Lords Sitting of 25 April 1939

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ROYAL WANSTEAD SCHOOL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
WILD BIRDS (DUCK AND GEESE) PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVEST- MENTS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
EXETER EXTENSION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
SAINT NICHOLAS MILLBROOK (SOUTHAMPTON) CHURCH (SALE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the enactments relating to solicitors, and for purposes connected therewith, and to make provision with respect to the membership of the Law Society and committees of the Council thereof; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CONGLETON) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Congleton; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MARGATE) BIILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Margate; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MATLOCK) BILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Urban District of Matlock; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

REORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.17 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZEILAND): My Lords, this Bill relates to the machinery of Scottish administration and is designed to give effect, so far as legislation is required, to the recommendations made by the Committee on Scottish Administration which reported in October, 1937. The Committee was presided over by the Right Honourable Sir John Gilmour, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, and was strong both in political and in administrative experience; and its inquiry into the organisation and duties of the Scottish Administrative Departments under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland has been of the utmost value. I should like to take this opportunity of renewing the expression of the gratitude of His Majesty's Government to the Committee, whose recommendations had the merit of being unanimous and have been generally accepted by the Government.
The main recommendations of the Committee which require legislation are that the functions of the Scottish Education Department, the Department of Health for Scotland, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, the Fishery Board for Scotland, and the Prisons Department for Scotland should be vested in the Secretary of State. At present, as your Lordships will be aware, the Scottish Education Department is nominally a Committee of the Privy Council, of which the Secretary of State is Vice-President. The other Departments concerned are separate legal
710
entities and possess statutory powers distinct from those of the Secretary of State, though they are required to act under his general direction. It is desirable that the form of organisation should reflect the constitutional position—namely, that the ultimate responsibility to Parliament for all Departmental action must lie with the Minister; and this is the basis of the recommendations. Clause 1 of the Bill gives effect to the change and makes various consequential provisions. By subsection (4) the Secretary of State may make Orders for incidental adaptations of enactments, and subsection (5) provides that the Orders so made shall be laid before each House of Parliament for twenty-one days before they take effect. Subsections (7) and (8) are designed to facilitate procedure in relation to property vested in the Secretary of State and to legal actions to which the Secretary of State is a party.
The proposed transfer of functions to the Secretary of State will clearly pave the way for a Departmental reorganisation and a redistribution of certain Departmental activities. It is proposed, as recommended by the Committee, that in future there shall be four main Scottish Departments. Three will be Departments of Education, Health and Agriculture respectively, and the fourth, a new Scottish Home Department, which, broadly speaking, will take over the functions of the Scottish Office, the Fishery Board and the Prisons Department. These four main Departments will be of equal status, and each will be in charge of a Secretary responsible to the Secretary of State for the duties of his Department. The Secretary of State will also have the assistance of a senior officer—the permanent Under-Secretary of State—who will be outside the Departmental organisation and available as adviser on matters involving the co-ordination of Departmental action, or where the matter at issue falls outside the recognised province of any one of the Departments.
In the case of the General Board of Control for Scotland, whose functions, as your Lordships will no doubt be aware, relate to lunacy and mental deficiency, it is proposed, for the reasons set forth at some length in the Report of the Committee, to retain the existing type of organisation. The Board will, however, be reconstituted and brought into closer

711
contact with the Department of Health. The reconstituted Board will comprise a paid whole-time Chairman, who will rank as an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health, two paid Medical Commissioners, a paid part-time Legal Commissioner, a representative of the Scottish Education Department, and three unpaid members representing the general public. The necessary provision is made in Clause 2 of the Bill.
Clause 3 provides for a Scottish Fisheries Advisory Council. The present Fishery Board, whose functions are being transferred to the Secretary of State, includes four trade representatives, and after its abolition it is proposed, in accordance with the Committee's recommendation, to institute a Scottish Fisheries Advisory Council, so as to ensure the closest contact between the new Fisheries Administration and the fishing industry. The Council will consist of not more than twelve members, appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the various sections of the fishing industry. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the appointment of the staff of the Registrar General, and is designed to clarify the existing statutory position. It is proposed, as recommended by the Committee, to associate the Registrar General more closely with the Department of Health. Clause 6 provides for the bringing of the Act into operation in accordance with Orders to be made by the Secretary of State. It is hoped that the general scheme of reorganisation will be ready by the forthcoming autumn.
A special feature of Scottish administration, which is fully dealt with in the Committee's Report, is the importance of basing administration on Edinburgh, where close contact with Scottish public opinion can be maintained, and, at the same time, of ensuring the effective representation of Scottish interests at the seat of government. For many years the day-to-day administration of the Scottish Departments, with the exception of the Scottish Office and of a section of the Scottish Education Department, has been carried on in Edinburgh. A branch of the Scottish Office was opened in Edinburgh in 1935, and it is intended that certain further branches of work
712
should be transferred to Edinburgh. The Scottish Departments in Edinburgh will in the main be accommodated in the new Government building which is now approaching completion at Calton Hill, Edinburgh, and Dover House, in Whitehall, will be the headquarters of the representatives of the Scottish Departments in London for the purpose of keeping constant touch with Ministers and the London Departments, and for carrying on such branches of the work as may require to be done in London. The proposed reorganisation will substitute for the existing organisation, which has developed on different lines and not on any very ordered pattern, an organisation which will be more efficient and at the same time more flexible. I commend the Bill to the House as a useful measure for the reform of Scottish administrative machinery. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
4.29 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not think it would be seemly to allow this important measure, as affecting the Northern Kingdom, to pass without a word from this side of the House, and I rise to support the Bill. As your Lordships have heard from the noble Marquess, it is based very largely on the Report of the Gilmour Committee. A very distinguished member of my Party, the right honourable Thomas Johnston, took part in the work of that Committee, and it would not be right if a word was not said from this side of the House on this important matter, in the Scottish interest. My right honourable friend signed the unanimous Report, as the noble Marquess has said, but he did include a very important note, which is to be found on page 56, in which he regretted that the terms of reference to the Committee were somewhat narrow. I would like, respectfully, to support that. I was, for many years, in another place, and I remember that I always thought that the handling of Scottish business there was a scandal. How they could possibly take the whole business of Scotland in one day, usually a Derby day, and deal with all the great matters concerning Scotland, it was impossible to understand.
Mr. Johnston makes, I think, a most valuable suggestion—namely, that the

713
Scottish Grand Committee upstairs, which deals with matters peculiarly affecting Scotland, should be given wider powers and should sit in Edinburgh in order to save the expense of witnesses coming before this Committee who have to travel to London—another, and I think a justifiable, grievance on the part of Scotland. I also regret with Mr. Johnston that it was not possible to examine into these proposals. I hope therefore that this Bill is one stage towards a measure of devolution for Scotland. The members of my Party are in favour of a much wider measure of devolution for Scotland, among other reasons—and not the least important reason—because of the hopeless congestion of business at Westminster. But this is a small step in the way of a better organisation of public business in Scotland, and therefore we support it.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, I would wish in the first place to thank the noble Marquess for the very clear and lucid exposition that he has given of the contents of this Bill, and I would like also to express my gratitude to the Government for introducing it, though somewhat belatedly. If I have any complaint at all to make about this Bill it is that it is so long since these matters were mooted which are now being the subject of legislation that the delay has become a matter of complaint among what I may call the least exacting and most uncomplaining people in the British Isles. I take leave to differ from the account which the noble Lord opposite has given of the conduct of Scottish business in the House of Commons. It is somewhat minimising the amount of time given to Scottish business to say that it occupies one Supply day in the Session and that that day is usually Derby Day. I have come more recently from another place than he has and I can assure him that Scottish business takes up a great deal more time than one Supply day. Of course, Scottish people are somewhat more laconic than the people South of the Border and they contrive to get through a vast amount of business in a very short period of time.
But there are in fact real objections felt by Scottish people to the way their business is administered and I hope that this Bill, in the new forms of administration which it gives us, will tend to cure a great
714
many of them. For many years Scottish administration has been conducted in what I may call rather a ramshackle way. The various Departments which are in control of the business of Scotland have been, if I may use a Scottish word, a somewhat disjaskit collection of bits and pieces, and what this Bill contrives to do is to bring all those Departments together under one appropriate head. As the noble Marquess has said, the Education Department is at the present time a Committee of the Privy Council and I think that Committee has not met since 1913. That will show the kind of condition in which Scottish organisation has been left. It is quite true that the Secretary of State, who is a member of that Committee, has contrived to conduct its business by himself, but in this Bill we have the Education Department put under the control of the Secretary of State, who is made the sole person responsible to Parliament for the conduct of the educational business of Scotland. I think also it is a merit of this Bill that other Departments—namely, those of Health and of Agriculture—are put in the same way under the direct control of the Secretary of State.
There are perhaps some laments to be made for the dispersal of the Fishery Board because there is no Department which has worked more successfully than has the Fishery Board for Scotland; but I am glad to see that while that is brought into what is described as the Home Department of the Secretary of State's business, nevertheless there is to be continued an Advisory Council in connection with fishery which will indeed take the place of the old Fishery Board and have within it the knowledge and experience which will enable it to advise successfully the Secretary of State in the conduct of fishery business. There is another question which the noble Marquess mentioned—namely, that of the Board of Control, which deals with lunacy. As I understand it—I hope I am reading rightly the terms of the Bill—the Board of Control will continue to function just as previously, and I think that is a wise provision. There is nothing which is more delicate to deal with than lunacy and one knows that very many questions arise not merely of ordinary administration but of law which the Board of Control in Scotland have dealt with most successfully.

715
They have gained the complete confidence of the whole population. I think it would have been a very great pity indeed if that Board of Control had been dispersed and I am glad to think that they will continue to function as previously.
Now what will be set up, as I conceive the lay-out of the Scottish Office, will be these various Departments with a competent Secretary at the head of each, all of whom will report to the Secretary of State and he of course will be the final voice upon all the questions that come before them. There is a certain difficulty which arises out of the fact that you have the Office functioning in London so far as Parliament is concerned, while nevertheless most of the business is conducted in Scotland. The difficulty was, as I understand it, to make a liaison between the two parts of the Office and still leave the Departments with the Departmental Secretaries with direct access to the Secretary of State. In these circumstances I think that probably the contrivance which has been adopted is as good as any other. It is certainly that which was recommended by the Committee under Sir John Gilmour—namely, to set up a Permanent Secretary under the Secretary of State who would form a connection between the various Departments and would also perform the function of meeting Permanent Secretaries of other Departments in the joint conduct of business which affects other Departments of the Government as well as those of Scotland. He will also represent the Secretary of State at conferences when necessary. That I think is probably as good a device as can be adopted.
But further it was suggested by Sir John Gilmour's Committee that the amount of business which is transacted by the Scottish Office is much more than one man with a Parliamentary Under-Secretary can accomplish. In fact the Scottish Office has, in the past, been something like a miniature Government with a great many Departments within it, and I think myself that its many functions are really far too great a burden to put upon the shoulders of any single individual. The suggestion of the Committee was that instead of one Under-Secretary, there should be two in order that this work might be distributed more fairly. I regret that this suggestion has
716
not been adopted, and I hope that the Government will take it into further consideration in the future.
The noble Marquess has paid a tribute to Sir John Gilmour and his Committee for the work they have done, and indeed we all ought to express our deep appreciation of the care which they gave to the consideration of Scottish administration and of the recommendations which have been made. Sir John Gilmour perhaps deserves better of his countrymen than any other man of his time for the devotion he has given to Scottish business, and I am glad to see some of the fruits of his labour in the Bill which we have now seen presented to us. The noble Lord who has just sat down has made some complaint that not everything which should have been included is to be found in this Bill. For my part I feel it is a pity that the work of the Forestry Commission so far as Scotland is concerned was not also transferred to the Secretary of State in the same way as the work of other Departments. In Scotland the Forestry Commission has problems of its own which are quite distinct from any which have to be dealt with in England, and accordingly forestry might very well have been transferred. The duties of the Commission on Crown Lands in Scotland, also, might have been put under the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sorry that these particular matters have been omitted.
But there are people who go much further than I do. There are people who, as I understand the noble Lord, would like to see all the various Departments transferred to Scotland in so far as they perform Scottish business. I am not going to embark on any discussion of Scottish Home Rule at the present time, but I should like to say that it is perfectly obvious there are Departments which it would be very improper to transfer. For example, take the case of transport; I happen to know a little about that. It would be the greatest mistake in the world if you were to put under a separate Department for Scotland the problems connected with transport which affect the whole country—for example, the railways. At the time when the new arrangement with regard to railways was passing through in 1921, as I am sure

717
the noble Lord will remember, it was the Scottish members who made the most vigorous protest against the possibility of running the Scottish railways as a group distinct from the English railways. They insisted, against the opinion prevailing at the time—and their protest not only carried weight, but triumphed—that the Scottish railways should be worked along with the English railways instead of being confined to a separate system. That is only one example of the necessity of keeping the administration of problems which really affect the whole of the island under one body and only transferring those which are local, such as Scottish Agriculture or Scottish Health.
Let me take another example. It would be putting back the clock if you were to put the trade of Scotland under a separate Board from that which manages the trade of England, because the trade of the country is one and indivisible. Take, again, such a question as labour. It would be a monstrosity if to-day you were to try to administer labour problems in Scotland as distinct from those in England. Why, the trade unions themselves operate over the whole country. They do not divide up their organisations. They act as one when it comes to a question that affects, for example, wages. The railway unions act as one; the coal mining unions act as one; and it would be perfectly impossible, as it seems to me, to have any carving up of the labour problem in the way the noble Lord has suggested.
I am afraid I have divagated from the main theme, but before I sit down I should like to say that I do not think that this Bill, by itself, would effect so much if it were not that it is being accompanied at the present time by the building of offices in Edinburgh which will accommodate the whole of the Scottish Departments. Up till now these Departments have been scattered about in different buildings in Edinburgh—Departments carved in two, and all the Departments segregated, with no sort of connection between them, and with the result that business has been very difficult to conduct with efficiency. By the month of August of this year, I hope, we shall see the completion of the great building on the Calton Hill of Edinburgh which will house all the Government Departments and will provide proper accom-
718
modation for the Secretary of State for Scotland himself. It was a scandal for many years that the Secretary of State for Scotland had to conduct his business in a little room off the Parliament House in Edinburgh with quite insufficient staff. It is that kind of thing which has roused resentment in Scotland rather than the larger problem which the noble Lord has indicated.
It is because these things have been left in a state of confusion and because the work of the Scottish Office has been impeded that the Scottish people have felt irritation. I hope these bad days are finished and that the Scottish people will have direct access to these various Departments in Edinburgh instead of having to make their complaints in London. I am perfectly certain that it will effect a real transformation in the conduct of Scottish business. I bless this Bill, but I bless it all the more because we are going to have, I hope, in the immediate future a system by which our business can be conducted in Scotland—the noble Marquess said these Departments will be based in future on Edinburgh instead of on London—and we shall have a much more satisfactory solution for the various problems which affect the Scottish people.
4.49 p.m.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I am deeply conscious of the able way in which the noble Marquess expounded this Bill. It more or less adds the finishing touch to what many of us have agitated for, for many years—namely, the bringing together of all the various Scottish Departments under the Secretary of State. That is a thing for which we in Scotland have asked for many years. There is a great deal to be said for what the noble Viscount, Lord Horne, said just now, that we do want another Under-Secretary of State in order that there should be in Scotland a Minister to whom the various interests can go, in order to get the advice they require. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme to provide for one Under-Secretary of State to be in Scotland and the other in England. I know that is felt very strongly, especially among people who want to promote Bills and other things in Scotland, and I think it is one thing that ought to be looked into in the future. I am only sorry that the Bill does not more clearly define the duties

719
of the Board of Control. It is left entirely to the Secretary of State to lay down what those duties shall be. I would have liked to see a more careful definition of just what those duties are rather than that it should be left in the hands of the Secretary of Slate. The work that has been done by Sir John Gilmour and his Committee, who produced the Report on which this Bill was founded, has been most admirable, and I would like to testify in this House to the great gratitude we in Scotland feel towards Sir John Gilmour for having taken over this and other work relating to Scotland.
There is a very great deal to be said for what the noble Viscount urged in reference to the Forestry Commission. I think it would be a very wise thing if we could bring afforestation in Scotland under the Secretary of State, because we cannot really get a sound economic scheme for the re-establishment of the Highlanders on the land in the many deserted glens of Scotland unless we combine very closely the actual afforestation programme with the use of the land during the warmer periods of the year. One knows that in various parts of the world, in Germany and elsewhere, that has been very successfully done. Unless we do something of that kind we are not going to get any benefit out of the wonderful Report produced by the Economic Council of Scotland, which I read with very great interest and which I hope the Government are going to deal with satisfactorily. You will find from that Report that if you are to get an economic scheme, a scheme that will really be based on what can be produced by means of it, then you have to associate the cultivation of the land along with afforestation. That I am sure is one of the real foundations of successful resettlement of the Highlands of Scotlands.
There is one thing that I hope this Bill will ensure when it collects all the people into the new buildings in Scotland, and that is that when various grievances and schemes are put before the Board of Control they will keep their eyes towards Scotland and not towards Westminster. The curse in Ireland, as I saw it, was that whenever anything came up to Dublin Castle eyes were always directed towards Westminster to ascertain what effect any proposal or scheme would have there rather than to dealing with the real
720
trouble in Ireland. I hope that when this scheme is worked out and is functioning the Board will keep their eyes on the real problem in Scotland rather than on the effect any proposal will have politically in London. Lastly, I would say this. If this scheme is going to be a real success, if we in Scotland are going to get a better administration of our affairs, it will depend very largely on how the money from the Treasury is going to be allocated. If we have to fight for every individual item in the various programmes that come forward, then I think we shall go back to the bad old days. I would much rather see an allocation of block grants towards the various Departments concerned than that. I will say, however, that we in Scotland think this Bill represents a great advance in the administration of Scottish affairs, and everyone most cordially supports it.
4.55 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to pay my tribute of appreciation to the noble Marquess for the very clear manner in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I should also like to give a welcome to the Bill, but in my opinion, for what it is worth, I do not think it goes far enough. I feel rather that it represents a lost opportunity. But if I may turn for a moment to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I would like to say that I saw a speculation in a Scottish newspaper the other day as to what would probably happen if our nation became engaged in a war with a foreign Power and were defeated. The paper went on to speculate with some assurance that after the dismemberment of the Empire the first thing that would be done would be that a measure of devolution would be forced upon Scotland and upon Wales. I am very sorry to feel that any members of the Party for which the noble Lord speaks should share an opinion which has been attributed with so much confidence to our enemies. To my mind the Union of Scotland and England is a thing that is unique in the history of the world, and for my own part I would use every effort to make the relationship more and more close rather than foster the idea of dissolving it. In fact, my reason for feeling that this Bill represents a lost opportunity is that I think it would be to the advantage of Scotland if the Scottish Office were to be done away with alto-

721
gether and the various Departments of Scotland were to be joined to the corresponding Departments in England.
Such a step would be to the advantage of the members of the Scottish Office themselves as well as to the advantage of Scotland. After all, the Scottish Office concentrates its thoughts and experience on Scotland alone, and to that extent it is detached and isolated from the general body of the Civil Service as a whole. That must bring certain disadvantages. It may be that it administers to Scottish pride, but at the same time it does bring great disadvantages, and I always feel that we suffer in Scotland from this detachment. I do not want to say anything that may appear like a reflection upon the very able and loyal body of men who compose the Scottish Office. I am quite sure that the Civil Service as a whole is distinguished above all bodies in the world for integrity, intelligence and industry, and I do not think the Scottish Office falls behind the Civil Service generally in those respects, but things have changed very considerably is the last thirty years. Thirty years ago a strong Minister could carry out far-reaching reforms in his Department. To-day, except in very rare circumstances, I do not think it is nearly so easy for a Minister to carry out wide reforms in his Department. If any Department of Stale gets into a bad condition of any kind, then the one thing that will save that Department is free correspondence and communication with the other Departments of the State.
There is another point. If Scotland is governed by Departments which are one with the Departments in England, then Scotland is far too big for anybody to rise to the head of any Department without Scottish experience. The result of that is that the servant of the State who is ambitious to get on will see to it that he gets Scottish experience. In that way Scotland will get the finest service in the world. It will get far finer administration than England is likely to get, and I want to see Scotland get the best that is going. My experience has been that those Departments of State which are common to Great Britain show a very high degree of sympathy, of local knowledge and of understanding of local conditions in the government of Scotland. I should be very glad to see an extension of this system, and I find that a great many other
722
people share my view. It is the way the world is going. The Surveyors' Institution is not a body with which I would like to suggest that the Government should be compared, but not long ago the Surveyors' Institution came to the conclusion that an organisation for Great Britain would be far more useful than one for Scotland and one for England. They decided to amalgamate the whole body, and I am sure that will have a very useful effect in the future.
There is another question which people who have business to do with the Government have put to me. They say: "This new change is all very well. We shall have to go to Edinburgh to do business, and what shall we find when we go to do business with a Department? There is hardly a single question we raise that does not affect the Treasury. If we are in London, we ask who is the official concerned; we can get hold of him, and get the whole matter settled. But if we go to Edinburgh we may have to go away unsatisfied and return to get an answer another time." It is far more convenient to get the whole thing done in London, because, after all, London is the centre of government. Local patriotism can be carried too far. London is the place where the government of Scotland is centred and London, I think, is just as much the capital of Scotland as it is of England. For my own part I should very much like to see the union of the two countries made far more effective than it is at present, and I am perfectly certain Scotland would be very much better governed as the result.
5.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I am very gratified to find that in all quarters of the House, though for varying reasons, this Bill is welcomed. Certain comments rather than criticisms have been made upon various of its provisions, and I can assure those who have made them that I will see that they are conveyed to the Secretary of State. As I understood it, my noble friend who has just sat down took a precisely opposite view to the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. The noble Lord who has just sat down said, rather unexpectedly to me, that local patriotism could be carried too far. As I understood his proposal it was to concentrate the administration of Scotland in London, whereas my noble

723
friend Lord Strabolgi would have gone a good deal further than the Government have gone in this Bill in the way of delegating administrative authority to Edinburgh.
There was a point raised by my noble friend Viscount Home which I am not sure that I appreciated. It was with reference to the Forestry Commission. If I understood him rightly, he suggested that it might be made a branch of the Scottish Office. Unless my memory is at fault the Forestry Commission is a body which serves not only Scotland but England. It is a statutory body which was set up either during or very soon after the War to discharge certain functions with regard to the preservation and increase of timber and so on. It occupies a semi-independent position and is in fact not a Government Department at all. I am not sure, therefore, what my noble friend has in mind when he wishes to place it, so far as Scotland is concerned, under a Government Department.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: I am afraid I expressed myself in rather a shorthanded way. I did not mean, of course, that the present body which exercises jurisdiction over the whole island should be transferred to Scotland. What I meant was that the functions which are exercised in Scotland by the Forestry Commission should be transferred to a Forestry Commission under the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think the Scottish problem is entirely different from the English problem.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will give due consideration to the suggestion which the noble Viscount has made. I think there was only one other major question raised upon which I might say a word, and that was in regard to the possible appointment of an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland. Reference has been made to the fact that in the Report of the Committee that matter was touched upon, but it was only touched upon because the Committee, as a matter of fact, were only reporting upon the permanent staff. They therefore made no recommendation but merely mentioned the suggestion that it had been proposed that an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary might be required. My right honourable friend the
724
Secretary of State for Scotland has had that matter under consideration, and he is of opinion that for the present an additional appointment of that kind would not be justified. That, however, does not mean that the possibility may not come under consideration again in the future if this Bill becomes law and the reorganised office has actually been seen at work.
I think those were the main points raised in the course of the discussion, and I need only add that I am most grateful to your Lordships for the welcome given to the Bill. My noble friend Lord Saltoun asks me to say something about the people who come to London to do business. They will be able to come to London to do business in the future, just as they do now, because the Secretary of State for Scotland will still be in London and he must necessarily have a portion of the Scottish Office with him in London. I really do not think that my noble friend will find that people who come to London to do business with the Scottish Office will be labouring under any greater difficulties than under the present system. They will have the same facilities as they enjoy now.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIA AND BURMA (MISCEL- LANEOUS AMENDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
5.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, it is perhaps not surprising, in the case of an Act of the length and the complexity of the Government of India Act, 1935, that experience of its actual working should bring to life a certain number of defects calling for correction. May I remind your Lordships that the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act contain together some 480 sections and 16 schedules? The Bill for which I am about to seek a Second Reading this afternoon consists only of seventeen clauses and one schedule, and it will effect, broadly speaking, some twenty disconnected Amendments in the original Acts. These Amendments are, of course, primarily of interest to the Governments which are functioning in India itself, and I accordingly re-

725
quested the Viceroy to submit these proposals to the Ministries in the different Provinces in India for their comment. While the Ministers in three of the Provinces felt themselves unable, for reasons upon which I need not enlarge, to express any opinion with regard to them, I have given careful consideration to the views put forward by the Ministers in the remaining Provinces, and I am glad to say that I have found it possible to give effect to some at least of the suggestions which they have made. I should like, therefore, to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude for the time and thought which they have devoted to the matter. And, if it be not thought to be invidious to make mention of particular Governments, I would express my special thanks to the Bengal Ministry for the thoroughness with which they have dealt with the various provisions of this Bill, and to the Punjab Ministry for the spirit of cordial co-operation in which they have met my requests for their assistance.
The Amendments to the various sections and schedules of the original Act are, as I have said, disconnected, and I have therefore issued for the convenience of your Lordships a White Paper in which is shown the wording of the different sections of the original Act as it will come if this Bill becomes law. The greater number of the Amendments are designed merely to give clear expression to what was quite obviously the intention of Parliament when the Acts were originally passed, or to make good deficiencies which experience in the working of the Constitution has shown to exist. So far as Amendments of this kind are concerned, I need not perhaps do more than refer your Lordships to one or two typical examples.
Take, for example, the first subsection of the first clause of the Bill. It was always the intention that while Corporation Tax—and by Corporation Tax I mean the Super-tax paid by the companies—should be a Federal source of revenue, the Income Tax paid by companies, as distinct from the Super-tax paid by them, should find its way into a pool from which the Provinces as well as the Federal Government are entitled to draw. The existing definition of Corporation Tax in Section 311 of the Government of India Act has, however, been found to be faulty, in that it embraces both the Super-tax and the ordinary In-
726
come Tax paid by companies, thus depriving the Provinces of revenue to which they are entitled. The purpose, therefore, of subsection (1) of Clause 1 is to amend the definition so as to give effect to the original intention of Parliament.
Then, again, take subsection (2) of Clause 2, which provides for the insertion of two additional items in the Provincial legislative list contained in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act. It was never intended to deprive Provincial Governments of the right which they have hitherto enjoyed of taxing both motor vehicles and the consumption of electric current. With the passing of the Act, however, doubts arose as to the competence of the Provincial Governments to continue to levy these taxes. In the case of motor cars the doubt arose because, while the item "mechanically propelled vehicles" appears in the concurrent legislative list, there is no specific mention of the taxation of those vehicles, and in any case it would clearly be inconvenient that they should be liable to taxation by two different authorities. The doubt which has arisen in the case of the tax on the consumption of electric current has been due to a different cause. Duties of Excise are included in the Federal legislative list, and with the passing of the Act it was thought that a tax upon the consumption of electricity might be said to be an Excise, in which case the right of levying it would be vested in the Federal Government and not in the Provincial Governments. The purpose, therefore, of the clause is to lay these doubts at rest and to make it clear beyond possibility of dispute that the levying of these taxes is a Provincial and not a Federal right.
Clause 3 is in a somewhat different category, and may be stated to raise a question of principle in that its effect will be to give the Federal Government power to levy Customs duties and to impose export and import control on the frontier of any unit of the Federation itself. It is to be hoped, of course, that little occasion will arise for the use of this power. It is important, nevertheless, that the Federal Government should be in possession of it, and I will explain to your Lordships why. When the Federation comes into existence, the control which the Federal Government will exercise in the Federated States over such matters as the subsidising

727
of industries and the conditions of labour will be but slight. It would be possible, therefore, for a State to embark upon a policy of unfair competition against other units of the Federation, and it is to protect itself against this development that the power is required. I may point out to your Lordships that, as a safeguard against the abuse of the power, it is provided that legislation to give effect to it shall not be introduced without the previous sanction of the Governor-General acting in his discretion.
Then I come to Clause 4 of the Bill, to which I admit some exception has been taken by the Provincial Ministries in India. Its purpose is, in a word, to furnish the Central Government, in the event of war, with executive authority throughout the country. It was, of course, realised when the Government of India Act was being framed that in circumstances constituting a grave emergency a large measure of central control might be necessary, and provision was made, in Section 102 of the Act, whereby the Federal Legislature would be empowered in certain circumstances to legislate on matters which normally fall within the legislative field of the Provinces. But the fact was overlooked that the power to make rules under an Act is an exercise not of legislative but of executive authority, with the result that under the Act as it stands the Central Government would not be competent to include, in any Act relating to subjects lying normally in the Provincial field, provision to enable the Central Executive to make rules on the subject-matter of the Act in question; nor would the Central Government be competent to confer upon its own officials, as, for example, military officers, executive powers in relation to Provincial subjects.
I am fully satisfied that the successful prosecution of a war in present day circumstances requires some measure of unified control, not only of policy but of its execution; and for this reason, and for this reason only, Clause 4 provides both for the rule-making power, to which I have referred, and for the exercise by the Central Government of general powers of superintendence, direction and control, similar to those which it has enjoyed in the past. Examples of the sort of case in which the necessity for the exercise of
728
such powers is likely to arise will no doubt very readily occur to your Lordships. The control of lighting in connection with air-raid precautions provides an example. Or, again, the regulation of supplies, not merely for the armed forces but for the civilian population also, and the prevention of profiteering or of the withholding of supplies from the market.
It is true, of course, that the conferment of these powers on the Central Government may be represented as an invasion by the Centre of the sphere of authority conferred by the Act on the Provinces, and I can appreciate the objection which has been raised to it by some at least of the Provincial Ministries in India on this score. Let me, therefore, say categorically that I should be the last person to approve of any such extension of central powers in normal circumstances, or for the purposes of day-to-day administration. It is to meet the emergency of war only that these powers are sought, and it will be realised, I hope, that while the Viceroy and I consider it essential to provide in case of necessity for a measure of unity of direction and control, we have no wish whatsoever to undermine the authority of the Provincial Governments, but, on the contrary, our aim is the closest co-operation, in the interests of India as a whole, between the Central and the Provincial Governments.
The remaining clauses of the Bill deal for the most part with technical defects which the actual working of the Constitution has brought to light, and I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any explanation of them; but I need hardly say that should any one of your Lordships desire information with regard to any one of these rather technical Amendments I shall, of course, be only too willing to do my best to provide it. The last of the operative clauses of the Bill—namely, Clause 16—is a printing clause, the effect of which will be to secure that every officially printed edition of the Government of India Act, and of the Government of Burma Act, which is issued after the passing of this Bill, will contain the text as amended by this Bill. I hope that this will meet with the approval of those, in particular, who dislike what is known as legislation by reference. With these words I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

729
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
5.28 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it was always in the minds of those who were responsible for the framing of the Report out of which the Government of India Act came that whatever Act was passed would probably, in the light of experience, reveal certain defects. It was a long and very complicated measure, and although endless time and thought were given to it none of those associated with that work dreamed, for a moment, that what they were doing would be perfect. On the whole the work of the Provincial Governments has gone on so smoothly and so hopefully that I should be very sorry indeed to see any subsequent legislation that would appear to the people of India to invade the rights which that Act conferred upon them.
The noble Marquess, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, did not, I think, clearly inform us—if he did I did not clearly understand him—that, apart from Clause 4, the Bill was on the whole an agreed Bill apart from Bengal and the Punjab, that the Provincial Governments assented to the main principles. If they have done so, and this Clause 4 quite clearly relates only to war emergencies, then I think the House should consent to the Second Reading, with the right always of looking at it more closely before the Third Reading takes place. I do not personally like at all this proposed invasion of the rights of the Provincial Governments, and I should like to know, if the noble Marquess feels he can properly tell us, how many of the Provincial Governments have protested against the proposed clause as it now stands. I do not think I want to discuss the matter further at this stage, but express only those doubts about the possible effect that the Bill may have upon the working of the major Act.
5.32 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the words that he has used. I think, broadly speaking, I may say that, with the exception of Clause 4, this may be regarded as an agreed Bill. There are one or two of the provisions of the Bill upon which different Provincial Governments have held different views, but that, I think, is inevitable, and the Bill fulfils, I think, the greatest measure of agreement
730
that is possible in the circumstances. Then, with regard to the question which the noble Lord asked me, as to how many of the Provincial Governments expressed dissent from Clause 4, I cannot tell him the exact number, but I think I may safely say that the majority expressed apprehension at the inclusion of this particular clause, though not all of them.
I would like to remind noble Lords of what I touched upon in passing when I was moving the Second Reading, and that is this, that the original Act does contain a clause, Clause 102, which gives to the Central Government and Legislature the power in a grave emergency to legislate in respect of subjects which lie normally in the Provincial field. This, therefore, is not introducing a new principle. It is only to make good an omission which was made at the time as the result of an oversight in Clause 102, that Clause 4 is included in this Bill. As I explained, the present position is really an anomaly, because while in the case of war the Central Government could legislate in respect of Provincial subjects, where that was considered necessary in the interests of the safety of the country as a whole, it cannot make the rules which in the case of legislation of that kind are so often an essential part of the legislation, and it is in order to give the Central Government that additional power that this clause is incorporated in the Bill. But I would like to repeat what I said, that I should be the last person in the world to wish to bring about an invasion of this kind so far as day-to-day administration is concerned, or so far as normal circumstances are concerned. It is simply and solely a war measure and nothing more.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
5.35 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, this little Bill, which consists of one operative clause only, was passed through another place without dissent anywhere, and without any amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will be able to treat it

731
in the same way. It is parallel with the Bill relating to similar subjects for England, which, as has already been reported to-day, has now come up to this House in an agreed form from another place. It was felt better that the matter should be dealt with separately so far as Scotland is concerned, for reasons which I will mention in a moment, which appear in Clause 1. Otherwise it is on the same lines as the English Bill. There is no doubt at all that these "bings," as they are called in Scotland, are sometimes a source of danger, certainly to the health of the community, sometimes even to their property, and I believe that in some cases they might indeed be very serviceable to hostile forces who want to come and bomb certain places. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will perhaps give us an illustration of that, drawn, I believe, from a place not very far from his own home. Anyhow, these bings burn day and night, and are sometimes very dangerous. Whether it is possible physically to put them out is another matter. I should think a good many of them could not be put out by any means that we know at present. But at all events it is to be hoped that the Bill will prevent the addition to their number, and I think it is rather a preventive Bill than anything else.
In the case of Scotland it was felt that it was fair and right to provide that before an authority took the steps which the Bill authorises them to take to declare one of these deposits a nuisance, those affected should have the right to have the case heard before a trained legal authority rather than take the chance, which might be variable sometimes, of the treatment they might receive before an ordinary bench of untrained magistrates. Therefore it is provided in Clause 1 (1) that the case should be heard before the Sheriff. And then a safeguard further for those who are responsible for making the heap is provided in the words of Clause 1 (2), that it should be a defence if it can be shown that practicable means have been taken for preventing the accumulation of deposit from becoming liable to spontaneous combustion. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, that he will wish to move one or two minor Amendments to the wording of this subsection, as to which of course I can say nothing until I see precisely what they
732
are. But the Bill as it stands has, as I say, received the approval of all Parties in another place, and was passed through all its stages without alteration. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Addison.)
5.39 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise for a moment to support the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. My home in Scotland is just about ten miles away from the naval base at Rosyth, and I was there at Easter, a couple of weeks ago. Every night, when I went out for a turn the last thing, I could see, blazing like a beacon in the sky, a tremendous bing or "blae-heap," as we call them, and it would undoubtedly form the most wonderful guide-post for enemy aeroplanes. My home is, as I say, ten miles from Rosyth. This pit lies about halfway between—that is roughly five miles from the naval base; and whether the weather is thick or clear you can see this great heap blazing in the sky. As a matter of fact I was sitting down to write to my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to call his attention to this state of affairs when I saw the noble Lord's Bill on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House. I should like to have an assurance either from the noble Lord opposite or from the noble Marquess who will answer for the Government that this Bill will deal with this very serious state of affairs.
The Bill refers to deposits of refuse which are liable to spontaneous combustion. What I am concerned about is a heap which is actually on fire at the present moment. Is that a deposit which is liable to spontaneous combustion in terms of the Bill? The noble Lord opposite expressed doubt as to whether these fires could be put out. This particular fire must be put out even if it involves dragging it stone by stone and possibly spreading it over acres of the countryside. I cannot conceive a more dangerous state of affairs than to leave this dangerous beacon where it is. I should like to have an assurance before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House that it covers this state of affairs, or, if it does not, that the Bill will be amended accordingly. I am quite convinced that this is a matter of urgent national im-

733
portance. I believe the noble Lord has placed the House under a debt of gratitude by bringing the Bill forward, and I should like to support it with all the force at my command.
5.42 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, Lord Gainford has asked me to say that the mining industry is in sympathy with the general provisions of the Bill, but some of your Lordships may feel that the word "liable" is much too wide and may cause interference with the proper working of the mines. I should like to refer to the Public Health Act of 1936 which, in Section 109, provides that "nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as extending to a mine of any description so as to interfere with or obstruct the efficient working of the mine." That is an important point, and it is possible that this word "liable" may interfere with the working of the mine. It might be possible to alter the wording so that the refuse which is deemed to be a nuisance should be "in respect of which there is reasonable cause to believe that spontaneous combustion is likely to occur." I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, is proposing to set down certain Amendments dealing with these points. One other point is this: that it might be possible to take the two Bills dealing with this matter together—the Scottish and English Bills. I would like to suggest that.
5.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I must apologise for intruding on your Lordships' time once more, but Scotland and India seem to be having a field day to-day. I desire on behalf of His Majesty's Government to express approval of this Bill, at any rate as far as its Second Reading is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, asked whether under this Bill it would be compulsory to destroy a refuse heap which is actually burning. I am bound to say, as I read the Bill, that would not be so. What the Bill does is to say that in certain circumstances these refuse heaps which are liable to spontaneous combustion shall be regarded as a nuisance under the provisions of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. That means that proceedings could be initiated
734
against the owners of one of these refuse heaps if it were proving to be a nuisance or if it were proving to be a public danger. In the case of the particular instance to which the noble Lord has referred, it would undoubtedly be a case, I think, which would be regarded as a nuisance. But the owners have a certain defence in proceedings taken against them, or proceedings which might be taken against them, if this Bill becomes law. If they have done all that is decided by the Sheriff's Court to be reasonably practicable to prevent these refuse heaps from becoming a nuisance, then that would be a good defence.
It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that at the present moment discussions are taking place between the technical officers of the Mines Department and the Department of Health in Scotland and the owners of the majority of the collieries where these dumps are actually on fire. It is apparently the case that no fewer than sixty-eight collieries at the present time own refuse heaps which are burning to a greater or less extent, and se far discussions have been entered into between the technical experts and thirty-three out of the thirty-eight companies who own these burning dumps. Discussion has still to be initiated with the remaining five companies. In addition to that, the technical officers have inspected some thirty-seven refuse heaps to enable them to suggest ameliorative measures suited to the conditions in each case. I understand that it is not easy to be certain of preventing one of these dumps from breaking out into fire, but precautionary measures are now possible, and, wherever these precautionary measures can be taken, as a result of the passing of this Bill they will have to be taken. I hope that to some extent that may have proved an answer to the noble Lord's question, though I quite appreciate it does not go the whole way to meet his point. On the whole the Government regard this Bill as a useful measure and wish to give it their blessing.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, there is nothing for me to say except to thank the noble Marquess for what he has said.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I would like to remind your Lordships that we shall meet to-morrow at a quarter before four o'clock—that is, at the usual time, instead of at three o'clock, as had been suggested.
House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.