§ *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan and Kinross) moved the Second Reading of the Bill, which, he explained, provided that there should be a public investigation in cases of fatal accident in industrial pursuits. The Bill was brought before Parliament last year, and hon. Members would be very familiar with it. There was a great desire amongst the industrial classes in Scotland to have it passed into law, and he now asked that it should be read a second time. If there was any difference of opinion with regard to the provisions of the measure, the matter could be quite well discussed in the Grand Committee to which he should ask that the Bill should be referred.
§ MR. W. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT (Cheshire, Macclesfield)asked for an explanation of what the Bill did.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURreplied that it provided for a public inquiry with the sheriff and a jury in regard to fatal accidents occurring in industrial employments, the result of which, it was thought, would be to lead to the remedy of defects of mechanism and method in such employments, and thus prevent similar accidents in future. This particular form of inquiry had been much sought for by the working classes in Scotland for several years past.
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY (Buteshire)pointed out that it was then only five minutes to Twelve o'clock, and he objected to a measure of this character being read a second time without discussion. It was absurd to talk of this Bill as being familiar to Members of the House. It was, on the contrary, one which, by the action of the right hon. Gentleman, had been turned from a Bill which might have passed without opposition into a highly controversial Bill. He (Mr. Graham Murray) and those who thought with him were entirely opposed to the Bill in its present shape, containing, as it did, the objectionable provision for setting up a jury and making it imperative that that jury should pronounce an actual finding as to what was the cause of death. His right hon. Friend had said the result of this would be to mend the defects of mechanism and method. He himself believed that the result of the Bill would be to establish in Scotland a sort of bastard system—not exactly a coroner's inquest or not exactly the private inquiry to which they had hitherto been accustomed. He must beg entirely to differ from his right hon. Friend when he said that there was any real call or great anxiety for this Bill at all. He did not imagine any measure in regard to which there had been less expression of public opinion. He could imagine two objects alone for which the Bill was promoted, one of which was legitimate and the other entirely illegitimate. The legitimate object was, that when accidents occurred in industrial employments there should be such an inquiry as to make it possible in future to prevent those accidents happening. When the Bill was originally introduced, it was not provided that the public inquiry should be by a jury, and those who had experience of juries would agree that, while they were admirably suited for criminal work, they could not have a worse tribunal for getting at the real facts in cases such as would arise under 855 this Bill. The first object of the Bill and the legitimate object would be best served by an inquiry where necessary by an expert. There was less necessity than ever for this Bill, because in the Factory Bill introduced by the Home Secretary the other day there was a provision for a public inquiry in the case of fatal accidents occurring in any trade. Were they to have public inquiries under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Bill, and also under the Bill of the Home Secretary? It seemed to him if they were to have public inquiries under the Bill promoted by the Home Secretary, they should have them conducted in a proper way by an expert, who would be more likely to get to the bottom of these matters than the unsatisfactory tribunal of a jury.
It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.