HC Deb 28 July 1906 vol 162 cc278-84

As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause— Where upon the report of the procurator fiscal in regard to any fatal accident to which The Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895, applies, the Lord-Advocate shall be satisfied that all the facts have been ascertained, and that a public inquiry could serve no useful purpose and has not been requested by any relative of the deceased or other party interested, he may direct the procurator fiscal that it is unnecessary to apply for a public inquiry, and in such case no public inquiry shall be held. Section four of this Act shall not apply in the case of any fatal accident occurring in connection with any work to which the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901 applies, or in or about any mine, quarry, or railway."—(Mr. Younger.)

Brought up and read a first time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,) Hawick Burghs

said that on the Grand Committee his hon. friend moved a clause substantially in the terms now before the House, and he agreed that it was proper matter for a new clause with the addendum which the hon. Member had now added with reference to the Factory and Workshops Act. He objected, however, to the whole proposal, as it would allow the Government to direct that inquiries should not be held. It would lead to secret inquiries, and as a matter of principle he thought it would be safer not to adopt the proposed new clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause:— Sub-section ten of section four of The Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895, is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof, be it enacted as follows, videlicet: The jury shall be cited by the sheriff clerk from the sheriff court jury book in the manner provided by statute for the citation of jurors in civil cases in Scotland, and the existing statutory provisions relative to lines for non-attendance of jurors and to the swearing of jurors shall apply to inquiries under this Act; but no person shall be summoned to attend to serve as a juror in any inquiry held under this Act who resides beyond such distances from the court-house or other building at which the inquiry is held as may from time to time be fixed by the several sheriffs of the several counties, with the approbation of the Secretary for Scotland."— (Mr. Mitchell- Thomson.)

Brought up and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that in the Grand Committee his hon. friend had raised this question and he had asked leave to look into the matter. He thought the introduction of the clause would do no harm and he had great pleasure in accepting it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

Amendment proposed to the Bill In page 1, line 12, leave out' workman.' "— (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

moved an Amendment to the effect that not less than seven days notice should be given by the procurator fiscal to any person or persons affected that evidence of fault or negligence, etc., was to be adduced by him at an inquiry. The hon. Member said it to him seemed to be quite impossible on any principle of fairness to extend the powers of the jury to bring in a verdict against a man who might not have received previous notice. He could not conceive that there could be any objection to a proviso of this kind. If the period was thought to be too long he was willing to reduce the number of days. They were told in the Grand Committee that a verdict under this Bill would not involve any suggestion of criminality, but he was told by many lawyers that it was undesirable that a verdict of this kind should be passed in the absence of any man.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page l, line 23, at end, to add 'Provided that not less than seven days' notice shall be given by the procurator-fiscal to any person or persons affected thereby that evidence is to be adduced by him at the inquiry of such fault or negligence, or precautions or defects in the system of working.' "—(Mr. Younger.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said there was no [grievance at all, as the inquiry was not a prosecution at all. If there was plainly something wrong why should the jury be prevented from telling the truth about it? To ask the procurator-fiscal to make up his mind seven days before-an inquiry that somebody or other ight be affected was out of the question. It would be the duty of himself or his successor to issue the ordinary regulations after the passing of an Act of this kind, under which it would be provided that when from the papers before them there appeared a possibility that a question of anybody's innocence might or might not be raised then they should send an intimation to that person. [" Why not put it in the Bill."] The reason was that to do so would make the procurator-fiscal a Judge. Under the Act of 1895 there was a proviso that the examination of any person as a witness at any inquiry should not be a bar to any criminal proceeding against him and that no such person should be compelled to answer any question tending to show that he has been guilty of any offence. He thought when he had made an offer which completely satisfied the Grand Committee and when he had shown how very dangerous it would be before the inquiry was held to have information handed to the person that he was accused of negligence it ought to be quite sufficient.

*MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

said the object of the Amendment was to insure that there should be in the Bill itself some definite assurance of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he would order the information to be given under certain circumstances. The reason they asked for this assurance was because they were firmly convinced that it was an entirely wrong and unconstitutional principle to say that any man in this country should be found guilty of an offence by a verdict of his countrymen, when he had not had previous notice of the charge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was not found guilty, that this was a mere civil inquiry and that the liability which attached to it was a civil liability. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended seriously to assure the House that if a jury said that A. B. had died through the fault or negligence of C. D. they were not bringing in a verdict which at its lowest point amounted to the blame of culpable homicide against C. D.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

No, no.

*MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

said that he would address himself to the authorities. Ever since the right hon. Gentleman had denied this in the conference he himself had been studiously looking this matter up, and what he asserted was that when a man died through the fault or negligence of another man, the other man was open to a charge which at the lowest was culpable homicide. That was perfectly clear from the definition of culpable homicide, given by Hume. He could also give the right hon. Gentleman references from Alison, and he referred him particularly to the last great criminal work by the late Lord Advocate in this House.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

I agree.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

said he now understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to agree that when a man caused the death of another, that he fell under the blame of culpable homicide.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

No, not at all.

*MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

Then what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to? He referred to a case in which it was stated that to put the blame on a man was sufficient. He submitted that by this Bill as it stood, they were actually blaming a person. The verdict in itself blamed the man, and said that he was in fault or guilty of negligence, as it might be. He put it on the authority of the decisions extant that when that was done the verdict at its lowest point amounted to prima facie evidence of culpable homicide, and where such blame was possible and where such blame attached to a man it was only reasonable that everything should be done to insure that the man likely to suffer such blame should have notice and information as to the inquiry. He hoped therefore the Amendment would be accepted.

*MR. MORTON

hoped this Amendment would not be passed, because the procurator fiscal could, not carry it out. It would be an extremely wrong thing if the procurator fiscal was to be allowed to cast any reflection upon a person by giving him notice unless there was something to justify it. Hon. Members should bear in mind that no action could be taken until the case was taken to another court. A coroner's court in England with all its powers could not hang a person. They found a verdict against him, and then the case went through the ordinary procedure. The working men of Scotland who wanted this Bill wanted it because they wished to know whether there was anybody to blame before they took proceedings. What they said was that they went to the courts and to considerable expense only to find they were wrong. He thought it would be altogether wrong to allow the procurator-fiscal to give notice. They wanted to have many of these inquiries. When in the City of London they commenced to make inquiries into the cause of fires, whether there was loss of life or not, it was found I that fires were largely stopped. These inquiries ought to be held in the interest of everyone concerned and he hoped the hon. Member would not insist on his Amendment and so put an impediment in the way of these inquiries which were for the benefit of both employers and workmen.

MR. COCHRANE

said the hon. Member for Sutherland had stated that one of the reasons why he would not support the Amendment was that whatever verdict the jury might give no action could be taken, but that that verdict was connected with other legal actions which might be taken elsewhere. But though no further legal action might be taken what would be the state of a man's mind if a jury found that he was guilty of culpable homicide, when he was not present at the inquiry, and had no remedy and no opportunity of clearing himself of the charge? His position would be far more serious if he had no notice that such a charge was to be made, and no opportunity of refuting it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that before a charge was brought against an individual that individual should have notice, and the method which he suggested was that a letter should be written to the procurator - fiscal asking him to give him notice. If it were right that a man should have notice before a charge was brought against him, why not put it in the Bill? He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that unless he wanted to have a verdict of culpable homicide brought against him for keeping hon. Members in the House until Sunday morning he should meet them in a conciliatory spirit.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he did not think there could be any better evidence of his having done so than the way in which he had dealt with the House. He had already accepted two Amendments.

MR. COCHRANE

admitted that the right hon. Gentleman was a marvel of good temper under the strain and stress of circumstances, but he would like to press his good nature a little further. The right hon. Gentleman admitted there was substance in the argument brought forward by his hon. friend. Could he not meet it by introducing into the Bill an Amendment stating that where practicable the. Procurator-fiscal should give notice to any person or persons likely to be affected? It could do no harm, and he thought it would remove a grievance.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that by the indulgence of the House he might be allowed to say that there seemed to be a point in the last observation of the hon. Gentleman which might remove a difficulty in the practical working of the Act. The House would understand that he totally dissented from the view of anything in the nature of a criminal inquiry at all. On the other hand he would communicate the view last presented by his hon. friend to the Lord Chancellor to see whether, if possible, without interfering with, the practical and prompt working of the Bill they could adopt some words of the kind suggested. If it were not done the hon. Gentleman would understand it was because they believed it would kill the principle of the Bill. But they would very favourably consider it.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether in the communication he proposed to make to the Lord-Chancellor he would include in it the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

Certainly.

MR. YOUNGER

said he was quite willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer, and would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed,— In Clause 3 to leave out "section 2 hereof" and insert ' this Act "(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Adjournment,—Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Whiteley,)—put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes after Six o'clock till Monday next.