HL Deb 11 March 1895 vol 31 cc744-8
LORD BALFOUR

asked, why the Local Government Board for Scotland altered the distribution of Parish Councillors agreed upon between the parishes of South Queensferry and Dalmeny; and whether the Board will make public any representations they received, and upon which they acted, either in that case or in the case of the parish of Bathgate. He said that these two questions had reference to the action of the Local Government Board for Scotland and not that of the Secretary for Scotland. The direction given in the Act of last year was that regard should be had to— the powers and duties of the Parish Council under this Act, and to the population and special wants and circumstances of the parish. His case was, that in regard to the parishes of Dalmeny and Queensferry, the Local Government Board for Scotland had disobeyed that instruction, and had had regard to nothing but population. The two parishes were amalgamated by order of the Secretary for Scotland, in spite of strong objections urged by the County Council and by the parish of Dalmeny. A conference took place between the County Council and the Town Council of Queensferry, and, at the suggestion of the Town Council, the number and allocation of Parish Councillors was fixed at nine; and they were allocated—four to Queensferry and five to Dalmeny. That was actually proposed by the Town Clerk of Queensferry, and was agreed to unanimously by all concerned; and it was a reasonable arrangement, because the population of the borough was only about 150 in excess of the landward district, the valuation of the parish was four and a half times as much as the town, and the area 5,890 acres as compared with about 100 acres. On the agreement being reported to the Local Government Board, they wrote that they were unable to approve of the allocation— in respect that the larger proportion of Councillors is assigned to the landward part of the parish, which has a smaller population than the burghal area. The Local Government Board themselves confessed in that letter that they had regard to nothing but population, whereas they were enjoined by the Act to have regard to the special wants and circumstances of the parish. Surely, in a case of that kind, when four and a half times the amount of money would be raised from one part of the parish as compared with the other, and when the populations were so nearly equal, it was only fair that the landward portion should have the deciding voice. It was a fact that, out of every pound which would be raised for Parish Council purposes, the landward part would have to find 16s. 3d., and the borough of Queensferry only 3s. 9d. Yet the latter was to have the preponderance of the voting power, which was not only unjust but was absolutely in the teeth of the plain directions put in the Act of Parliament. In the case of Bathgate the Local Government Board had gone wrong in the same way. There was, in the first instance, an agreement between the boroughs of Bathgate and Armadale, and the County Council of Linglithgow. The population of Bathgate was a little over 5,000; the valuation was £14,000; and the number of electors 790. The population of Armadale was 3,190; the valuation was £5,500, and the number of electors 491. The landward part of the parish had a population of under 3,000; the valuation was nearly £26,000; and the number of electors 415. It was proposed, and at first agreed to, that there should be seven Councillors for Bathgate, three for Armadale, and five for the landward part of the parish. This agreement was afterwards departed from by Armadale, which asked for four Councillors; and the Local Government Board, instead of abiding by an arrangement they had assented to, without any reference to the County Council, issued an order giving Bathgate eight Councillors, Armadale four, and five to the landward part of the parish; and he was informed that the Board absolutely refused to listen to any representation on the subject by the County Council. This was not only a flagrant disregard of the provisions of the Act, but it was contrary to the Circular which the Local Government Board had issued. According to that Circular, there ought to have been only 15 Councillors for the parish; and the Board made it 17 without making any communication with any local authority. It seemed to him that the Local Government Board had not acted quite fairly in this matter, and he should be glad if the noble Lord, who would answer for the Government, could see his way to make public the grounds on which the Local Government Board had come to their decision.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said, he did not anticipate that the noble Lord would go fully into the case of Bathgate, and he was not prepared to enter in detail into the points that had been raised with regard to that parish. As to the cases of Queensferry and Dalmeny the Local Government Board had endeavoured to meet the wishes of all parties concerning the distribution of Parish Councillors as between the burghal and the landward parts of the new parish. The Local Government Board had laid down the principle that where the population of one portion of a parish considerably exceeded the population of another portion, they would not give a greater number of councillors to the smaller portion than was given to the larger portion. In this case the population of Queensferry was 200 greater than that of Dalmeny. Therefore the Local Government Board objected to give five councillors to Dalmeny and four to Queensferry. A proposition had now been made by the Town Clerk of Queensferry that there should be six burghal and five landward members—that Queensferry should have six and Dalmeny five. The Secretary for Scotland was willing to accept that proposal as a compromise. The whole matter was still under negotiation.

LORD BALFOUR

How is that a compromise?

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said, he understood the principal reason why the landward part of the parish objected to the number was that they thought four, as an even number, was inconvenient, and if they were given five members that would satisfy them. It was not so much a question of having a majority as of having a sufficient number of councillors. The proposal mentioned had been made, and it was the desire of the Local Government Board to meet the views of the various parishes on the adjustment of these matters.

LORD BALFOUR

asked whether there was any hope of getting from the Local Government Board or the Secretary for Scotland their idea of what they were intended to consider, under the terms of the Act, as the special wants and circumstances of a parish? In what circumstances could a clear case be made out for equality, or for a majority, on one side or the other than had been made out in the cases submitted?

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said, he had told the noble Lord that the Local Government Board had laid down as one principle on which to act that the parish with the largest population should have a majority of councillors.