impose this function on us in this way." It cannot be supposed that local authorities do not wish to have these functions; of course they do. They have set aside their natural desire because they feel that if this function is given in this way, it is worse than useless.

7.15 p.m.

There are two main lines of criticism. The first is that there has been, and is to be, too much central control. This seems to be another example of what has appeared in several connections in the last couple of years, of the central authority trying to have it both ways, to push the administration on to local authorities, and to keep the reins in its own hands. That is a bad thing. If we are to give our services to local authorities, we must trust them, and not keep the central direction, which I am afraid the Scottish Office likes to have in these days. That is one objection to the Bill. The other is that the finance is all wrong. It is not a bit of good saying that local authorities had to pay for their fire services before the war. First, they were their own masters; secondly, the cost was not anything like so great; and thirdly, the plight of the rates had not arisen, except, perhaps, in a few areas. Now, things are very different, and to try in the present state of overburdened finances to justify putting a new and expensive service on to those finances, and only to make a grant of 25 per cent., seems to be something which the Secretary of State should not accept from the Treasury. On those grounds, it seems to me that there is ample objection to the Bill proceeding on the footing that it includes Scotland. My final word is this: whether the grounds of objection are good or bad, there is no doubt that they are very widely held, very widely held geographically, and very widely held politically. That being so, I beg the Secretary of State not to let this new service begin under that cloud. Make a fresh start. It may be that with further negotiation he may be able to convert local opinion to something like this scheme. At least, one must take local opinion with one in a matter of this kind. I beg the Secretary of State, before it is too late, to accept this Amendment and to take the next six months to clear the thing up. He could then come forward at the beginning of the next Session with a new Bill. If he can get a Bill like this, good luck to him, but, if not, let him adapt it to democratic sentiment in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan

I must apologise to Members for intervening in this Debate. I did not sit in the Standing Committee. My colleague the Joint Under-Secretary attended all the meetings of the Committee, and it is only because he has had to be in the honourable and ancient borough of Perth today at a conference on certain matters concerning road safety, that it has been thought desirable that I should take his place here on this occasion. I cannot approach this matter with anything like his knowledge but I will seek to give what I hope will be a courteous reply to the Debate. I would say, first, a word to the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), who raised this issue. I think that nowadays the habit of always making excuses for our existence in Scotland should stop. I constantly hear of the hon. Member saving something like this in the Committees: "We are small in numbers, and we cannot do this and that." That is an excuse and not a reason, and, indeed, is somewhat of an admission of inferiority on his part. The Opposition are represented on these Committees much more strongly than was the case of many Oppositions in the past.

Mr. Maclay

I was not referring at any point in my remarks to the Opposition. Members. I was speaking of the Scottish Members from both sides of the House on Standing Committees.

Mr. Buchanan

Even so, the number of Scottish Members far exceeds the number which formerly frequently considered other Bills. Indeed, in the past, there have been Bills dealing with Scotland which have been considered by Committees on which scarcely a Scottish Member sat. There was on the Committee a fair representation, which, with ordinary activity, ought to have been able to accomplish their task reasonably well.

The question of the unpopularity of the Bill in Scotland is really the main issue here. It is about the only thing that has been stated. I would say to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) with whom I share representation of the great city of Glasgow—we represent different parts of it—that that great city has expressed no dissatisfaction about the Bill at all.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

It is an area to itself.

Mr. Buchanan

Yes, but it has not expressed the slightest dissatisfaction with the Bill. Consequently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak in a sweeping fashion about wholesale dissatisfaction. Let me deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) about where Glasgow is mentioned. If he looks at the Fourth Schedule he will see that 10 areas are defined. They have to be defined because they include more than one district. As Glasgow is a district by itself it does not need a definition in the Fourth Schedule. That is the answer.

The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) said that the Bill was, on the whole, welcomed at the start. Another hon. Gentleman said that there were second thoughts. Only one issue has really disappointed, not only Scotsmen, but all those affected, that is, the 25 per cent. grant. This Bill, introduced by the Home Secretary with a Scottish application Clause, would have met with comparatively little or no criticism had it not been for the question of the 25 per cent. grant. Shorn of that issue, where was the opposition? Is it to be said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that Scotland is to get a different standard of grant from that given across the Border, because even if we had a separate Measure tomorrow, so long as the 25 per cent. grant was retained, strong opposition would he felt in Scotland. So, unless the Opposition are to insist that Scotland should have financial treatment different from that given south of the Border, then the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case about unpopularity falls.

Let me deal with the other matter which has been raised, this idea of the central Government at St. Andrew's House being the strong man, guiding everything and interfering. What are we doing in this Bill? We are returning the fire services to the position in which they were in 1938. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot escape responsibility, to some extent, for what happened in 1938. If my memory serves me aright, he was Solicitor-General in the then Government. I do not place upon him the major responsibility, but he must have some. What did the 1938 Measure do? We seek to have less power—and this is my reply to the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs—we seek to do far less interfering than did his then leader who represented Leith, Mr. Ernest Brown. Under that Act the then Government set up a commission, which had the right to go round and inspect every local authority in Scotland and if they thought that they were inefficient they had the power to recommend their suppression as fire brigade authorities. That was an autocratic power. We have not taken that power here, yet these are the people who come and complain of the power we are taking, when they took a power about which, if we had retained it, we should have been challenged, and quite rightly—a power which was exercised on the recommendation of an outside body, not a Parliamentary body.

It is true that we now propose a 25 per cent. grant. What was the pledge made by the Coalition 'Government? If the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead had wanted a higher grant than 25 per cent he would have said so when the pledge was given The present Government are improving upon that pledge. All that was agreed to by the Coalition Government was to return the service to the 1938 standards We return to the 1938 standards plus something which we never undertook to do—a 25 per cent. grant.

I wish to deal with the question of firemasters, which has been raised. hope no one will disagree with two things that I am a bout to say. One is that in the present interval we must have our fire brigades running efficiently. We cannot allow them to run inefficiently if that can be avoided. Secondly, if the State is to hand fire services back to local authorities, they ought to hand them back in an efficient state. No one could look back on the 1938 type and feel terribly proud of our fire services. Indeed, in Scotland they were sometimes not up to the best standards. Many of the hon Gentlemen opposite took the same view of that point as we are taking today. What did the Secretary of State do in order to hand them back in an efficient state? He sent a letter to the local authorities involved, saying that he was thinking of appointing men so that when the brigades were taken over they could be taken over as an efficient and going concern The letter asked "What have you to say about appointments? What recommendations have you to make?" Indeed the assurance was given that the appointments would be designated ones—

Mr. Maclay

That is all very nice, but it is not the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan

I am saying that that is what we have done as an administrative act. Any responsible Government must administer. We did what every Government does when a Bill is going through the House. On the assumption that a Bill will pass every Government takes administrative steps to make it work. That is what we have done. We sent a letter to each local authority involved saying "We are proposing in the Bill to make certain appointments. Kindly give us your comments, kindly consult or come and see us and join with us in seeing that the men appointed are the proper men." We even went so far as to say, "In view of the fact that the Bill is not passed we will only make them designate appointments so that when you take over if you find the man is not suitable then there is nothing to keep you from getting rid of the appointment."We did that as an administrative act. I think it was proper.

7.30 p.m.

Almost on every occasion, it is argued that we must have a separate Scottish Measure. I hope that in these matters I am no less Scottish than my hon. Friends. I would say to those who are members of my own party and who made that demand that they, like me, have been elected to carry out a policy of big social change. If this Government are to go through with it, we cannot on every issue have a particular Scottish Measure. To other hon. Members I say that it has never been their practice to do this in the past. In the past the administration of Poor Law benefit was abolished throughout the country and centralised in London. When hon. Gentlemen opposite give me what amounts to a lecture on local government, I ask them who are they to lecture? Each case must be taken on its merits. This Bill can be properly applied through the application Clause. Even the English Conservatives who sat on the Committee which discussed this matter upstairs could not reconcile themselves to this, because only two of them voted on it.

I think that in relation to Scotland this Government are carrying out their pledges in full. We are returning the brigades to the local authorities. In addition, we are granting them the same local autonomy they had in 1938, and also we are giving them from the central fund, the National Exchequer, with the same conditions attached as there were in 1938, a 25 per cent. grant. Far from the Government being criticised, I think that Scottish Members are entitled to say that this Government have acted with decency and much more generously than most other Governments would have done.

Mr. Maclay

I hope I am right in believing that with the permission of the House I may be allowed to say a few words in reply?

Mr. Buchanan

If that is so, I will ask for the same opportunity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

It is in Order for the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to speak again.

Mr. Maclay

I am relieved by the Joint Under-Secretary's interjection because It restores my self-esteem a little. Every time I am in conflict with the hon. Gentleman he goes for me good and hard and I feel very humble and ashamed. He does that, however, I sometimes suspect, because he is not very sure of his own case. He is really a rather good merchant in dealing with herrings, particularly red ones. Properly speaking, he should be a constituent of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who would be very useful to him on the subject of herrings.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman answered the main charge which we have made. This is a technical job. It is one which is essentially for the local authorities who know the work because they have always done it. My personal charge is that, whatever may be the merits of the scheme, the Secretary of State has failed to convince the local authorities in Scotland. It has been suggested that there has not been all the outcry about which we have spoken. The fact remains that we have the two documents to which reference has been made—those from the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils. They are, or appear to be, in total disagreement. I do not think that the Joint Under-Secretary said anything which was useful. He made some very good points which, in certain circumstances, would have been valid. In this case, they are not valid. I do not think that he has been able to meet the charge that, whatever the merits of the scheme, he has

completely failed to convince the local authorities in Scotland of those merits. In this matter the local authorities must collaborate. All we ask him to do is to go back and have another shot. We ask him to see whether he can knock sense into the local authorities. It is even possible that the local authorities may knock sense into him and the Secretary of State. I gather that he is not willing to try again and, therefore, we will have to divide on this issue.

Question put, "That the words 'Great Britain' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 60.

Division No. 254.] AYES. 17.36 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Adams, W. T, {Hammersmith, South) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Lyne, A. W
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Evans, S. N (Wednesbury) McAdam, W.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Fairhurst, F. McAllister, G.
Ayles, W H Field Capt. W. McEntee, V. La T
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B Fool, M. M. McGhee, H. G
Bacon, Miss A. Forman, J. C. Mack, J. D.
Balfour, A. Gallacher, W. McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Ganley, Mrs C. S McKinlay, A S.
Barstow, P. G. Gilzean, A. McLeavy, F.
Barton, C. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Battley, J. R. Goodrich, H. E. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.) Gordon-Walker, P. C. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Berry, H. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Mathers, G.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Grenfell, D. R. Medland, H. M.
Binns, J. Grey, C. F. Middleton, Mrs. L.
Blackburn, A. R Griffiths D (Rother Valley) Mikardo, Ian
Blenkinsop, A. Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side) Mitchison, G. R
Blyton, W. R. Guest, Dr L. Haden Moody, A. S.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W Gunter, R. J Morgan, Dr. H. B
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Guy, W. H. Morley, R.
Braddock, T (Mitcham) Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Bramall, E. A. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Mort, D L.
Brook, D (Halifax) Hardy, E. A Moyle, A.
Brooks, T J (Rothwell) Harrison, J. Murray, J. D.
Brown, T J. (Ince) Hastings Dr Somerville Naylor, T- E.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Neal, H. (Claycross)
Buchanan, G. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Burke, W. A Herbison, Miss M. Noel-Buxton, Lady
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S) Hewitson, Capt. M Oldfield, W. H
Barmichael, James Hobson, C. R. Oliver, G. H.
Champion, A J. Holman, P. Orbach, M.
Chater, D. Holmes, H E (Hemsworth) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Chetwynd, G. R House, G Palmer, A. M. F.
Cluse, W. S. Hoy, J. Pargiter, G. A
Cobb, F. A. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Parker, J.
Docks, F. S. Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.) Parkin, B. T.
Collins, V J Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Paton, J. (Norwich)
Colman, Miss G. M Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Pearson, A.
Comyns, Dr. L. Irving, W. J. Peart, Thomas F.
Corbel, Mrs. F. K: (Camb'well, N.W) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Corlett, Dr, J. Janner, B. Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Corvedale, Viscount Jeger, G. (Winchester) Porter, G. (Leeds)
Cove W. G. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Proctor, W. T.
Crawley, A. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) Pryde, D. J.
Grossman, R. H. S. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Randall, H. E.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Ranger, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Keenan, W. Rees-Williams, D. R.
Deer, G. Key, C. W. Reeves, J.
Delargy, H. J King, E. M. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Diamond, J. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E Rhodes, H.
Dodds, N. N Kinley, J. Richards, R.
Driberg, T. E. N. Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Leslie, J. R Rogers, G. H. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C Levy, B. W Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Edelman, M. Lewis, A W, J. (Upton) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Sharp, Granville Taylor, H B. (Mansfield) Westwood, Rt Hon. J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Simmons, C. J. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Wigg, Col. G. E
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Skinnard, F. W. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, S) Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)
Smith, C. (Colchester) Thurtle, Ernest Williams Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Snow, Capt. J. W Turner-Samuels, M. Willis, E.
Sorensen, R. W. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Woodburn, A.
Sparks, J. A. Viant, S. P. Woods, G. S.
Stamford, W. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Wyatt, W.
Steele, T. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Yates, V. F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E) Warbey, W. N. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Strachey, J Watson, W. M.
Stross, Dr. B. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Symonds, A. L. Wells, P. L. (Faversham) Mr. Collindridge and
Mr. Hannan.
NOES.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Henderson, John (Cathcart) Raikes, H. V.
Baldwin, A. E. Hogg, Hon. Q. Ramsay, Maj. S.
Bennett, Sir P. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport) Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Boothby, R. Hurd, A. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Sanderson, Sir F.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T Keeling, E. H. Scott, Lord W.
Carson, E. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Shephard, S. (Newark)
Cole, T. L. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lucas, Major Sir J. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Snadden, W. M.
Crowder, Capt. John E Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight) Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Cuthbert, W. N. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)
Davidson, Viscountess MacLeod, J. Sutcliffe, H.
Digby, S. W Manningham-Buller, R E. Thorp, Lt-Col. R. A F.
Drewe, C. Marlowe, A. A. H. Walker-Smith, D
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Marsden, Capt. A. Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) White, Sir D, (Fareham)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Gage, C. Mott-Radelyffe, Maj C E
Galbraith, Cmdr T D Nield, B. (Chester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Gridley, Sir A. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Mr. Maclay and
Colonel Gomme-Duncan.

Question put, and agreed to.