Part of Orders of the Day — Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill. – in the House of Commons am ar 9 Gorffennaf 1928.
I spoke at considerable length on the Second Reading and I supported the Bill. I have watched the proceedings in Committee and otherwise with very great interest, and I have heard no argument advanced which has made me alter my opinion. I regret very much that I cannot see eye to eye with my colleagues from Scotland above the Gangway. If I thought for a moment that the passage of the Bill belittled in any way the feeling of Scottish nationality that we all have, I should be the first to resist it. I understand that we are discussing the three Amendments on the Paper—the maintenance or abolition of the Board of Health, the Board of Agriculture, and the Prison Commission. I am rather sorry in a way that these three are taken together, but I bow to the ruling; of the Chair, and I think, in the interests of good discussion, it is probably right so to discuss them together. I have already expressed my views pretty strongly about the Board of Agriculture. I am quite convinced, after long experience of watching its work, that the best interests of the Scottish small land holding system and of settlement upon the land will be best served not by a Board but by a Land Settlement Officer, as is proposed under the Bill.
I was very much struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright), who has just left the House. I strongly object to calling attention to the absence of hon. Members who, very likely, apart from a particular moment when a count is asked for, have been in the Chamber all the afternoon and evening. I was very much struck by this speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member who, quite obviously, meant what he said, and spoke with great conviction and sincerity. He made a special appeal for the maintenance of the Prison Commission, and I have no doubt that in Scotland there is a very great feeling that the Prison Commission should be maintained as it is. They have shown over a great number of years very great sensitiveness with regard to their duties and remarkable ability, and, above all—and I think it is a most necessary quality in this connection—very great human sympathy.
But the question at once arises, could the same good work be performed by a cheaper and more efficient organisation? That is the point. Could it be more economical with the same efficiency? I think those are questions which at this time in our political history we have got to ask ourselves and to answer honestly and fairly. I have had experience in my political career of a great number of boards when I was Chief Secretary for Ireland. I frankly tell the House that I did not find the board system an efficient one. I found that when you had to deal with a Board you had to deal not with a unit but with a great number of individuals called a unit by the Legislature. Instead of efficiency and up-to-dateness, I found very often inefficiency and retrogression. I always found that when a board was at all efficient, it had been made efficient by one man and I am perfectly certain that that may be the experience of the Scottish Office. If that be so, I for one should hesitate a long time before I contended against the weight of experience. In this case, I am prepared to accept the view of experienced officials and to accept the proposed Amendment of the Legislature and to have instead of boards, individuals directly responsible to the responsible Minister in the House of Commons.
I do not think there is anything so bad for the State and for the efficient working of the State as to have a Board that is really not responsible to anybody. If you have directly under you and appointed by you and under your control, a carefully-selected man who knows his work, I am quite convinced, in my own mind, after a good deal of experience, that in that way you get efficiency which you do not otherwise get. Take, for example, the case of the Board of Agriculture. I have nothing to say against the individuals composing that Board, and I quite admit to each and all of them the characteristics of efficiency and ability, but when you give into the control of a Board of this kind a vast amount of money, there is not the same efficiency and care in spending as you have under an official directly responsible to the State. I have pointed in this House time and again to the expenditure of the Board of Agriculture. I believe last year the amount spent by the Board was £450,000 and they put only from 100 to 125 people on the land. Yet the salaries and expenses of that Board amounted to £120,000.