I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, to leave out the word "representing," and to insert instead thereof the words "elected for."

I cannot hope to introduce into these proceedings the excitement which characterised the Question period. I am afraid that the subject matter of our discussion is much too prosaic for that, but it is none the less substantial and important. Of all the changes in local government that are contemplated in this Measure, the proposal of this Clause is by far the most revolutionary. There is a proposal here which infringes upon the principle of popular election in Scotland. It is therefore anti-democratic in its nature, and it has the still further defect that in the circumstances it is quite unnecessary. We have seen in the past two days very drastic changes effected, so far as the passage of legislation is concerned with local government machinery in Scotland. We have abolished the parish councils; we have transferred the education authorities to the county councils; and we have deprived the smaller burghs and some of the larger burghs of many of their existing functions. Now it is proposed to deprive the electors in certain burghs of Scotland of their right to determine who their representatives shall be on the county council.

I think it will suit the convenience of the Committee if I explain briefly what the intention of the Government is. The reconstituted county councils are to be composed of members elected from the landward areas and their members appointed by the town councils, and then, as I see the matter, the county councils are to be administrative bodies not only for the county but for the small burghs in respect of certain functions, for, as is well known, the first Schedule of the Bill provides for the transfer of many of the existing functions of the small burghs to the county councils. But it is not administrative alone. Administration carries with it the right to rate. It is therefore both administrative and rating in its functions and operations. The members who are to be appointed by the town councils are presumably to represent the views of the electors in the small burghs, but I submit that they can only be an indirect form of representation, and it will therefore be clearly inadequate for the purpose.

I submit that none of the usual reasons that have been advanced in support of the main provisions of this Bill can be adduced in this connection. In our preceding Debates we had a speech from the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir B. Borne), who advanced the somewhat peculiar proposition that a change in local government was desirable, particularly in respect of the educational functions transferred to the county councils, because of the existing apathy in parish council, county council and education authority elections in Scotland. I do not propose to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman on the merits of his proposition. There may be apathy in respect of these elections in Scotland, but it cannot be contended that apathy exists in respect of burgh elections in Scotland. It will be admitted by those who understand the situation that in all burgh elections, at all events in recent years. there has been, in fact, a, considerable measure of interest, and I think that the percentage of electors voting in burgh elections is very high. Therefore that argument cannot be advanced in this connection.

Nor can it be urged that the need for de-rating requires this anti-democratic change in the method of elections of county councils. De-rating, whatever its merits may be—we cannot discuss its merits now—has nothing whatever to do with the proposal embodied in this Clause. De-rating is possible without this change. Therefore the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot urge that derating cannot be applied without this modification in the electoral system in relation to councty council representation. Further, it cannot be argued that coordination in respect of local government in Scotland cannot be effected without this change. It has been argued in the preceding Debates that co-ordination in local government is desirable. I think there is general agreement on that point, at all events in principle. But coordination in local government can be brought about without depriving the electors in small burghs of their undoubted right to decide who their representative on the county council shall be. Therefore that argument will not hold water.

Nor can it be said that the need for efficiency makes it essential to bring about this change. Efficiency is possible without this proposal being applied. Equally, it cannot be urged that the need for economy in administration requires this very drastic transformation of the electoral system. Therefore I urge that none of the arguments that have been adduced, properly or otherwise, in respect of the preceding provisions which have been accepted by the Majority of the Committee apply in this case. It is undoubtedly an entirely novel principle, it is an innovation that is not desired, and certainly it is not necessary for the purpose that the Government have in view. In effect, it means taxation without popular control.

What the right hon. Gentleman proposes, in effect, is to say to the electors within the small burghs, "You are to be represented on the county council, but you are not to say who your representative shall be. You are to be rated by the county council, but you are to have no voice in respect of the amount of rates or the burden of rates or the incidence of rates." Clearly that is an anomaly and is unjustified. I have searched the speeches of the giants in our political history over a long period of years, and I cannot find in any of their writings or utterances any indication of a belief in the impropriety of popular control. It seems to me that political history not advancing any support in this direction, and the Members of the Government not having urged that this is essential for their express purpose, no case can be made out for it.

I would direct the attention of the Committee to another anomaly. The electors outside the burghs, although quite contiguous to the burghs, as they must be, have the right to decide who their representatives on the county council should be, but just across the frontier, a few minutes walk away, a few yards away, the electors, although governed in a large measure by the same council and the same representatives, are not to decide who their representatives should be. All that they can do is to appoint, at the ordinary burgh election, members of the town council, and leave the town council to determine what their representation should be on the county-council. I challenge the Members of the Government to show that anything exists in our electoral methods, either in England or in Scotland, which is at all analagous to this proposed system. So far as I know there is nothing.

It constitutes, moreover, an attack on democracy in Scotland. It perverts the principle that has been operating for a very long time, that has worked quite well and has not interfered with efficiency or economy; and in all the circumstances I say that the Secretary of State should grant a concession to the Committee by withdrawing the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman has had a good deal of his own way. He has seen the parish council disappear, the education authority transferred, and the burghs deprived of many of their functions. These things should content him. I hope he will see his way to grant this concession because of the very strong Opposition that has been displayed towards it among the electors in the Scottish burghs.

This proposal was dealt with on the Second Reading. I ask the Committee to approach it from the point of view as to which of the two suggested methods will produce the greater cooperation and efficiency in the carrying out of this great service, not only in the county but in the burgh as well. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment was somewhat in error when he described it as a novelty, because the method which we are adopting has been in operation for 40 years past with the existing county councils. The fact is that as regards the existing county councils at present, just as for certain purposes under this Bill, a large number of burghs, Parliamentary, Royal and police, are represented upon the county council. As regards the representation of those burghs on the county council, both methods are in a operation. That is to say, as regards the police burghs, which are burghs mostly below a certain limit—I need not enter into details of the limit—they form electoral divisions of the county areas, and their representatives are directly elected on to the county council. As regards the Parliamentary and Royal burghs, they are represented just exactly as we propose here, by representatives nominated by the town councils of those respective burghs. That is done under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1889.

Therefore, we come to this matter finding both systems in operation as regards the representation of the burghs, and it really becomes a business question, a question of what is going to work best and to get the greatest efficiency and economy, and above all the greatest harmony between these burghs and the complete county council. As in many subjects like that, there are arguments both ways, but on consideration of those arguments I invite the Committee to come clearly to the conclusion that the method which we have adopted in the Bill is the wise one to adopt. Why do I say that? I want, first of all, to reinforce the opinion I have been expressing on behalf of the Government with the report of the Consultative Councils, which has been referred to more than once in the course of these Debates. In paragraph 26 of the Report of what is familiarly known as the Munro Committee, hon. Members will find this: The question whether the burgh representatives should be elected directly by the ratepayers or should he appointed by the town councils requires consideration. There is some force in the claim that in a matter of such importance as the public health, the electors should be directly represented on the health authority. If this were given effect to in the scheme, however, it would necessitate yet another public election in the smaller burghs. The apathy of the ratepayers in electing representatives to local public bodies is a matter of frequent comment; it is due, in part at least, to the fact that too many bodies require to he elected. For this reason it would not he desirable to add another election. There is another factor of importance. While town councils probably would object to the transfer of their health functions to a new authority or an existing authority on which they had no representation, the grounds of their objection to parting with their functions would he largely removed if for those functions the town councils themselves appointed the burgh representatives on the local health authority. The representation of the burghs on the county council"— —it deals with the population basis, and so on. Then they recommend the system which we have adopted, that is the system in use in the case of Parliamentary and Royal burghs, as the wisest one to adopt.

I should like to develop some of those reasons. A very important reason is what I may call the liaison reason. Consider that some matter in which the burgh is interested is being considered by the county council. It would be of the greatest possible value that under the system which we propose the town council should have among its members, members whom they have nominated to the county council, who would be in a position to report at any time any conclusion or con sideration which the county council was giving to that very matter. There is another illustration of that which is also of importance. As the Committee knows, there is power under the Bill to appoint among others the small burghs as the agents of the county council for carrying out some of the work which lies within the particular small burgh. If the system suggested by the Amendment is adopted, then the burgh and the town council, being the agents of the county council, would find that none of their members will be on the county council, and I conceive that where a burgh is the agent of the county council, carrying out a particular body of work, it will be valuable that some of the members of the agent body should also be members of the county council employing them. This really is a business question. Everyone recognises the cardinal principle about no taxation without representation and direct representation, but after all this is not very far removed from direct representation. One assumes that the electors of a burgh are not likely to put people on to their town council whom they would consider to be unfitted to go on to the county council. One is entitled to assume that they have sufficient confidence in their representatives—

It all depends on the party which sends the individuals.

Yes, there are several elements in regard to that, although they may be divided, possibly, into different areas.

Are the issues not entirely different in the election of members of the town council and of the county council?

I should think that they were absolutely identical because these members, whether elected directly or nominated by the town council, are only allowed a voice on the county council on matters, to put it generally, in which the burgh itself is interested. It does not follow that they must be interested in every matter which the county council is going to deal with. On consideration of the various reasons, the Government have come to the conclusion that this is the wisest method to choose in order to see that the area as a whole shall have the work done reasonably and effectively.

Has the Lord Advocate not noticed that the county council may not have this power? There is an Amendment down to give those representatives of the burghs full power on the county councils. That is our position.

To make them members for all purposes?

Yes.

If one is coming to that, it would be wiser to have the burghs in the county for all purposes.

You might as well, for all the difference it will make. You have taken all the powers away.

That, again, is giving the representatives of the burghs power to control matters over which they have no financial responsibility and where they may have in some cases a Majority actually to outvote the people who are to pay the piper. However, I will deal with the Amendment when it comes up. I do not see much likelihood, at any rate, of our asking the Committee to accept that Amendment. If it were accepted I agree that it might make some alteration, because I say, quite frankly, that this is a matter of balancing what is most advantageous to the great scheme which we want to see carried out by united areas. One knows quite well that there is a great deal of distrust, or suspicion, or what- ever you may call it, between the counties and the burghs at present. I know that Members in all parts of the Committee are only too anxious to dissipate that feeling, and to show that they are united by a mutual interest. That is a final reason which I put forward as making our method the preferable one, because if the people going to the county council were directly elected the town council would have nothing to do with them, and would have no control over them or say in regard to them. I personally and on behalf of the Government unhesitatingly ask the Committee to come to the conclusion that the Government's course is the wiser one in the circumstances.

I really cannot follow the arguments of the Lord Advocate. I do not see how the proposals in the Bill arc going to work for peace as between the burghs and the county councils, nor do I follow his argument in thinking that there will be any difficulty at all between the elected members to the county council in the burgh and the method that is going to be adopted of the county council appointing the members themselves. One of the Lord Advocate's arguments was with regard to a liaison. Well, what of that? The very same members are very often elected on the county council and are in the very closest contact, but our chief Opposition to the Bill is that it brings in a new idea instead of the. liaison,. I am talking at the moment about the smaller burghs, and this is a new idea there. It may have obtained in the Royal and Parliamentary burghs, but it did not obtain in the Police burghs. They appointed their own men collectively. Our point is that we think, nay, we are persuaded, that the democratic principle ought to obtain still, and that the members should go to the county council elected by the people who send them, and that the power of the electors in the burghs will be itself the strongest power of all. That power is that if an elected member does not do his duty as the burgh wants him to do it, then the electors, when the election comes, can dismiss him altogether, and appoint a man to do the work which he is sent to do. Surely that is a principle to which the Lord Advocate will not take any exception. If the members do not do the work they will not be appointed again.

Our real objection to the whole thing is that we want democratic election, and we do not think it is a wise thing to introduce into any local body the idea that members are to go to work on any bigger body without the electors of the district having a. full voice as to whom they shall send. I need not elaborate the argument which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) has put as plainly as it can be put. The arguments of the Lord Advocate have no strength with me whatever. We still believe that the right and democratic thing to do, and the thing which is most wanted to be done, is to give the electors a full voice in the election of every person who goes to represent them on any body whatever.

Lieut-Colonel MOORE:

Although the Amendment which stands in my name—

In page 9, line 37, after the word "burghs," to insert the words (with the exception of the burghs of Prestwick, Troon, Irvine, Saltcoats, and Ardrossan, which are exemuted from the provisions of this Section)"— has not yet been reached, I understand that I may address the few representations I have to make to the Committee on the Amendment now under discussion. The attitude adopted by the town councils and the burghs, which are mentioned in my Amendment, is that they do not want to go into the county authority at all, and that therefore they would not wish to send any delegates or representatives to the county council. My Amendment was put down not in any spirit of disagreement with the provisions of this Measure, and not in any antagonism to the policy adopted by the Government.

On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in discussing his own Amendment at this point?

I really have not quite followed the hon. and gallant Member's argument sufficiently. I gather that he desires the word "representing" taken out, because he does not want any representation on the county council of these burghs. Of course, he would not be in order in arguing that they should be full authorities under a former Clause, because that question would have been settled. If, however, he wants to say that they will not come in under the county council, that is quite a different thing, and I think he would be in order in raising that question.

Lieut-Colonel MOORE:

The point I was trying to bring out was that the town councils of the burghs to which I refer in my Amendment do not want to send representatives to the county authority. The reason for that is that they want to remain outside the scope of the new authority altogether.

5.0 p.m.

I think the hon. Member is discussing on this Clause what has actually been decided on Clause 3. I think his better course would be to await the Report stage.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE:

I accept your ruling, Mr. Hope, of course, and I trust that you will give me an opportunity of dealing with the matter on the Report stage.

I want to support this official Labour Amendment. I think that what we are saying here to-day, and the part that is being played by the Government, are proof of the oft-quoted phrase, "Extremes meat." Here to-day we have the exhibition of a Tory Government in Britain acting in exactly the same way as the Communists have acted in Russia. This is a Soviet, and hon. Members could have had no nearer approach to Lenin, speaking in Turkestan, than the speech of the Lord Advocate when he stood at the Treasury Box today justifying this idea of doing away with democratic government in this country. We Socialists pride ourselves on the fact that this is the most democratic country in the world, and here we have evidence again to-day that the Tories, those who are in control, are busy using all their powers to undermine our democratic institutions. I notice in the white paper, Command 3263, that there is something which may be a bribe held out to my Constituency. Whether or not it is a bribe I cannot tell, but it is evident that the terms are very favourable, as far as my constituency is concerned, because I find on page 13:

I am afraid the hon. Member is getting far away from the question of electoral representation.

I know quite well that you are awaiting an opportunity. [Interruption.]The point I am trying to make under considerable difficulties, caused by individuals who never rise to do anything themselves, is this: Here is another attempt to try to curtail the activities of working folk who wish to get into our institutions—our Governmental institutions and our administrative institutions. It is now no uncommon thing for an ordinary working man to get either into this legislative assembly or into our administrative bodies in the country. That was not always the case. When it now comes to an election the working classes are sending Socialists to represent them, and I hold that this is a direct attack on the working classes. It is a direct attack on our personal liberties as Scotsmen. It is a direct attack on the great Majority. It is a direct attack on the poor on the part of the rich, because it is the rich who are able, on the average, to afford the time to get on to these administrative bodies. But the working classes when they get their opportunity at election time will elect their own representatives. Under this Bill, however, instead of getting their elected representatives, we are going to have individuals appointed who will represent a certain clique.

If the hon. Member will look at the Bill, I think he will find that there is some misunderstanding on his part, because these people who will go from the town councils to the county councils must be chosen from their own number. They must be town councillors. It is not a question of the town councils appointing whom they choose, but it is provided that these people must be elected from the town council of the burgh in question. They must be elected from among their own number.

That is exactly the point I am making. I want people to have the right to elect their own representatives. I take myself as a clear example, a good example. If it had been left to an elected body to elect me and send me here, I never would have been here. Evidence of that is here on every hand. I know what they would have done for me if they had had the chance and power. If our folks had the hardihood to elect men like me, we want them to have the same right and power, however disagreeable it may be to those who are in authority, to elect men like me if they wish, and to have the same right to elect members to this newly-formed body; not for it to be left to those who are in control at the moment, whether they be on the town council or otherwise. People on the town council have always been the "high heid yins" of the town. We have boasted on the continent of Europe that ours is the most democratic country in the world, and here you have the present Government—the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible—-at the dictates of the man from Birmingham, selling the birthright of Scottish electors. That is what it means, and we want to protest against it as emphatically as we can, and we will go into the Division Lobby against it.

I want to say a word or two only upon this method of election or selection which is embodied in this Clause. I should like to say at the outset that I do not understand the real views that hon. Members opposite have of our town councils in Scotland, because they seem to me to talk about these bodies with two totally different voices.

What do you know about it? You have never been on a town council.

Perhaps the hon. Member will try to be civil if he can. If hon. Members were to consider it possible or reasonable that any hon. Member speaking on a particular subject should have had everyday direct relations with that subject, debates in this House would come almost to an end. The hon. Gentleman's interruption has absolutely no relevance, like so many of his interruptions. I was saying that, in listening to this Debate, it appeared to me that hon. Members opposite were speaking of these bodies with two voices. When the question of taking powers away from the town councils and giving them to the newly-constituted county councils was discussed, the town council was held up as the most democratic body with an immensely long history, and with great democratic traditions—the repository of the democratic feeling of Scotland. That is one view of the town council; but as soon as my right hon. Friend proposes, in this Bill, that members of this democratic body should join the county council, we are told that the town councils only represent the "high heid yins."

I did not say that they only represented the "high heid yins." I sad they were themselves the "high heid yins."

The hon. Member says that the members themselves are the "high heid yins." In short, when it becomes a question of putting members of town councils on to the newly constituted county council, hon. Gentlemen opposite entirely give up their view that the town council is a democratically elected body. Both the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) amazed me by describing as undemocratic and as a step against demo- cratic principles the proposal that members of town councils, themselves democratically elected, should be put on the county council. For my part, I cannot see how a member of a town council, democratically elected by the electors of a town or burgh, will lose his democratic quality when selected by the town council to represent them on the county council. I do not follow that line of argument. I think there is some real difference of view on this matter. I do not think the Opposition are merely trying to be obstructive. I think they have a different constitutional view on the subject from that which I am trying to express. I am merely pointing out that, having considered this question as the representative of a number of these bodies —though never having sat on a town council myself—I cannot understand how town councillors, democratically elected, can be regarded as too undemocratic themselves to sit upon a county council.

May I put what is the real point at issue? Are these members of town councils elected for town council purposes or for county council purposes? That, is the issue.

That is a very fair question, and I will do my best to reply to it. The hon. Gentleman seeks to place me in the dilemma that a person elected to serve on a town council is unsuitable to be put on a county council.

Not that he is not suitable. He is not elected. That is the point.

Then shall I say that the hon. Member's point is that such a person is not necessarily the type of person that one would like to see on the county council?

No, that is not my point. It is not that he may not be a suitable person. He may be quite competent to act on a county council. The point is that he has not been democratically elected for the county council.

That then is the exact point—that he has not been elected democratically for the county council. But what substance is there in that point? In future, at the town council elections, it will be known that a certain number of the town councillors elected may be sent on to the county council. The electors when they return men to the town council will know that they are electing those men possibly for the county council and, in that event, surely the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said is reduced to a minimum. It is to be recollected also that the purposes for which they will sit in the county council are only purposes directly connected with the town. Therefore, there is no dilemma such as the hon. Member has suggested. I agree that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) did not put it in that way, but the possibility of such a dilemma has been in the minds of speakers on the opposite side. The question of "all right for the town but no use for the county" cannot arise. These men are democratically elected, and, in future, the electors will know that their representative may have to fulfil wider functions and sit on the county council.

If we consider the matter seriously I cannot see what undemocratic quality exists in this proposal. In my judgment the Government have done well to adopt this method. If we look at the scheme of the Bill impartially we shall see that one of its main objects is to get the closest possible relation between the landward districts and the burghs. The administration of the burghs is concentrated in the town councils. Surely it is creating a link between the burgh and the county to secure that members representing the burgh who sit on the county council shall also be persons who are entitled to sit on the town council. A great part of the results which I hope to see flow from this Bill, would be lost if we had as burghal representatives on the county council people who had no right to penetrate into the town council. If hon. Members opposite look at the matter from a practical point of view, and assume for a moment that one of our objects is to unite the whole locality as closely as possible for administrative purposes, they will agree that this provision is essential and that it would destroy one of the main objects of the Bill to leave no link between the county council and the town council. Had it been possible to say with truth that the method proposed is undemocratic, a very grave question would have arisen, but that cannot be said. It is an untenable proposition that "Mr. A" elected to the town council as a democratic representative should, when he steps over the way to the county council, cease to be a democratic representative. That is not common sense and is not constitutional sense. For my part I congratulate the Government upon this proposal. It is essential to one of the main objects of their scheme, which is as I have said, the linking up of the landward and burgh districts in one area so that the representatives thereof may form what, in reality, will be a local parliament in the future.

As a general principle, I am not much in favour of electoral colleges and I do not think the House of Commons is in favour of them, but the circumstances here are somewhat peculiar. We are continuing what has been the procedure for the last 40 years. We are actually taking the same method of election as that contained in the County Councils Act, 1889, and it is a matter for consideration whether it is desirable to multiply elections. Under this proposal the electors are to return town councillors who shall select from among their number certain members to represent that body on the county council. Having regard to that fact, I am not able to pile up democratic arguments about the method of election, because I do not think the ground for such argument exists. But there is a point which I should like to put to the Secretary of State. Hitherto, some of the police burghs elected representatives to the county council directly. Under this proposal, I take it, they are to select representatives from their own councillors in the same manner as other burghs. In the case of a very small police burgh which returns only one or two members, how are they to select from among their members those to represent them on the county council? I am not able to quote exact figures but I think there are police burghs which return only one or two members. Turning to the provisional scheme in the white paper it will be seen that Stromness, under the new scheme, would have three councillors on the county council. I do not think Stromness would return three members to the county council at the present time and I should like to have a little light upon that point.

Our proposal is to make the system the same in all burghs. The eases given in the white paper are purely tentative suggestions set out for discussion and probably will have to be fully discussed in coming to a decision regarding the actual number in specific cases.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the difficulty that may arise in connection with the point I have just put as to small police burghs which only return one or two members and which will now have to select who is to represent them on the county council?

The Amendment raises most important issues. There is a differentiation between representation and election and I should like to know what is going to be the status of the burgh representation on county councils. My Constituency consists of a large number of small burghs and they, very rightly, want to know how they are going to stand under this proposal. The county council is going to be the rating authority. It will levy the rates, to which the ratepayers in the burghs will have to contribute, and, of course, it is only fair and right that those burgh ratepayers should be assured that the power of representation on the county council which they will enjoy will be adequate for all questions of finance.

I cannot help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member's argument would come in better on the later Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland which proposes to leave out Sub-section (3) and insert new Sub-sections. We are on rather a narrow point now as to direct or indirect representation, but I understand the hon. and gallant Member to raise a question as to the number of county councillors and the apportionment of that number between the burghs and the landward areas of the county.

The question I want to raise is one of the formula upon which this representation will be made.

Clearly that will come later, on the Amendment of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is quite a different question from the smaller question of direct or indirect representation.

On a point of Order. If the principle which the right hon. Gentleman asks us to accept, of indirect representation, is accepted, surely it follows that all the details are consequential and there is no point in discussing them at all.

The question of how many representatives the burghs should have on the county council is one question, and how they shall get there is another; and it is that, and that alone, which we are row discussing.

If I am not in order, may I ask for your assurance, Mr. Hope, that I shall be able to raise these points when the Amendment of my right hon. Friend comes forward?

That is the proper place to raise them, but it would be extremely rash for anybody in the Chair to give a promise to any Member that he will be called.

I was not at all impressed by. the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), nor was I much impressed by the reply from the Lord Advocate with regard to this point. I think there is a very good case for the Amendment which has been moved, and after 12 years' experience on a county council, I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to leave the present system alone. The Lord Advocate explained that at present there are two systems of electing members to the county council from burghs. There is the system whereby the Royal and Parliamentary burghs indirectly send representatives to the county council, whereas the smaller burgh has power directly to elect representatives to the county council; and if the Secretary of State for Scotland was prepared to leave that system alone, we should be satisfied.

We are quite prepared to accept the present system, but I want to assure the Lord Advocate that I have known cases where a man has been nominated by a town council to a county council in a small burgh, and an elector in that burgh has been nominated also as a candidate for representation on the county council, and the result of an election has been, as between the man nominated by the town council and the man nominated outside the town council, the election of the man outside. [Interruption.] I can assure the Lord Advocate that we have had elections of that kind. I have not been the candidate, but I have taken part in such elections, where we have had a ratepayer outside the town council nominated for a seat on the county council and elected in the face of the Opposition of the nominee of the town council. That has taken place, and I think that is a very good check on cliques inside a town council selecting certain individuals for representation on the county council.

After all, the men who are to represent the burghs on the county council now are men who do not require to report to the town council certain things. For example, the man who is representing the burgh on the county council will have to deal with education. He will be expected to look after the interest of education in his burgh, and to look after roads and other matters that have been transferred from the town council or from the education authority or from the parish council to the county council, and I submit that the matters with which the county council will be dealing are matters with which the burgh has little or no concern, because these matters have already been taken out of the hands of the burgh or of the education authority or of the parish council, so that the men who are to represent burghs on the county council under this scheme need not have any direct connection with the town council. So long as they are selected by the ratepayers in a burgh as their representatives on the county council, that should be entirely satisfactory.

As far as I am concerned, I would not object to Parliamentary burghs or the large burghs that are over the 20,000 limit having their representatives selected by the town council. I quite agree that in their case the matter with which they would deal on the county council is so very small that there is no reason why they should represent the town council. In their case, all that they would be required to deal with on the county council is the question of education. They will simply go on the county education committee. But for burghs under the 20,000 standard, I think that liberty should be given to the ratepayers in these burghs to select their own representatives on the county council. because, as I have already said, the matters with which they would be dealing on the county council are matters in which the town council is not directly-interested. I hope this matter will be reconsidered by the Government. I quite agree that in most cases the representatives from the burghs to the county councils are representatives of the burgh council, but the ratepayers in these burghs have had the power to elect representatives to the county council up to-now directly, and I would prefer that that system was continued.

We are somewhat at cross purposes, which is a very unusual thing in a Scottish Debate, because, as everybody knows, we are the most logical people on the face of the earth. At the moment I think we are arguing about different things. One perfectly well understands the argument in principle between election and delegation. We support, in the main, in this country the theory of election as against delegation. The United States of America is an example of delegation in its form of government to some extent, and the greatest example, the most extreme illustration in the world to-day, is, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said, the Soviet Government of Russia, which is a pyramid of delegation, where you start with an original body, which may be elected from districts of the country, and gradually you form a pyramid of selected bodies until you get to the apex. We, on the other hand, in this country, as I agree, are broad based upon the theory of election, and I, for one, do not for a moment dispute that election is the more advantageous method taken as a whole. But here we are dealing with something which does not involve, as I see it, that question of principle at all. We are arguing about the representation of burghs on the county council. What do these representatives do on the county council?

May I correct. the right hon. Gentleman?

I do not think the hon. Member can correct me, because I think I am right in what I said.

It is not the representation from the burghs, but representation from the ratepayers in the burghs.

The hon. Member is, in my view, totally inaccurate on this matter, and if he will allow me to appeal to the reason of his colleagues, I think we shall more fittingly arrive at a conclusion on this matter. The question is, in fact, the representation of burghs on county councils. It is only burghal matters upon which these members will be entitled to vote on the county council. I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) with regard to the principle of election if these people were coming from the burghs to vote upon all the matters upon which the members of the county council may vote.

So they ought.

That may be—that is a different question—but if you take the premise, which is that upon which we are arguing—and we are Scotsmen arguing upon a premise, and we draw a conclusion according to—

May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we have not yet decided what have to be the powers of these councils or of the burgh representatives?

But at least this is the major premise upon which the argument proceeds. The major premise of this syllogism is that the burghal representatives are only to deal on the county council with matters that concern the burgh. That is the foundation of the argument, and, accordingly, they are not being elected for general purposes at all; they are being elected simply to deal with those things upon which the burgh, amongst other parts of the county, will be required to pay rates. That being the origin of the argument, you immediately and entirely get rid of this controversy, as between election and delegation. Let us take what has happened, in my experience, very often, because I have acted on occasions as counsel, sometimes for a burgh, sometimes for a county, in matters in controversy between the burgh and the county. There have been questions of the pollution of rivers, questions about the extension of burghs, where the position of the burgh was in antagonism to that of the county, and it was the duty of the burghal representatives, in many cases in the form of com-mittees, to meet committees of the county council to discuss these questions, but could anybody ever deny that a person elected as a member of a town council, because he was not specially elected upon these questions, was in a position, as a democratic representative, to discuss these questions which concerned mutually the burgh and the county?

What about education?

That is one of the things upon which they are elected, one of the things that forms a topic of discussion. You have found these committees in innumerable cases meeting burghal committees on the one side and county council committees on the other, to discuss questions which mutually affect them. Accordingly, this is only putting in a stereotyped form what occurs in innumerable instances casually; that is to say, that the burghal representatives who are elected for burgh purposes are entitled on the county council to say what the burghal point of view is. Who is going to say that that person is not a proper democratic representative of the people who have elected him? Therefore, it does not involve the great issue of election and delegation which has been raised by some Members opposite.

Why stop at county councils? Why not proceed in the same manner in the election of Members of Parliament?

That raises a general question of election and delegation. As my hon. Friend says, that is the Soviet method of electing their Government, but the people who are elected to deal with burghal local matters are not elected to deal with the State matters that are dealt with in Parliament, and are therefore incompetent to deal with them. In the ordinary burghal elections the very things with which Members are elected to deal are local matters, and only in connection with the local matters have they a voice on the county council. Therefore, they are representative of the electors as fat-as these local matters are concerned.

Suppose you have a different election entirely for the people of the burgh who have to go to the county council. It is true that these people are not allowed to Vote on any question that does not involve a rate on the burgh, but suppose the people thus elected take a totally different view from that of the town council. What is going to happen then? Is it not far better, as a practical matter, to have people sent to the county council who are themselves town councillors and are fitted to express the view of the town council in those matters which appertain to the interest of the electors? If there were an elected body of represntatives, and they took a totally different view from the town council, the result would be confusion. I beg my colleagues in the Committee to look at it as a practical matter, and to consider whether as a business proposition the proposal in the Bill is not the best, because after all, in this matter, whatever we may be when it-comes to national controversy on other matters, we are all here as Scotsmen trying to get the best form of Government.

We have just heard the finest argument for leaving this matter to be decided by Scottish representatives instead of allowing it to be dominated by English representatives, but we have to appeal to the Committee as a whole and not merely to Scottish Members. The right hon. Gentleman has not. dealt with the vital question at issue. No one is complaining that the individual who is elected by the town council to go to the county council is not as democratic as the man who is directly elected. That is not the question; the question is the system of election of that individual. I have been a member of town councils, and my experience is that where they have to select an individual to do deputation work or carry through other work of the council, it was never a question of selecting the best individual but of selecting the individual who had the most time on his hands, and would cost the council the least sum of money in carrying on its work. Very often the council would send me as a lifelong abstainer, knowing that they would not have to stand drinks. There will be three types of representatives. First the landward area representatives who would have full voting powers in connection with Poor Law questions, with general administration, and with education. There is the second type of representa- tive from the small burghs, who will have the right to deal only with questions which under this Bill arc not left to the small burghg.

The hon. Member realises that Poor Law is one of those things?

That is exactly what I said. With the exception of the matters which will by Statute have been left to the small burghs, the representatives from the small burghs will have full voting power. Then you come to the third type, the representatives of the large burghs who will have voting powers only on education. There we have the three different types of representative, and we are likely to be in a false position, particularly with regard to the large burghs. You can get the type of individual who can devote his time to administration in the burghs, where the meetings can be held in the evening, where no travelling is involved and where the members can give that conscientious attention to local administration which hundreds of our administrators in Scotland have given freely in the past, and are willing to give in the future; but you require the man of more time on the county side of administration, and if he is to be selected from the town council instead of elected by the electors in the area, it will be difficult to get the individual who is prepared to give the time.

With regards to the third type who will only have voting powers on education, you will get out of the difficulty which has been raised in regard to direct election, if you allow the people in the burghs, particularly the larger burghs, to have the right of selecting the individuals who are to serve on the county councils. I come to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). I cannot understand why Member after Member on the other side should get up whenever we make suggestions which are honestly made—and I would not support any suggestion merely for the purpose of wasting time—

Our replies are honest, too, you know.

I have never said that they were not, or suggested it. We are making suggestions honestly in the interests of more efficient administration, hopeful of helping in these particular problems, and that is the reason I cannot understand Members from the other side—I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir It. Home), because we know that he has never made any mistakes in the advice which he has given, even in the advice which he gave to the small burghs when he was fighting for them, or the advice which he gave to the county councils when he was fighting against the small burghs. The hon. Member for Perth said that if the Government gave way on this matter, it would mean the destruction of the fabric of the Bill.

What I said was that as the underlying object of the Bill was more closely to unite the landward and burghal areas, I thought it was a valuable element in the Bill that we should have the same people sitting m the town councils and the county councils.

The argument has so often been used that Amendments moved by this side would destroy the Bill and destroy unity in administration. I submit, however, that this Amendment will not destroy the Bill, for it does not touch the general structure. It merely sets out a different method of selecting or electing the individuals who are to work the machinery that is being set up. The whole issue is one between representatives from the burgh councils being selected, and representatives being directly elected by the ratepayers to deal with the specific subjects which are delegated to the county councils under this Bill.

We always listen with respect to the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), but to-night I think he has really made an error. I am not in love with the proposal in the Bill at all, because this idea of" in and out," of jumping from the town council to the county council, is one that cannot last. Still less would the proposal in the Amendment be acceptable, because it would mean you would have two kings in Brentford. The elected representatives and the town council would not agree, you would have to have two elections in the town, and the town would be like a house divided against itself. I do not believe that the proposed arrangement can be permanent, and I believe that it is a preliminary to another that will come, namely, amalgamations of town and county councils. That would suit the circumstances of my Constituency much better, and this proposal as it stands is a half-way house to it. I would like to see the town and county council of Duncon and Cowal, and the town and county council of Oban and Lorne; in such cases there would be a complete amalgamation which would be immensely more capable of efficient administration—

That question is rather outside the scope of this Amendment.

I was balancing the claims of the Amendment and the proposal in the. Bill, and I say that the Amendment will postpone that happy day when we shall get the conditions in which it will be possible to have these amalgamations. This sub-Division, this in-and-out arrangement, is bound to cause a good deal of friction. It is leading to this, that small places, one might say villages, have a larger number of representatives than some of the larger burghs.

That question does not arise on this Amendment. The only question with which we are dealing here is that of direct or indirect representation.

I do not wish in any way to trench upon other matters, but this Bill is really like Joseph's coat —it has got so many colours that it is very difficult to avoid mixing up different points.

It is a thing of shreds and patches.

6.0 p.m.

The new system will certainly result in a great deal of confusion and a great deal of friction in the burghs, whereas under the other system it means that, at all events in regard to the questions of roads, health and the like, which are being transferred from the burghs to the county council, the burghs, which are deeply interested, will have the right to choose the representatives they send to look after their interests. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Peebles to say that the men selected for the councils are usually those who have most time on their hands. I think that applies to all Public Business. The men who take any interest in public business are generally men who have leisure—or should have leisure. Occasionally we get men who ought to be attending to their own business taking up public life, and that generally ends in disaster for them. It is inevitable that you cannot always select the best, and that you have to be content with the second best. I feel that the electors in the towns have selected the best town councillors they can get, and that these will also make good county councillors when they sit on the county council to represent the town council.

I wish to make a suggestion to the Government on this Amendment. The Lord Advocate made it quite plain that there was a good deal to be said on both sides. He took the line that it was a case of balancing the arguments on the two sides, and indicated that the Government themselves were not very much wedded to the one rather than to the other, although it appeared to him that the balance of argument was in favour of the indirect method of election. The suggestion I have to make is that the Government should leave this Amendment to a free vote of the Committee. Members from the various districts in Scotland who have been in touch with their constituents on this matter will in that way get an opportunity of trying to make the Bill a little more in line with what their constituents wish, and the necessity for that is evident from the fact that to-day some Members are suggesting that the Bill should apply to every burgh in Scotland except their own. If we find Members who last night voted to put in all the burghs now desiring that their own burghs should be out, surely the Government will see the reasonableness of giving a free vote on a matter like this, which is not material to the general framework of the Measure.

I wish to stress the argument which has been made by the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood). Let us assume that there are Labour councillors on a town council who are in employment and can give only a limited time to their duties as councillors. Such a man might be able to spare the time to carry through the duties which fall to him as a town councillor, but if he were to have the duties pertaining to a county councillor added to them he would find it impossible to give the necessary time, and if he were nominated for election to the county council, although in other respects he might be the most suitable individual, he might have to waive the opportunity of going to the county council. We might quite well find, as a consequence of this indirect method of election, and the difficulty of finding sufficient time, that the preponderance of opinion in a burgh where the voters were in the main supporters of Labour could not be represented on the county council.

The question is one of making a county council as representative as possible of the opinion in the district. The argument against that is the argument that you must have a link with the town council. Looking at it from the point of view of the working class and the Labour voters in the county, I am quite convinced that the indirect method will militate greatly against those interests being represented in proportion to the volume of opinion in the district. Seeing that the Government are carrying through this Measure in the face of so much averse opinion in the districts, they ought at least to propitiate that opinion as much as possible. While I do not suggest that my argument has completely overturned the arguments on the other side, because I agree with the Lord Advocate that there is much to be said on each side, to my mind the preponderance of argument is with the Amendment. If the Secretary of State is not willing to go all the way, I think he, at least, might be prepared to allow a free Vote of the Committee on this matter, which is not. material to the general framework of the Measure.

It has been pointed out that under the present system there are two different machines for dealing with the burghs of Scotland. One machine deals with the representation of the Royal and Parliamentary burghs on the county council, and the other deals with the representation of the police burghs on the county council. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) told us that our energy had evaporated, and at the same time said that he was in favour of the Amendment, and not, therefore, a supporter of the sort of machinery which is set up and which is enjoyed at the present time by the Royal and Parliamentary burghs. If he has not been in favour of that machinery all this time, why has he not before now made representations against it in this House? Nobody can accuse him of any luck of energy at any time. I rather think he has left the whole question unstudied until the present time, when, of course, he wishes to bring strong Opposition to bear against the proposals of the Government in this Bill.

The Amendment seeks to have a separately elected member from the small burghs to sit on the county council. May I remind the Committee that, after all, the town council of the small burgh will be, under this Bill, the rating authority in that burgh, and if we have a separately elected person who is not a member of the town council of the small burgh going to the county council we shall have somebody on the county council representing the ratepayers of that small burgh who is in no way responsible to those ratepayers for the levying of rates or the expenditure of their money. If, on the other hand, you elect to the county council a member of the rating authority, you have a man who, first of all, takes his part in the work of the small burgh and is concerned with the levying of the rates in connection with the statutory obligations which are left to the burgh, housing and so on, and later, on the county council, dealing with the rates levied in respect of the transferred services. In that case you would have on the county council members sitting there to do the work for which they are elected, and one of them following up the ratepayers' money to see that it is properly expended when it goes to Another place, because the services which the county council will render to the small burgh are directly proportionate to the amount of money which the small burgh has sent to the county council. This is a point of view which, I believe, has not yet been represented to the Committee. The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) referred once or twice to the ratepayers. If we are going to consider the ratepayers of the burgh as we should I think we must see that they would certainly like to have somebody whom they have elected as one of the members of their rating authority to follow their money on in order to see that it is dealt with properly by the county council. That is one of the, reasons why I support this Clause—I do not want to go into the other reasons, which have already been put forward by my hon. Friends on this side—and why I do not support the Amendment.

As one who is deeply interested in the question of the representation of the burghs on the county council, I wish to put this point. The representatives who will be elected by the town council are not equal with those elected by the county area.

indicated dissent.

The Under-Secretary says no. Then I would ask him this question. If the members are equal in the county areas, will they have full voting powers?

Yes.

That means you are accepting our Amendment?

No.

The other point which has been raised by my people in the North is this: Will a member who is elected by a town council to the county authority be equal with the member from a county area in the election of a chairman? Would he be able to stand for election as chairman of the county council? If not, I can see the very greatest difficulties arising, with friction and misunderstanding, through these different people with different powers sitting on the same council. If I could be assured that they would have equal voting power and at the same time be eligible to be elected as chairman, then I should have no further objection.

May I ask a question arising out of that? While they have equal voting powers, is it not the fact that the members of the burgh do not have any voting rights on matters which do not concern the burgh, and therefore that there is an area which is excluded from them, and that is the area of what are termed county affairs?

If that be so, can they vote for the chairman?

The first question raised is one of voting power. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) that their voting power is equal, although their capacity to vole on certain subjects is excluded. [Interruption.] IT you mean by equal power of voting the power to vote on the same number of occasions, then I agree that it is unequal; but when they do vote, their voting power is equal; the vote of one man from the burgh is as good as the vote of one man from the county. Surely that is quite clear. The second question which has been put to me relates to the chairmanship. It is quite clear that every member of the council, whether he is the representative of a burgh or a county, is eligible for the chairmanship. It is equally clear that the question of the casting vote creates no difficulty because it is a statutory vote.

Up to the present time burgh representatives have been able to vote like other representatives, but the structure of this Measure alters the function as between the burgh and the county, and we are bringing within the purview of the county—

That question arises upon a later Amendment which deals directly with that point.

It has been said that under this Clause you are giving equal voting power. May I point out that where you have three different members in the county there may be three votes taken in which one man can vote three times, another man twice, and the third would only be entitled to vote once. In those circumstances, how will it be possible to have equal voting power?

I would like some further explanation of the point we are discussing. I will take as an illustration the burgh of Lanark, which will be represented on the county council. The question dealt with by the Amendment is whether the burgh of Lanark shall send a representative to the county council or whether the people in the burgh of Lanark will be able to elect their representative. That is the point which arises on this Amendment, and it is an eminently democratic point. We want to give the electors the right to choose the person who is to represent them on the county council or the burgh council. I quite appreciate the point that the functions of the representative of the burgh are limited as compared with the other members of the county council, but I cannot understand the Opposition to this Amendment in view of the fact that practically all the small burghs lose their weight under this Bill, and most of their business in the future will be conducted as part of the work of the county council. I cannot see any reason for refusing to accept an Amendment which would make this question more representative and more democratic than it is at the present time. I do not wish to argue this point as a question of working-class or middle-class representation, but I think each burgh which has a right to representation on the county council should have the right to choose its representative, and that is the effect of this Amendment. It is obvious that there is more than a general agreement on this point even amongst hon. Members opposite, and for these reasons I hope the Government will accept our Amendment.

I am sorry the Lord Advocate misunderstood my point. I did not intend arguing the case, but I suggest that you are now giving the county council a new range of functions which cannot be divided strictly as between burgh and county. You are arranging the distribution of these services in such a way that it will be difficult to draw a line of demarcation. I think there is great force in the argument that we should face the situation with a new system of election. The difficulty in which we are placed in regard to Scotland does not arise in the case of England, because in this country a councillor is elected by direct election, and he may be directly elected to the county council or the borough council, or to both. In the case of Scotland you have the test imposed that the representative votes only upon the finance connected with his own burgh. Now we are handing over to the county council a whole range of services in regard to which you cannot draw a proper line of demarcation.

That is one of the reasons why we have altered the test. The test does not relate to services which are capable of being exercised within the burgh. There is no line of demarcation in the case of every one of those services and, although not exercised, they are capable of being exercised within the burgh. That will be one of the matters on which the burgh representatives will be able to vote.

Question put, "That the word 'representing' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 108.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof the words: (3) For the purposes of the reconstitution of county councils under this Section the Secretary of State shall have power by order to determine the number of county councillors for the county and to apportion them between the landward area and the burghs entitled under any Act, including this Act, to be represented on the county council, and to determine the contents and boundaries of electoral divisions in the county, and in making any determination of the number or any apportionment of county councillors the Secretary of State shall have regard to the reduced rateable value (within the meaning of Part III of this Act) of the landward area and the burghs and to the matters (other than value) referred to in Section five of the Act of 1889.(4) Before making an Order under the foregoing Sub-section the Secretary of State shall cause the draft of the proposed Order to be published in such manner as he shall determine in order to make the same known to all persons interested, and shall consider any objections and representations respecting the proposed Order, and, if he sees fit to do so, cause a local inquiry to be held, and the Order when made shall be forthwith published in the 'Edinburgh Gazette,' and in a newspaper circulating in. the area to which it relates.(5) The councillors representing a burgh shall not vote in respect of any matter relating to the exercise of any function of the county council unless that council is entitled to exercise the function within the burgh. The purpose of the first of these new Sub-sections is to enable the electoral areas, and thereby the number of representatives elected to the county council, to be fixed at the commencement of the operation of this Bill. I should say that the Bill as drafted practically incorporated Section 5 of the Act of 1889, but it was thought more convenient to re-draft the Sub-section and set out the provision anew. I should explain to the Committee that in 1889, when the county councils were set up for the first time, it was the case that, as those who are familiar with the geographical county distribution in Scotland will know, many counties had very awkward boundaries, and some had odd bits lying about here and there. At the time when the Local Government Act was passed, a Boundary Commission was set up to rectify the boundaries of the counties, and that Boundary Commission was also entrusted with the task of settling the electoral areas within the counties themselves as so altered. Thereafter, the Secretary for Scotland, under Section 5 of the Act, fixed the number of representatives. At the present time we have no Boundary Commission, and it is pro posed that the Secretary of State for Scotland should fix the electoral divisions as well as the number of representatives —it comes, of course, to very much the same question—and the new Sub-section (3) makes provision for that purpose.

The question of future revisions of these electoral divisions or numbers of representatives will still depend on Section 51 of the Act of 1889. Under that Section, an alteration in the numbers or the areas which had been fixed in 1889 could only be made on application by a county council or the council of a burgh which contributed representatives to the county council. Under the altered conditions we think it is right that the landward members should also have the right to apply to the Secretary of State to revise the boundary, because one wants to cover all possibilities, and it might well be that the landward members might be in a minority, and, under Section 51 as it stands at present, they would have no right to apply to the Secretary of State. Of course, the Secretary of State would only proceed after hearing both sides in settling what was really fair, but I think the Committee will agree that as the burghs, under Section 51 as it stands, have the right, although they may be in a minority, to make application, and the whole county has the right alternatively, it is proper that the landward representatives should have a similar right, and we propose to put down an Amendment for the Report stage to insert in Section 51 words something like these: or a Majority of the members representing the landward areas. That would mean that a majority of the members representing the landward areas would have a similar right to that enjoyed by the burghs to ask for revision in future.

The next of the new Sub-sections provides for the machinery of publishing the proposed draft Order, considering representations, and holding an inquiry if it is found to be desirable. We have issued the white paper which has already been referred to and is in the hands of hon. Members, with a tentative draft scheme for the numbers of representatives proposed in the various county areas. That scheme, broadly speaking, takes into consideration the elements which the Secretary of State, if this Amendment be accepted, will be directed to take into account. Those elements are the same elements for consideration which are prescribed in Section 5 of the Act of 1889, except that, instead of the gross valuation there mentioned, we have substituted the reduced valuation which is the result of this present Bill. With regard to that White Paper, I will only repeat what I think has been said already and what is said in the White Paper itself—

is that Command Paper No. 3263?

Yes. It is framed for the express purpose of being subjected to criticism, and we shall welcome any help that we can get on this subject, which I think everyone will agree is one that is none too easy to decide. We hope we shall get, and I have no doubt that we shall get, some very valuable help with regard to seeing that the matter is fairly adjusted, and, if there is any assistance that hon. Members can give us in the matter, we shall be very glad of it. Quite obviously, however, it would be unwise to attempt in any way to come to a definite conclusion as regards any criticisms until we have all the criticisms that we expect, helpful or otherwise, either from inside the House or from those in Scotland who are interested in the matter. Until then, it would be premature to try to come to any conclusion.

Sub-section (5) deals with a matter which was incidentally referred to in the discussion on the last Amendment, namely, what is known as the question of the ins and outs. Under the Act of 1889, the old test was that the representative of a burgh was to be entitled to vote on any matter except one in which the burgh was not financially interested—"liable to contribute" is the exact wording. The Ayrshire County Council, at one of their meetings, were considering the salary to be given to a new assessor for the purposes of valuation whom they had to appoint, and, at a subsequent meeting, having already fixed the salary at the first meeting, they proceeded to consider whom they should appoint; and at the second meeting, the salary Having been already fixed, the burgh representatives claimed to vote, and they voted. That was challenged, on the ground that it was not a matter in which they were financially interested. I should explain that the burgh was a separate valuation area, and had its own assessor. The Courts held that, there being no financial matter under consideration at the second meeting, the burgh representatives were entitled to vote. I think that that was a wrong situation. It is necessary to find a new basis to avoid that difficulty.

At the same time, there is the further point, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E, Brown) in the Debate on the last Amendment, that there is a broader view under this Bill. I would like hon. Members, if I may make the suggestion to them, constantly to keep in mind the fact that these big services which are being transferred— and this is a matter to bear in mind particularly in connection with this question of in-and-out voting—these services are combined services, without any line of demarcation between town and county. It is a joint service for the whole area. Therefore, we selected words which would meet that point. It might happen that, at the moment when a meeting is being held and the subject is under discussion, that particular service is not being given in the burgh, though it is being given in the county, and we do not want the county people to be able to say to the burgh: "You have no right to vote on this question, because this service is not being carried on in the burgh, and you really have no interest in it at all." Therefore, we have chosen the phrase in Sub-section (5) that would seem to cover anything in which they could possibly be interested. I notice there is an Amendment to add the words: or the burgh is liable for part of the expenses incurred in the exercise of such functions. If the Movers of that Amendment can cite a single case which would not be covered by Sub-section (5), and which requires that addition, I will accede to it at once, because we do not want to leave it out, but my understanding of the thing is that every case in which a burgh could possible be "liable for a part of the expenses incurred in the exercise of such functions" must be a case in which the county would be entitled to exercise that function within the burgh and, therefore, as at present advised, those words do not seem to add anything at all to the Government Amendment. One does not want unnecessary words which may create confusion. I did not give the exact reference to the Section in the Act of 1886 on this point. It is Section 73 (8), and the expression was that they were not to act or vote in respect of any matters involving expenditure to which such burgh does not contribute. That was a very narrow, technical view of the Section to take, that it enabled a burgh representative to vote on the appointment of an overseer who had no right to effect any valuation -within the burgh and to whose salary they were not bound to contribute a single penny. I think we have avoided that and at the same time recognised the new basis of these joint services by the phraseology we have used. I submit that in this revision of Sub-section (3) the matter is on a more satisfactory basis and one which the Committee should accept.

I think the hesitancy with which the Lord Advocate addressed the Committee should of itself be an intimation to it that it should be very careful in accepting or rejecting any particular Amendment. He concluded by advising us that the Amendment to which my name is attached was in his opinion quite unnecessary. Even with his very exalted legal knowledge, which we all admit, he seemed to be very much in doubt. One other general observation. I hope hon. Members will not walk into the trap which he laid when he said that in the discussion of this Amendment he would like the advice of the Committee on the terms of the white paper, because the object of the Government in issuing this White Paper was to get the assistance of the Committee in the proper distribution of the members who would compose the reconstituted council. No opportunity is to be given to the Committee to apportion these members at all. We are carrying out here one of the conspicuous features of the Bill, and that is to delegate all the things we discuss to other people to perform, and in this case we are asked to delegate to the Secretary of State the apportionment of the members, and indeed the decision in regard to the number of members. I should like the Committee to spend its time in consideration of the things that they may do rather than in giving advice to the Secretary of State as to what he should do in 1930.

The part of the Amendment to which I want to direct special attention is the part dealing with what the Lord Advocate has termed the "ins" and "outs," an expression with which we are perfectly familiar in Scotland. I hope the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have consulted those in Scotland who have had experience of the working of this system in the past. There is really nothing new about it. It has been in operation for a great many years. I remember sitting on the county council of Lanark when we had to administer our duties in the district committees within the system of the constitution of the committee which we are asked to accept here. We had in the lower ward committee members from Partick and members from Govan, and, after a long and weary effort we had to abandon all attempts to work that scheme and, although it was quite illegal—the Secretary of State will have evidence of this in the Minutes of those district committees for 1910–11—to abandon the system of "ins" and "outs" and allow the burgh members to vote on every question that came before the district committee. May I remind the Committee what it means. You are going to form a council in which there are three distinct classes of councillors. There is, first, the councillor who represents a small burgh, and there will be certain questions on which he can vote. Then you have the representative of a larger burgh, and he again has separate voting powers. Then you have the representative of the landward area, the county council proper, and he in turn has votes which are quite distinct from either No. 1 or No. 2. These people are asked to sit on benches just like these, and with these three distinct classes of voting power they are expected to carry on their business. In actual operation, it is so difficult that the newly-constituted councils will quickly abandon it and apply to the Secretary of State to find them a workable method to take them out of their difficulty.

I could not illustrate it better than by asking hon. Members to think how it would work here. We have members who are elected in Ireland, others in Scotland, and others in England. We are dealing to-day with a purely Scottish Measure. Imagine what it would mean if you had different voting powers. If you examine the benches at any period of our delibera- tions, there will be very few Englishmen here, because the Bill does not apply to England. But these Englishmen are waiting somewhere in the caves or in the cells, or in the rooms, until the Secretary of State blows his horn, and then the English voters, without having listened to the deliberations, much less participated in them, will come in their overwhelming numbers and impose this ridiculous system on Scotland of which they know nothing and which Scotland does not want. It would be quite impossible to carry on the business of the House if we were to be told here and there, you can vote on No. 1 but not on No. 2 or No. 3, and the next can vote on No. 3 or No. 2 but not on No. 1. These people have been brought from a very-wide area, in an extensive county, and they are expected to spend the whole day in conducting their business in that complicated and unbusinesslike manner. That is the sort of law and constitution under which county councils will have to conduct their business in the days to come.

May I turn to the words in the Amendment in my name, saying that if a burgh has to contribute to the performance of any function by the county council, the burgh representative should have a voice in determining how that money is to be spent.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he cannot move his Amendment. I do not know whether he wishes to move it immediately, but we must get rid of the words to be left out before he can move to insert others. If it is for the general convenience to have a general discussion on the Amendments that are on the Paper—and I have a manuscript Amendment as well—they must be divided on when they are put to the Committee without further discussion.

After this Amendment is dealt with, there will not be much more left on this point to discuss, because the whole case is contained in Sub-section (5) of the Government Amendment.

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move—

7.0 p.m.

I have no intention of moving at this stage at all. I am merely dealing with the Amendment submitted by the Lord Advocate. I am not moving an Amendment but I am stating, as an objection to that, that it might be possible that the burgh ratepayer would have to pay tor some function which the county council have the right to exercise within the burgh. In the Amendment submitted by the Lord Advocate, the burgh representative would have no right to vote on the expenditure relevant to that function when it came up in the county council. The Lord Advocate has challenged me to produce a case in which the burgh would be rated for a function the administration of which would be in the hands of the county council. I confess I cannot offhand mention one, but is it reasonable to expect me to do so when we are dealing with a Measure of great complexity which baffles even the legal advisers? Is my failure to do so any reason why we should refuse to protect the burgh against that state of affairs arising? It is no reason at all, because, if a case should arise in which a burgh was rated for a function which the county council performed within the burgh and the burgh representative was not able to vote how his own money should be spent, it would be an injustice. The Government should see the weakness of that, and should accept in substance the words of a later Amendment. In the interests of good administration, the Government should get a clearer way out than that provided in the Amendment. It will be baffling to the county councils who have to operate under it. It will not work and, if the Secretary of State had made inquiries among the county councils, I would be surprised if he had received approval or support for the proposal in this Amendment from any of them. I therefore oppose the Amendment.

I rise to refer to two points. The first deals with the voting power under Sub-section (6). I believe that the Government want this arrangement to work. They want it to be a smoothly running, well-oiled machine, but nothing is more likely to make it a bad machine and to make people obstinate than this Amendment and this differentiation in the voting power of those who form this council. The argument is used that, because (certain functions are performed entirely outside the burghs, the burghs should not vote on them. But their representatives are members of the council and should be entitled to vote. The Government are making a mistake in this, and are spoiling the smooth working of their machine. They say that the representatives in the burghs can only vote on certain functions. Supposing there comes up the question of the hour at which the meeting is to be held or the question of the expenses paid to members, are they to be allowed to vote on those points? You are bound to get these degrees of demarcation. I feel very strongly on this matter, and I am backed on it by the burghs I represent. This system will create chaos, and the sooner it is removed the better.

The other point I desire to raise is that of the powers taken by the Secretary of State. Under what arrangements will he allocate the number of members to the counties or the burghs? By population? By valuation? By a combination of both? Are there to be any rules, or is he to be given a free hand? This is a very important point, because we are delegating the whole working of this machine to the Scottish Office. We ought to have some guidance on this point. In my opinion, too, Sub-section (5) undoubtedly wants the addition of the words which the Lord Advocate said were not required, and I hope that they will be added as a safeguard against any possible difficulty or misunderstanding.

The point I wish to raise has been largely covered by the last Speaker, and there is a great deal of substance in what he says. I am glad to see this Amendment upon the Paper, but I want some amplification of it. My Constituency is very much concerned about it. We have several small burghs which are coming under the new county councils, and they are so small that it is quite possible that they may very largely be swamped by the other representatives. Under this scheme the county council is going to be a rating authority, and the burgh ratepayers will have to contribute to the services of the county council and its administration. It is quite obvious that it is only justice to the burgh ratepayers that they should have an assur- ance that they are to be adequately represented, and are to have power and a voice in these matters. I am very glad that the Under-Secretary agrees with me. In Sub-section (5) the burgh representatives on the county councils are not to have any vote in maters of finance which do not affect the burgh, which are entirely outwith the burgh. The rates the burgh ratepayers have contributed to the council may very likely be used for the very purpose on which the burgh representatives are not entitled to vote. I should like information on that important point.

The only other point I want to raise is the formula on which the Secretary of State is going to base the representation of burghs on the county councils. I have had much correspondence with him on the matter, and he hag answered me with infinite trouble and with the courtesy with which we are all familiar. I would like some details as to how he proposes to settle the number of representatives the burghs are to have on the county councils. He takes power to settle that, and we are entitled to ask for details as to what is to be done. I am certain he will appreciate the points which I, in conjunction with other Members, have made, and I hope he will give an answer. I hope this Amendment will be carried through for the harmonious working of a Bill which is going to do a great deal of good.

We need a little more enlightenment on Sub-section (5). This Sub-section states that the councillors representing the burghs shall not vote on any matter relating to the exercise of any function of the county council unless that county council is entitled to exercise the function within the burgh. That makes it very narrow indeed. I hope the Government will answer the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison). With regard to the con-venership I understand that any resident will be entitled to stand, but will the members of the burgh be entitled to vote for him? If they do, can anyone say that they are voting on a matter which is concerned with the exercise of the council's functions within the burgh 1 Are they entitled to vote on questions of procedure? Under this Bill the county councils will be able to vote travelling and subsistence allowances to their mem- bers. That is not a function which the council will be exercising within the burgh. If you add these words, "or the burgh is liable for part of the expenses incurred in the exercise of such functions," it is obviously an expense which the council is incurring. That seems to me to meet that point. We want to make quite certain that these representatives of the burghs shall be entitled to vote on all questions of procedure, the time of meetings and so forth, and on all questions involving finance for which the citizens of their burgh might have to pay.

on a point of Order. I am anxious to speak on this Amendment, Mr. Herbert, hut you have called two Liberals, although I have never spoken on this Bill until now. Is there any preference given in this Committee as against an ordinary Member?

That is not a point of order. The hon. Member is unfortunate in not catching my eye.

Apart from being unfortunate, it has been the custom to accept parties as they are. I want to ask whether, in common fairness, it is the practice to call two Liberal Members after one Labour Member has spoken, and to cut out the other who has never taken part in the Debate at all.

I do not think the hon. Member can raise this question as a point of Order. Certain informal recognised customs assist the occupant of the Chair in passing his eye over the House, but I cannot allow the hon. Member to question the exercise of discretion by the occupant of the Chair.

I think I have been most unfairly and wrongly treated.

Major Elliot.

I will endeavour to reply to some of the points that have been raised. With regard to the voting power of the members of the new county authorities I would point out that the county authority deals with the five great major services, the poor, the police, the roads, health and education, and any member of the new authority can vote on any of these subjects.

Affecting the county?

Affecting the county, of course. On any question of classified roads any member of the county council can vote without any question of in or out. No difficulty can arise. If it is a question of putting up a bridge at the other end of the county, the burghal member will vote exactly on the same lines as the county member representing that area, because it will be. a function which the county council is entitled to exercise within the burgh. On any other question concerned with the five major services with which the county council deals, and in respect of which the burgh ratepayers may be affected by a rate, the burgh representatives on the county council will have the free, unfettered right of voting, and there will be no question of in or out. Hon. Members opposite ask that the representatives should be made equal in all respects. They are already under the Bill equal in all respects. The hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) is really asking, if I understand him correctly, that the burghal member should be put into a position of superiority. Take a question where the county council has no right to exercise a function within a burgh—the question of housing, for instance. Obviously, it would be unfair for the burgh members to vote on a question of county housing, seeing that they will not be affected by the county rate in respect of it and, similarly, it would be unfair for the county representatives to vote on such a matter affecting a burgh, because they would not be affected by the burgh rate. To suggest that the burghal representative should not be subject to any interference by the county representative in regard to housing but that the burghal representative should be able to go over to the counly and, on a question of county housing, to alter the county rate would not make the two men equal but would make the burgh man superior. Are we all agreed upon that? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

We are objecting to you putting them there.

We are all agreed that they are there, by the last decision of the Committee, and the point we are now debating is whether they are in a position of complete equality. First of all, they are in a position of complete equality in regard to all the services which affect them in common, and on those services they can vote without any suggestion of differentiation between the burgh man and the county man. The only differentiation between the two is the question of finance. The question of finance affecting the landward area is to be voted upon by the landward area representatives and the question of finance affecting the burghal area will be voted upon by the burghal area representative in the burgh council.

Sub-section (5) of the proposed Amendment provides that: The councillors representing a burgh shall not vote in respect of any matter relating to the exercise of any function of the county council unless that council is entitled to exercise the function within the burgh. Notwithstanding that provision, the hon. and gallant Member would have us believe that the burghal and county representatives are equal.

Yes. There are certain services which, in response to the long-continued and bitter appeals of the burghs, we are reserving to the burghs. We have refused to wipe out the burgh. The burgh remains, the burgh council remains, the burgh rate remains, the burgh housing, the burgh sewage, the burgh waterworks—all these important functions remain. These are functions which are reserved to the burghs, at the request of the burghs, which the county council is not entitled to exercise within the limits of the burgh, and the burgh representatives are, similarly, not entitled to exercise those functions in regard to the county. Now, are we all agreed?

No.

If my hon. Friend will put his difficulty in a few words I shall be glad to try to answer it.

If there are to be equal rights in the council why is it necessary to have a specification and to give something to one and not to another? Is that an equal footing?

We are putting the specification in the Clause to preserve the equal footing. That is specifically the purpose and effect of the provision, which says that the burgh man is not to be in a position of superiority over the county man and that the county man is not to be in a position of superiority over the burgh man.

Can the hon. and gallant Member arrange for a demonstration meeting?

I fail to see what more demonstration meeting we could have.

A demonstration of the reconstituted county council.

My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow the alluring coat which he is trailing before me. The hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Captain Streatfeild) brought forward the question of the Stranraer rep represntatives.

It was not limited to them.

I will take the single example of the representatives of Stranraer. Of the representatives from Stranraer, three attend the county council at the present time. It is proposed that five shall attend the county council in future. Those five members will go to the county council and will be able to vote on everything connected with the classified roads, the poor, health, education and the police without any question of differentiation arising between Provost Dyer and his colleagues from Stranraer and any other member of the county council. Provost Dyer may be chosen as chairman of the county council. A question was also raised with regard to expenses.

And procedure.

The question of procedure will be dealt with by the Lord Advocate. In regard to expenses, I have no doubt whatever that the expenses are a function in respect of which the county council is entitled to rate within the burgh. Therefore, the county council will vote without any differentiation between members of the county council.

My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the figure of three and the figure of five with respect to Stranraer. How is the figure arrived at?

The hon. and gallant Member will find the formula laid down in Command Paper 3263, which explains at length the calculations in regard to population and valuation.

Will the small burgh representatives have the right to take part in the proceedings in the election of chairman and officers of the county council?

They will have a complete right to take part in the election of chairman and officers of the county council, for those are matters affecting the whole of the new authority which is exercising functions within the burgh just as within the county.

The Under-Secretary has stated that it will be possible for the provost of a burgh to be the convener of a county. I can visualise a county council meeting where, in such a case, a burghal representative would be in the chair and conducting the business of the county council without having the right to vote on the subject that was being decided by the county council.

The Lord Advocate has already dealt with that point. He will have his casting vote. Nobody denies that. He will have a vote by virtue of his office as chairman.

The Under-Secretary has been drawing our attention to the fact that the burghal representatives will not be entitled to vote on certain things that come before the council, and he cited housing. Supposing the question before the county council was the question of housing, and a provost from a burgh was the chairman and convener of the county council. He would be there conducting the business of the county council in the capacity of chairman, and yet he would have neither voice not vote on that particular question which was being decided by the county council.

Obviously, when you have five great services which are common to the whole, and certain services which are reserved, the latter services will be conducted in the landward committee and the burghs respectively. Landward housing will be conducted in the landward committee. It is only in respect of the five great services that the full county council will meet. The burgh will discuss its housing in the burgh council and the county will discuss its housing in the landward committee, and we shall be able to settle times of meeting without one party interfering with the other.

Surely, the hon. and gallant Member knows that the recommendations and decisions of the committees have to come before the full county council? Are we to have a man sitting in the chair at the county council who has neither a voice nor a vote in the decisions of the council? If so, the position will be absolutely ridiculous in regard to the convener. We shall find that when the reconstituted county council meets, the claim will be made by the landward members that a full county councillor alone who has the right to vote on any subject before the county council, should be elected chairman. I have been examining the white paper so far as my own county council is concerned and I notice that if you take the Leuchars Division you have a place with just over 3,000 population having two representatives on the county council, while in another division which has a larger population they are only to have one representative. The position is equally anomalous in regard to the burghs. The burgh of Culross, with just over 500 of a population, will get the same representation on the county council

as a burgh with over 5,000 population. That is most unfair and requires to be looked into.

In a few words I will reply to the question which has been raised with respect to settling procedure for Standing Orders and so on, and the expenses of individual members attending the county council. I am willing to reconsider the matter and to make quite sure that such questions shall be open to the burgh representatives, but my strong opinion is that neither of these matters involves the exercise of the function of the county council. The question of expenses of individual members relates to the exercise of the individual members' functions and not the exercise of functions of the complete council.

It being half-vast Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of V2th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 195.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 112.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.

Amendment made:

In page 10, line 1:2, leave out Sub-

section (5), and insert instead thereof the words: (5) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Question put "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200: Noes, 111.