LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HL Deb 26 March 1929 vol 73 cc850-963

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Transfer of functions of parish councils and district boards of control.

1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all the functions of each parish council (except the functions by this section transferred to a district council) and all the functions of each district board of control shall be transferred to and vest in—

Provided that any functions of a parish council within a small burgh under the Burial Grounds Acts and the Cremation Act, 1902, and any functions of a parish council with respect to a churchyard so far as within a small burgh vested in the council in pursuance of subsection (6) of section thirty of the Act of 1894 or section thirty-two of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925, shall be transferred to and vest in the town council of the said burgh.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "within" and insert "exercisable in respect of." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the functions transferred are those exercisable in respect of the area quite irrespective of the situation of the property held for the purpose of the function. Thus, the functions of a parish council under the Burial Grounds Acts may be exercisable in respect of a burgh as well as a landward area. May I take an example? A parish council is at present the local authority under the Burial Grounds Acts within a small burgh as well as within the landward part of the parish and the burial ground of the parish council is within the small burgh. The burial ground is held both for the burgh ratepayers and the landward ratepayers. This Amendment is intended to make clear that all that is transferred to the burgh are the functions exercisable in respect of the small burgh and not all the parish councils rights in the burial ground which happens to be within the burgh. The burial ground will in future be managed jointly by the town council and the county council. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, leave out ("within") and insert ("exercisable in respect of").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Transfer of other functions to county councils.

2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act there shall be transferred to and vest in the county council of the county—

1. (a) all the functions of the district committees of the districts within the county;
2. (b) the functions of town councils of small burghs within the county as local authorities for the purposes of the statutory provisions set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act;
3. (c) the functions of the town councils of small burghs within the county as highway authorities so far as relating to classified roads;
4. (d) all the functions of the commissioners of supply of the county;
5. (e) the functions of the town council of any burgh under the Burial Grounds Acts and the Cremation Act, 1902, so far as relating to any area outwith the burgh and within the county or with respect to any churchyard so far as situate out with the burgh and within the county vested in the council in pursuance of section thirty-two of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925;

LORD ARNOLD moved to add to paragraph (b) of subsection 1:— Provided that this provision shall not apply to a Royal Burgh, nor to any burgh with a population of 10,000 and upwards, unless not earlier than one year from the passing of this Act, a burgh as aforesaid is certified by the Central Department to be inadequately equipped for administering any of the Acts enumerated in the said Schedule. The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a large issue. It deals with the elimination of small communities from the administration of certain services and I wish to speak particularly of the change in regard to the administration of the public health laws. First let me say—and I think it is an important consideration—that there is no provision of this sort in the English Bill. Under this Bill you take away from small burghs the conduct of the health services and hand it over to the county councils. In England 400 small communities with populations actually under 5,000 are administering identical or very similar provisions.

The provision in this Bill is really—I do not think it is using too strong a term—an indignity to the Royal Burghs of Scotland. The Royal Burghs have their rights preserved in the Act of 1707, and under the Statute Law Revision Act of 1906, when certain changes were made, still these rights were not taken away, indeed they were re-enacted in the Act of 1906. Therefore it is not surprising that the burghs do object to this very great depredation of their powers. If it is said that some of the burghs would not be adequately equipped to administer the health services, your Lordships will notice that my Amendment provides for that. If within a year from the passing of this Act a burgh is certified by the Central Department to be inadequately equipped for administering any of the Acts enumerated in the Schedule, then the services of the burgh will be administered by the county council. There are full safeguards there.

I ask—and it is a pertinent question—why is this change made? What is the reason and justification for it? The Government, I know, have contended, but have never proved, that the small burghs are less efficient in public administration than large burghs or county councils. I will not weary your Lordships with statistics, though if I were to go through the statistics as regards the death rate it would be easy to prove that the small burghs come extremely well out of the test. It is asserted that progressive experiments take place in the small burghs more often and indeed with better results for health than under the county council administration. Let me take a specific illustration, as that perhaps is the best thing I can do. Take a town like Rothesay. I think everyone of your Lordships at one time or another will have been there. When the last census of Rothesay was taken the population was 15,218. Under this provision Rothesay will have its health services taken away from it. But at certain times of the year Rothesay has a very much larger population than that. It is a great resort for visitors, and in July and August the population will often amount to 40,000, and, indeed, I think sometimes more.

My contention is that it is a very unsatisfactory way of arriving at a result to take the census at a certain date—in a sense a capricious date—which gives no true criterion of the position. On this point I shall have the support, I hope, of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. I am afraid we are not very often in agreement, but I have a great respect for him. I notice that he has an Amendment down which would give the Government power to make a small burgh of this kind, which really is a large burgh for a certain period of the year, into a large burgh. I think the fact that Lord Younger has an Amendment of that kind on the Paper is a point to which I ought to call the attention of your Lordships. I submit that the health services ought to be administered in relation to the maximum population, and the maximum population of Rothesay is very much above the limit of 20,000. Local people on the spot can do it very much better than the county council. What will happen in the case of Rothesay? Rothesay will become a part of the County of Bute for this purpose. Now Bute is constituted, I believe, of three islands. It will be an extremely difficult thing to administer the health services of three islands by one local authority. Rothesay has now a good hospital, a successful hospital, well administered and efficient. Why should the administration of that hospital be taken from the local people who have done the work well? Where is Rothesay going to be administered from and how is it going to be administered? I think we are entitled to have a reply to these questions. Rothesay will be linked up, as I understand it say, with Arran, but there is no real community of interests between Rothesay and Arran.

The whole position is most unsatisfactory, and, if I may say so, I do not think it has been either properly thought out or sufficiently discussed. How can the taking away of the health services from towns with very big populations at certain times of the year where the work has been well done, make for efficiency or economy? I might give some other illustrations. I might give Oban as an instance. Oban will become part of the county. Oban has a good hospital. Why should the conduct of this work be taken from the local people at Oban? I believe there are no fewer than twenty coast towns in Scotland, not perhaps of equal importance, which will be adversely affected by these provisions, although many of them have a population at certain periods of the year well over the limit of 20,000. The fact is the county areas are too great for this new scheme to work properly and efficiently. In some it takes two days to get from one place to another. In Argyllshire I believe the county council meets at four or even more different places in the course of the year in order to try to give better facilities for its members. How can the burgh of Oban be properly administered under such a system?

The last point I would make is one which I have mentioned before in reference to some of our English urban district authorities. I submit that it is not a good thing to take away from these minor—if that is the right term—local bodies important functions which they are discharging well and handing them over to some centralised body, because, by doing that, you diminish the inducement for people to become members of these local bodies. There is not very much prestige to be obtained now from serving on them, but if some of the most important work and some of the best work is to be taken from them without sufficient reason, the result will be, I submit, that you will reduce the character of the personnel of the members of these councils. That cannot be in the best interests of local government. We run the risk of reducing local government so far as personnel is concerned to the level which obtains in some other countries. I shall be very interested to hear what justification the Government can put forward for some of these very important changes for which so far as I know there has been no demand whatever. I may be wrong, but I think it is a change which has been imposed upon the Secretary of State for Scotland and his officials by the Minister of Health in this country who wants to conduct affairs throughout Great Britain on a certain plan. I do not think that is a satisfactory state of things. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Arnold.)

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

The words which fell from the noble Lord opposite in regard to the Royal and ancient Burghs were, I confess, somewhat of a surprise to me and they filled me with the liveliest hopes of his political salvation in future. They seemed to me to exude Conservative principles such as I should hesitate to recommend to your Lordships in this particular instance. Let me deal for one moment with this question of the Royal Burghs. The noble Lord has told your Lordships that a great many smaller communities in England have powers which in Scotland will not be conceded to similar places. He even mentioned a great number of burghs of 5,000 inhabitants. A great number of the Royal Burghs are very far below 5,000. There is one, I believe, which has only 340 inhabitants and at least a dozen others have under a thousand. The noble Lord in his Amendment deals with Royal Burghs, many of which are very small, and with burghs with a population of over 20,000.

LORD ARNOLD

10,000.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I will not deal with that point, but I will come to the question of the reasons for the policy which has lead my right hon. friend to adopt these provisions in regard to the transfer of functions. The underlying assumption on the part of the noble Lord was that the transfer of functions from small burghs is made because of sonic default on their part, but the scheme of the Bill is of a far more comprehensive nature. It is governed by the general trend of policy which has been adopted during the last century in local government, which I have touched upon on various occasions when dealing with the English Bill. The point is the extension of the area of charge and that the general administration of a district should be controlled by those best qualified to do so by their knowledge or residence or otherwise. In this Bill and in the English Bill this principle is applied to the Poor Law, in Scotland it is applied to the police, in both countries to roads and in Scotland to education.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, suggested that the Government thought that these smaller burghs, or some of them, had carried out their functions badly. On the contrary, that is not the case. They have done their work very well indeed. But the policy of the Bill is to transfer the wider functions to reconstituted county councils, because in a later clause powers are taken to reconsti- tute the county councils in order to make them of adequate resource and strength for their new duties. If we were to accept the Amendment it would cut right at the roots of the Bill, because we aim not only at efficiency but at simplicity in administration. You would get very uneven administration in different burghs if you accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord. Some of them would have certain functions transferred to the county councils; some of them would retain those services, and so you would have great complication as to how burgh representatives on the county councils would vote because there are differences between burgh representation and representation of landward areas. There would be also great complication regarding the settlement of accounts. This is a measure of simplification. It is a measure which brings administration up to the experience of modern times. I therefore venture to recommend your Lordships to support the Government in this matter.

LORD ARNOLD

If this provision brings the system of local government up to the experience of modern times, why is it not to be applied to England? The noble Earl seems to overlook that there are a large number of communities in England which will retain the administration of health services although very much smaller than those which in Scotland are to have their powers taken away. He went on to say that certain Royal Burghs have a population under a thousand. I know that, and if I may say so I think my Amendment is most moderately framed because it gives power, in cases where it may be suitable, to take away the health services from burghs and transfer them to the county councils. Therefore he is fully protected. The only other observation I would make is that really he has not told us anything that we did not know before. He has not answered my questions. He says that health services have been well administered, but some change must be made in the interests of the community. He went even further than I did in praise of what has been done by these bodies, who are now to have the duties that they have performed taken away from them. I think this is a most un- satisfactory position, but, as we have a great deal of business before us, I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to leave oat "so far as relating to classified roads." The noble Earl said: The Amendment that stands in my name and in that of my noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie is one upon which the County Councils Association of Scotland lays considerable stress. Apart from the large burghs which manage their own roads, classified and unclassified, it is extremely important that there should be one highway authority and one only for the counties and the small burghs within those counties. This should be the county council, which ought to take charge of the streets and roads, whether classified or not. Otherwise there will be overlapping and duplication of plant and labour. At the present time in the larger of the small burghs, with from 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants, they have their own plant, steam-rollers and so on for the management of their roads. It is probable, under this Bill, that this plant will as a rule be taken ever by the county council at a valuation, but if these larger burghs have a larger mileage of unclassified streets to maintain, they will in all probability retain their plant, and the county council, at the outset of the operation of the Bill, will be compelled to undertake large additional expenditure on road plant which may not really be necessary.

It is true that, I think under Clause 13, the county council can delegate to the town council of a small burgh the upkeep of classified roads, but I do not think that this would be a wise procedure or that it would be largely taken advantage of. In any case, I think that I have made out a good case for the Amendment and I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("so far as relating to classified roads").—(The Earl of Afar and Kellie.)

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

The difficulty, of course, which besets any one who seeks to reform local government in these respects, whether it be in England or in Scotland, is that it is necessary to strike a compromise in all these matters, and sometimes it is a very difficult one. This was exhibited in the discussion on the last Amendment, and the same thing is true of the present Amendment. The effect of my noble friend's Amendment would be to make the smaller burghs contributory authorities in regard to the small unclassified rolls in the county and, conversely, to give authority to the county council in regard to the small streets of the burghs. That is a very considerable change and would involve very considerable financial consequences. In the first place, the ratepayers of the small burghs would henceforth be called upon to share the burden of the unclassified roads in the county districts. That would be a very heavy burden to cast upon the small burghs. The Government are compelled, as my noble friend showed on the last Amendment, to invade the authority of the small burghs in many respects and to change their status, but to throw upon them this enormous additional burden would be, I think, a very strong measure and one which we could hardly face.

Let us look at it from the other side. Under this Amendment the county council would have authority over the smaller streets of the burghs. I ask your Lordship whether it is likely that a county council would understand as well, or take as much interest in the small streets of a burgh as the burgh council would. It clearly would not. What would be true of the through streets would not be true of the smaller streets, and therefore the Amendment would not make for good government. Finally, if we make the financial change to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks, we should have to change the whole scale of compensation payable under the financial clauses of the Bill, because the burden of cost would fall so much more heavily upon the smaller burghs. For these reasons the Government feel unable to change the structure of the Bill in this respect. We regret very much that we are not able to accept my noble friend's Amendment, but we hope that he will understand that the reasons which govern us in this matter do not admit of an answer.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD LAMINGTON moved to leave out paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: The Amendment that stands in my name deals with the proposed abolition of the Standing Joint Committees that have hitherto been in existence in all the counties of Scotland. These committees are composed of fifteen persons, seven of whom are county councillors while seven represent the Commissioners of Supply. These bodies were constituted in 1889 under the County Council Acts which were then passed, and they were formed for two specific purposes. The first was that they should, constitute a police committee of the county, and thereby provide a body for the management of the police that would not be swayed by popular opinion and that would have a sense of its own responsibility. In this connection I might mention a memorandum drawn up by two county authorities in Banff-shire, a county that is not backward in its administration of local affairs. The memorandum was drawn up in regard to the Bill which is now before your Lordships, and it expresses the view that it is inexpedient to abolish a system which is inexpensive to administer and has almost forty years of administrative experience behind it, in order to replace it with a new body which will not be able to adopt the same disinterested attitude and which has all its experience to gain. I do not dwell further upon this function of the Standing Joint Committee, as my noble friend Lord Novar has something to say about it.

I turn to the second function, which is to control the borrowing powers of the county council. This has been an extremely useful provision. I could quote the cases of one district committee where in two instances some elaborate public work was going to be undertaken at considerable expense, and by the action of the Standing Joint Committee the estimates were largely reduced, and a third case in which the project was altogether abandoned. With regard to two of the cases, it is rather interesting to see that the original cost in one case was due largely to a Labour leader who looked to the road surveyor for jobs for his men, and in the other case the contractor was the road surveyor. That shows that this independent body can be a very good supervising authority, and when the Secretary of State for Scotland proposes to remove this body from existence, I do not think he can realise how often it has checked waste and extravagance. Of course he would not be aware of the fact, because, as the decision of the Standing Joint Committee is absolutely final and a veto, the decision would not come before him in the many instances in which they have checked expenditure.

I am not aware of a single case in which any desire has been expressed on behalf of local authorities for the abolition of the Joint Committees. I am not aware of any criticisms ever having been put before the public with regard to the exercise of their powers. And there is another thing: they entail no expense whatsoever. The clerks are county council clerks, and it is a body which imposes no expense upon the public and protects the public from undesirable expenditure. In these circumstances I think it is a great pity that any Government, and particularly a Conservative Government, should propose the abolition of a body which has given security and confidence to the public at large. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 15, leave out paragraph (d).—(Lord Lamington.)

VISCOUNT NOVAR

This Amendment of my noble friend raises a matter of real importance. I had hoped to make its purpose understood by the Government, but as that seems not to be possible I must appeal to your Lordships. The crux of danger in the Bill is the franchise. The Government believe not only in a broad franchise, but in a franchise which includes along with ratepayers the rate-receivers, who in some counties will predominate, voters who pay no direct rates and who under the compounding of rates largely know nothing about the subject, voters on the roll who do not pay their rates, and squatters not on the roll who are qualified for a seat on the county council. It is the county authority thus constituted to whom the entire control of the police is to be handed over. It is not so in England. Here the present police authority remains, and is composed one half of nominees of the county council and the other half of justices of the peace who formerly constituted the county authority. Moreover, here in England the chief constable is largely appointed from outside the police force, and selected for his experience in the direction and control of men—a practice recently illustrated in the appointment accepted by a distinguished member of your Lordships' House.

In Scotland, to-day, on the other hand, the Standing Joint Committee is likewise composed half and half of county councillors and Commissioners of Supply, who again, like the justices of the peace in England, were the old county governing authorities. Now, the whole of the police committee is to be selected by the county council and the Commissioners of Supply are to disappear. By way of contrast the burgh control of police is vested in the provost and magistrates, and they form the court of licensing and of justice for their burgh, and are therefore selected by the town council from among its leading and most experienced members. The burgh franchise again, as your Lordships know, is on a far more satisfactory basis than that of the county. Nor has it ever been suggested by any one that the control by the provost and magistrates of the police in the burghs should be transferred from them to a committee selected haphazard from the whole town council. That privilege is to be reserved for the county council, elected on the franchise flat I have described. Moreover, in Scotland the county chief constable is to be taken from the force itself. No doubt good men are often selected, but we know there have been occasions when the police have regarded themselves as a union and have imperilled public security by going on strike. If the police have to look to a county committee, elected often on a political colour, to act along with the chief constable in the same way as do the provosts an d magistrates, who are hardly ever elected in the burghs on political grounds, there will be danger of introducing a most undesirable political spirit into the force.

In normal times the present Joint Committee in the counties exercises the same control—exactly the same control—in every way as do the provosts and magistrates in the burghs, and why the Government should go out of their way to abolish this reliable body I own is beyond my comprehension. Their action causes widespread concern, and it is necessary to take the sense of the House on the matter. I think your Lordships will realise the undesirability of placing the police entirely under the control of a body who may be influenced by political considerations. No one, as I have said, would suggest placing the police under an ordinary committee of the town council, and yet it is proposed to do so in populous industrial counties, where industrial troubles frequently occur and where Socialists and Communists, who do not intend to enforce the law, may find themselves in power. On the Second Reading of the Bill I raised another point—namely, the control of the police by the sheriff in times of exceptional trouble, and I suggested that His Majesty's Lieutenant, the Convener, and the police committee, should act along with the sheriff. It may surprise many of your Lordships to know that His Majesty has a double direct representation in the Scottish counties, but I do not pursue that curious anomaly, since it is the normal aspect of police control which has been forced upon our attention, so unnecessarily as I think, by this Bill.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word on the general question of the object of police reforms in Scotland. They are to obtain simplicity of administration. At present the police in the burghs which are police burghs are administered by the provost and the magistrates. It is proposed to retain that form of administration in those burghs which have a population of 20,000 and upwards. The rest of the police will be transferred to the counties. At present the Standing Joint Committees which administer the police force in the counties are composed half of county councillors and half of Commissioners of Supply, and the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, referred to the Standing Joint Committees in this country, which consist half of county councillors and half of justices of the peace. I think he made one slight error in regard to the Standing Joint Committees, because there is a difference in regard to the administration of police in boroughs in this country which have their own administration under the watch committees, which are differently constituted from the Standing Joint Committees in the counties.

The Commissioners of Supply, who, on the Standing Joint Committees in Scotland, take the place of the justices of the peace in England have at the present time three functions—that of serving on the Joint Committee, of choosing the Income Tax Commissioners, and of exercising certain powers in regard to borrowing by the local authority. May I say in regard to that matter which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Lamington, that the safeguards for borrowing are contained in Clause 23, and provide that either the resolution to borrow shall be passed by a two-thirds majority or that it shall have the consent of the Central Department. That is the safeguard which we put in the place of the consent of the Commissioners of Supply. In regard to the Income Tax, those powers are transferred to the county councils.

Now as regards the question of the Standing Joint Committees. My noble friend Lord Novar argued that in the event of trouble arising which affected the maintenance of law and order there might be some difficulty, and perhaps some danger, in the police being in any way under the control of a body which was purely elective, and therefore might be subject to political influence. He also, I think, was inclined to criticise the franchise by which that body in the counties was chosen. I would point out, however, that for the purpose of the maintenance of law and order the police are under the sheriff, and the sheriff is quite independent of the county council. The sheriff, the noble Viscount told us, is in Scotland a Royal representative. Although the sheriffs in Scotland are very different from the sheriffs in England, I believe their origins are the same, and the sheriffs in England are also Royal representatives. I believe they are older than the Lords-Lieutenant. The sheriff is responsible for the maintenance of law and order. It is true, of course, that the chief constable is appointed by the county council, but there is this safeguard, that if a chief constable is dismissed by the county council he has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State. The same thing obtains in England. There was a case of it recently in which the chief constable was dismissed and he appealed to the Secretary of State.

As regards the efficiency of the police force, which is at the sheriff's disposal in case of disturbance, that efficiency depends upon the Secretary of State. I imagine that if a sheriff were to say to the Secretary of State, "Such-and-such a police force would not be sufficient if I had to undertake the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order," it would then be for the Secretary of State to go into such an important statement, and, if he found that it was substantiated, or if in any other way he was not satisfied that the police were kept up to the mark, he would be able to withhold the grant, which is a very substantial one, being 50 per cent. of the expenditure. I think the division of the functions between the sheriff and the Standing, Joint Committee—it will be the county council in future—may be likened to the division of control over the Territorial Force between the Army Council and the Territorial Associations. The general staff work of the police is under the control of the sheriff in the same way as the general staff work of the Territorial Army is in the hands of the Army Council. But the administration—the Quartermaster-General's work—is a matter for the county committee for the police, as it is for the Territorial Associations in the case of the Territorial Army. I think that line of distinction of administration is very clearly marked, and it would not be possible for a county council, by reason of the control which they exercise over police administration, to interfere in any way in the police functions, and to derogate in any way from the sheriff's responsibility for the maintenance of law and order.

The only difference really which the Bill makes is to transfer a considerable number of police forces to the county councils, and to place the administrative work connected with the police force in the counties in the hands of the county councils, instead of the Standing Joint Committees as at present. And, as I said, with regard to the burghs with populations over 20,000, no change is made in the present administration. I hope your Lordships will agree with the Government in thinking that this change is one which is not fraught with the dangers which noble Lords behind me fear, and that your Lordships will support the Government in retaining the paragraph in the Bill.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

regard to what the noble Earl said about the difficulty that is going to occur, his comparison with the Territorial Force and the Army Council is really too absurd. The Standing Joint Committees have existed ever since the county councils were started in 1889, and I have not heard of a single case of any difficulty or friction occurring.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I did not say there was friction.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

You said there would be.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

No, I said there would not be. I said the administration would be the same as that of the Territorial Army, of which the general staff work is done under the control of the Army Council and the administrative work under the control of the Territorial Associations, and no friction does arise.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I am afraid that I understand my noble friend's argument less than ever. It is purely an argument against the Standing Joint Committees, which have always done their work exceedingly well. The objection to this proposal is that there has been no argument advanced in favour of it: there may be some, but we have not heard of it. That is why I do hope that the Government will seriously consider before they reject this Amendment, because I think it will be very greatly regretted if they make such an alteration as they propose in the administration of the police, which has worked so very well in the past.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

I entirely support my noble friends. The Standing Joint Committee in a county is a very important body, for it fills very serious functions of great importance, has a very great control over expenditure, and, on the whole, as my experience goes, it has worked extremely well and thoroughly en rapport with the county councils in the counties. It has an oldish flavour about it, because it retains an element of the Commissioners of Supply, but there is an advantage: in the old days when Scotland was administered by Commissioners of Supply it was the cheapest local government in the world. It has been very much more expensive since we had county councils, and I think it is very desirable that Standing Joint Committees with that element should be continued.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not know whether I can throw any light upon this matter which will have any weight with my noble friends, but I can say a word or two, because my noble friends have made the greatest appeal by reason of the analogy with the English system. I am very familiar in this respect with the English system because I have been a member of a Joint Committee, I believe, for quite as long as my noble friend the noble Duke. I think I have been a member of the Joint Committee of my own county ever since Joint Committees were started. There is this enormous distinction between the Joint Committees in England and the Joint Committees in Scotland. Those members of the Joint Committees in England who are not elected county councillors are magistrates who have been and who I hope will always be intimately connected with the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law. I cannot, of course, speak with the same confidence of the Commissioners of Supply, but, as I understand, they have nothing whatever to do with the administration of justice. By a piece of luck they may do so: but the Commissioners of Supply are gentlemen whom I greatly respect, gentlemen of property, owning a certain amount of land, who are Commissioners of Supply by reason of that qualification. I am not quite sure that I should necessarily pick out gentlemen of that kind as having, ex officio as it were, a qualification to be made authorities over the police of the county.

The magistrates in England are in a very different position. They are, as I say, always administering justice. I was, for instance, a member for many years of the visiting committee of the county gaol besides the work I did on the bench. I was in contact with it every day of my life, I had almost said, but that would be an exaggeration and would give your Lordships, perhaps, a bad impression of my conduct. At any rate I was familiar, as I should think a very great many of your Lordships who are members of a Joint Committee are familiar, with the whole adminis- tration of justice. Therefore, that they should be part of the police authority almost stands to reason. It is true, as the noble Duke has said, that they were the original police authority, and they continued to be. Of course they did; they knew more about it than anybody else at the time the county councils were created. It is a matter for astonishment that they were not left in complete control. But in the march of democratic ideals the elected representatives of the county had to have their share; so a compromise was reached and it was half and half.

The parallel with Scotland absolutely breaks down. In the case of Scotland it is not only the undemocratic nature of the Commissioners of Supply, though that, perhaps, will not have great weight with your Lordships; but there is also nothing in a Commissioner of Supply which would make him more qualified to look after police than any other human being, except that he is well bred and well educated.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

He has a qualification.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

He has a qualification; he has a certain balance at his bank.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

He has a certain property qualification.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

He has a certain property qualification. I am not going to diminish the value of a property qualification. At the same time it must be admitted that in these days those things do not rank quite so high as they used to do. I confine myself to a very moderate and humble way of stating the matter. Now that we are reorganising the county government of Scotland it seems natural that we should take the opportunity of placing this authority upon what I may call a modern footing. Personally, in many respects I should like to leave everything very much as it was; but it is clear that this cannot be done. You have to make changes in local government in Scotland, and it certainly seems that to retain the half of a Joint Committee which has no qualification at all for looking after police except the ownership of property, is a rather strong measure in these days.

One other word from my English experience. I have not found amongst my colleagues on the Joint Committee, who, unlike myself (I sit as a magistrate) sit as county councillors, the least difference in their point of view in maintaining the police and the interests of law and order. My county council colleagues in the Joint Committee seem to me to be quite as anxious to maintain law and order as I am. The fact that they are elected has not deprived them of the instinct which, I believe, exists in almost all Englishmen, and all Scotsmen, too. The truth is that these elected members of county councils feel their responsibility just as you would expect them to feel it. I am aware that in many respects the Joint Committee in Scotland have not quite as much authority over the police as the English Joint Committee have—at least I think not. At any rate, as my noble friend has pointed out, when the police have to act they are under the direct control of the chief constable and the chief constable is not responsible to the Joint Committee. He is responsible in the last resort to the sheriff of the county; so that that particular point does not arise. For all these reasons it does not seem possible to go back upon the decision to which the Government have come, that if they are reforming county government in Scotland they should remove that which must be looked upon as an anomaly in modern days and which really has no parallel with the English case as some of my noble friends try to persuade your Lordships it has.

LORD LAMINGTON

My noble friend the Leader of the House has made a very severe examination of the personnel of the Joint Committee. In his very last words he spoke of that Committee as an anomaly. What an extraordinary thing it is that there has been no criticism made of the Standing Joint Committee by any single local authority in Scotland. If they are so much out of harmony with modern ideas one would have thought that some such criticism would have been made by the local authorities. There has been no such criticism. There cannot be any general objection to a body with which no fault has been found by the local authorities so far as I know.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

There seems to be one more remarkable point, and that is that this check upon democratic action which disfigures the English county police authority has not been removed from it. The observations of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House would have given us more consolation had he been able to point out the reason for dissolving the Joint Committees of Scotland and leaving it entirely to the county councils. I am afraid it is not much reassurance to us in Scotland that half the English authority should remain just as it is.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.
Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Hemphill, L.
		Lawrence, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)		Merthyr, L.
	Worcester, L. Bp.	Muir Mackenzie, L.
Wellington, D.		Northington, L. (E. Henley.)
	Arnold, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Bath, M.	Biddulph, L.	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
	Cawley, L.	Parmoor, L.
Airlie, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Ponsonby,L. (E. Bessborough.)
Beauchamp, E.	Cushendun, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Buxton, E.	Darling, L.	Shandon, L.
Clarendon, E.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Stantley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Denbigh, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Lucan, E. [Teller.]		Stanmore, L.
Onslow, E.	Ernle, L.	Templemore, L.
Plymouth, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]	Thomson, L.
Scarbrough, E.	Hanworth, L.	Wraxall, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Hayter, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Leven and Melville, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
	Morton, E.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Ailsa, M.		Glentanar, L.
Dufferin and Ava, M.	Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]	Jessel, L.
Exeter, M.	Churchill, V.	Lamington, L. [Teller.]
	Falkland, V.	Lovat, L.
Breadalbane and Holland, E.	Hood, V.	Monkswell, L.
Caithness, E.	Novar, V.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Cawdor, E.	Younger of Leckie, V.	Redesdale, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)		Remnant, L.
	Askwith, L.	Saltoun, L.
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Sinclair, L.
	Dynevor, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved, after paragraph (d) of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph: (e) the functions of the magistrates and town councils of all burghs within the county and containing a population of not less than 50,000—

1. (i) relating to the maintenance of a police force withih the burgh; and
2. (ii) under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1927."

The noble Viscount said: I do not think I need say anything about this Amendment. It is quite obvious that what I propose is something which could usefully he added to the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 16, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

This Amendment seeks to transfer the functions relating to police and to diseases of animals from all burghs with a population of less than 50,000 to the county councils. Under the Bill the functions in regard to the police are to be transferred to county councils so far as concerns small burghs with a population of under 20,000 and large burghs which do not maintain a police force at present. There is, how-over, a further provision whereby a burgh of 50,000 may in the future establish a police force. The functions with respect to the diseases of animals are under the Bill to be transferred to the county councils only from small burghs. It was actually proposed in the White Paper on the Police resulting from the Desborough Commission that police functions in burghs with a population of less than 50,000 should be transferred to the county councils, but that proposal was modified in view of the opposition which it evoked. It is felt that the force necessary to police a burgh with a population of 20,000 and upwards is sufficiently large to form a satisfactory unit. There seems also to be no strong case on the grounds of administrative efficiency for transferring from the larger burghs to the county the functions in regard to the Diseases of Animals Acts. The change would possibly be objected to considerably by the burghs affected and I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

I should like to say that there are cases in Scotland of burghs with 80,000 population which are put in this position with regard to the police, and there are others with populations of 25,000 to 30,000 which are not. What is proposed in my Amendment is I think very desirable to ensure good management and an improvement in the status of the police. To secure that end the force should be made as large and as important as possible and it should be under very efficient control. It works extremely well, I think, in the cases of Hamilton and Motherwell and some other big towns which have populations of from 70,000 to 80,000, and the police there have been thoroughly satisfied with the administration.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

It is possible to do it under the Bill, which contains a provision to that effect applying to places with a population of over 50,000.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (1), to leave out "so far as relating to" and to insert "exerciseable in respect of." The noble Earl said: This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 19, leave out ("so far as relating to") and insert ("exerciseable in respect of").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

LORD ARNOLD moved, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:— (4) The transfer of the functions of the town councils of small burghs within a county as highway authorities, so far as relating to classified roads, shall not create in any year a burden upon the ratepayers of any one of such burghs in excess of that of the standard year, or of the proportion which the certified mileage of such roads within a burgh boars to the total certified mileage of classified roads within the county, whichever is the greater.

The noble Lord said: I venture to think there is an extremely strong case for this Amendment if your Lordships will be good enough to follow a few figures. The Amendment proposes to make burghs which have hitherto maintained their own roads liable for the cost of county roads passing through that area in proportion to mileage instead of in proportion to valuation. When the cost of the county roads rises the cost of the burgh roads will rise proportionately, but under my Amendment the cost of burgh roads cannot be more than in the standard year. The principle really is similar to that which the Government themselves have incorporated in this Bill in Clause 67. Without some provision of this kind the burden of roads so far as the small burghs are concerned will become excessive. What is the position? There are probably not more than 350 miles of roads in the small burghs, but in the counties there are 8,390 miles. I believe those are correct figures. The proposal, in effect, comes to this, that 178 small burghs with 350 miles of roads—I am speaking of classified roads—will be linked up with the 8,390 miles of county roads and the burghs will be called upon to bear part of the expenditure on the matter.

Look at the finance. The estimated de-rated value of the 178 burghs is £4,863,000. The estimated de-rated value of the counties is £6,147,000. The Bill actually proposes that the liability of the small burghs for roads should be increased 24 times over that of their standard year, but the small burghs do not get proportionate assistance from the Treasury grants which go to the assistance of these county areas. As a matter of fact, the burghs will get a grant of 14s. 5d. per head of the population, but in respect of county roads the small burghs, with a collective population of less than 800,000, will pay 6d. per head of the cost of the county roads as against 4d. per head paid by the ratepayers in the county. It is most extraordinary and I think indefensible, because the cities and the large burghs, with a population of somewhere about two and a half millions and a valuation exceeding £20,000,000, contribute nothing to county roads outside their boundaries, although, of course, their population must make much greater use of those roads generally than the poplation of the small burghs. I think it would be much more equitable that the small burghs should pay in proportion to mileage rather than in proportion to valuation. That is what this Amendment would effect and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

This Amendment, if your Lordships were to accept it, would defeat one of the definite objects of the Bill which is to spread the burden of the county rates over the whole county area whether it is the burghal area or the landward area. The roads are used by everybody and it is thought fair that this spreading of the charge should fall generally upon the county whether it is burghal or whether it is landward. The financial proposals which govern this clause have been arrived at on the footing that the small burghs are to bear their share of the county roads on a valuation basis, and if we were to depart from that it would be making a present from the county to the small burghs, and, of course, that would be done at the expense of the landward area. It is said that the other basis of apportioning expenditure has been used on other occasions, but that does not apply, I think, in this case because if the small burghs were not to bear a share of the county roads the grant to the small burghs should be reduced and the amount of the reduction should go to the county councils. The underlying argument was, I think, that these small burghs are very largely urban areas and that therefore they do not, in fact, use the county roads; but many of these small burghs are very small. I have already instanced New Galloway with 348 inhabitants and there are others not much larger. Really, the inhabitants of the small burghs in Scotland are as much users of the county roads as are the inhabitants of the landward areas. In any case, the object of the Bill is to spread the area of charge. That object goes right through the Bill and I venture to hope that your Lordships will support the Government in maintaining the clause as it stands.

LORD ARNOLD

The noble Earl gives a somewhat similar reason for opposing this Amendment as for opposing other Amendments—that it cuts against the principle of the Bill. But we hold that in many respects the provisions of the Bill are wrong and cannot be defended. The noble Earl says the charge is spread over the whole county, but I have already pointed out to your Lordships that so far as the large cities are concerned that does not happen. They have a population of 2,537,000 and a valuation of £20,000,000, but they are not being brought into this spreading of the charge of which the noble Earl speaks. Therefore, I submit that in that very important particular his argument fails. It is all very well to say the charge should be spread over, but if that is done it should be spread over in a fair way, and this is not a fair way: it operates with undue hardship in the small burghs. I will not press my Amendment to a Division, although on merits I think it ought to be divided upon.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Transfer of functions of education authorities and of functions relating to police, and registration of electors.

3.—(1) The town council of a burgh being a county of a city shall be the education authority for the purposes of the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872 to 1928, for that burgh, and the county council of a county shall be the education authority for the purposes of the said Acts for that county, including any burgh other than a county of a city situate therein, and the whole functions of education authorities shall be transferred to and vest in such town and county councils, and any reference in any Act to an education area shall be construed accordingly.

(2) Section five of the Act of 1926 (which contains provisions as to the education rate) shall cease to have effect and every such council as aforesaid shall annually ascertain the amount of the deficiency in the education fund of their area and such deficiency, so far as required to be defrayed out of rates, shall be defrayed out of a rate to be levied for, the purpose in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to leave out subsections (1) and (2). The noble Earl said: The subject of my Amendment was so much discussed in the Second Reading debate that it will not be necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any length, nor do I think it necessary to ask your Lordships to divide unless there are some signs of my getting some support from noble Lords opposite. It is quite clear from what was said in the Second Reading debate that His Majesty's Government certainly will not accept my Amendment. I cannot help noticing, however, that the important Amendments of this afternoon all seem to run on the same lines and to be the outcome of a feeling of regret at the disappearance of local authorities which we are told have been working very well, against which there is no complaint and which are quite likely to do as well in the future as in the past. I shall certainly not venture to detain your Lordships by discussing once more what we have already discussed, and therefore I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 12, leave out subsections (1) and (2).—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I think the arguments which I have already used in regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite on the subject of roads applies to the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. The object of the Bill is to spread charges over wide districts and to retain administration in the hands of those most competent to deal with them. The ad hoc system of education was instituted when education was a new service and it was brought into force both in England and in Scotland. The ad hoc services in both countries have now been brought under the charge of the county councils. In England they have been brought more under the control of the county councils than, until this Bill was introduced, has been the case in Scotland. This Bill does in Scotland what was done before in England. It brings into the purview of the county councils the roads, the Poor Law, education and the police services. Nobody suggests for one moment that the existing education authorities in Scotland have done their work badly, any more than that the small burghs have managed their health services badly. On the contrary, they have done it very well indeed, but it would be a mistake, when you are undertaking a thorough-going reform of local government, based on general principles which have proved themselves after many years' experiment to be the right methods, to leave education out of the picture.

As your Lordships are well aware, the educational service has developed very considerably in recent times and—this is an important point—it has become more and more closely related to the health services, to questions of mental deficiency and lunacy and to the administration of public assistance and so forth. The reconstituted county council will probably have a more varied representation of agriculture, industry and commerce, and its new constitution will ensure that practical requirements—the results of education, if I may put it that way—will receive attention from those persons who are best qualified to criticise results and to deal with them. Such was one the most important recommendations of the Salvesen Committee, and also of the Balfour Committee, with which your Lordships are familiar. The general principle which, I think, runs through all the recommendations of prominent educationists now is that education should be brought into relation to what young people are going to have required of them in carrying out satisfactorily the duties of their after life.

It may possibly be said that, by taking away the ad hoc authorities, you are losing advantage of the advice of experts. I do not think that this will occur under the Bill, because very careful provision is made for the creation of a statutory education committee on which those who are acquainted with the details of education and with educational work in general will be included, and a scheme is to be drafted under the Bill and to be put forward by every education authority. Of course the directors of education will be maintained in Scotland, and the Central Education Authority, which has shown very excellent results, will not be touched in any way. I do feel very strongly that the whole principle of modern educational thought is that you should bring the various services together under one administrative head. That is one of the most important effects of this Bill, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will support that principle.

LORD ARNOLD

The noble Earl, in moving this Amendment, said, I think, that it had been considerably discussed upon Second Reading. I am bound to say that I was rather surprised at that statement, because, as a matter of fact, having regard to the very important changes that are to be made, I thought that it was very cursorily discussed. It is noteworthy that, when this Bill was first discussed in another place, this fundamental change was referred to by the Secretary of State for Scotland in two or three sentences. With great respect to the noble Earl opposite, I do not think that he has given adequate reasons why this vital and fundamental change should be made in the whole educational system of Scotland. It is being done without mandate, without any demand—he will not deny that nobody has asked for it—and, as I say, very largely without discussion.

The noble Earl admits that the present education authorities have done their work well, and therefore the Government have not that excuse. It has been sought. I know, to justify this change on the ground that it brings administrative and financial control under a single authority. So far as finance is concerned, there is really nothing in that point, because under the present system the matter rests in the last resort with the ratepayers, and this will be so when this matter is under the county council. Tucked, I find tie following passage in the White Paper (Cd. 3135):— The present rating authorities … will remain unaffected by the scheme and, consequently, burghs which are required to contribute towards services administered by the county council will do so on precept. That is exactly the present method of financing education authorities from the rates, so that point, I think, falls to the ground.

It certainly cannot be contended that, so far as the present elections of ad hoc authorities are concerned, there is apathy. I will not go through the figures that prove my statement, but it is well known that, so far from this being the case, it is surprising what a large percentage of the electors of Scotland have voted in these elections of ad hoc authorities. It is not, of course, the case that these provisions will bring this system into conformity with the English system. They will not, and the differences are very material. This provision does not make for uniformity, and that argument also falls to the ground; but, even if it did, the education of Scotland has always been very different from that of England. The people of Scotland view these things differently, and I would say, with very great respect to the noble Duke and to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who is not in his place, that, so far from it being at all clear that the people of Scotland are in favour of this change, it is as certain as anything can be that, if the matter were put fairly before them and if a plebiscite were taken, it would be rejected by an overwhelming majority. Since last week, when Lord Elibank spoke on this matter, there has been a by-election in Lanark, where the Government vote has gone down by about 4,000 and their opponents' vote has gone up by about the same figure. The only other by-election, I think, that has taken place in Scotland since this Bill was introduced was in Midlothian, where a more or less similar result occurred. It cannot, therefore, he contended that the people of Scotland are in favour of this Bill, still less of this particular provision. So far as I can discover, they are nothing of the kind.

The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that we should still get the right people for educational purposes. I say that there is no guarantee whatever of that—not the slightest. It is extremely probable, in fact almost certain, that many of the best educational experts in Scotland, who have been doing most valuable work on the local ad hoc authorities, will in future have no say whatever in educational work in Scotland. It is true that, owing to the fact that the county councils are already shockingly overworked—there is no dispute about that—they are driven, in order to have any chance of working this Bill, to the method of co-option. That is a very unsatisfactory method in many ways. It is certainly undemocratic, and experience has proved that a considerable number of men of great authority and experience will not be co-opted members. The result is that you will lose men of great authority and experience. There is no guarantee that you will have men of sufficient knowledge for the work, and there is no absolute guarantee that you will have a single educational expert, properly so-called, on your new committees. I do not say that you will not get some, but there is no guarantee under this Bill. What procedure will be necessary if a member of the present education authority is to become a member of the new authority? He will cease to be a member of his present education authority; he probably will not be in a position to stand for the county council; if he does stand, it is extremely unlikely that he will be elected the first time that he stands; and, if he is elected, he will then have to be put by the county council upon the education committee. As I have said, the only alternative is co-option, which no small proportion of men will not accept.

For these reasons I think that this matter ought to be very much more carefully considered than it has been, and I think that some of the points I have ventured to put forward ought to be replied to before this Amendment is disposed of. I gather that the noble Earl is not going to press it to a Division. I do not complain of that, because we know that we shall not carry it unless we get some support from the other side of the House. The final point that I would make upon this matter is a very obvious one, but it really bears upon the whole question. This proposal is not in the least bound up with derating. It has nothing whatever to do with it. This is a derating Bill.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I beg the noble Lord's pardon, it is a local government reform Bill.

LORD ARNOLD

It was first put forward as a derating Bill, and this has nothing whatever to do with derating. As a matter of fact, the Government have incorporated about five Bills in one and, particularly in the case of the Scottish Bill, these have not been adequately discussed in another place, and apparently they are not going to be adequately discussed here. There is a very strong feeling in Scotland regarding these matters which, I think, will make itself manifest before long.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Provisions relating to or consequential transfers of functions]:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 35, after ("and") insert ("parish").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Transfer of property and liability of transferor authorities]:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The Amendments to this clause are both drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 7, line 17, after ("liabilities") insert ("so far as")

Page 8, line 16, leave out ("parish council or other").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendments agreed.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Transfer of officers and superannuation funds.

7.—(1) The provisions of section twenty-seven of and the Second Schedule to the Act of 1926 (relating to transfer of and compensation to officers) shall apply for the purposes of this Act to and as respects officers of transferor and transferee authorities respectively as they applied to and as respect officers of parish councils and rating authorities respectively, subject to the following and any other necessary modifications:— (f) In computing the service of any officer for the purpose of an award of compensation account shall be taken only of the service of that officer under any local authority after he attained the age of eighteen years, and where the officer held two or more offices and the claim to compensation is based on a loss of one or some only of those offices account shall not be taken of service in an office which the officer continues to hold: For the purposes of this subsection a district council shall be deemed not to be a transferee authority.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (d), to insert:— (e) The reference to 'this Act' in subsection (7) of the said section twenty-seven shall be construed as a reference to Part 1 of this Act. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to make clear that compensation for pecuniary loss suffered by officers of transferor or transferee authorities by abolition of office or diminution or loss of emoluments is only to be paid where such loss arises in consequence of Part 1 of the Bill. That is the Part of the Bill which deals with the transfer of functions from one authority to another, and it that Part alone that necessitates the introduction of this whole clause. No such clause would have appeared in a Bill limited to Parts II or III. Perhaps it is desirable that I should give your Lordships an instance. A collector of county rates paid on commission may suffer loss by derating, or in consequence of the financial provision of Part III, which would necessarily lead to a reduction in rates. If in consequence of any such reduction the officer is not adequately remunerated, the county council will no doubt consider increasing the rate of commission or putting him on a salary, but he would not receive compensation under this Bill.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 38, at end insert:— ("(e) The reference to 'this Act' in subsection (7) of the said section twenty-seven shall be construed as a reference to Part I of this Act.").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e), to insert:— (f) Any alteration made after the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, in the tenure or terms and conditions on which any officer held his office at that date or in the salary or remuneration payable to any officer at that date shall be deemed not to have been made unless such alteration was made in pursuance of an agreement concluded before that date or merely confers rights to superannuation under the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment has been introduced in consequence of representations made to the Secretary of State by the Glasgow Corporation and others. A limited number of parish councils, who will as a result of the Bill cease to exist, have within the past month or two increased to a substantial extent the salaries of their principal officers without any apparent justification. Thus Glasgow Parish Council's inspector of poor, whose salary was increased from £1,250 in 1923 to £1,500 in 1927 and £2,000 in 1928, has this year been given a further increase to bring his salary up to £2,500. There are other likely cases. In these circumstances it has been thought proper to take the salary and other conditions of service as at the date of the introduction of the Bill (November 12, 1928) as the basis of the transferee authority taking over the transferred officer or paying compensation to persons who suffer loss in consequence of the Bill, ignoring increases of salary since that date. But an exception is made where the increase of salary since November, 1928, is in accordance with a previously agreed scale of salary.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 42, at end, insert the new subsection (f).—(The Earl of Airlie.)

LORD ARNOLD had given Notice to move an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert, after "concluded," the words "or of the terms of appointment existing." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a very complicated matter. It is made to a certain extent clear by the noble Earl in moving his Amendment and the various points at issue have been matters of negotiation. I think it is fair to say that negotiations are still going on and therefore even if we, debated the points now, unless the Government were willing to accept ray Amendment and the matter was so concluded satisfactorily at the moment, which I do not think possible, I should have to put the Amendment down again on the Report stage. Therefore I will ask the Government if they will look into the matter between now and the Report stage, in which case I will not proceed with my Amendment now. There was a similar point raised on the English Bill and I think the Government undertook to look into it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I can assure the noble Lord that the words which he proposes to insert are quite unnecessary and will add nothing to the Bill, but would cause confusion. I am advised that the word "agreement" covers the words which he desires to put in. Of course on the whole subject the Government are willing to consider before Report any substantial point brought to their notice; but with regard to this particular point I can assure him that his Amendment is surplusage and as he knows surplusage is always a mistake.

LORD ARNOLD

I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. Although I could have something to say in reply I will not discuss the matter now, but will raise the point again on Report.

THE EARL of AIRLIE moved to add to paragraph (f) in subsection (1) "unless throughout the period of his service in that office he devoted the whole of his time to the duties of offices held by him under one or more local authorities." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is similar to one made on the English Bill. The second part of this paragraph provides that in computing the period of service on which compensation for loss of office is calculated—it is generally one-sixtieth for each year of service with any local authority on the basis of the average of the salary for the last five years—where an officer holding several appointments under local authorities loses only some of these, the period of service in an office he continues to hold shall not count. This Amendment proposes that this provision shall not apply where the officer spends his whole time in the discharge of his duties of the several offices ender local authorities. To take an example: A man is a part-time town clerk having held the office for twenty years and a part-time parish council clerk which he has been for ten years. He will retain the former and lose the latter job. If both jobs together did not involve full-time service he would get compensation for the parish council job on a basis of ten years' service, but if they involved full-time service the basis would be twenty, years' service.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "except as respects any officer employed by a parish council solely for the purposes of functions transferred to the district council." The noble Earl said: The general rule is that for the purposes of transfer of or compensation to officers of parish councils, the county council and not the district council is to be the authority to deal with such officers. There may, however, be cases where a man is employed by a parish council (of course part-time) only in connection with duties transferred to a district council: for example, looking after a recreation ground under Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1894. It is right in such a case that the district council and not the county council should take over that officer or, if they do not, should compensate him.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Reconstitution of county councils]:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

My first Amendment to this clause is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 26, leave out ("part") and insert ("area").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to insert the following new subsection after subsection (7):— (8) Any reference in any Act to the whole number of a county council shall as regards any matter be construed as a reference to the whole number of councillors entitled to exercise deliberative votes in respect of that matter. The noble Earl said: This Amendment has to do with the fact that certain matters have to be approved by the whole body of the county council or by an absolute majority, and the question arises of what is meant by the whole body. The new subsection proposed to be inserted makes it clear that where the representative of a burgh is not entitled to vote on a matter coming before the county council he shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the whole number of the council for the purpose of that matter.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 31, at end insert the said new subsection (8).—(The Earl of Airlie.)

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Election of reconstituted county councils.

9.—(1) 'The first election of members of the reconstituted county councils shall take place on the first Tuesday of December in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, and the members so elected shall hold office until the next election of members in pursuance of the Act of 1889 which election shall take place on the first Tuesday of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, and subsequent elections shall take place on the said first Tuesday of December in every third year thereafter:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

My Amendment to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 41, after ("councils") insert ("for the landward areas of the counties").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

LORD ARNOLD moved, after subsection (4), to insert as a new subsection: (5) The provisions of this section shall apply to the members of a town council of a burgh being a county of a city. The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a very singular difference between the operation of this Bill as regards the reconstitution of county councils and of the four great cities of Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland, for instance, has repeatedly argued in regard, say, to education—because this is a further phase of this matter which could not be discussed on the last Amendment—that although this transfer was being made to the county councils, the county councils would be reconstituted. But education is also being transferred in the case of the four great cities, and the councils of the four great cities are not being reconstituted. So we arrive at this position, that, although vital new functions are being transferred to the councils of the four great cities, they are not being reconstituted, and really are not properly able to discharge their new duties, because certain of their members have been elected for quite different pur- poses. Under the Bill there are 33 counties and four big cities: these are to be the units for local government in Scotland in future. Counties are elected on a triennial election, and the four great cities are not; the whole of the county councils will be re-elected next November—they will be entirely new councils. But in the case of the four great cities, only one-third of the councillors will be re-elected. Thus, two-thirds of the councils will be administering functions, such as education, for which they have not been elected at all. That is a very extraordinary state of things, and I do not see very well how it can be justified.

Take the case of Glasgow. One may say that about a quarter of the education of Scotland is incorporated in Glasgow. This clause, unless my Amendment is accepted, creates an unfair differentiation between the county councils and the four cities. In the case of the counties all the members retire, and the members of the existing education authorities have in that sense an equal chance of re-election to the county councils; but that right is denied to the out-going members of the city education authorities, because only one-third of the councils will retire. You then produce a position where it is extremely difficult for the members of the existing education authority to get on to the new council. They can probably only do it at all by opposing one of their own Party in some ward, for many of them will not be co-opted. If the Government will not accept my full Amendment, will they consider, at any rate in the case of the first election after this Bill is passed, that the whole of the city councils shall be re-elected. I think there is a precedent for that, and it seems a very reasonable proposition to make. But I hope the full Amendment will be favourably considered by the Government.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 40, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I am not quite clear about this Amendment, but, as I understand the noble Lord, it is intended that all the members of the town councils of the four large cities should go out of office at the end of 1929, and new councils be elected. If so, it will require a new clause making much fuller provision on the subject. It could not be carried out by the noble Lord's Amendment. For example, this clause provides for the election in December, whereas the town council elections are held in November. On its merits it is felt that the proposal is not really necessary. In these town councils one-third of the members retire each year, and one-third will go out in November, 1929. The transfer of major services—Poor Law, education and lunacy—is not sufficient justification for requiring all members of the town council to retire, particularly seeing that the town councils have to set up committees for these purposes, and a limited number of persons of experience not on the town council may be included on these committees.

LORD ARNOLD

I do not deny that there are difficulties in the matter, but when you are making these great changes you have to face difficulties. And I do not think it is a very strong point to say that what I propose could only be done by a new clause. However, I do not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved, after Clause 10, to insert as a new clause:— . The Secretary of State may by order raise to the status of a large burgh any burgh which during the summer months of every year has habitually a population in excess of the population which determines the status of a large burgh. The noble Viscount said: This is to deal with the case of what I call seasonal burghs. There are a good many in Scotland. Take Oban, for example, which I happen to know. It has a population of about 6,000, with as many as 25,000 people coming into the town every week in summer and filling it up; consequently, it has to provide equipment of all sorts for the convenience of those people. The people of Oban feel that it is rather hard that they should be treated as if they were an ordinary burgh of 5,000 or 6,000 people, having no special rights or privileges at all, with such great responsibility. It seems reasonable to ask that such towns should be made exceptions. There are other places of the same kind, such as Prestwick. I thought it desirable to ventilate the matter and ask the Government whether they could not meet the case.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 37, at end insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Perhaps it is only fair for me to point out that burghs with a summer population of 20,000 do not have to provide for summer visitors the benefits of the major services of education, poor relief, lunacy and mental deficiency, or even of public health, since the normal period of most epidemics is in the winter. The services of maternity and child welfare also are not provided for the summer visitors, and they cannot therefore claim that if they were constituted large burghs they would be providing major services for 20,000 people.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 11:

Provisions as to combination of local authorities.

(4) Where a district asylum or institution for mental defectives has been provided by a district board of control whose functions are by this Act transferred to two or more transferee authorities, or where it appears to the General Board of Control for Scotland to be necessary for the purpose of any statutory provision relating to a particular district board that there should be a combination of the two or more transferee authorities to which the functions of that district board are by this Act transferred, such transferee authorities shall be deemed to have combined for the provision and maintenance of such asylum or institution or for the purpose of the said statutory provision, as the case may be, and that on such terms and conditions as the transferee authorities may agree and, failing agreement, as the General Board of Control for Scotland may by order determine.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (4), after the second "transferred," to insert "then unless the transferee authorities, with the approval of the General Board of Control for Scotland, otherwise agree in the case where any such asylum or institution has been provided as aforesaid." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is made to meet a case such as that in Paisley where the Paisley Parish Council, who are also the district board of control, have provided an asylum for the Parish. The parish is mainly within the Burgh of Paisley, but a small part is outside in the County of Renfrew. The transferee authorities of the parish council will therefore be the Paisley Town Council and the Renfrewshire County Council, and this Amendment will permit these two councils, if they so think proper, with the sanction of the General Board of Control, to arrange that they shall not be combined for carrying on the asylum. The Paisley Town Council might, however, buy out the interests of the Renfrew County Council in the asylum, and run it exclusively for their own burgh.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 30, after ("transferred") insert the said words,—(The Earl of Airlie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

There is also a drafting Amendment here.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 14, leave out the second ("by").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Committees.

12.—(1) Each county council reconstituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the town council of each burgh being a county of a city shall have a committee, to be known as the education committee, and to be constituted in accordance with a scheme made by the council and the provisions of subsections (1), (7), (8) and (9) of section fourteen of this Act shall, with the substitution of the Scottish Education Department for the Secretary of State and of the fifteenth day of January for the thirty-first day of March and any other necessary modifications apply to a scheme under this subsection. The Scottish Education Department before approving such a scheme shall require the council to publish the scheme in suet manner as to make the same known to persons interested.

(3) (a) Except where for the purpose of co-ordinating the services provided by the council it is otherwise specified in the appropriate administrative scheme, all matters relating to the exercise by a county council of their functions (other than functions relating to the raising of money by rate or loan) relating to (a) education, (b) police, and (c) poor relief, shall stand referred to the appropriate committee, and all matters relating to the exercise by the town council of a burgh being a county of a city of their functions (other than as aforesaid) relating to education, shall stand referred to the education committee, and the county or town council, as the ease may he, before exercising any such functions, shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the appropriate committee with respect to the matter in question.

(4) Every scheme constituting an education committee shall provide—

1. (a) for the appointment by the county or town council of at least a majority of the committee from persons who are members of the council;
2. (b) for the appointment by the council of persons of experience in education and of persons acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area for which the council act, including—
1. (i) in all cases at least two persons interested in the promotion of religious instruction in terms of section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to be nominated by a meeting of representatives of the churches or denominational bodies (other than those having a right to nominate as hereinafter in this paragraph provided for) having duly constituted charges within the area, and the scheme Shall prescribe the constitution of the meeting and the manner of convening it; and
2. (ii) in the case of a council maintaining any school transferred or established under section eighteen of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to which school the conditions prescribed in subsection (3) of the said section continue to apply, at least one representative nominated by the church or denominational body by whom the teachers in the school are required to be approved as regards religious belief and character;
3. (c) for the inclusion of women as well as men among the members of the committee; and
4. (d) as respects the first education committee to be appointed, for the inclusion of one or more members of the outgoing education authority.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "subsections (1)," and insert "subsection (1) (including the proviso thereto) and subsections." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to make clear that the reference to subsection (1) of Clause 14 includes the proviso, so that in framing the scheme regulating the constitution of the education committee the county council will consult with the education authority.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 21, leave out ("subsections (1)") and insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved, in subsection (1), to omit the words "of the Scottish Education Department for the Secretary of State and." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is moved because it is thought that it would be better for the Secretary of State rather than the Scottish Education Department to deal with this matter.

Amendment moved— Page 20, lines 23 and 24, leave out from ("substitution") in line 23 to the second ("of") in line 24.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

This Amendment proposes to transfer the approval of schemes for the constitution of education committees to the Secretary of State from the Scottish Education Department. In England and Wales such schemes, which are closely similar to their provisions, have always been approved by the Board of Education in accordance with Section 4 of the Education Act, 1921. The Scottish Education Department, from its long experience of the local administration of school boards and education authorities, is well qualified to criticise and approve the schemes. It should be also noted that the Secretary of State is Vice-President of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education in Scotland, and in the latter capacity is the Minister responsible to Parliament for the work of the Scottish Education Department. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved, in subsection 3 (a), to leave out "relating to," ["relating to (a) education"] and insert "of providing" The noble Viscount said: It is proposed to leave out the words "relating to" because they might be given much too wide an application and might restrict the county councils in dealing with financial questions regarding the staff and other services, and thus disturb the whole of county council administration regarding those services. This Amendment is put forward by the County Councils Association of Scotland and I am moving it on their behalf.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 41, leave out ("relating to") and insert ("of providing").—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The phrase "functions of providing education" might be interpreted in a more restricted way than "functions relating to education." The clause, as it stands, gives a certain elasticity either way and, in view of the provisions for administrative schemes suited to the circumstances of the different areas, this elasticity seems to be a valuable feature. Therefore I feel that 1 cannot accept this Amendment.

On Questions Amendment negatived.

LORD ARNOLD had given Notice to move to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I scarcely think it is worth while to discuss this Amendment. The matter is one of very great importance—the whole question of the constitution of education committees. In the circumstances I do not think it is of any use going on with it. The Government are clearly not going to make the smallest concession, even to the extent of a comma, in their scheme. Therefore I will not move the Amendment.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved, at the end of paragraph (a) in subsection (4), to insert "and where those members do not include persons holding the qualifications and of the number hereinafter specified." The noble Viscount said: As the Bill stands it would be necessary to co-opt persons described under paragraph (b) as interested in the promotion of religious instruction, cinder paragraph (c) as "women" and under paragraph (d) as "members of the outgoing election authority." No matter how many members capable of performing these functions have been elected to the county council these persons would be appointed to the education committee. It may be right to provide that persons holding those qualifications should be co-opted so that those interests might be represented, but this element ought not to be so large as to override the other. It is conceivable that it might override it altogether. In order to prevent that happening this Amendment is suggested by the County Councils Association. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 32, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The object of this Amendment, as I understand, is to restrict co-option on the education committee to a minimum by utilising it only where the representation of special interests such as educational experience, Protestant Churches, transferred schools, etc., cannot be provided for from among the councillor members of the committee. It might thus restrict very much that allowance of non-elected representation which has been considered a desirable feature in the constitution of the education committees. So far as subsection (4) (c) "women" and subsection (4) (d) "members of the outgoing education authority" are concerned, it is possible that as the clause stands these elements might be satisfied from among the members of the council. But so far as subsection (4) (b), the religious interests, are concerned, the aim is to allow nomination of non-elected persons so as to compensate the bodies in question for any loss they may sustain from the abolition of proportional representation and the ad hoc principle. Therefore, I feel that I am unable to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (4) (b) (i), after "charges," to insert "or other regularly appointed places of worship." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to secure a voice in the representation on the education committee for all those bodies interested in the promotion of religious instruction under the terms of Section 7 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, which have regularly appointed places of worship in the area. It is felt that the phrase in the clause as it stands, "having duly constituted charges," might be interpreted so narrowly as to cover only the Established Church, the United Free Church and similar denominations, and perhaps would exclude such bodies as the Salvation Army. The clause as amended will cover all bodies which have a regularly appointed place of worship. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 4, after ("charges") insert ("or other regularly appointed places of worship").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 39, after ("council") where it secondly occurs, insert ("appointed for the purpose of any function to which an administrative scheme under this Act applies").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

Schemes for administration of functions.

(3) Every administrative scheme (other than a scheme relating to education) made by a county council may provide for the county council appointing to act as agents of the council, district councils, or joint committees of town councils of small burghs and district councils, (which joint committees shall contain representatives of the county council and he constituted in such manner as provided in the scheme,) to carry out the functions specified in the scheme so far as relating to their respective districts, but subject always to the terms and conditions set forth in the scheme.

(4) An administrative scheme may provide that any assistance to which this subsection applies, which might after the commencement of this Act he provided either by way of poor relief or by virtue of any enactment other than the Poor Law Acts, shall be provided exclusively under and by virtue of the enactments other than the Poor Law Acts and not by way of poor relief, but nothing in this subsection or in any scheme shall diminish or otherwise affect the duty of the council to provide relief for the poor. The assistance to which this subsection applies shall be the maintenance and treatment of sick persons, including, without prejudice to the said generality, persons suffering from any infectious or other disease, or lunatics or persons mentally deficient, or the provision made for the health of expectant months, nursing mothers, or children under five years of age, or for blind persons, or for the feeding, clothing and treatment of school children.

(7) The Secretary of State may approve the scheme either as submitted or with such modifications and amendments as he thinks proper, and upon approval the council shall discharge their functions throughout their area in accordance with the scheme.

THE EARL OF AIRLIEmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out "district councils, or joint committees of town councils of small burghs and district councils (which joint committees shall contain representatives of the county council and be constituted in such manner as provided in the scheme), and to insert "the town council of any small burgh within the county or the district council of a district within the county or a joint committee of such a town council and district council (of which joint committee the members of the county council for the burgh and district shall be members)"; and to leave out "relating to their respective districts" and insert "exercise-able within the small burgh or district or small burgh and district as the case may be." The noble Earl said: The object of these Amendments is to use the same language in this subsection which deals with delegation in accordance with the administrative scheme of a county council to district councils and others as is used in Clause 13, which deals with delegation by a county council independently of the administrative scheme.

Amendments moved—

Page 25, line 22, leave out from ("council") to ("to") in line 26 and insert the said new words

Page 25, line 27, leave out ("relating to their respective districts") and insert ("exerciseable within the small burgh or district or small burgh and district as the ease may be").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "or lunatics." The noble Earl said: In the case of a pauper lunatic the treatment is provided under the Lunacy Acts and not under the Poor Law Acts, so that the provisions of Clause 14 (4) are not appropriate to lunatics. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 44, leave out ("or lunatics").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 31, leave out ("others") and insert ("other like things").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (7), after "State," to insert "shall consider representations, if any, made by local authorities or persons affected and." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is really to strengthen the proviso in subsection (1) of the clause. That proviso instructs town and county councils in preparing administrative schemes to consult with the present education authorities. These schemes may prejudicially affect a transferring authority or an official who is to be displaced or reduced in status, or some other unforeseen contingency which may arise. The Amendment admits of representations being made on the matter and confers the right of being heard. As the Bill stands at present the Secretary of State is not empowered to consider any representations which might be made by education authorities who were dissatisfied with an administrative scheme. This Amendment merely provides that representations may be made to the Secretary of State before he gives his approval to any administrative scheme. It is, therefore, an extremely modest Amendment. I cannot see any objections to it and I can see certain advantages in it. In these circumstances I am hoping that the Government will at least concede this point to us on this Bench and accept an Amendment which would be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 32, after ("State") insert ("shall consider representations, if any, made by local authorities or persons affected and").—(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

It is felt that this Amendment is unnecessary, because it is quite obvious—though I hesitate using such a word to the noble Lord—that the Secretary of State will consider any representations he may receive from the bodies interested. He could not well do otherwise. Therefore, as it is considered unnecessary, I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD ARNOLD

I think it would be as well to have it in the Bill. It is contained in subsection (1) in regard to councils, and there can be no objection to putting it in the Bill in the way I have indicated. It is not a satisfactory thing merely to leave it as it is.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

Audit and accounts.

15.—(1) The provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the audit of the accounts of every county council and of every town council, and the provisions of any enactment so far as inconsistent with the provisions of the said Schedule shall cease to have effect.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (1) after the second "council," to insert "for the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty, and for every subsequent year." The noble Earl said: This and the following Amendment in my name are consequential. The object of the two Amendments is to make clear that the first accounts to which the new audit provisions apply are those for the year 1930–31. They do not apply to the accounts ending May 15, 1930, notwithstanding that these can only be audited after the commencement of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 27, after ("council") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

Amendment moved— page 27, line 29, leave out from ("shall") to end of subsection and insert ("not apply with respect to De accounts of any such council for those years. In the case of a council whose financial year begins on a day other than the sixteenth day of May, the foregoing provisions shall have effect with the substitution of that other day for the sixteenth of May").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

THE EARL OF ARLIE moved to insert the following new subsection:— (3) For the purposes of the making up, balancing and audit, of the accounts for the year ending on the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty, of district boards of control, education authorities and parish councils, the statutory provisions relating to the accounts and the audit of accounts of the sail boards, authorities and councils shall have effect subject to such necessary modifications as time Central Department may by cider prescribe.

The noble Earl said: The audit of accounts of local authorities to May 15, 1930, will be regulated by the existing audit provisions. In the case of those authorities which go out of existence—parish councils, education and district boards of control—these provisions need a little modification. For example, they place duties on officers of these authorities. These duties can only be performed after May 15, 1930, when the bodies have gone out of exis- tence, so there will be no such officer. Similarly there are references to the deposit of documents at the office of the authority when the authority will have ceased to exist. Obviously some modification is needed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 [Expenditure by local authorities on public utility schemes]:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 39, leave out the third ("of") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Payment by county councils of traveling expenses, etc.

17.—(1) It shall be lawful for a county council to incur expenditure in paying allowances at uniform rates to be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State in respect of travelling and other personal expenses necessarily incurred and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment by members of the council or of any committee or sub-committee thereof in attending meetings of such council, committee or sub-committee.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to restore the Bill to its original form as drafted by the Government. Owing to a number of speeches made in another place the Government went back on their original decision, and had the words I propose to leave out inserted. The excuse was chiefly based on the fact that members of the education authorities in Scotland can now receive compensation for loss of when there has been a loss of wages, providing they are occupied in transacting the affairs of the authority. This provision is not in the English Bill. The payment for loss of time was instituted at a moment when extravagance was rife in the country. I myself remember meeting outside this Chamber a Minister of the Crown who was largely responsible for the Education Act of that time—1918. In the course of remarks he said, "Nobody is thinking about expense these days."

In the Scottish Education Act of 1918 there was no provision for compensation for loss of time, but, owing to the speeches made in another place, power was given to remunerate members of education authorities for loss of wages. The amount paid in 1926–27, as given by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place, was £571 for the whole of Scotland. There were also travelling expenses of £6,768 and personal expenses—I do not know what is included in that item—of £5,489. Those are large additions to the cost of the administration of education. I understand that the Government intend that restrictions and limitations should be imposed in the award of compensation, but even the Secretary of State for Scotland in the House of Commons said of this provision:— I am not going to say that there was improper use made of it, but it is clear that it had to be most carefully supervised, and in fact during the first periods after it came into operation the actual expenditure was very considerable. In the year 1920 the amount was £2,698; in 1920–21, it was £2,550; and in 1921–22 it dropped to £1,785. Is it likely to be carefully supervised by means of restrictions and regulations when you consider how large a number of people will be affected by the passing of this Bill—not only members of the county council but of district committees and sub-committees?

I think it would be better to have a direct annual payment of a salary to every member. Imagine what an inducement it will be to wasting time on the sub-committees. They may go and inspect a defective fence and a bridge and spend hours in that occupation. I should like to give an instance of what occurred, though it is not directly germane to this matter because it was not extravagance on the part of a public body. I heard of an urban district council which was approached by some organisation. During the course of discussion the deputation said they wanted to retire for a time to consider the points that had been raised. They came back and resumed the discussion and then had a second adjournment for further consideration. Finally they came back and the matter was adjusted. A member of the urban district council, asked the reason for the adjournments and why the matter could not have been settled more promptly, said, as I understand, that this deputation represented some union and the members of it got paid for three meetings instead of one meeting. I admit that is not strictly analogous so the position that would arise under this Bill, but it may lead to an immense waste of time owing to people being paid for the time during which they are attending to the business of the county councils.

After all, when you let in the thin edge of the wedge, the wedge is apt to be thrust in further and further. Take the ease of the House of Commons. I do not think payment of members added to the prestige of that House, but in addition to that there has been the provision of third-class railway fares, and I think it was the Labour Government who said they wanted fist-class fares. So it goes on. It is human nature. Once you allow public money to be easily available, it is almost certain that although the Government may institute a series of regulations and restrictions they will in time be departed from. This question has already been debated several times in your Lordships' House during the course of the English Bill, but I would like to point out what will be the position as a result of this provision. A pauper, a person who has not paid rates and whose only qualification so far as I know is that of twelve months' residence in the locality, can be elected to a public body and then he will have the power to propose the imposition of rates to which he will not contribute in the slightest degree himself. I call that a mockery of representation. It is not democratic government. Democratic government is government by the people without any privilege or class distinction. You are establishing now practically a body of spurious, spoon-fed democrats, people who do not contribute anything though they have the power to say what rates shall be levied upon the general public. This provision is not in the English Bill and I hope that your Lordships will say that it should not be in this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 11, leave out ("and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment").—(Lord Lamington.)

LORD PARMOOR

I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Lamington, has said quite truly that the subject has been discussed several times already. Therefore I only wish to add one or two words. My notion of local government is to encourage those persons who have a natural aptitude to take part in it. Unless provision is made for the payment of expenses of this kind, poorer people cannot do the work. Payment will be made here only by order of the Secretary of State and the only words which the noble Lord desires to exclude from the section are the words "and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment." Why should not a man who desires to take his part in public work on a local authority and has ordinary employment—that is the basis of the whole clause—be fairly compensated? From what I know of an English county council of which I was a member for many years from its commencement, there is considerable difficulty even for what I may call better-to-do people to make anything like regular attendance, though the only sacrifice they make is one of time. They do not make any sacrifice of the means of I sincerely hope the Amendment will not be adopted and that the proposal in the Bill, which I understand was assented to in the other House with the support of the majority of the Scottish members, will be adhered to.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

Here again, what is considered advisable in England is surely more so in a poorer country where, owing to the size of counties, the expense will be greater. Ministers should really be careful over these eleventh-hour surrenders. They have spoilt many a good Bill. For instance, the last Education Bill for Scotland provided, as we are doing now, for education to be put under the county councils, but under pressure, Mr. Munro, now Lord Alness, made a complete volte face in another place and created the ad hoc body we are abolishing to-day. Concessions were made—I am speaking now of my noble friend's Amendment—as to county councillors' expenses in another place. Personally, I regret that any expenses whatever are paid at all. Then, at the last moment, without any discussion outside Parliament, this payment for lost time was added for Scotland alone. I feel it is indeed a pity to banish voluntary effort from the sphere of local services. We all know what a great part personal service has played in national life and the success it has made of our hospitals and nursing and other social services, all of which compare so favourably with those run by the paid official or the public body or Department. There has been no lack of faithful, willing workers in the public service. Paid service alters the whole character of local administration, and not for the better. The Socialist ideal is undoubtedly to suppress all voluntary work and workers and to supplant them by a host of paid officials, who, though ostensibly under the control and direction of elected bodies, become in fact little kings of Brentford exercising almost autocratic power.

It is the result of public control over such services which makes those who oppose Socialism so anxious to preserve the voluntary system in all its integrity. It is the voluntary worker who gives his own time and finds his own expenses who puts the last ounce into the task he undertakes, and this is rarely got out of officialdom or paid service. I object to this innovation also because it leads to that frittering away of resources which it is the stated object of the Government to avoid doing. It is one of those undesirable raids on grants and rates and on the relief given to industry in the counties and especially to agriculture, the hardest hit industry of all. I gave your Lordships examples of the cost of such expenses, and I may add that representatives from Barra and Lewis, for example, will be whole-timers in the service of the county councils since they will be constantly on the move to attend some committee or sub-committee meeting. The county councils as now constituted contain representatives of all classes. Trade unions are largely represented by their paid officials, who lose no income through attendance, like the ministers of the Church of whom we have sixteen serving on one education authority. I am told that the total of the expenses under this clause cannot be estimated. Certainly the Government have given us no estimate of it. This time payment is generally objected to. It was hoped that the present principle of unpaid service to the county council would be retained. I support the Amendment of my noble friend, and I hope to do so in a Division.

EARL BUXTON

I hope, on the contrary, that the Government will stand by the concession that they have made in this matter. I think it is entirely in the right direction. I think that the two noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Amendment, Lord Lamington and Lord Novar, forget that the whole basis of this Bill, as of the English Bill, is to take away from these smaller bodies which are doing local work, and to put that work into the hands of the county council. I am not now saying whether that is a good thing or a bad one, but the result is that the voluntary work which can be obtained for the small local body cannot be obtained in the same way for the larger county councils. It is well known that the work done on the county councils involves a very considerable amount of time as well as expenses of various sorts for coming and going and for time lost. It is the opinion of some of us, at all events on this side of the House, that the democratic basis of equality of opportunity should be insisted upon. We support this provision in order that the electors, in the first place, may have the fullest range of choice and that those who offer themselves for election may feel that they will not be prejudiced by having to incur indebtedness as the result of being elected to the county council. Surely it is very important that all sections of the population should be represented on the county council. This particular provision will affect not merely Labour members, but equally the professional classes who cannot afford to give their time for nothing, but who would make most excellent members of county councils. I hope, therefore, that the Government will maintain their position and oppose this Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not sure that I can add very much to what has been already said. My noble friends who moved and supported this Amendment have called attention to the fact that there is a difference in this re- spect between the English and Scottish Bills. That is perfectly true, and I would only say in reply that the case of Scotland differs in material particulars from the ease of England. In the first place, there was an almost unanimous opinion among Scottish Members of Parliament. I do not mean to say that your Lordships are in any degree bound by the opinion of Scottish Members of Parliament, but nevertheless it is a striking circumstance that Members of Parliament, not merely those belonging to the Opposition but strong supporters of His Majesty's Government, were, as I gather, almost unanimously in favour of this change. This means, of course, that they were obliged, as representatives, to say that, in the view of their constituents, this change ought to be made. That is a substantial point.

The next point that distinguishes the case of Scotland from that of England is, as has been mentioned several times, that under the existing Education Act in Scotland, which was passed in 1918, these payments are provided for. Education functions are now to be transferred to the county councils, and if we were now to say that there was to be no payment for time lost, the persons who have served the county councils ever since 1918, and have no doubt served them very well, will probably be returned in runny cases to the county council and will find themselves at great disadvantage compared with the position that they have hitherto occupied. That is a second point which distinguishes the Scottish ease from the English case. A third element is the very large size of the Scottish counties and the great difficulty of communication. Sometimes it is necessary to cross the sea if representatives of the remote parts of the county area are to attend at the central place where the business of the county council is transacted. That is a very great point. Finally, there is the distinction, which I think was mentioned by the noble Earl who has just spoken, that in many cases where you get rid of a smaller authority and merge its functions with those of a larger authority the people who were formerly useful on the smaller authority may be prevented by mere poverty from continuing their assistance on the larger authority. They would be disestablished and disendowed, if I may use that phrase, by the procedure which the Government have found it necessary to adopt. These are great difficulties.

I agree with my noble friend, of course, in valuing voluntary services, and I will be perfectly frank and tell him that it was with the greatest reluctance that I saw the infraction of that principle in this clause. Personally I was as unwilling to accept it as almost any of your Lordships could be. Voluntary service in Great Britain has been of the greatest possible advantage to our counts, and I see its gradual diminution and its replacement by paid service with great regret. But it cannot be denied that we have welcomed in countless speeches the assistance of working-class representatives on our deliberative assemblies, in Parliament and on the county councils, both in England and Scotland. We have welcomed these working men, and we have said to the people of the country: "You can elect any one you like and, if you are not satisfied with upper-class or middle-class representatives, send your own people." That is what we have said to them. They come back and say: "We cannot afford to act." How are we to find our way out of that dilemma? That is the difficulty, and though, as I say, I profoundly regret the change, I confess that it is difficult to meet the logic of that argument, and therefore the conclusion is that which appears on the face of this Bill.

It is quite true that the provision was not in the Bill originally. It is true that it was urged upon the Government, and I have no doubt that the very arguments that I am submitting were used in respect of it. It is very difficult, as I have said, to resist the logic of those arguments, though it is with great regret that I make that admission. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that we are not throwing the reins upon the neck. There is to be a very careful supervision over expenditure under this head. As your Lordships will see from the Bill, the whole thing is controlled by a scale prescribed by the Secretary of State, and accordingly there will be some check upon it. I would wish your Lordships to understand that the whole idea is not just to welcome upon these bodies the ordinary trade union representatives. They will come, of course, if they are elected, but they are paid for by the trade unions, and there is no difficulty in that regard. They do not get compensation under this clause, for they will be doing their job, like anybody else. They will be serving their union, and they will be provided for. It is the working-class man, the man who cannot be paid for unless we pay for him, whom we are contemplating. I say that it is a very regrettable necessity but, if we are going to welcome working class people, it seems illogical to say that we shall not see that they do not suffer for their actual service. If you say that, you refuse with one hand what you give with the other.

LORD LAMINGTON

The noble Marquess has addressed to your Lordships an impassioned appeal, but I would remind you that the Government introduced the Bill without this provision. If it is so very desirable to have this working-class representation why did they not think of it before? It is only quite a very late repentance, influenced no doubt by pressure in another place, and yet they now make it out to be a laudable provision. It is nothing of the sort. Another Government may come into power which may not have the same careful ideas of economy.

THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

I should like to intervene in order if possible to clear up one point, and it is this. A sort of table is to be laid down for payments and allowances, which I understand is to be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Is the House not to be allowed to see anything of this table? I think there is a misunderstanding. Lord Buxton suggested that not only the labouring class might get payments but also the professional class. As I understand, however, from information which I have received from the Scottish Office, that is exactly what will not happen, because the rates which are to be laid down will be very low rates, for the purpose of covering working men purely and simply, and not sufficient to cover the loss of fees of the professional class. That is the information which I have received from the Scottish Office. I have not, however, seen the table, and I do not understand that any one in the House has seen it either. Indeed, I do not know if the table has yet been made up, and so long as that situation continues it seems to me to be very obscure. Lord Buxton has said that the professional class would get payment, and he may be justified in thinking so, and therefore I think we should have the point cleared up.

Finally, there is this point: We are told that we cannot go against this provision because all the Scottish members in another place have said that they want it. This is indeed Government from Whitehall, of which we in Scotland so much complain. There has not been one complaint from the county councils, who are concerned, but it is the members of another House, who have nothing whatever to do with it, who have influenced the action of the Government. In any event, I trust that something may be done to clear up the considerable obscurity which exists.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

I should like to point out one misapprehension. We are not merging smaller bodies into larger ones in respect of the education authority, and the areas are exactly the same in the counties with which I am concerned. In those counties we have an advantage which noble Lords coming from England have not yet had. We have had experience of the results of payment of expenses incurred by the members of the education authority, and the results from both counties with which I am acquainted have been extremely unsatisfactory. I should have thought that if the members of the County Council of Lancashire and other counties can serve without any difficulty, members of county councils might very well do so in Scotland.

LORD LOVAT

I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Earl. I should like to know whether this concerns wage earners only. I come from a county where a penny in the pound only produces £1,000, and where it is necessary to take a week's journey to attend the county council. If there is any question of people generally getting these allowances, then the burden will be enormous. As it is, even for travelling expenses connected with education the cost to the county is a penny in the pound. If you pay what is suggested we might very well incur expenses amounting to a shilling in the pound. I trust that the Government will give us an assurance that, whatever orders are produced by the Secretary of State for Scotland, they will refer only to wage earners and not to the professional classes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Lord Leven asked, I thought with considerable force, what knowledge Parliament had of the particular scale of expenditure which was being prescribed under this clause. If your Lordships will be very kind, and look at the clause we are discussing, you will see that the words prescribed are as follows:— It shall be lawful for a county council to incur expenditure in paying allowances at uniform rates to be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State … If I do not trouble your Lordships too much, I will ask you next to look at Clause 72 of the Bill, and, reading subsection (5) of that clause, you will see it runs as follows:— Every order made under … subsection (2) of section two or subsection (1) of section seventeen … shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament … Parliament has an opportunity therefore of rejecting the order if it thinks fit. So the Government have taken the precaution that whatever is prescribed under Clause 17 shall be laid before Parliament, and Parliament shall have full opportunity of rejecting it, if it thinks fit.

LORD LOVAT

Can we have an answer to the question whether this is going to refer only to wages or not? Surely it is a quite clear issue, namely, whether payments are to be purely wages or for loss of professional services.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have explained to your Lordships exactly the precautions the Government are taking, but if my noble friend is not satisfied and would like to ask me a question at the next stage I would most willingly answer.

EARL BUXTON

I hope we shall have such information, because I support the clause on the ground that it would apply to all classes who are members of county councils. As regards travelling expenses, why not follow the practice on Royal Commissions, where they send in an account of what their travelling expenses are? The individual member would send in his claim with regard to loss of time, whether he is a wage earner or a professional man. I do not see that there is any reason whatever why a line should be drawn at any particular class. What is wanted is that you should have the fullest possible area of selection; you do not want to prevent professional men from being members of county councils because of the cost it would involve to them. I do not see why Labour should have a preference.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think I might help your Lordships a little if I called attention to a minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland sanctioning payments by education authorities out of the Education Fund of expenditure incurred for certain purposes. Those are the existing Regulations which apply to the education authorities in Scotland. In their case this very kind of expenditure is already met, and we are only repeating in respect of the county councils, which now become the education authorities, what has existed ever since the Act of 1918 in the case of the committees. I find it is written as follows:— In making payments to the persons mentioned in the preceding subsection in respect of any personal expenses necessarily incurred and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment … those are the essential words— in attending such meetings the following rates … Then follow other words which are not material. But it goes on:— In respect of time necessarily lost from ordinary employments, at the rate of 7s. 6d. for each half-day and 15s. for each full day necessarily so lost. I think your Lordships will realise that 7s. 6d. for a half day or 15s. for a full day corresponds only to the working class.

LORD PARMOOR

I entirely differ from what the noble Marquess says; also I think he has misinterpreted the words of the Act itself, and you ought to be clear on this point. There is no limitation whatever in the terms of the Act limiting the benefits of these payments to members of the wage-earning class.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There is no limitation, but there is this power—the whole thing is subject to the orders of the Secretary of State, and I explained to your Lordships what has been the practice of the Secretary of State by the words I have just read out. I have also explained that the whole of that procedure is subject to the consent of Parliament.

LORD PARMOOR

I think the answer to that is manifest. First of all, the order here is to be made under Clause 17. So far as Clause 17 is concerned, there is no limitation to the wage earner. I am not suggesting that he is to have any preferential assistance in this matter; it is open to any man. And I think what the noble Lord has said as regards the actual order which has been used—which, to my mind, has not much reference to this matter—I mean the 15s. a day, that might certainly include the poor professional man as well as the wage earner. But that is not the point, and I think that at present the payment is not limited to wage earners only. No doubt, the order would have to be made and confirmed in this House, and on that occasion the suggested payment or allowance could come under review. But I entirely dissociate myself from the view that there is any special limitation to any class under Clause 17.

THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

Since I raised this point perhaps I may be allowed to thank the noble Marquess for his courtesy in dealing with this question in the way he has done. I and

perhaps other noble Lords, however, find ourselves in this difficulty. We are not quite convinced that the situation is clear, and the Government say: "Pass this clause, and we will see if we can change it afterwards." For myself, I feel rather unwilling to accept that situation, because I am not anxious to vote for this clause unless I know fully and in detail what are the terms of all the provisions, which apparently the noble Marquess is unable to give us.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is true I cannot give them at the present time, but that is not unnatural; but if the noble Lord, or my noble friend above the gangway (Lord Lovat) would like to revert to this on the Report stage I will see what information can be furnished to your Lordships between now and then.

LORD LAMINGTON

My noble friends need not be very much worried after listening to the speech of the noble Earl opposite. It is obvious that if his Party comes into power, he will remove all restrictions.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.
Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Chaplin, V.	Ernle, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Hanworth, L.
		Lawrence, L.
Wellington, D.	Peel, V.	Lovat, L.
		Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Bath, M.	Arnold, L.	Parmoor, L.
	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Queenborough, L.
Airlie, E.		Sandhurst, L.
Buxton, E.	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Stanmore, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Cushendun, L.	Templemore, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Douglas, L. (E. Home).	Thomson, L.
Onslow, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Wraxall, L.
Plymouth, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Morton, E.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
		Glentanar, L.
Ailsa, M.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Hayter, L.
Exeter, M.	Churchill, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
	Falkland, V.	Jessel, L.
Breadalbane and Holland, E.	Novar, V. [Teller.]	Lamington, L. [Teller.]
Cawdor, E.	Younger of Leckie, V.	Newton, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)		Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
	Askwith, L.	Redesdale, L.
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)	Biddulph, L.	Remnant, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Elphinstone, L.	Saltoun, L.
	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Sinclair, L.

In virtue of the ancient rule Semper praesumitur pro negante, Amendment disagreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In accordance with the usual decision there will be no change in the Bill.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Rates relating to transferred functions]:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The Amendments in my name to this clause are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 29, line 1, after ("by") insert ("subsection (1) of section one of")

Page 29, line 2, after ("shall") insert ("(so far as falling to be defrayed out of the rates)").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Lord Arnold has been good enough to tell me that he does not move the next Amendment to add a proviso to subsection (5).

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

Clause 21:

Contributions by burghs to county council.

21.—(1) Subsections (3) and (4) of section sixty of the Act of 1889 and section ten of the Act of 1926 (which relate to contributions by burghs to the county fund) shall cease to have effect, and the expenditure (to which this subsection applies) of the county council for each purpose for which any burgh is included within a county, whether under this or any other Act, shall be apportioned and allocated as between each such burgh and the landward part of the county according to the rateable valuation in the valuation roll of the respective areas so far as within the county, and the amount of the contribution apportioned and allocated to a burgh shall not be rated for by the county council on the several lands and heritages within the burgh but, except in so far as defrayed out of the common good or other revenues of the burgh, shall be paid by the town council out of such rate payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions as the town council may determine.

LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), before "rateable valuation," to insert "unreduced." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a very important point, a complicated point, but I am glad to say that I can put it quite briefly. Seeing that the Amendments to be moved from this Bench are very nearly finished now I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two. The intention of this Amendment is to create a condition of greater equality between county and burgh ratepayers, the latter of whom are to be made contributors to schemes common to the whole community. County ratepayers as a whole are to be derated to a much larger extent than burgh ratepayers. The estimated gross valuation of the counties is £13,980,000, and that will become a derated valuation of £6,200,000; that is to say, it will be more than halved by the derating provisions of this Bill. On the other hand, the small burghs' gross valuation, estimated at £5,471,000, becomes a derated valuation of £4,784,000; that is a difference of 12.56 per cent. or about one-eighth. Your Lordships will perceive that there is a striking difference between these two sets of figures. The county will be rated on an average of 44.35 per cent. and the burghs on an average of 87.44 per cent, of the gross valuation.

The Amendment does not propose apportionment in proportion to gross valuation—I am not proposing that—but on unreduced valuation and that, according to the Bill, is the valuation created by the Rating Act of 1926. This means in the case of counties an unreduced rateable value of £11,369,000 instead of a gross value of £13,980,000. In the case of the small burghs it will be £5,242,000 instead of £5,471,000; that is to say, there is very little change so far as the burghs are concerned. I want to emphasise that because under this Amendment the county ratepayers will still escape allocation and contribution upon £2,611,000, which is chiefly due to agricultural abatements, while the burgh ratepayers only escape on £229,000. Under the scheme of the Bill the county ratepayers are to receive from Treasury grants and rates the difference between the unreduced rateable value and the reduced rateable value, that is £5,169,000. On the other hand, the small burgh ratepayers will only receive assistance in respect of £458,000.

The next point is that as the Bill is drafted the expenditure of the county is to be allocated upon county and burgh in proportions of £6,200,000 and £4,784,000. I think that is manifestly unjust because the counties are getting rates and grants in respect of the difference between the unreduced valuation and the reduced valuation. Very well. In order to meet that this Amendment proposes to allocate expenditure in the proportion of £11,369,000 and £5,242,000, which, I think, would be much fairer; otherwise the counties are getting two gifts—namely, the gift of a reduced share in the expenditure, and the gift of grants based on the expenditure of the standard year which the Bill proposes to relieve them of in future years by placing it on the relatively higher valuation of the burghs as compared with now. As I say, I know it is very complicated, but the point is a very substantial one indeed, and I think there are weighty reasons why it should receive more favourable consideration than some of the others which have been moved today. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 29, after the first ("the") insert ("unreduced").—(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I think the effect of this Amendment would be to provide that the apportionment of expenditure as between the burghs and the landward area should be upon "unreduced" rateable value—that is to say, should proceed on the existing rateable value. Of course, that would have the effect of carrying it out just as if the derating provisions of the Bill had not been brought into effect. The reason why an apportionment is necessary is that the county council is not the rating authority for the small burghs. They are themselves their own rating authority, and the county council precepts upon them for the amount apportioned. If you were to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord and make the apportionment on the reduced amount you would get precisely the same effect as if you were to assess the rate upon the reduced amount; therefore there would be no change, and derating would become inoperative. The noble Lord said you are not making two gifts to the county council, but one; but the county council grants in respect of loss of rates through derating will of course be applied towards the expenditure for the whole area, including the small burghs.

The whole point is this: Shall you or shall you not affix the apportionment upon the new scheme of rating? The noble Lord says you should stick to the old form; we say that you should adopt the new form, because we consider the old form of rating is obsolete and unfair in its incidence. We therefore say that the whole of the apportionment should be effected upon the new scale—that is to say, the reduced or the derated scale—and not upon the old scale as proposed by the noble Lord. I hope your Lordships will maintain the Bill as it stands.

LORD ARNOLD

It is useless discussing the matter further, but I should like to point out that there is a misunderstanding on one point. I did not say the counties got one gift; I said two.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I said the noble Lord said two.

LORD ARNOLD

If the noble Lord looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he put it the other way round.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I did not mean to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

Provision as to borrowing by county or town council.

(2) Every enactment authorising a county or town council to borrow money for the purpose of meeting any expenditure of a capital nature shall have effect as if it provided that the council shall not without the consent of the Central Department so borrow unless the resolution to borrow has been agreed to by two-thirds of the members of the council present and voting at the meeting at which such resolution is passed.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 2, leave out ("revenue") and insert ("revenues").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "two-thirds" and to insert "three-fifths." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of the majority necessary for sanctioning a borrowing scheme, and I think it makes the clause a little more workable by removing a difficulty which a factious minority could create in opposing really needed capital expenditure. It is true the difficulty could be removed by the Central Department, but in a meeting, say, of 15, 10 members must under the Bill vote for borrowing the money, and under the Amendment only 9 would be necessary. Even that majority for practical working in a disputed matter is often not easy to get. I think that it would be better all round to alter the clause in the way I suggest and insert "three-fifths" instead of "two-thirds." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 10, leave out ("two-thirds") and insert ("three-fifths").(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

May I venture to suggest that this Amendment is not really necessary, because, as the Bill is, the authority can go with a bare majority to the Secretary of State to borrow.

LORD ARNOLD

I already said that, but I think it would be better to put it in the Bill, as it would prevent the loss of time involved in the process suggested by the noble Earl, which I do not think quite meets the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mitigation of liability of county councils and town councils of large burghs for temporary loans raised under 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 64.

24.—(1) For the purpose of affording relief to the county councils and the town councils of large burghs to whom liabilities in respect of loans (including overdrafts) raised by parish councils under section two of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, are transferred under this Act, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to such loans:— (b) Where any such loan is a loan made by the Scottish Board of Health the sum so certified with respect to the loan shall be repaid without interest to the Department by the council liable therefor by means of an annuity equal to one-fifteenth part of the certified sum, the first instalment being payable on the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-one;

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "therefor", to insert "within fifteen years from the commencement of this Act either." The noble Earl said: This and the following Amendments on this clause are designed to meet the case in which county council or the town council of a large burgh to whom Poor Law functions are transferred under the Bill, and who, therefore, become liable in repayment of the loans, prefers to repay within a shorter period than fifteen years. I think it is exactly the same as Clause 110 of the English Bill. These Amendments are intended to give effect to that.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 34, after ("therefor") insert ("within fifteen years from the commencement of this Act either").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Amendments moved—

Page 33, line 37, at end insert ("or by such other means as may be agreed between the department and the council")

Page 34, line 17, after ("Health") insert ("and had been repayable by means of an annuity equal to one-fifteenth part of the certified sums")

Page 34, line 20, after ("value") insert ("(within the meaning of Part III of this Act)").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25:

Division of counties into districts and establishment of district councils.

25.—(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 day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty, prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval a scheme (in this 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 subsections (1) (7) (8) and (9) 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 may 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 be 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.

VISCOUNT NOVAR moved to leave out Clause 25. The noble Viscount said: The resuscitation of these committees cuts at the root of the Bill, which aims at the consolidation of local authorities and the combination of rating and spending powers in one body. The district might in general have proved a more serviceable unit of administration, but once the county was selected no more should have been heard of the district. Now we are to have directly elected district councils, each with its own rating power and staff, entailing more and more meetings on those of its members who are also members of the county council. Moreover this unfortunate concession revives that vicious dual responsibility under which one body spends the money and the other levies the rate from which we had expected under the original Bill to get free.

The paramount consideration to my mind in favour of the consolidation scheme was that the ratepayers' money spent on poor relief and other services would no longer be distributed by one body and levied by another. Now the district is to have increased powers of rating, while its administration of poor relief will be more lax than that of the parish council which disappears. There was some check in the small area of the parish council on wasteful expenditure on relief, but there is much less under the district committee which is now to control it. Again, sponging by the Islands on the Highlands bids fair to be on an even greater scale, and elsewhere also in the Southern part of the country it will be found that the burden of relief and social services, the cost of which is crippling our industries and impoverishing our citizens, will be increased under the districts in combination with the counties.

I speak more especially for the Ross-shire County Council which is opposed to this clause as weakening the Bill, entailing more work on county councillors and bringing about less efficient administration through an unnecesary increase in the number of meetings. The Government take credit for having made concessions in amending this Bill. Unfortunately, so far they have all been in a wrong direction. I do not propose to divide on this Amendment if only because under Clause 72 as it now stands the Secretary of State for Scotland seems to have taken ample powers to deal with Clause 25 although it is passed by Parliament, thus ridding the country of this bantling born out of due season. He will find that his scheme will work better as originally drafted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, leave out Clause 25.—(Viscount Novar.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

This Amendment seeks to delete the provisions establishing district councils although it would not do so entirely because there are provisions for district councils in Clauses 1 (2) and 13 and 14 (3), but the intention is quite clear. Perhaps I may be allowed to state the main arguments for the establishment of district councils. The abolition of parish councils creates a gap in the traditional Scottish system of local government, and there is a danger that over-centralisation of functions in the hands of the county councils would lead both to a neglect of purely local interests and to a weakening of local interest in local government. There are, therefore, certain minor local functions such, for example, as those under Part IV of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, which could be discharged more efficiently and effectively by a purely local body closely in touch with local feeling than by the central authority of the county. In most if not all the counties, it will be necessary for the county council, in order to cope with its increased duties, to devolve its functions, as far as may be desirable, upon committees.

The Bill as it was originally introduced in the House of Commons contemplated the division the counties into administrative areas and the establishment of local committees to meet this need. Now, district councils are to be set up in place of the proposed local committees. I may add that the provisions relating to district councils were introduced in order to meet a criticism of the local government structure that was originally proposed in the Bill. Although the noble Viscount quoted one instance, I understand that it was generally welcomed and to alter it now would constitute a distinct breach of faith. The noble Viscount mentioned that the proposed rate might be, if not wasted, frittered away, but I think it is important to keep in view the fact that the district council so far as the delegated functions are concerned will be under the financial control of the county council, and that the district council rate which will provide the only fund which the district council will control, is limited to a rate of ls. in the pound. I regret very much that we cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

Provisions relating to district councils.

26.—(1) Every district council shall be incorporated under the name of the district council of the district, and any deed or other document shall be deemed to have been duly executed by the district council if signed on their behalf by two members and the clerk.

(5) Where the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887 to 1920, are in operation within a parish or part of a parish included within the district of a district council, the said Acts shall be deemed to have been adopted throughout the whole of the said district.

(9) A district council may make byelaws for preserving and regulating any recreation ground, common, bleaching green, open space, or other place of public resort or recreation within the district and for regulating the use of the same and for ensuring good order in the use thereof, and the provisions of sections one hundred and eighty-three to one hundred and eighty-seven of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (which relate to byelaws made under that Act), shall apply to byelaws made under this subsection.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "the said Acts shall be deemed to have been adopted throughout the whole of the said district" and to insert "and a scheme under Section 5 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, is in operation under which books are provided for general reading throughout the said district, the district council shall have power to determine, and shall at a meeting called for the purpose determine, either (i) to rescind and annul the adoption of the said Acts within any parish or part of a parish within the said district in which such Acts are in operation, or (ii) to adopt the said Acts and bring them into operation throughout the remainder of the said district."

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. It is intended to deal with the question of public libraries. The Public Libraries (Scotland) Act, 1887, is an adoptive Act. It might be made operative in any parish (exclusive of any burgh in such parish), or in any burgh, by being in either case adopted after the usual procedure. Section 5 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, empowers education authorities to establish libraries and provide books for general reading. This provision has been effectively operated in, it is understood, all the counties in Scotland except one. Under the present Bill it is proposed to substitute the new district councils for the parish councils as local authorities under the Public Libraries Acts. Seeing that so little has been done by parish councils as local authorities under the Public Libraries Acts and seeing that the ground has already been so fully covered under the Education Act by the education authorities, it would have been preferable to have transferred the functions of the parish councils in relation to the subject to the county councils, who would have been able to elect under which of the two Acts they should provide the service.

The Bill proposes to confer similar powers relative to the same services on two distinct and independent bodies, with the obvious risk of wasteful overlapping. Subsection (5) of Clause 26 is objectionable because it may be assumed that the normal district of a district council will consist of three or four or more parishes. If any one, or any part of any one parish, in such a district has already adopted the Libraries Acts, this subsection provides that this adoptive Act shall become operative in the whole of the district council's district without having been adopted, and most probably without being desired therein. It will also interfere with the libraries established by the education authorities for the whole area. In some counties the Act has been adopted only in two or three of the small burghs and in one county only in one parish out of 38, and in another county only in one parish out of 43 rural parishes. I know that the noble Earl is not in a position to say at present exactly what the Government will do in reference to this Amendment, but if he will undertake that the whole matter shall be considered before the Report stage, I shall be satisfied with that and I will put an Amendment down again at that stage.

Amendment moved— Page 37, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("the said Acts shall be deemed to have been adopted throughout the whole of the said district") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE

I should like to support the noble Viscount opposite. This raises a very important point with regard to the development of library services. It is very important that no step should be taken which would hinder that development. As the noble Viscount has told your Lordships, in all counties except one in Scotland there is a county library service. That is to say the county council or the county education authority has adopted the Act entitling the county to rate for library purposes. One county in Scotland has not been able to do so, but all other counties have done so, and have in operation a system of county libraries distributing books to the villages, through the education authority as a general rule, but in some cases through village clubs and institutes. I would, therefore, support the noble Viscount in asking the Government to reconsider this matter carefully between this stage and Report, in order to ensure the proper development in the best possible way of the resources of libraries. The whole essence of the subject is co-operation between authorities at the present moment. If any steps were taken to stop that co-operation it might lead to a very serious hindrance of a movement which has advanced by great strides during the last few years.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I am very glad that the noble Earl opposite has spoken in support of this Amendment because we know he has very great knowledge. As I understand that the Government are willing to consider this very important point, I will not detain your Lordships long, but I should like to inform you of the position in one county, that of Dumfriesshire. There the education authority only incur an expenditure of nine-sixteenths of a penny on the valuation of the county. If the Bill goes through in its present form, the district council will have power to incur overlapping expenditure up to about four times the present expenditure. Apart from that, the education authority in that county, which is not a very large one, already has 86 centres from which books are distributed and exchanged, using a great many of their schools for this purpose. Therefore, I hope the Government will look into this matter most carefully because I think thay have made a mistake which may do a great deal of harm.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I do not think I need trouble your Lordships after what has been said by the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment, by the noble Earl opposite and by the, noble Duke behind me, except to say that the Government will reconsider this matter which will be brought up again on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (9), after the second "district," to insert "and not under the control of any other local authority." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to declare that a district council will not have power to make any by-law with regard to any place of public resort within the district which is under the control of any other local authority. I might give as a very good instance the golf course at Troon. That course is outside the burgh, but it belongs to the Troon town council. This will make it clear that the district council will have nothing to do with the golf course.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 10, after ("district") insert ("and not under the control of any other local authority").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The next is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 38, line 16, at end insert the following new subsection: ("(10) Section fifty-nine of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act. 1903 (which relates to byelaws for commons, etc., beyond burgh boundaries), shall have effect with the substitution of a reference to the consent of the district council for any reference to the consent of the county council").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 34 agreed to.

Clause 35:

Medical officers of health, and sanitary inspectors.

35.—(1) On any vacancy arising after the commencement of this Act in the post of medical officer of health being the officer of the town council of a small burgh then, unless in any particular case the Department of Health otherwise agree, the medical officer of health being the officer of the county council of the county within which the burgh is situate, shall be appointed to the post, and the town council of such burgh shall pay to the county council such proportion of the salary and expenses of such officer as the county council and the town council may agree, and, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Department.

(2) Except with the sanction of the Department of Health no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, be appointed sanitary inspector of a county or burgh unless he possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the Department of Health.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved to leave out Clause 35 and to insert the following new clause:— . On a vacancy arising after the commencement of this Act in the office of medical officer of health or sanitary inspector of a small burgh, the medical officer of health or sanitary inspector, as the case may be, of the county within which the burgh is situated shall ipso facto become the medical officer of health or sanitary inspector for the burgh, and such proportion of the salaries and expenses of such officer shall be paid by the town council to the county council, and failing agreement may be determined by the board.

The noble Viscount said: I believe this to be an improvement upon the clause as it stands. It is another form of words.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 13, leave out Clause 35, and insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My noble friend desires to make it compulsory that, where there is a vacancy in the office of medical officer of health in a small burgh the county medical officer of health should be at once appointed to the vacancy. I do not deny for a moment that very often that might be by far the best arrangement, but it seems to the Government that it is a pity to make it absolutely compulsory in every case, and some kind of power should be left to the Secretary of State to see that in particular cases, where the circumstances are such that the appointment of a special man might be good for the burgh, it should not be compulsory that the county medical officer should be appointed to the vacancy. I rather hope that my noble friend will not press the Amendment. As regards sanitary inspectors, there is a provision in the Bill as it stands prescribing that any candidate for the office of sanitary inspector must have acquired a certain efficiency and have a certain certificate. This makes it practically certain in almost every case that the type of man whom, no doubt, my noble friend considers objectionable could not possibly compete, and his desire is in effect achieved in almost every case under the terms of the Bill.

If my noble friend is not satisfied, will certainly look into the point between now and Report and see if any more can be done, but my impression is that in the vast majority of cases my noble friend's object is achieved in the Bill as it stands. There may be certain very rare exceptions in the case of the medical officer, and perhaps in that of the sanitary inspector, but in the latter case it is most unlikely that an unsuitable person can be appointed because of the provision requiring that the candidate must have a certificate if he is to be accepted. If my noble friend will leave it like that, I will see if anything more requires to be done.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

I think it is clearly desirable that the medical officer of health for a county should have supervision over the whole of these burghs, and my only object in putting the sanitary inspector in the same position is that he will be under the orders of the county medical officer of health. I must say that I think that the continuation of these officers in small burghs in a large county is a very great mistake, and a very expensive one.

THE DUKE OF ROXBURGHE

I hope that my noble friend Lord Younger will receive considerable support. This is a point upon which the County Councils Association of Scotland feels extremely strongly. If efficient working and economy are desired, undoubtedly the fact that, on a vacancy in the position of medical officer of health, the post will ipso facto be held by the medical officer for the county would attain that object. The noble Marquess has very kindly offered to study this point and to give us further information on Report. That, I agree, is a very considerable concession, but I think it my duty to warn your Lordships that on this point the County Councils Association in Scotland takes a very determined and strong line.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Provision for increase of town councillors in large burghs]:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I have a number of drafting and consequential Amendments to this clause.

Amendments moved—

Page 43, line 40, after ("burgh") insert ("or")

Page 43, line 41, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")

Page 43, line 42, after ("ward") insert ("and to apportion the existing councillors or any increased or decreased number of councillors among the wards")

Page 44, line 15, leave out the third ("the") and insert ("this")

Page 44, line 15, at end insert the following new subsection: (4) This section shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine.")—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 [Provision as to alteration of register of electors where electoral divisions or wards are altered]:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to insert as a new subsection: (2) This section shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine. The noble Earl said: This clause provides for the alteration of the register of electors, and should be in operation before the election to the reconstituted county councils of the county councillors for the landward electoral divisions, which takes place in the beginning of December, 1929. This Amendment provides for the clause coming into operation on October 1, 1929.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 28, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not know whether your Lordships feel inclined to adjourn now for dinner but, if so, perhaps your Lordships will be kind enough to come back at nine o'clock.

[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:—

Reports and returns.

". The council of every county or burgh or district and every joint committee or joint board appointed by two or more such councils as aforesaid shall make to the Central Department such reports and returns and give them such information with respect to their functions as the Central Department may require."

The noble Earl said: This new clause is in similar terms to a new clause introduced in the English Bill in the House of Lords, and empowers the Central Department to require information from the Joint Committees and local authorities.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 28, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Repeal of 5 Edw. 7 c. 18.]:

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("any of").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 42:

Agricultural lands and heritages.

(2) The rateable value of agricultural lands and heritages shall be the value ascertained in accordance with the foregoing subsection subject to any adjustment required in accordance with subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1926 or section forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, or any corresponding provision of a local Act, and notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1926 as amended by the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, the net annual value of agricultural lands and heritages shall be taken to be the gross annual value subject to any such adjustment as aforesaid.

LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "adjustment" and to insert "adjustments." The noble Lord said: I said a little earlier that the Government are not willing to alter the Bill by a comma. All I am asking now is that they should alter it by a letter of the alphabet, and as I have toiled long I hope they will accept. This clause deals with two forms of adjustment. There is the adjustment contained in subsection (1), and there is the adjustment contained in subsection (2) and referred to in line 3 on page 46. The net annual value which I am seeking to correct by this Amendment is ascertained by being subject to both adjustments. Therefore I think there is a strong case for putting the word "adjustment" in the plural.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 12, leave out ("adjustment") and insert ("adjustments").—(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The noble Lord makes me feel almost uncomfortable. I am unable to accept the Amendment for the reason that there is only one adjustment. The intention of the Amendment is to make it refer also to the deduction in subsection (1). That is not an adjustment; it is a deduction. Therefore I am afraid I cannot accept it.

LORD ARNOLD

I do not wish to pursue the matter as it is very involved. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I will take leave to have another look at it between now and Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 [Rateable value of industrial or freight transport lands and heritages]:

LORD LOVAT moved to insert the following new subsection:— (3) For the purpose of this Part of this Act salmon net fishings shall be deemed to be industrial lands and heritages. The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment. My object in bringing it forward is simply as an act of justice. Net fishing subjects are occupiers for industrial purposes and should be ranked with any other industrial enterprise, such as brewing or farming or anything of that nature. The comparison with farming is particularly clear. Both depend in the first instance on nature and depend for success upon development by the aid of man; both employ a very large number of workers; both are capable of expansion and extension, and both are very hard hit by foreign competition. It can be said of net fishing that in the past few years, with the rise in wages and competition, there has been a tendency to group fisheries together and to form a combine for working the fishing and selling the product, a very excellent example which, so far at any rate as the selling part goes, farmers might adopt with greater advantage than they do.

The majority of go-ahead fisheries are taking steps to increase the number of breeding fish, and at the same time a reasonable proportion are being taken out in order to pay wages and run the combine at a profit. Only to-day, in a Committee upstairs, attention was drawn to the operation of one of these combines. It is a combine of which I happen to know something, because at one time I helped to direct its policy. It is a company which has spent no less than £900 in recent years in the killing of vermin destructive of fish, and over a period of years it has removed obstacles to the fish getting higher up stream on three rivers, and it has also been in negotiation for other rivers. It has confined its fishing in the main to the sea portion of its area, that is to say, that part of its area where the fish which visit the coast do not necessarily spawn. It has also taken off its nets so as to give free access to the spawning beds. It has also done a good deal in the way of improving and increasing the spawning areas and in the matter of hatcheries. The work which these combines do is absolutely on all fours with agriculture. You have on the one hand the farmer who kills vermin on his land and destroys the weeds, and on the other you have the netters who remove the obstacles to access to the breeding areas. I need not run through all the other items of similarity. Yet on the one hand you give derating privileges and on the other you continue the rating burden.

I would submit that the question of breeding fish is a matter of particular importance to-day. Salmon is one of our best foods, and Scotland is one of the few countries which produce it. Other countries produce it and send it over here—namely, Norway, Ireland and, of late, even Canada. The salmon of this country undoubtedly is a very palatable food, and is a food that is not confined, as is often thought, to the richer parts of the community. When I had to do with the administration of one of these fishing combines one of our best markets was in the mining areas in the days when mining was prosperous. I fail to see why an industry which is capable of development, which is very much threatened at the present time by foreign competition, and which is also threatened by pollution of rivers and hydro-electric schemes, should not be regarded with favour by the Government. The Government need not be anxious that they are going immediately to confer any great benefit on landowners by derating this industry, because the majority of fishing leases, on account of the very large amount of gear and organisation required to run the property, are let on nineteen years leases to- day, therefore any derating that is granted will go direct to the tenant, and a considerable portion, I believe, will then go into improving these fishings, which are undoubtedly a national asset.

I hope I shall not be met with the argument that the unfortunate men who represented the fishermen did not put a good case before your Lordships. It does not depend upon them. We pay two very highly-salaried officers to deal with salmon-fishing. Mr. Calderwood is a very well known gentleman, and it was on his advice that a great many of the reforms in the fisheries were made in this particular company which was brought before your Lordships' notice upstairs to-day. But it is not a case of an official making a case, for they surely have their protectors in the person of the Fishery Commissioner who looks after fisheries in this country, and I submit that this very late act of justice should be done so as to encourage what is undoubtedly one of our important industries, employing a very large number of men. The particular company to which I refer paid last year £12,200 in wages alone. If you develop salmon fishing, as has been done in many other parts of the country, even with Government assistance, you might add considerably to the amount of wages paid and the amount of fish that would be served on the tables of the country at a lower rate than at present. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lovat.)

VISCOUNT NOVAR

My noble friend has presented the case so well, and is such an acknowledged authority on the subject, that there is little for me to add. The production of salmon in Scotland is a very large part of the total production of Europe. It is a very important industry in Scotland; there are about three thousand men employed in it. The expenditure is very heavy. In 1927 nearly 3,000 tons of fish were taken, valued at £200 a ton, which means a total value of over £500,000. There is one argument I have heard used against the inclusion of this productive industry in the Government's scheme, and that is that there is no evidence that relief from the excessive rates which it now has to bear would lead to increased employ- ment. But what evidence is there that the relief of agriculture itself from excessive rates will lead to increased employment? Land must go under grass to help agriculture to keep going at all. There has been and there will be rather less than more employment in agriculture although relief be given under this Bill to that industry. It is the fact, on the other hand, that excessive rates and the heavy cost to which my noble friend has referred have closed down many salmon fishings and involved loss of employment. Why should the salmon industry as a productive undertaking be excluded from the scope of the Bill?

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I hesitate when I have to reply to the noble Lord who spoke first who is considered to be quite one of the biggest authorities on salmon fishing that we have. But broadly speaking, if I might reply to the points in regard to the Bill not from the sporting point of view but from the industrial point of view——

LORD LOVAT

I did not take the sporting point of view at all. I particularly confined myself to net fishing. I did not say there was a word to be said for the sporting point of view. I was dealing with it as an industrial subject.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I beg my noble friend's pardon; I quite admit that. But if I might suggest it, the object of the derating is to help production and employment. The noble Viscount who has just sat down said that there was no argument that derating would bring either an increase in the supply of salmon or more employment for the men. I suggest that there is as much argument for that as in regard to the land. It is the same in both cases. At the same time the chances are that the derating of net salmon fishing would probably not increase the supply of salmon and equally would not increase the employment of the men.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

That is not quite my argument. I said that employment would be increased in the salmon fishing because a great many salmon fishings had to be closed down owing to the great cost and the high rates, and that there was no evidence whatever to show that this Bill would give increased employment in agriculture.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

It is true; but that is why it is difficult to say how de-rating can be used in regard to sporting purposes. At present it has never been done; it is only used industrially.

LORD LOVAT

I really must insist on this point. I never referred to sporting at all, or to any remission of rating in regard to rod fishing. That is an amusement. I think it would be unpardonable if the Government did give a remission of rating respect of rod fishing. This is purely industrial and it is as industrial as agriculture. There is no sport about it at all except that the salmon is a very sporting fish. I am regarding this clearly in connection with the supply of food for the country.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I admit that. At the same time it is very difficult to differentiate between the two as regards the Bill. It is very difficult to differentiate between the industrial and the sporting. As a matter of drafting, perhaps, the Amendment is not quite satisfactory. It should have amended the definition of industrial land and heritages in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, so that the provisions of that Act should have applied to the net salmon fishing. The proposal to treat net salmon fishing as an industry was considered when the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill was before the House last year and for the reasons given it was rejected. We cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

I should like to associate myself with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat. I got slightly muddled over the reply of my noble friend who answered on behalf of the Government. It appeared to some of us that the Government took the line that it was impossible to differentiate between the salmon caught on the rod and line which, as Lord Lovat has said, is purely a luxury business, and the salmon which are caught by the nets in the sea or at the mouths of rivers, which is no more a luxury business than any other business in any part of the country.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I did not say impossible; I said difficult.

THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

It seems to me a difficulty that might be overcome quite easily, because the wording in the Bill could without difficulty be altered in such a way as to make it perfectly clear that this applies only to net fishing, whether in the sea or the mouths of rivers. I do not understand how there can be any misunderstanding on that point. In addition to that, Lord Lovat has pointed out that net fishing of this type may, by a general policy of throwing down the nets, increase the stock of salmon, and, consequently, in future years increase the number of salmon that will be caught. It appears to me to be a close parallel with what takes place in the case of the ordinary industrial company. Such a company finds it pay if, for a certain period, it sells the goods it produces at cost price, or a little over cost price, in order to increase the demand. The parallel in this case is that the net fishing company decides deliberately to catch fewer fish and reduce its

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, after Clause 43, to insert the following new clause:— . For the purposes of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, lands and heritages shall not be deemed not to be occupied and used as a factory or workshop by reason only of the fact that the owner or occupier of the lands and heritages is the only person working therein or that no other person working therein is in his employment.

profits for a period of years in order that in future it may kill a greater number and increase its profit. It seems to me that is very reasonable. I was prepared to hear the noble Earl who replied on behalf of the Government make a frank reply and say: "Well, the Government have not provided the money to do this, and they do not see how they can now provide it at the last minute." That might possibly have been an answer that would have appealed to Scottish members of your Lordships' House. But the noble Earl did not produce that argument, and, not having produced it, still less reason is there why the Government should not give way upon this Amendment.

On Question, Whether the said new subsection shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Morton, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
		Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Exeter, M.	Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]	Glentanar, L.
	Churchill, V.	Lamington, L.
Breadalbane and Holland, E.	Falkland, V.	Lovat, L. [Teller.]
Buxton, E.	Novar, V.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Caithness, E.	Younger of Leckie, V.	Saltoun, L.
Cawdor, E.		Sandhurst, L.
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Sinclair, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Elphinstone, L.	Stanmore, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Onslow, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
	Plymouth, E.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
		Hanworth, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Wellington, D.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Jessel, L.
		Templemore, L. [Teller.]
Airlie, E.	Peel, V.	Wraxall, L.
Iddesleigh, E.

The noble Earl said: The Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, defines industrial subjects, which have been derated by Clause 43, by reference to the definition of the expressions "factory" and "workshop" in the Factory and Workshop Acts. These Acts have been construed as applying only where there is some person employed by the occupier working therein. On this footing premises where a single person works alone on his own account and which would otherwise be a factory—such as a blacksmith's shop—would not get derating, and the object of this clause is to treat such premises as industrial, so that they can get derating under Clause 43.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 23, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44:

Adjustments as to rating relief between landlords and tenants.

44.—(1) Every occupier of agricultural lands and heritages occupying under a lease entered into prior to the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, shall be entitled, on any rate becoming due in respect of such lands and heritages to recover from the owner thereof by retention out of rent or otherwise a sum equal to the amount of the owner's share of such rate multiplied by two and one-half.

(3) Every landholder and every statutory small tenant within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, who is in occupation or who is the statutory successor of a landholder or statutory small tenant in occupation of a holding on the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight shall, so long as he remains in occupation of such, holding, be entitled on any rate becoming due in respect of such holding to recover from the owner thereof by retention out of rent or otherwise a sum equal to the owner's share of such rate, multiplied by two and one-half. This subsection shall cease to have effect as regards any holding at the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision of the Land Court on an application for alteration of the fixed rent or in the case of a landholder, on the expiry of the period of seven years from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, if during that period no such decision has been given.

(4) Every occupier of industrial lands and heritages occupying under a lease entered into prior to the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, shall be entitled on any rate becoming due in respect of such lands and heritages to recover from the owner thereof by retention out of rent or otherwise a sum equal to the owner's share of such rate multiplied by three.

(6) For the purposes of this section a lease shall be deemed to have been entered into on the date of the term of entry thereunder, and the expression "lease" means a letting or agreement for letting for a term of years or for lives or for lives and years or from year to year, and an occupier holding under tacit relocation following on a lease shall be deemed to be occupying under that lease, provided that this section shall not in the case of an occupier holding from year to year or under tacit relocation have effect after the expiry of seven years from the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "on any rate becoming due in respect of such lands and heritages" and to insert "on the fifteenth day of May in each year." The noble Duke said: This Amendment and a number of other Amendments that follow it upon the Paper in my name and the name of several of my noble friends raise two points that were considered on the Second Reading. The first is the indeterminate date on which repayment is to be made from the owner to the occupier. There was great variety of opinion about it and it was thought that the Bill as it stood would lead to confusion and difficulty. This point is dealt with by two of these Amendments. The other point is closely associated with the first. It is the question of the amount of repayment by the owner to the occupier. It was pointed out on the Second Reading that it would be to the advantage of the occupier to increase the rates as much as possible, that the higher they were the more he would put into his pocket. The object of these Amendments, therefore, is to fix the date on which the repayment is due and to stereotype the amount to be repaid in the first full year under the Bill. If your Lordships wish me to go further into the matter I will do so, but I may mention that we put down Amendments a short time ago which were not acceptable to the Government. We have altered them considerably, and I hope that the alterations that we have made may commend themselves to the consideration of the Government and that at last we may find a soft spot in the Government's heart.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 27, leave out from ("entitled") to ("to") in line 28 and insert ("on the fifteenth day of May in each year").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to secure other Amendments that follow upon the Paper, the Question that I will put is, That the word "on" stand part.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

When this subject was dealt with on the Second Reading I ventured to point out to your Lordships that, upon the arguments of some of my noble friends, the effect might be that the whole benefit given to the landlord under the main provisions of the Bill would be retained by him and that this result would not be such as could be approved by His Majesty's Government. I held out hopes that, if an arrangement could be proposed under which the difficulties which they foresaw could be eliminated without involving that unfortunate result, the Government would most gladly consider it. I think that my noble friends have found a method by which that can be done. I frankly admit and have always admitted that any provision under which, as it appeared, a ratepayer could, by voting for an increase of rates, definitely put money into his own pocket was an objectionable one, and if it could be avoided in any possible way we should be very glad to avoid it. Unfortunately, as the case was submitted to us on the Second Reading the only method suggested would have produced greater evils than the mischief which it was sought to eliminate.

Now, my noble friend has come forward and suggested that we should stereotype the sum of money which passes from the rate-paying landlord to the tenant and so avoid the temptation thrown upon the latter to vote for an increase of rates in order to get money into his own pocket. If we stereotype the sum that will evidently eliminate the temptation. Of course, it follows that if the amount of the rates changes the landlord may gain by it, but, on the contrary, he may also lose. It just depends which way the rates move. If it is desired that it should be stereotyped the Government see no objection to it. I have great pleasure in assenting to the Amendment. I hope your Lordships will not think this is a very small matter. It is a very important Amendment and I am very glad that I find myself in strict conformity with the views of my noble friend.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to this Amendment. Perhaps I might inform the Lord Chairman that these eight Amendments are all starred in the Marshalled List. Amendments which are not starred are cancelled by these.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Then we can pass over all Amendments which are not starred. I understand that it is your Lordships' pleasure to pass the first starred Amendment and then proceed to the next starred Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 47, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("such rate") and insert ("the rates in respect of such lands and heritages payable for the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty")

Page 48, line 3, leave out from ("entitled") to ("to") in line 4 and insert ("on the fifteenth day of May in each year")

Page 48,line 6, leave out ("such rate") and insert ("the rates in respect of such holding payable for the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty")

Page 48, line 8, leave out ("at") and insert ("on the day following").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "three years" for "seven years." The noble Lord said: This benefit the landlord has to hand over to the tenant and the tenant is to receive it for a period of seven years. I do not know why seven years has been selected. It is an arbitrary figure and I suppose the idea was that owing to the bad state of agriculture the benefit should be shared for so long in the hope that agriculture would recover in the interval. Personally, I hope that agriculture will recover in less time than seven years from now, and for that reason I move to substitute "three years" for "seven years."

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 11, leave out ("seven") and insert ("three").—(Lord Lamington.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Subsection (3) requires the landlord of a small holding to pay over to the landholder one-half of the amount of relief in respect of rates which the landlord receives by virtue of the derating provisions of the Bill. The obligation to make this payment comes to an end either on the expiry of seven years from June 1, 1928, or on any decision within that period by the Land Court on an application to fix the rent of a holding. The period of seven years is chosen because a rent fixed by the Land Court is fixed for seven years, and there is no such justification for the period of three years proposed by the Amendment, which cannot therefore be accepted.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Although in this particular clause it may appear that the rents are fixed by the Land Court the same period applies with respect to rents not fixed by the Land Court, such, for instance, as lease current or tacit relocation. Perhaps the noble Earl will explain why seven years is taken with respect to those cases.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I think that is dealt with in another Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Yes, but it is the same point.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The tenant of an agricultural holding under a lease current on June 1, 1928, is entitled to receive from the landlord each year during the currency of the lease one-half of the amount of the relief in respect of rates which the landlord receives by virtue of the derating provisions. Where, on the expiry of a lease, no notice to quit is given the lease is automatically renewed according to the law of Scotland by tacit relocation for another year, and so without express provision the position of a tenant holding by tacit relocation would have been doubtful, and express provision was therefore necessary. Accordingly the clause provides that in the case of a tenant holding from year to year or under tacit relocation the obligation to make the payment referred to would come to an end after seven years. The landlord in such a case can, of course, by giving notice, bring the tenancy to an end, and the obligation to make the payment referred to would then come to an end, but any such notice would probably involve payment by the landlord of compensation under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923. In other words, the effect is to deem that such a tenant, whose tenancy might be determined at any time by a year's notice, but continues indefinitely until such notice is given, has a lease for seven years. This seems not entirely unreasonable in view of the fact that agricultural leases in Scotland are not infrequently granted for long terms, with a "break" in the option of either party every seven years. The Amendment, which proposes to substitute three years for seven years, cannot for that reason be accepted.

LORD LAMINGTON

It seems to me that the argument of the noble Earl is rather in the nature of special pleading. Leases are usually for seven years.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

With a break of seven.

LORD LAMINGTON

It is a purely arbitrary term. I consider three years ample.

THE EARL OF STAIR

Has the noble Earl any leases on his property with breaks of seven years?

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Yes, plenty. It is very common.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

I think I can give my noble friend Lord Lamington an explanation of this provision. It is a very simple one—namely, that under every Bill relating to landlord and tenant that has been carried by any Party during the last forty years in both Houses of Parliament the dice has been loaded against the landlord.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUGH

There is a consequential Amendment here.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 18, leave out from ("entitled") to ("to"), in line 19, and insert ("on the fifteenth day of May in each year").—(The Duke of Buceleuch.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I have a manuscript Amendment here, which I am told is necessary for the drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 21, leave out ("such rate") and insert ("the rates in respect of such lands and heritages payable for the year ending on the fifteenth day of May").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

We accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45:

Relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages not to be taken account of for certain purposes.

45. Neither the relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages effected by this Act or by the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, as amended by the Act of 1926, nor the amounts recoverable by occupiers from owners under section forty-four of this Act, shall be taken into account by the Land Court in fixing a fair or equitable rent for a holding under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, or by an arbiter in determining for the purposes of section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out Clause 45. The noble Duke said: The reason why I put down this Amendment is that no one seems to understand what Clause 45 means. I do not know whether the Government does. The clause has been put to various arbiters, and each of them has given a different interpretation. I understand that no lawyers can understand it and I am moving this Amendment in the hope that the Government may be able to make it clear—I am quite certain they cannot—and that at any rate they will take into consideration the making of it clear when it comes to the Report stage. Otherwise there may be an enormous amount of litigation, friction and so on. Several Judges of the High Court have lately rather criticised the vague wording of certain provisions in recent Acts of Parliament. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 45.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I am afraid I am up against a pretty hopeless proposition, but I will endeavour to explain the clause. Clause 45 directs that the Land Court in fixing a rent for a holding under the Small Landholders Acts, and an arbiter in determining under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable for a holding to which that Act applies, shall not take into account the relief of rates received by the landowner or the agricultural tenant either directly or through the payment to him by the landlord under Clause 44. The intention of the clause is that, in any such fixing of or determination as to the rent, the rent shall not be raised so as to deprive the landholder or occupier of the benefit of the lower rates payable by him. Whether such a provision is really necessary is arguable; but it must be pointed out that its omission at this stage might in certain quarters be imputed to a desire to secure for the landlord the benefit of the relief in respect of the rates which the Bill gives to the tenant. Further, as the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, contains in Sections 5 and 14 similar provisions applying to England and Scotland respectively, and as the English Bill in Schedule 10, paragraph (17), re-enacts this former section, the omission from the Scottish Bill of any similar provision cannot very well be defended. That is why the Amendment cannot be accepted. I do not know whether I have made it clear to my noble friend.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I am very much obliged to my noble friend for the explanation. I am afraid that neither of us is a lawyer, and if lawyers cannot understand it I think your Lordships may excuse us. I want to get this clear because it may lead to a great deal of friction and litigation. This applies to two different circumstances. A man may have taken a farm before 1923 or after that date and totally different circumstances would apply. How is the arbiter to know what he is to do? Supposing a man takes a farm after this Act comes into operation. The landowner may spend a lot of money on it and gets, after bargaining, a rent of £200, let us say. There is in the lease such a covenant as my noble friend mentioned, and at the end of seven years he goes to the arbiter and tells him that he has to calculate what the relief in rates has been since 1921 or 1922, ten years before, and that has to be taken off the £200, which reduces it to £180, say. It seems to me that there will be great confusion.

I quite understand the object of the clause, which is apparent of course. But it is not going to answer. In addition, it will do a most dangerous thing—it will lessen the security for money invested in land. It must always be remembered that the money invested by a landowner in a farm is very much more than that invested by the farmer. I doubt whether there is any arable land in Scotland which, leaving out of account the value of the land altogether, is paying anything like 2 per cent. on the improvements. I hope that the Government will look very closely into this because we all know, especially those of us who have been in the House of Commons, that legal authorities are not always right. In the House of Commons the legal authority on one side of the House usually takes one view while the legal authority on the other side takes another. The clause is not clear, and I hope the Government will look into it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I can assure my noble friend that we will entirely adopt his advice and look into it. It is true, that neither he, nor my noble friend nor myself are lawyers and we may easily fall into error. But the Government have been very carefully advised with respect to this particular clause. I cannot attempt to resolve all the doubts; I am sure I should only make confusion worse confounded if I tried. I do not think it is necessary to repeat what my noble friend has said about the intention of the clause because, as the noble Duke says, that is very evident. The evident object is that the relief should not be taken into account for the landlord's benefit in fixing the amount of the rent and that, of course, is apparent on the face of it. Whether the clause achieves it without the confusion of which my noble friend speaks I am not able to say, but I will undertake to have it carefully looked at, and if the legal gentlemen who advise the Government think an Amendment can properly be introduced, we shall, of course, put one down. I want to add this. It would have a very bad effect indeed if this clause, having once appeared in the Bill, was simply struck out. People would say "The Government have gone back and Parliament have gone back on their intention, and they intend that the landlord should, after all, mop up all these little stray advantages which are given by the Bill to the relief of agriculturists." Therefore, it would be a very unfortunate thing if the clause disappeared altogether.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

Some of these experiments have not been tried in England.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is in the English Bill.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

Not in the same terms; it is always improved upon when it comes to Scotland. It reminds me of a story of the late Lord Holland. After the Union, when legislation was brought in to which he strongly objected, he used to say: "Try it on the corpus vile; try it on Scotland." I should like to see this tried on England.

THE EARL OF STAIR

Would it not be advisable that these things should be enquired into before the Bill is brought in and not afterwards?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

They were. These things have been done with the greatest care. My noble friend seems to think that they are not properly looked into. In deference to my noble friend who tells me that legal advisers who have been consulted do not understand it, I have promised, as it is my duty, that it shall be looked into. That does not mean I let it drop altogether.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 [Commencement and provision for the year 1929–30]:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Of the Amendments on this clause in my name I only move the starred one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 15, leave out ("rate") and insert ("rates for the said year").—(The Duke of Bucclench.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 [Discontinuance of grants]:

EARL BUXTON had an Amendment on the Paper to move at the beginning after "The grants", to insert "other than grants in respect of maternity and child welfare." The noble Earl said: Owing to the somewhat uncrowded state of the Benches behind me and the similar condition of those on my right I shall not inflict a speech upon your Lordships or even move this Amendment.

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50:

Payment and apportionment of General Exchequer Contributions.

(4) The General Exchequer Contributions shall be apportioned amongst the several counties and large burghs in manner hereinafter following, that is to say:—

1. (a) during the first four fixed grant periods there shall out of the General Exchequer Contribution for each year be allocated to each county or large burgh an amount equal to the appropriate per- 947 centage of the losses on account of rates and grants of the county or burgh;
2. (b) during the first four fixed grant periods the residue, and thereafter the whole, of the General Exchequer Contribution, shall each year be apportioned amongst the several counties and large burghs in proportion to their weighted populations.

(5) The amount apportioned under this section to a county shall be called "the county apportionment" and the amount so apportioned to a large burgh shall be called "the burgh apportionment."

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to leave out subsections (4) and (5). The noble Lord said: This is merely a re-arrangement of the provisions of the Bill to have a special clause dealing with the apportionment of the Exchequer contribution. A similar Amendment has been made in the English Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 42, leave out subsections (4) and (5).—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51 [Payments out of Road Fund towards General Exchequer Contribution]:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to insert at the end of the clause: "The provisions of this paragraph shall come into operation on the passing of this Act." The noble Earl said: This makes it clear that the transfers from the Consolidated Fund to the Road Fund under this paragraph shall be made in the year 1928–29 and 1929–30, and not have to be postponed until the commencement of the Act in May, 1930.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, after Clause 51, to insert as a new clause:

Apportionment of General Exchequer Contributions.

" .—(1) The General Exchequer Contributions shall be apportioned amongst the several counties and large burghs in manner hereinafter following, that is to say:

1. (a) during the first four fixed grant periods there shall out of the General Exchequer Contribution for each year be allocated to each county or large burgh 948 an amount equal to the appropriate percentage of the losses on account of rates and grants of the county or burgh;
2. (b) during the first four fixed grant periods the residue, and thereafter the whole, of the General Exchequer Contribution, shall each year be apportioned amongst the several counties and large burghs in proportion to their weighted populations.

(2) The amount apportioned under this section to a county shall be called 'the county apportionment' and the amount so apportioned to a large burgh shall be called 'the burgh apportionment'."

The noble Earl said: This is consequential on previous Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 11, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 52 to 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 [Compensation for losses on account of special rates]:

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 30, leave out ("leviable") and insert ("levied").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.

Clause 58 [Additional Exchequer grants to large burghs]:

Amendments moved—

Page 58, line 37, leave out from the beginning to ("shall") in line 39, and insert ("Section fifty-three of this Act")

Page 59, line 6, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 [Payment of supplementary Exchequer grants to large burghs]:

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 35, leave out ("additional").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6O agreed to.

Clause 61:

Payment of grants.

61. The grants under this Part of this Act shall be payable to the county and town councils entitled thereto at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct.

LORD ARNOLD moved, after "direct," to insert "not being less frequently than bi-monthly." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to save local authorities the cost of overdraft interest. The original White Paper stated that these payments would be made not less frequently than bi-monthly. Surely it is very desirable that local authorities should not require to overdraw their bank accounts if grants are available. Therefore I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 32, after ("direct") insert ("not being less frequently than bi-monthly").—(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

This clause is in the customary form and the statement as to the payment of drafts made in the White Paper—namely, that they would be paid in six instalments during the year—still stands.

LORD ARNOLD

Is there any reason why it should not be put in the Act? The White Paper has no binding force. Why should it not be in the Act?

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The answer is because it is the customary form.

LORD ARNOLD

I do not think it is an answer, if I may say so.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 61 agreed to.

Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.

Clause 66 [Power to make regulations]:

Amendments moved—

Page 63, line 5, leave out ("Part of this")

Page 63, line 18, after ("may") insert ("provide for that expenditure being taken in appropriate cases to be the amount of the payments made in any year and may")

Page 63, line 21, leave out ("leviable") and insert ("levied").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67:

Method of apportionment between authorities of expenditure and grants for purposes of the Sixth and Seventh Schedules.

67.—(1) Where by the rules contained in the Sixth and Seventh Schedules to this Act the expenditure of any authority is re- quired to be apportioned between the several counties or large burghs into which the area of the authority extends, the apportionment shall be made— (b) in the case of any other expenditure of a spending authority, in proportion to the reduced rateable value of the parts of the area within the several counties and burghs.

LORD ARNOLD moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "reduced" and insert "unreduced." The noble Lord said: The argument for this Amendment is similar to that which I used in moving my Amendment on Clause 21, so I need not repeat it, but I think I ought to give one or two figures in order to make the position clear. In this clause we are dealing with the large burghs. There are nine counties and nineteen burghs affected by this Amendment. I will not go through all the figures, but as regards the burghs the unreduced valuation comes out at £5,414,000 and for the counties the unreduced valuation is £11,368,000. The reduced valuation under this Bill for the burghs would be £4,539,000 and for the counties £6,146,000. This works out so that the unreduced valuation is £7 6s. 5d. per head on the average in the counties and £7 6s. 9d. on the average in the burghs. That is a very much fairer distribution of costs than will be the ease under this Bill because the Bill proposes a basis of valuation which would work out in this way: £3 19s. 2d. per head in the counties, £6 3s. per head in the burghs. That really, I think, is inequitable especially as the grants in respect of derating are much greater in the counties. I will not pursue the matter because I think the point is a perfectly clear one. I do not know whether the noble Earl will make the same answer as before, that it will mean that there is no derating. If he says that, I will only say that I do not think that this is quite the position. It is not a question of whether derating is to take place, but of the distribution of certain burdens after derating. That is the point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 38, leave out ("reduced") and insert ("unreduced").—(Lord Arnold.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The noble Lord who moved this Amendment told your Lordships that the same principle had been raised in the Amendment that he moved on Clause 21, and that this Amendment deals particularly with the larger burghs. He did not deal with it at length and he did not repeat the arguments that he used on Clause 21, and therefore I will not trouble your Lordships with replies that you have already heard. I should like, however, to make one or two observations in reply to what the noble Lord said in regard to this particular Amendment, and to inform your Lordships that the reduced rateable value had been adopted in this clause as a basis of apportionment primarily because of the desirability of following the general principle of having regard to the liability which will be borne by the various areas in future.

The point that I think I ought to bring before your Lordships' notice is that there is good ground in equity alone for apportioning the losses on which grants are based on the reduced rateable value, since that is the basis which will give the greatest benefit to the large burghs by way of grants in respect of losses of rates. Future actual expenditure will be based on reduced rateable value, and, as derating is heavier in the landward than in the burghal areas, the large burghs which are within county areas for education or police purposes will therefore have to bear a larger proportion of the cost of these services in the future than they have had to bear in the past. For these reasons and for those which I mentioned on Clause 21, we think that we should adhere to the proposals which have been put before your Lordships in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 67 agreed to.

Clauses 68 to 71 agreed to.

Clause 72:

Orders.

72.—(1) If any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State may make such order for removing the difficulty as he may judge necessary for that purpose, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Secretary of State necessary for carrying the order into effect.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order make any adaptations or modifications of the provisions of any Act necessary to bring those provisions into conformity with the provisions of this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act as may seem to him to be necessary in order to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act or in order to make an equitable adjustment or apportionment of any expenditure or payment under the local Act consequent on the carrying into effect of the provisions of this Act.

(4) An order under the foregoing provisions of this section shall not be made after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.

(5) Every order made under the foregoing provisions of this section or under subsection (2) of section two or subsection (1) of section seventeen or subsection (2) of section sixty-seven of this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat, after any such order is laid before it, praying that the order may be annulled, it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new order.

(6) Any order made under this Act may be revoked or altered by a subsequent order.

EARL BUXTON moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elgin, in whose name it stands. I understand that the Government are prepared to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 28, leave out subsection (1).—(Earl Buxton.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a short statement upon the whole of this clause, because the subsequent Amendments really follow upon this one. Your Lordships will remember that on the Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, who had just entered the House, was very severe upon this clause. Indeed, I think he founded his opposition to the whole Bill upon this clause. I at once expressed to him my assurance that we were certainly not averse from considering modifications of this clause, and I hoped, by showing myself forward in that respect, to rope him in, if I may use the phrase, as one of the staunchest supporters of the Bill. We are quite ready to go with him to the extent of striking out subsection (1). Your Lordships will remember that this is the subsection which purports to give the Secretary of State power to modify this Bill in any respects which he may hereafter think necessary in order to bring its machinery into operation. Very legitimate criticism was made against the sweeping powers given in this subsection. Upon very careful consideration my right hon. friend has come to the conclusion that it is not necessary for him to have these powers, and we are therefore quite willing to strike out subsection (1) altogether.

This has led to the consideration of the whole clause, and we are anxious to make modifications in other parts of it. Subsection (2) is not quite the same as subsection (1), but it provides power to modify other Acts of Parliament, which might be difficult to adjust in respect of this particular Bill. We think that that should have special protection and, in determining the protection, we naturally have looked to the provision which has been put, by your Lordships' House, into the English Bill in its passage through this House. Your Lordships will remember that in the English Bill the protection consists of what is called an affirmative Resolution. That is to say, the changes which are sought to be made by an Oder cannot operate except for a very short time unless there is an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament in favour of the change, and in the Amendments of which my noble friend Lord Airlie has given Notice and which follow the one we are now discussing your Lordships will find that in respect of that second subsection the affirmative Resolution is established as a safeguard.

In addition to that we do not desire that this power of modifying Acts of Parliament should be perpetual. It ought to be only a very temporary provision and the Government only require it for a very limited purpose. Therefore we provide in the Amendments that an Order of this kind shall only be possible up to the end of 1930. What remains, of course, is the power to modify Local Acts of Parliament. I am afraid the Government must adhere to that limited jurisdiction because the Local Acts of Parliament are very numerous and, what is more, we have no means of ascertaining what they are. There is no central record of all the Local Acts of Parliament which can be got at and therefore it is absolutely necessary to give a rather far-reaching power in that respect only. Your Lord- ships can see that the Government have been most anxious to meet the criticism on this clause. I frankly admit that, personally, I share to the full the criticisms which have been made and I am very glad that it has been possible by my mouth to announce to your Lordships the modifications which the Government have made.

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE

I would like to thank the noble Marquess, and through him the Government, for the consideration they have given to this clause. Having already dealt with the position on the Second Reading, I shall not trouble your Lordships further at this stage except to thank the Government for having met a position which I thought very detrimental to any Act of Parliament and which I am glad to see they have been willing to meet. I quite understand the position about these Local Acts of Parliament and the necessity for the Secretary of State having some authority to deal with these Local Acts. I thank the noble Marquess for the very frank way in which he has met us.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I have some Amendments on this clause but they have been very fully met by the statement of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, that, as regards these Local Acts, it is quite reasonable the Government should have these powers and I join with him in thanking the Government.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 68, line 38, at end insert as new subsections: (2) Every order made under the foregoing subsection shall come into operation upon the date specified therein in that behalf, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and such order shall cease to have effect upon the expiration of a period of three months from the date upon which it came into operation unless prior to the expiration of that period it has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament: Provided that, in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(3) An order under the foregoing provisions of this section shall not be made after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty."—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 7, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 10, leave out ("the foregoing provisions") and insert ("the immediately preceding subsection").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Clause 74:

Declaration of intention as to future increases of local expenditure.

74. It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that in the event of substantial additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public health or other service after the commencement of this Act provision should be made for increased contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out "substantial" and insert "material" The noble Duke said: This is an Amendment which was put in the English Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 6, leave out ("substantial") and insert ("material").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The Amendment is accepted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCAR-DINE moved to leave out Clause 74. The noble Earl said: This clause seems to be contrary to the general line of Acts of Parliament, in that it outlines a declaration of what subsequent Parliaments shall do. From that point of view it is to my mind, and I hope to your Lordships' minds, objectionable. It is also objectionable from another point of view, in that it is giving encouragement, to local extravagance. From that point of view, as well as from the other, I think it is an objectionable clause. At the same time I do not see, whether it is there or not, that the clause really affects the efficiency of the Bill, and from the point of view that it is unnecessary, as well as rather obnoxious, I propose to move that it be deleted.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 74.—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)

LORD ARNOLD

I have a similar Amendment down on the Paper, but I do not wish to support it by quite the same arguments as the noble Earl. I approach the clause from a rather different standpoint. I am not at all opposed to additional subventions from the Exchequer for health services, and so forth, which in the future may very well happen. I oppose the clause from the point of view of what is the precise effect of putting the clause in at all. Lord Elgin is a little bit contradictory. At one time he said the clause would have a binding effect upon future Parliaments. A little later he said it would not affect the efficiency of the Bill at all. He cannot have it both ways, and I am going to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether the clause will have any effect at all. Is there any precedent for this in the English Bill? Was it discussed at all in the other House on the English Bill? Certainly it was not discussed, under the "guillotine." on the Scottish Bill in the other House. I would like to put this to the noble Marquess opposite. Again and again when we have suggested Amendments he has said that they were not necessary, that they were a surplusage of words. Surely, if there ever was a surplusage of words, you have it here. Can the noble Marquess say that it is a proper thing to put a clause like this into an Act of Parliament? If chatty little clauses like this are put into Acts of Parliament, and declarations of intention are to be imported into the construction of an Act, it seems a most extraordinary proceeding. I should like to ask specifically for a reply to the question: Has this clause any operative effect at all, and will it have any operative effect in the future?

VISCOUNT NOVAR

I disagree with the noble Lord opposite. It seems to me that when Parliament puts obligations on local authorities which entail great expenditure in the locality you had better shoulder the burden of financing them.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I will try to tell your Lordships the history of what the noble Lord calls this chatty little clause. It is common to both Bills; it is Clause 131 in the English Bill and Clause 74 in this Bill. The clause was not in the original Bill in either case. It was put in in another place because there was a very great demand for it from the representatives of the local government organisations, and I think that has been borne out by what has been said by the noble Viscount behind me—namely, that the county councils in Scotland were very anxious that there should be some declaration that supposing additional services were put upon local authorities it was then an obligation on Parliament, or at any rate on this Parliament, that further financial assistance should be provided from the Exchequer.

My noble friend opposite asks whether this has any legal binding effect upon any future Government. I believe he is right, and that it does not bind a future Government. I do not suppose you can bind a future Parliament legally to honour this declaration. But as to the effect, it has been to give great confidence to local authorities that they will not be called upon to bear the expense of additional services without additional assistance from the Exchequer. During the last twenty years a great many new services have been put upon local authorities, and I think there is very good reason for local authorities to say: "Well, we do not know that there may not be all sorts of other services put upon us, and we do want it made plain that Parliament did not intend this to be the last word and that we should not receive any assistance in the future." That is the effect which the clause has, and if it has no legal binding effect on future Parliaments it has gone a long way to satisfy local authorities and to remove their fears.

The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, said he thought this would encourage extravagance, that local authorities would say: "Oh, it does not matter what expenditure we incur, because we shall always get fresh assistance from the Government. I do not think that could really be the case, because Parliament puts a new service on the local authority; it is not the local authority which puts the new service on itself. When Parliament does that it is for Parliament to make the provision for the extra expenditure. I do not think that this clause is at all likely to encourage local authorities to break out in extravagant expenditure. I admit it is, perhaps, an unusual clause, but it certainly has had the effect of reassuring those who, I think, had every reason to expect some declaration from the Government that they would not be put to extra expense in consequence of the provisions in regard to rating which are in this Bill.

EARL BUXTON

In regard to this clause and the clause in the English Bill, is there any precedent? What is the meaning of the word "intention"—"the intention of this Act"? When the Judges have had to decide points in connection with Acts of Parliament they have said over and over again: "All that we have to deal with is the actual wording of the Statute. We know nothing whatever about the intention of the Government or of Parliament." Is it not, therefore, a dangerous word to put into an Act of Parliament? It is one that I should have thought was unprecedented.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am afraid I have not the information as to former precedents and I cannot call one to mind. There may have been precedents, if not actually for these words, at any rate for analogous words. I do not know whether there is any similar case and I cannot call one to mind. As to the drafting and the meaning of the word "intention," I am afraid I cannot answer that question now. But if the noble Earl cares to raise those two points again at a later stage I will do my best to find out what the answer may be and to give it to him then.

LORD ARNOLD

I will not go into the arguments of the noble Earl. It is quite clear that he has great difficulty really in defending the insertion of this clause, which is an extraordinary one. The noble Earl, I think, has not quite understood and I should like to make it clear. As far as we are concerned, my colleagues and I are not objecting to the idea of further help to the local authorities for these beneficial services. That is not the point. The point is whether it is worth while to put it into an Act of Parliament. That is the point between us.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The only answer I can give the noble Lord is that the local authorities think it is, and that we should like to meet them in every way we possibly can.

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE

Are we to understand that the noble Earl is willing to reconsider this, and to give us on the Report stage an expression of opinion as to what "intention" really means?

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

If the noble Earl is referring to the meaning of the word "intention." But I cannot give any undertaking to reconsider the drafting of the clause, or the intention of including the clause in the Bill, or even any alteration of the wording. It is the same clause as that in the English Bill and I think it should be retained in the Scottish Bill.

Clause 74 agreed to.

Clause 75:

Repeals.

75.—(1) The enactments mentioned in the Eighth Schedule to this Act shall be repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule.

(2) Where provision is made by any Act for dividing a county into districts for the purposes thereof, any provisions restricting the districts for the purposes of such Act to or by reference to the districts under the Act of 1889 shall cease to have effect.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to add to subsection (1):— Provided that such of the said enactments as relate to the accounts and the audit of the accounts of local authorities shall continue to have effect for such period as may be necessary after the commencement of this Act for the purposes of the making up, balancing and audit of the accounts of those authorities for the year ending on the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty, and for any previous year. The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment dealing with the provisions for audit. I beg to move,

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 14, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

VISCOUNT NOVAR moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 75:—

Lewis to be deemed a separate county for purposes of Act.

" . For the purpose of this Act Lewis shall be excluded from the County of Ross and Cromarty, and deemed to be a separate county, and any adaptations or modifications of any Act necessary for giving effect to this section shall be made by order of the Secretary of State under the provisions of section seventy-two of this Act."

The noble Viscount said: I am sorry to trouble your Lordships with a matter of local application but it is one of considerable importance. The Island of Lewis is quite populous enough to administer its own local government. It is so distinct in character and needs that mainlanders do not know the Island and its requirements and the islanders have no knowledge at any rate of the three most important districts of the mainland. The cost of bringing the Island members to the county town will be great, and the cost of the Island to the mainland will be immense.

I do not think it is always understood what the incidence of rates really is. If it be thought that too much insistence is made on the danger of excessive rates such as we have in this region, let us remember what the incidence really is. The ratepayer is taxed upon his rates as well as upon his property. Take the example of a property from which £100 a year has to be drawn. To get that £100 at a 1s. rate it must yield £105 5s. 3d.; with a 10s. rate it must yield £133 6s. 8d.; with a 10s. rate it must yield £200; with a 15s. rate it must yield £400: with a 17s. 6d. rate it must yield £800; and with a 19s. rate £2,000 a year. That kind of rate is not unknown in these regions. Thus it is that not only is all income confiscated but property becomes unsaleable and the ownership involves heavy loss. I gave your Lordships some particulars about this Island on Second Reading. It contains over one-third of the population of the county.

The mainland is practically unanimous in favour of separation. If the Government seeks to relieve agriculture of excessive burdens which it has so considerably increased by its smallholdings policy and by other legislation, here is a practical way to do it. The burdens thrown on economic by uneconomic agriculture in Ross-shire are almost incredible, and if ever there was a case for a tub standing on its own bottom it is the case of these islands. There is agriculture of the highest order on the eastern seaboard, but in Lewis any attempt at agriculture disappeared with the advent of the Board of Agriculture and the disappearance of Lord Leverhulme of the Western Isles. What is now desired is the departure of this community of rate-receivers from the County Council of Ross and Cromarty. We have more than enough of this kind of thing on the mainland already. With the best intentions the action of Parliament has been steadily directed towards rendering agriculture in Ross-shire as uneconomic as possible. Great arable farms are cut up into small uneconomic holdings yielding diminished returns. Upon one such farm alone the loss has been about £60,000. In other cases again the unfortunate owner has to bear the loss—the person who under this Bill has to pass on his own just measure of relief which, together with non-rating of crofter holdings, brings our rating into such hopeless confusion.

The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, quoted me as saying 40 years ago that agricultural rating relief went to the owner. And why not so far as it is his just right? He has not put the burden of rates upon his tenant. The noble Earl may take this consolation. As I observed just now, every time the landowner has the dice loaded against him. Encourage uneconomic agriculture if you will, but at any rate let it stew in its own juice and I offer an opening towards that desirable end. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 19, at end insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Novar.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

As I understand the Amendment the intention is to constitute Lewis a separate county both for administration and finance, but the Amendment as drafted would not affect this, if I may be so bold as to say so, as Lewis would be a separate county only for the purpose of this Act—that is, for the major and most onerous services. It would remain included in Ross and Cromarty for the purposes not covered by the Act—for example, housing, unclassified roads, minor health services and a large number of miscellaneous services. Such a result would be anomalous. As regards the merits of the proposal the Island of Lewis, I am informed, is financially incapable of providing the major services required of a county under the Bill as a rate of a penny in the £ with its rateable value would produce only a little more than £100.

Moreover, the effect of disjoining Lewis from Ross-shire might have serious financial consequences on the burgh of Stornoway which would contribute over 70 per cent. of the local rates of the proposed new county. The burgh contains a population of only 4,079 as compared with the landward population of 24,299. Accordingly the landward representatives would dominate the situation although their financial interest was very small. The average rateable value in the landward area is only 6s. per head of population whereas in Stornoway burgh it is £5 per head. For every 1s. of rates paid by the landward ratepayers therefore the Stornoway ratepayer would pay 17s. Broadly speaking the rates in Stornoway would be increased from l1s. 6½d. per £ to 19s. 8d. per £. It is true that the cost of providing local services in Lewis will be greater than the rate contribution to the funds of the County of Ross. The county council are, however, being compensated for this through the operation of the block grant formula—inasmuch as the effect of the very low valuation per head in Lewis is to give the County of Ross a heavy loading in respect of low valuation, the loading being estimated at about 20d. per head of the population. In money, therefore, the compensation referred to will amount to about £6,000 per annum. Bearing these things in mind I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

Is it not a very strong case for keeping the Island of Lewis out of the County of Ross and Cromarty?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Remaining clause agreed to.

First Schedule [Part I. Statutory Provisions regarding Functions of Town Councils of Small Burghs transferred to County Councils]:

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved to add to Part 1:— 26. The Explosives Acts, 1875 to 1923. 27. The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928. 28. The Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1926. 29. The Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926. The noble Viscount said: The Acts enumerated in my Amendment cover services which at the moment are in very many instances performed by the county councils for the small burghs. These Acts are not included in the Schedule and it may be that the small burghs will have to set up new organisations to administer them, involving expenditure for equipment and also the employment of officials. For these reasons I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 74, line 39, at end insert:— ("26. The Explosives Acts, 1875 to 1923. 27. The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928. 28. The Weights, and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1926. 29. The Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926").—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If my noble friend will be content with the first two of the lines of his Amendment—the Explosives Acts and the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act—I shall be glad to assent to it, but there are difficulties about the other Acts.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

I will accept that, and I will move my Amendment in that form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved—

Page 74, line 39, at end insert:— ("26. The Explosives Acts, 1875 to 1923. 27. The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928").—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Third Schedule: