DEANS OF GUILD (Hansard, 11 May 1950)

§ Mr. Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)
I raise this question of the deans of guilds and deacon convenors in certain of our large burghs, in order to give my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State an opportunity of stating what further consideration my right hon. Friend may have given to this matter, which has been raised on various occasions at Question Time in the House.
It may be of interest to note that the offices of dean of guild and deacon convenor are peculiar to the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. As far as I know, the dean of guild is an office which is peculiar to Aberdeen, Perth and Dundee and none of these three cities has a deacon convenor.

§ Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are other burghs as well, including Dumfries, which has a dean of guild.

§ Mr. Rankin
I was about to observe that the office of dean of guild is characteristic of most, if not all, of the small Scottish burghs. The difference is that in the small Scottish burghs these offices are filled by councillors who have been returned on the vote of the electors at the local elections, whereas in the case of the five large cities which I have mentioned, the offices are filled by people who are non-elected. The dean of guild in Glasgow, if I may use that as an example, is the head of the Merchants' House and they have the privilege of returning him as their head ex officio to the Corporation of the City of Glasgow. The deacon convenor is the head of the Trades House and he likewise enjoys the same privilege as the dean of guild.
I should say that the association of these offices with our Scottish municipal government goes back for many centuries—I think as far as the 15th century. It should be noted, however, that while this association is long-established, nevertheless the arrangement has been described as anomalous by a Royal Commission 715 which inquired into the functions and privileges as long ago as 1833. That Royal Commission unanimously recommended that these ancient offices ought now to be abolished. In spite of that long lapse of time, no steps have ever been taken to give any effect to that unanimous recommendation. In 1935 the Labour Party in the City of Glasgow sought power to abrogate these privileges, but the attempt fell through for various reasons with which I cannot deal.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
The hon. Member cannot deal with anything that requires raise this question of the deaths of guilds large burghs in order to give my legislation. Beyond a historical resumé of what these offices are, I cannot allow any discussion on them.

§ Mr. Rankin
I have been fully aware of the fact that legislation might be involved, and so far I have done my best to keep clear of that aspect of the matter. That was the reason I made no attempt to state why the efforts of the Labour Party in the City of Glasgow had been defeated.
The problem which is created by the continued existence of these two offices is still with us. The problem was recognised well over 100 years ago, and no attempt has been made to deal with it. In my opinion, the problem is now intensified by the very principles which have governed certain Acts which have been passed by this House. In those Acts we have laid down that our electoral system should now be governed by the principle of one elector, one vote, and the continuation of this system of non-elected persons in our city governments violates that principle.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If the hon. Member is suggesting legislation, I cannot allow that.

§ Mr. Rankin
I do not intend to suggest that legislation is necessary; that is not a consequence of what I am saying. I am simply stating the problem which faces us.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Historical matters can be stated, as I have allowed, 716 but any idea of rectification requires legislation and that cannot be discussed on the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Rankin
Am I not in order in suggesting that this privilege is an extraordinary privilege which is anomalous and that it is one which ought to engage the attention of this House for consideration, if not for legislation? In putting it in that form in an Adjournment Debate, I am focusing public attention on what I think is an injustice. Surely that is something which ought to be considered in a Debate of this nature.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think an injustice should be rectified.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvin grove)
Further to that point of Order. Would not the rectification involve some Ministerial action and has the Minister any power to take any action short of legislation?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It would require legislation and that is why I am trying to keep the hon. Member in order. He must not suggest remedies.

§ Mr. Rankin
Perhaps it would be better if I slipped over that aspect. I suggest that I am strengthened in the position which I am seeking to put before the House tonight by the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) when he occupied the high office of Secretary of State for Scotland He said in the House that the problem was of such a nature as to demand his attention and he added that he would look into the whole position.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Since I gave my last Ruling, I have found that I have been unduly lenient. A Ruling has been given that if a complaint is made which can only be remedied by legislation, the Debate is out of order.

§ Mr. Rankin
Can I crystallise what I was saying?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
No, I do not think the hon. Member can.

§ Mr. Rankin
Is it not in Order to make even a reference to the existence of this problem, without suggesting any particular line along which it may be tackled?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
No. I can only repeat this Ruling, of which I was not 717 aware when the hon. Member began his speech, and which I read out a minute ago.

§ Mr. Rankin
Then I take it that my remarks must come to a somewhat untimely conclusion. It was one which, I may say, was not completely unforeseen. I knew I was skating on thin ice and might, perhaps, go through at some point. Now that I have gone through at this point, I would ask the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary whether she can tell us if any further consideration has been given to this matter as the result of the questions which have been raised during the last 12 months.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I hope she will not, for she would be out of order in doing so.

§ Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)
On a point of Order. I understood your Ruling, Sir, was that we could go into this matter on the historical level and deal with it at that level, for a few moments, purely historically.

§ The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley)
As I understand it, a matter can be debated on the Adjournment Motion only if there is a Minister who has Ministerial responsibility for that matter. If all we are to discuss is the 718 historical aspect, I would suggest that the only appropriate Minister would be the Minister of Education. In any event, it is not a question for which there can be any Ministerial responsibility, and in that case I submit that even the historical aspect is not in order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I apologise to the House that when I gave my Ruling about the historical aspect, I was not aware of the Ruling which governs matters of this kind, which is that if a complaint is made which can be remedied only by legislation, it is out of Order.

§ Mr. Rankin
The Lord Advocate has suggested that the Minister of Education should deal with the matter; but in Scotland it is the Secretary of State, and he and my right hon. and learned Friend are entitled, therefore, to deal with the matter.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking of my original Ruling that a historical matter could be discussed, but this is out of Order.