Clause 1. — (Substitution of Departments for Boards of Health and Agriculture and Prison Commissioners for Scotland.)

Part of Orders of the Day — Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill. – in the House of Commons am ar 9 Gorffennaf 1928.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of Mr Archibald Skelton Mr Archibald Skelton , Perth

I must have misunderstood my right hon. Friend. I thought he was comparing, in the first place, the figure of £430,000, which is the total expenditure, with the number of men settled. Even taking the travelling expenses, although I have not looked into that matter closely, I think those travelling expenses are for purposes other than land settlement only. Therefore, I doubt whether it is fair to compare the figure of 125 men settled with £120,000 expenses. I must say in defence of a Board which is apparently drawing very near to its last breath, and I think it should be said in this House before this Bill passes, that land settlement in Scotland under the Board of Agriculture, taking one year with another, has been not less economical, but more economical than it has been in England. Although the figures of the actual cost of the erection of a holding are difficult to arrive at, there seems to be no doubt that the cost of the erection of a holding under the Board of Agriculture in Scotland has been far less than it was under the Department of Agriculture, when it was in their hands. Therefore, in the battle of Department versus Board, the Board wins easily on that point. The cost has been not only far less than when the settlements were undertaken by the Department of Agriculture in England, but less than settlement undertaken by the county councils, with all their local knowledge.

I think it is most unfair and most unjust to treat the work of land settlement by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland as a work which merits condemnation on account of extravagance or on account of inefficiency. When we recollect that the proportion of failures in Scotland has been very much less than in England, it shows that even where one would suppose that local knowledge was most vitally important and would make an immense amount of difference, namely, in the selection of the holders, this much maligned Board of Agriculture has been able to hold its own with the highly-specialised committees of the county councils, who have known the men from their youth upwards. Therefore, in my judgment, to make an excuse, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty practically did——