§ Mr. CURRIEI do not wish to continue this discussion, as I recognise it would be somewhat indecent on the part of a mere Tariff Reformer to intervene in the domestic dispute which threatens to break out between the faithful followers and the faithful leaders who were so united when Free Trade was their policy in the country. I rather wish to move to reduce Vote 12 of Class III. by £100 and to call attention—
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn a point of Order. Is anybody else entitled to speak on this Vote?
§ Mr. SPEAKEREverybody is entitled to speak on this Vote. Even the hon. Member is entitled to speak on it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI always understood that if we went on to a subsequent Vote it was impossible to revert to an earlier one.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe discussion is general now, and ranges over the whole topic.
§ Mr. HOGGECan the hon. Gentleman move a reduction on the Vote, and if he does will discussion be confined to the topic which the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, and, until that is finished, can we return to this important question of Free Trade?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere cannot be any Motion for a reduction. I have already put the Question, "That the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. CURRIEThen I would only make the further remark that I would like to protest against language which has been used in this discussion, such as "base," "deceitful" and "fraudulent." I think it should not be necessary to do more than to recall these adjectives to point out how unfortunate it is at a time like this to revert to a practice, which most of us are wishing to get rid of, making wholesale charges of downright dishonest motives against those who view matters from a rather different point of view to oneself. I wish to return to Vote 12 of Class III. I 1779 understand I cannot move an actual reduction at present, but I wish to call some Attention to the amount of expenditure still associated with the Land Court in Scotland. It is, of course, the case that the questions with which the Land Court was brought into existence to deal were at one time highly controversial, and we had a suggestion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer only yesterday that controversial questions should not be raised. At the same time, I think there is a limit to the extent to which one can follow that doctrine, with all the wish in the world to promote peaceful discussion here. My complaint against the administration of the Land Court is not a complaint against all the individuals associated with it. Far from it. My complaint is that the country is not getting value for its money. The present Secretary for Scotland is, I think, one of the last men one would wish to blame for the state of matters that exists. I do not suppose he is in favour of the waste of money any more than I am myself, and I think in some ways if the Secretary for Scotland had more control over some of these decisions we might have a better state of things. I am afraid the fault lies very much with the Act itself. It is not a very good Act. It is a very bad foundation for anything like good administration. I acknowledge that in Scotland a good deal of economy has already been effected. I believe the Secretary for Scotland is very anxious to effect more, but I think the fact remains that the Court has really failed to justify its existence. It is a sort of Court ad hoc, and I think it is a pretty bad sort of Court.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the policy of legislation on a Vote of this kind?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI understood the hon. Member was discussing the administration of this Court. That, of course, he is entitled to do.
§ Mr. CURRIEI think that, as a rule, when anything is heard in the Land Court of Scotland it is in connection with some humiliating reversal of judgment of the High Court or some abject fiasco in the House of Lords, and it is really not saying too much that, in the view of the ordinary taxpayer and business man in Scotland, a feeling has sprung up that the time has come when this Land Court might really be reformed or economised practically out of existence. I made a 1780 suggestion in the form of a question to the right hon. Gentleman quite recently that, in so far as the Court existed for the purpose of dispensing law, use might be made of the ordinary judges in Scotland, and I still think a good deal of money would be saved. I understand legislation would be required, and I would probably not be in order in pressing that matter at the moment. But I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that no more of these unfortunate reversals of judgments and grossly extravagant legal proceedings arising out of the Land Court's deliberations will characterise it. The feeling is very strong indeed that on several occasions—in connection with the Lindean case, and so on—that a gross waste of money is taking place, and that is the assurance I ask of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe case which the hon. Member refers to is one which is not connected with the Land Court at all.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to deal with matters requiring legislation, but if he is criticising the Administration there is no objection to that.
§ Mr. CURRIEMy appeal is to the Secretary for Scotland to use every effort he can in order to put an end to this gross extravagance in legal proceedings.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood)So far as the Land Court is concerned, I am not in a position to answer for it. Parliament in its wisdom has made it an independent Court, and has given the head of it the rank of a judge of the Court of Session. Therefore, it would be improper on my part either to defend or criticise its decisions, and I have no intention of doing anything of the sort. Indeed, I do not think I should be in order in doing so. As far as the Lindean case is concerned, so far as I am responsible, it was absolutely necessary to get a decision of the Court on the question as to whether a certain claim came within the terms of the Scottish Land Act. Undoubtedly it is the case that the compensation paid in that instance was extravagant, and there I quite agree with the hon. Member.
§ Mr. CURRIEI never said that the compensation was extravagant.
Mr. MCKINNON WOODI thought that was the hon. Member's complaint; but, at any rate, I say that it was extravagant.
§ Mr. CURRIEThe right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I commenced my speech. My complaint was that these cases, which generally end in appeals to the House of Lords, are really allowed to arise, and I blame the Act for it, and not the Secretary for Scotland.
Mr. MCKINNON WOODI understood that the hon. Member complained that money was spent in that case, and he expressed the hope that no more money would be spent on similar cases, and I quite agree with him there. I hope money will not be spent upon extravagant compensation. During the present time of national necessity I am doing my best to avoid extravagant compensation. As far as the action of the Board of Agriculture was concerned in that case, they were bound to get a decision. The matter was one which must affect my mind in deciding other cases. Whether all these cases were legally sustainable or not was a very material consideration in deciding whether one should proceed with a certain scheme. Nobody expected that the compensation would be so extravagant; in fact, it was thought at first that we should have a sort of pleasant agreement with the landlord, but the landlord went for his pound of flesh and got a hundredweight. I think that sort of thing ought to be stopped, but it is clear that you cannot start at the present time the highly controversial question of an amendment of that Act. It is now perfectly plain from the decision of the Courts that according to the law the landlords are entitled to raise these speculative claims, and I cannot help that. I do not know why this question is brought up on the Land Court Vote, because the final decision was not given by the Land Court at all. A decision was given by the Court of Session, and finally by the House of Lords. The advantage is that we now know exactly what the law is, and that has always been a very expensive proceeding, which, as a layman, I regret, but under present circumstances it cannot possibly be avoided.
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERI wish to say a word in answer to the speech of the Secretary for Scotland. I admit that a decision in this case had to be taken in the House of Lords, and I think the right hon. Gentleman who made the appeal was entitled to ask for the verdict of the highest Court in the land. I do not, however, think the right hon. Gentleman was quite fair when he spoke about speculative claims. In this particular case the claim was not 1782 a speculative one in the ordinary sense of the term, but only in the sense used by Lord Haldane, who gave his judgment in this particular action. It was speculative with regard to the actual loss by reason of certain things having been done. It was speculative, but not in an offensive, or unfair, or irregular sense. I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said on this point, but I do not wish to carry on the discussion of this matter any further.