§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John. Gilmour)I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out from the word "Act" to the end of the Sub-section."
This Bill is one to deal with the reorganisation of the service of the Sheriff Courts and staffs in Scotland, and during the Committee stage there was a considerable amount of discussion as to the terms under which the members of those staffs were to be taken into the ordinary Civil Service of this country. An Amendment was moved in Committee which brought into the Bill the Subsection which I now move to delete. The reason I am doing this is to bring into conformity the Rules governing the whole Civil Service and entrance to the Civil Service of the United Kingdom. It is true, of course, that this alteration was carried against the Government in Committee, and it may be said that as this is a matter dealing with Scottish affairs it ought to remain. But this is not a purely Scottish matter; it is one which affects the terms of entrance of the whole Civil Service. The Government have given most careful consideration to the whole problem and have taken every step to see that the examinations are made as simple and as much in conformity with the general duties of those persons who are coming in under the new conditions, where, incidentally I may add, they are going to obtain very considerable advantages. I would remind the House that over a number of years negotiations had gone on between 2261 the Government and the accredited representatives of the staffs. While there had been these protracted negotiations, these arrangements which the Government propose were accepted by the representatives of the staffs, and, when it became apparent that there was any danger in regard to these advantages through the Amendment which was introduced in Committee acting in any way to prevent the Bill coming into law this Session, I was approached—as most hon. Members for Scotland were approached—by the accredited representatives of the staffs, who made it clear that it was not on their behalf that this Amendment had been moved and that they hoped nothing would be done to jeopardise those advantages. I think it is clear on all counts that I am justified in asking the House to reverse this decision.
§ 12.0 m.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI think that for sheer obstinacy the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter would be hard to beat. It is true that this is a question affecting a very small number of men but many of them are ex-service men. This subject was thoroughly discussed in the Standing Committee representing all parties and the Amendment was carried against the Government. Now the Secretary of State for Scotland comes here and blandly asks for the support of English and Welsh Members who cannot possibly know the facts as well as Scottish Members to omit the words which were inserted against his wishes by the Committee upstairs. All we asked by our proposal was that in the case of a man who has been regularly employed for a period of five years he should be exempted from the written examination and that the man under whom he has been serving every day should be allowed to give him a certificate as to his fitness for the job. We maintain that under those circumstances a man should be exempted from a written examination. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that our Amendment would make the examination almost a perfunctory one and when the Measure was before the Committee he said that if a man failed the first time he could try a second time. If that is so, why trouble about having an examination at all? Many of these men have been for many years away 2262 from all scholastic attainments and some of them are quite unfit to sit for an examination. Under the circumstances why put those men to the humiliation, as it would be in some cases, of incurring the nervous strain of sitting for a written examination? The right hon. Gentleman says he received a telegram saying it was hoped nothing would be done to jeopardise the Bill. We do not want to jeopardise the Bill. We have never said a word to jeopardise the Bill. It is not jeopardising the Bill to improve it, to make it easier for men, some of them ex-service men, to hold these posts by appointment. They can get certificates from their employers that they can do their job satisfactorily. It is not jeopardising the Bill to ask that these men should not be subjected to an examination. I therefore oppose the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to defeat the Clause that was carried upstairs against him by Scottish representatives of all parties.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI should like to say a word as to the history of the Bill. Seven years ago the Lord President of the Court of Session passed an Act of Sederunt increasing the fees against Scottish litigants for the purpose of giving these officials an opportunity of getting into the Civil Service with pensions and the like. The British Treasury has for seven years drawn these increased fees out of which they have got something very material—at least £250,000—and they made it more difficult for the Scottish people to get the privilege of justice from His Majesty's Courts. They got all these funds into their pockets. The Lord Advocate says that is not so, but the figures are perfectly clear. Now they bring forward a Bill—
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe are on a particular Amendment, not on the whole Bill.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI was proposing to make that a slight preamble. I am not at all sure they are particularly anxious for the Bill to go through. The purpose of the Bill is to establish these officials in the Civil Service. While it may establish the younger ones, who have recently come from school, it will disestablish a considerable number of them. 2263 The older men will be wiped out, and those who cannot pass this Civil Service examination may also be wiped out, and yet they may be quite efficient servants in their own Department. A large part of the work is more or less mechanical. They have been for many years devoting themselves to their particular business and they are all the less likely to be able to pass a clerical examination. I have had one or two cases, one of a lady 40 years of age, who has been 15 years in the service. She will have the humiliation of sitting an examination and may probably fail, though she is a most efficient servant in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court, and her place may be taken by one of these young ladies who are presently to get the vote, with no experience of the work she is engaged for. It is said they must conform to the rules of the Civil Service and the Civil Service Commissioners insist upon it. I have a very poor opinion of the intelligence of the Civil Service Commissioners in insisting on a condition of this kind when they can take the condition provided in this Clause.
It is said it is an immutable rule and that it has applied to ex-service men in the past, but that was a totally different situation when an immense body of ex-service men were taken into the Civil Service, many of whom were not qualified for anything. It is not the first time the Civil Service has excused examinations. When the National Library was taken over they took over the whole staff holus bolus without any examination at all. It may be that this is a very small matter, and there are only some 40 or 50 who will be subjected to examination, but it contains a very big principle, and if there were only five that is no reason why a wrong should be done to these people. It is said the Bill may be lost. It will not be lost. If it is lost, it is for us Scotsmen who have Scottish interests at heart to see that the bleeding of Scottish litigants for the benefit of the Treasury ought to be put an end to, and it will be our duty to address a memorial to the Lord President of the Court of Session, who is a conscientious Scotsman, and who has the interests of Scotland at heart, and ask him to withdraw that Act of Sederunt and the Regulations which 2264 gave them the right to exact these increased charges from the litigants. They should have got the Bill first and got the increased fees afterwards. That would have been the proper procedure. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate ought to have stood up for the interests of Scotland and stood up for these civil servants and not allowed this injustice to be inflicted on them. The Clause ought not to be deleted from the Bill.
§ Mr. D. GRAHAMI resent as a Scottish Member the practice of introducing legislation of this kind when everyone else but Scottish Members is expected to be away home. Time after time at the tail end of a day's discussion we get a Scottish Bill brought forward in the hope that it will be pushed through without anything like fair or reasonable discussion. One would have expected at least that the Secretary of State would have some new arguments to submit to the House to justify his claim that this particular Clause should remain as originally introduced. He says that it is to bring this Bill into conformity with the usual practice. I suppose he wants us to believe that he discussed the matter or that it has been the practice in England to compel men who have served 10 years in a particular occupation to go through a more or less severe examination before they can be taken over as civil servants and to justify their continuance in that position. I want to submit that if we had time to look up the records we might find any number of instances where sections of workers in England became civil servants and were taken over holus bolus.
We do not require to go to England for justification for the claim I am now making, because we have within recent years had the experience of the Advocates' Library employés being taken over without any such questions. They were simply transferred to the Civil Service. It is not a case of putting men out of employment who have served for four or five years. Some of them have been there for 11 years.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENFifteen years.
§ Mr. GRAHAMThey go to this particular job when they leave school, and they may be 10, 11 or 12 years actually in service. As already remarked, the fact 2265 that they have had such service is surely reasonable proof that they are competent for the work that they will be called upon to do. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was not entirely a Scottish matter. It is a Scottish matter and nothing but a Scottish matter. The English Members have nothing to do with it. English Members would be the first to admit that they knew nothing of the duties of a procurator fiscal. We can stand the jeers of English Members, but we object to them always getting the money. The matter was discussed as a Scottish question in Committee, and the Scottish Members came to a decision on the matter. It was not a party decision. It cannot be said that the right hon. Gentleman is being confronted with a claim that is being submitted purely for partisan motives or political purposes. The Amendment was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and suported by a number of our Friends on both sides. It was one of the very few occasions on which we see eye to eye, and I did expect from the Secretary of State for Scotland a generous response. Whether or not he has been informed by the Treasury that they have the money and intend to keep it, I do not know. It is not correct to say that this is anything other than a Scottish matter.
In Committee and again this evening the right hon. Gentleman made a statement to which I should like to draw attention. He has said it so often that he seems to believe it. I refer to his statement as to negotiations with what he described as accredited members. Those negotiations took place some years ago, when the Government said that the money that was taken in additional fees in the various Courts would be distributed amongst the employés under the control of the procurator fiscal and sheriff clerk. The "accredited" members, these so-called organisations, by a small majority—I think it was only a majority of one—decided to accept the proposal of the Government, because of the advantage it would bring to them so far as their status was concerned by their being raised to the rank of civil servants, and having security. Because the Government secured a majority in that way, although it was only a majority of one, they have held to the point that 2266 the persons affected by these proposals are still of the same opinion. I am convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman took a ballot of the persons affected he would find that a very opposite decision would be arrived at. It is not creditable to the Government to use that sort of argument in connection with the Bill.
This is not the only Government which has been anxious to get the Bill through. The Labour Government were anxious to get the Bill through, and the bulk of public opinion in Scotland, certainly of the persons directly concerned, are anxious that the Bill should pass, but they want something like reasonable and fair treatment. They are justified in taking exception to the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he has the power, not to allow a party vote on this matter. I am prepared to go to a vote even if I am the only man to go through the Lobby. It is time that Scottish Members of Parliament, whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour, made a protest against the introduction of business of this kind being taken after other business has been considered. I would have preferred that it had not been necessary for me to take part in the Debate, and that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the decision of the Scottish Members, but if he insists that the original position should be restored, I hope that at least the Scottish Members will be prepared to go into the Lobby against him.
Colonel CROOKSHANKI should like to make my position clear. I do not agree with my Friend the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) in his scathing remarks on the subject of the examination for entry into the Civil Service. I think that is necessary. As regards this particular question, I did not vote in Committee because I thought we should have a little more information, and that there might be something to be said for his Amendment. I have taken the trouble to refer the matter to my constituents who are affected, and have received a telegram from the secretary of the organisation representing these people asking me not to vote against the proposal now before the House. They feel that it is a small matter, and although I am moved by the eloquence of the last speaker on the subject of Scottish opinion, I feel that 2267 this opinion is confirmed, by that I have had direct from Scotland, on this matter to support the Amendment, which I propose to do.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI join with my colleagues from Scotland in protesting against the attitude adopted by the Secretary of State. I am not surprised that he has taken up this position because after the decision in the Committee had been taken it was quite apparent, from the way in which he referred to the matter at the time, that he was determined to utilise the forces at the call of the Government when the Bill reached Report stage. This Scottish Committee is somewhat of a fiasco. It is not meant to be of any particular importance but to allow of a certain amount of window dressing for the benefit of Scotland. It is not right when a body of men from Scotland have come to a decision, after carefully discussing the Clauses of this Bill, with no waste of time and with proper intelligence, for the Secretary of State to try and upset that decision because it is unsatisfactory to him. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not a matter of much importance, yet he adopts this dour attitude, this obstinate attitude. I begin to realise what some of my colleagues mean when they say that if the Secretary of State is determined about anything there is no giving way at all, no matter what arguments are put forward. We have no intention of endangering the Bill, but we feel on a, matter of this kind, which was fairly considered in the Committee upstairs, that no proper reason has been given why the Secretary of State should not defer to the wish of the Committee and refrain from using the votes of English and Welsh representatives in order to batter down the decision of the Scottish Committee. Surely he is going to allow Scotland some freedom to express her desires on a matter of this kind. No reasonable man will object to that. The Amendment came from the Government side, and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) was able to convince other supporters of the Government. Some hon. Members have expressed their surprise that the Secretary of State has put down this Amendment for Report stage, but I am not surprised. The meaning of it to me is that Scotland is put into the peculiar attitude of hav- 2268 ing little or no respect in this House. That is the position as it stands.
Colonel CROOKSHANKI had a telegram from the secretary of the society concerned saying that he does not wish this matter to be pressed.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURWe know all about the telegrams. We get them telling us to do nothing rash. The Secretary of State understands and works that as a trick. He always professes to address warnings to us. He says, "I will withdraw the whole thing if you do not do exactly as I wish and strike the t's and dot the i's." In other words, we are not supposed to count. All I want here and elsewhere is that we should make a mark concerning every point of this kind and bring it home to the Scottish electors that every man who comes from Scotland to this House has to fight not only the Government but each party to which they may belong so that Scottish interests must be put in the front.
§ Sir JOSEPH NALLThis Debate indicates the inconvenience which arises on the rare occasions when the Socialists find it necessary in Committee to vote against the Government. As the Scottish representatives in the House are unanimously opposed to the Bill, we ought not to spend any more time on it.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESI do not propose to go very deeply into the proceedings of the Scottish Standing Committee, but there is a point of substance to which the House ought to address its attention. I have always regarded the proceedings of the Scottish Standing Committee with respect, if not with awe, and I do not know if there is a precedent for the Scottish Standing Committee being brought into question by the Secretary of State for Scotland before the whole House later on. The Secretary of State would have been more relevant if he had addressed himself not so much to the Amendment but to why we as English Members should overthrow the decision of the Scottish Standing Committee. It has always been one of the unwritten but important rules of procedure of the House of Commons that certain technical matters are referred to Members who have a Special knowledge of them, and when these Members at great length discuss and resolve these 2269 questions the House has always sought very weighty reasons why it should be overthrown. Yet the Secretary for Scotland asks us in five minutes to overthrow the decision taken by the Scottish Standing Committee. If the work of this Committee is to be brought to nought to gratify—I am expressing a common opinion and using the word in its better sense—the obstinacy of the right hon. Gentleman, before we comply with his request the House should have further reasons and Members of all parties ought to carry their protest against this into the Lobby.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI only intend to intervene on the point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick and Haddington (Colonel Crookshank) regarding the telegrams and the men's wishes. It was one of the things to which the Secretary of State for Scotland made reference-that the men, the employés, had used every pressure to bring this Bill on, with the inference that the men did not wish to press this Amendment. I do not think that that puts the case quite correctly. It is quite true that certain of the employés have approached us not to press this Amendment, but, on the other hand, it is equally certain that others of the men have asked us to press it. It cannot be gainsaid that all of them, if this House had been given a free and open discussion, would much sooner have had the Amendment carried. None of the men are opposed to the Amendment, but some of them have asked that it should not be pressed in case the Bill was withdrawn. The action of the Secretary of State for Scotland is simply blackmail. The person blackmailed is given no alternative but to accept the decisions of his blackmailers. Here comes the Secretary of State for Scotland within a week of the end of the Session and says, "You can have this Bill, not on fair, equal terms of open discussion, but only if you agree to my terms." All of the men con
§ cerned would like to see this Amendment carried, but fear that if the Amendment be carried the Bill will be withdrawn, and for that reason certain of them have asked us not to press it. The employés are unanimous that this Amendment is desirable. I think that, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has many times stood by the Scottish Standing Committee for carrying reactionary Amendments, he should now stand by them in regard to this question. The Amendment would never have been carried in the Committee upstairs if it had not been for six of his own supporters who voted for it and four or five others who refused to vote. I think the right hon. Gentleman has a bad case. It will not make for the smooth working of the Scottish Standing Committee, nor for that work being useful and interesting to Members if the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to take a decision and then come down here after twelve o'clock at night, make a short speech practically dismissing that decision, and appeal to Members not on the Scottish Standing Committee to support him as loyal supporters of the Government. He has no reason on his side, but simply a majority of Members of the Conservative party, and, like Members of any other party, they will support their own Government. It is a purely Scottish matter, and they can support the Government without any fear of protest from their constituencies. The Secretary of State for Scotland can claim no great credit for this matter.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENMight I appeal to the Government to withdraw the Amendment?
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 125.
2271| Division No. 477.] | AYES. | [12.37 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Buchanan, G. | Lindley, F. W. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan) | Welsh, J. C. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Potts, John S. | Whiteley, W. |
| Edge, Sir William | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Windsor, Walter |
| Fenby, T. D. | Scrymgeour, E. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Sitch, Charles H. | |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Stephen, Campbell | Mr. Johnston and Mr. Macquisten. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Coff, Sir Park | Penny, Frederick George |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Gower, Sir Robert | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Albery, Irving James | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Radford, E. A. |
| Apsley, Lord | Hammersley, S. S. | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Hanbury, C. | Ramsden, E. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Remer, J. R. |
| Balniel, Lord | Harland, A. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Hartington, Marquess of | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hilton, Cecil | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Sandon, Lord |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Holt, Captain H. P. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Huntingfield, Lord | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Lamb, J. Q. | Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Couper, J. B. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Long. Major Eric | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Stuart, Crichton., Lord C. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Lumley, L. R. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Macintyre, Ian | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Dixey, A. C. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Duckworth, John | Manningham-Buller. Sir Mervyn | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Margesson, Captain D. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Merriman, F. B. | Wells, S. R. |
| England, Colonel A. | Meyer. Sir Frank | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Finburgh, S. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Monsell. Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph | |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Captain Bowyer and Major the |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Nicholson, 0. (Westminster) | Marquess of Titchfield. |
Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSONI do not intend to keep the House more than a very few moments, for I want the Bill. There are only two points that I want to put to the Lord Advocate, and the two points are contained in Clauses 15 and 16. In the case of Clause 15, it deals with the question of fees in workmen's compensation proceedings. Under the Sheriff Court Fees Act, we are paying fees in workmen's compensation cases that are out of all proportion to the fees paid in similar cases in England. As a matter of fact, our information is to the effect that in England there is no fee charged so far as the workman is concerned, and only very nominal fees in the case of the employer. When I raised the same point in Committee, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who was in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Lord Advocate, pointed out that no fees would be chargeable to the workman, but 2272 I pointed out, in reply to that, that if substantial fees were charged to the employer, the workman, according to our wages arrangements, so far as the mines are concerned, would be paying a considerable proportion of those fees. The expenses in workmen's compensation cases, even if paid by the employer, go to costs other than wages, and that is deducted from the proceeds in the Scottish coal trade before either wages or profit is payable. What is left is divided in the proportions of 87 to the workman and 13 to the employer, so that the fees, even if paid by the employer, are to a large extent borne by the workman. I pointed out that the Courts of the land ought to be free to the poorest litigant; there should not be any fees that would prevent even the poorest litigant from getting the advantage of putting his case before the Courts of the country.
My second point is on Clause 16, where, in cases of fatal accidents where compensation is payable to the widows and orphans of those who have been unfortu- 2273 nate enough to lose their lives, fees to the extent of £2 per cent. have been taken under the Sheriff Court Fees Act. That means that, in some cases, widows and orphans who have been left have been charged as much as £12 for fees. Many of us consider that that was a scandalous charge. It only came into operation after the Sheriff Court Fees Act was passed; no charge was made previous to that. I hope the Lord Advocate can give us some explanation as to steps that can be taken to overcome the difficulties with which I am dealing.
§ Sir ROBERT HAMILTONI do not wish to delay the House, but I wish to address a, request to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Bill, as we all know, is not what we hoped it might have been. All of us who have had anything to do with it are disappointed with the result, and I think the Secretary of State for Scotland himself is disappointed. At the same time, we must admit that the condition of the existing staff would be improved when they come upon the establishment. That, I think, we must all admit. The request I wish to address to him is to give full consideration to the case of those men who will not come upon the establishment. The scheme was intended to deal with the whole of the Sheriff Courts and Procurators Fiscal staffs. As the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, there are certain men who will not come under the scheme and whose cases will have to be dealt with individually by the Department, and I trust that when these cases are dealt with it will be remembered that these men might have put up a case for consideration some years ago for an increase of salary, and that they refrained from doing so knowing that this general reorganisation was under consideration. Now that these cases are going to be considered, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give them the genuine consideration that unofficially he would wish to give them.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. W. Watson)The two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) were raised in Committee, and an answer was then given which I cannot do better than repeat. First of all, the effect of 2274 Clause 15 will be at long last to make the law of Scotland the same as the law of England as regards the payment or non-payment of any fees by the workmen in future. As regards any fees payable by the employer, the question of the amount falls to be fixed by the Court of Session, and it is not a matter which would be proper in the Bill. As regards the other point, the 2 per cent, fee which has been charged on investment of the capital moneys paid into Court as compensation, the Solicitor-General for Scotland in Committee stated after conference with me, I being of the same opinion, and the result of this provision that no fees in future were to be paid by any workman in respect of any proceedings would result in the abolition of the percentage charge being legal after the passing of this Bill. That is the position in England under an identical state of words. There are no such charges made, and our view was accepted by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) who withdrew his Amendment as a result of that being suggested to him. I think the right hon. Gentleman may rest content with that assurance, which I again repeat.
§ Mr. D. GRAHAMI am not quite sure that the assurance that the Lord Advocate has given will be accepted as being quite satisfactory to the practising lawyer in the Courts in Scotland. I am afraid that a very considerable injustice is to be perpetrated upon poor persons who are unable to prosecute their claims for compensation and who may fail to have an organisation behind them. It will depend entirely on their means. I do not know to what extent that will be true, because I do not happen to he a lawyer, but I know that there is a considerable number of the Lord Advocate's friends on the other side particularly anxious that the men belonging to our occupation should not be in an organisation. They are very keenly desirous that individualist principles should apply. They pretend to be very friendly to the men so long as the men are not requiring any assistance, but when assistance is required their friendliness disappears. To those of us who are not merely Scottish Members but are also members of the Miners' Federation the question of costs, so far as compensation is concerned, is a very 2275 material matter. We are entitled to get some sort of assurance that in this Bill the position will not be worsened.
That is all I wish to say with regard to that, but I want, on behalf of the Scottish Members on this side to protest against this Bill having been introduced in the manner in which it has been to-night, and the absolutely unfair and unreasonable attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I do not know that I have seen in my experience of Parliament a case where the right hon. Gentleman in charge of a Bill of this character has introduced and carried an Amendment contrary to Scottish opinion in the Scottish Standing Committee, and has asked the House to pass the Third Reading of the Bill without attempting to give the Members who are not connected with the Scottish Standing Committee, and who, it may be reasonably inferred have not taken the same interest as Scottish Members, any explanation as to what this Bill is, and how it will affect the comparatively small number of people who are brought within its provisions. But, although the people affected are small in number, they are engaged in a very particular and onerous occupation, and it is one which certainly should have received very much more consideration from the Government than it has done.
I am sorry it should be necessary to make such a protest, but there is a very considerable body of public opinion in Scotland, not confined to Socialists, but amongst the capitalists as well, that the time has arrived when. Scottish business should be conducted, in Scotland itself. We have here a very good illustration of the need for such being done. We on this side are very sorry that we should keep hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of the Sassenach fraternity out of their beds, but they have themselves to blame. If they had been wise enough to have gone away 20 minutes ago, the probability is that the Government would have been defeated. It would not have meant an election. They would have withdrawn the Bill. It is a poor, petty, miserable affair, and as far as Scottish opinion is concerned, it would not have mattered very much. I hope at least that those on this side who 2276 agree with me will carry the question of the rejection of the Bill to a Division.