§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
§ [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums which, under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the offices of sheriff clerk, procurator fiscal, and commissary clerk in Scotland, and to make further provision regarding the sheriff courts, may become payable in respect of—
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert)This Resolution is in connection with the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill, and there are four points raised in it: firstly, in regard to salaries; secondly, in regard to pensions; thirdly, in regard to gratuities; and fourthly, in regard to expenses of procurators fiscal. I do not think any question will arise in regard to these four points, with one exception, namely, that dealing with pensions, and the position in regard to that question is this, that in the Bill there is a provision made that back service is to 2488 count as from 1st October, 1918. I understand that objection is taken to that date and that it is felt that the back service should either be full service or go back to a much earlier date. Successive Governments have considered this question, and in particular the Labour Government considered it, and their final decision was that they could not go back beyond 1st October, 1918. I may say that that was a concession which went very far, and I doubt if there is any other body of men in a similar situation where the date has gone back so far. The nearest analogy to this case is that of the county court officials in England. The Labour Government brought in an Act in 1924, under which the earliest back service for those men was 1st April, 1922, and accordingly the Labour Government went even better with regard to the Scottish officials in going back to 1st October, 1918.
I take it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government took a large part in the consideration of what date should be fixed for back service. I see the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) in his place, and he was, of course, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government and no doubt took a large part in the discussion and in the decision which was arrived at. That decision was come to with the full knowledge, at any rate, of all the facts of the case. They, of course, had to consider the position of these officials—and very responsible and very valuable officials they are—they had to consider the conditions of the Civil Service generally, and, of course, they had to consider the general public. Having regard to all these circumstances, the date fixed by the Labour Government was 1st October, 1918, and, the present Government are of opinion that there is no good reason at all for reversing that decision. Nay, further, they agree, and they consider that the decision arrived at by the Labour Government was, having regard to the whole of the circumstances, a very fair and reasonable settlement for these officials. That being so, the Government, in moving this Resolution, have, of course, included in it monies which will pay, to 2489 those who are entitled to pension, for back service as from 1st October, 1918. I do not think that there will be any other question which will arise, but if such other question should arise, perhaps I may be allowed to deal with it later.
§ Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAMWith regard to the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name and in that of two of my hon. Friends—in line 12, to leave out "1918," and to insert instead thereof "1900"—that is, I am afraid, out of order, as it would increase the charge, and accordingly it will be easier for us to state our case on the Resolution as a whole. We recognise that the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot be in his place this morning. Accordingly we must address our attack to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who has introduced this Resolution in a speech of a slightly provocative character. Of course, on the facts of this controversy, there is a complete reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. To the average Member of the House of Commons this is simply a Financial Resolution dealing with some intricate offices in the Scottish legal system, and perhaps nothing more, but Scottish Members recognise that behind this Resolution there is a long and painful controversy. Unfortunately, this is the last opportunity, for all practical purposes, on the Floor of the House of Commons when we can state the ease of a particular section of the staff who are affected, because the moment this Resolution is passed it becomes substantially the Bill of the Committee upstairs. No Amendment designed to improve the position of any section of this staff will be in order, because that would involve an increase in the charge, and for that reason we must state our case on this Resolution.
This controversy goes back a very long time. Various Committees and Commissions have considered the position of the procurators fiscal, the sheriff clerks, and their staffs in Scotland, and it is no exaggeration to say that all these Commissions have taken the view that in many respects the conditions of employment and of service involved very great hardship and, in fact, were in some cases almost intolerable. For years there has been a more or less determined effort to get such a Bill for the reorganisation of 2490 the service, assimilating it as far as possible to Civil Service conditions, and, above all, to provide adequate salaries and pensions, particularly for the older members of the staffs. The Solicitor-General comes along this morning and takes refuge in the fact that certain decisions were reached by the Labour Government in 1924. It is perfectly true that this matter was considered when we were in office in the greatest period of British legislative history, and an effort was made to find a way out of this difficulty. I have previously taken the opportunity of saying on the Floor of this House that this solution was never one with which I, personally, agreed, and, in point of fact, the fullest recognition of that was made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in a previous Debate. I have tried to make my views prevail, both in writing and in speech, and in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland since that time, indicating that this could never be regarded as a fair solution of a very difficult problem. There is therefore nothing inconsistent in my attitude in opposing the Resolution this morning.
Before we come to the merits of the case, let us notice the attitude which has been adopted so far by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and also, I think, by the Lord Advocate, if not by the Solicitor-General. Some time ago the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that, unless this was to be an agreed Measure, it would not make any progress in this House, and it was also suggested that the whole Bill might be abandoned unless the Labour Members withdrew their opposition. In point of fact, the Measure was very nearly abandoned. May I make it Perfectly plain that we have never disguised our opposition to this proposal? It is true that we hoped there might be some measure of agreement, and that the Bill would go through. But when it became plain that the Government were not prepared, in the case of the older men, to go beyond 1918 in recognition of back service, neither I nor my colleagues on this side could for a moment agree to this Bill without protest. If the Secretary of State for Scotland—I regret his absence; this is not in any sense a personal attack, but a Debate on merits—had confined his point to this Bill, perhaps we should not have troubled 2491 so much, but the very same point was made in connection with another Scottish Bill which also, it appeared, was not to be taken unless we were prepared to fall into line.
I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of my colleagues in this part of the House, to say that we cannot for a single moment agree that there is not to be opposition to Scottish Bills in this Chamber. We get very little time for Scottish legislation. This is a highly controversial matter, and, moreover, the Government have a large and a perfectly automatic majority, and can carry anything in this Parliament. They have only to carry this Financial Resolution with the 200 majority at their disposal, and they know perfectly well that upstairs we cannot move a single Amendment affecting the older men; in fact, there can be no further controversy, for all practical purposes, with regard to this proposal. We, therefore, make it abundantly plain to the Scottish people that if there is to be any delay in dealing with this matter, it does not lie at our door. Here are the Government, with an enormous majority, with which they can easily pass the Bill, and with which they could override a much more powerful minority numerically than our Opposition. I make that plain this morning in order that there may be no misunderstanding.
Let us now come to the merits of the complaint. This controversy has taken place over 50 or 60 years or more in Scotland, and this is the greatest extent of the concession we have been ably to obtain. Many of these older men, it is admitted, have served in the offices of the procurator fiscal and the sheriff clerk for long periods of years with inadequate salaries, and often on allowances which would hardly enable some of them to keep body and soul together. Hon. Members may ask whether their salaries have not been sufficient to enable them to make provision for their old age. I regret to say that has not been true of a large number of these servants. These men in many cases have had no opportunity to make provision for old age, the salaries and other conditions having been insufficient. The Solicitor-General himself, when a private Member, made a speech substantially on the lines of the one I am making now, but, of 2492 course, with very much greater legal skill, in support of this view, and, therefore, he is in a difficult position this morning in justifying something in which yesterday he did not himself altogether believe.
All the controversy has taken place about salaries and conditions, and now they are offered back service to 1918. That is an impossible position. The Government take the view, and it has been argued all along, that if you go back beyond that date, you will run the risk of re-opening the County Court settlement in England. But there is a great difference. We are not going to suggest for a moment that there were not hardships in the English system, but a promise of a kind has been held out to these men for many years in our own country. As a matter of fact, some of the conditions were described by the Committees as scandalous, and it was always recognised in these controversies that some very drastic provision would have to be made when a settlement was introduced in this House. They built up a case for special consideration and, if we went into the details to-day, we should be able to show that the analogy with the County Courts in England is very far from complete. But even if the Government could make a better case than, I believe, it is possible for them to do, the sum involved here is infinitesimal. The hardship is not denied, and it rests with the Government of the day to try to be generous to men who, after all, have served the country and the legal system of Scotland with efficiency and devotion to public duty.
The proposals are before the House, and what is the position in which we find ourselves this morning? The old officials did resolve to carry on the fight until the last possible moment, but, of course, we have to recognise that this Bill does confer benefits on, probably, 90 per cent. of the staff. Up to this stage, the younger men, and the men who have come in later, have behaved with great loyalty to the older men. They have recognised the hardship, and they have said they were willing to stand out if we could get better treatment for the older men. But they have recognised that the Government have taken this step, and the older men have come along 2493 and said that much as they appreciate the fight that has been made, and much as they deplore the settlement that is in store for them, they now suggest that we do not press our opposition further, because they would be sorry to sacrifice this Bill entirely. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) suggests that this is probably not true of all these old men, and I entirely agree that there is a section among the older men which is prepared to fight on, but I am only concerned for the moment in stating the broad facts of the case. My colleagues in this quarter of the Committee do not yield a single inch in their criticism of this proposal, but we are anxious that the Bill should not be destroyed, and so at this stage all we can do is again to register our protest by voting against, this Resolution this morning and placing on record our conviction that the Government have treated with injustice a section of the older men who have rendered high and unselfish service to the Scottish legal system.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI think the older men and the others whom the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned must realise by now that in leaning on the support of the Labour party they have been leaning on what is more or less a broken reed, because, to my mind, the speech to which we have just listened is an effort to shoehorn this Bill through Parliament. The Labour party have contented themselves with a pious protest and a pious resolution, which is not seriously meant. It is just a polite way of saying, "We are very sorry for you, but it cannot be helped."
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—
§ Mr. MACQUISTENWhile trying to save their faces the Labour party are doing their best to help the Secretary of State for Scotland to get this Bill through.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIs it not the case that when we were fighting this Bill on the last occasion the hon. and learned Member did not support us in the Division Lobby?
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI cannot charge my memory as to that, but I think it is quite probable. We have had further 2494 information since then. It is difficult to get the correct facts by listening only to the speeches from the Labour Benches.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONYou yourself spoke.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI think this Resolution is another example of the unfairness of which this House has been guilty in dealing with older men. When a grateful country presented the members of the teaching profession with a year and a half's salary on their retirement at an age when most of us are still at work, they left the old teachers out of the scheme. They did the same with the old police pensioners. I always thought, that if the younger men got too much, certainly the older men got too little, and I think a judicious compromise might have been arrived at. Here the Government are doing exactly the same thing with the old men. My quarrel with the Treasury is that they very materially increased the dues to litigants both in the Supreme Court of Scotland and the Sheriff Courts for the purpose of providing money to pay for all these people, and then, instead of using the money for the purpose for which it was intended, they collared it. That is doing a great wrong to the lieges of the Crown. Magna Charta laid it down that justice was neither to be bought nor sold; it may have meant bought or sold in the corrupt sense, but I think it meant more than that. I think it meant that the King's Courts ought to be open to the humblest and the poorest of his lieges, but the Government—I do not mean this Government only, I mean the preceding Government as well—have extracted more money from unfortunate litigants, and are not applying it for the purpose for which it was intended.
Litigation takes peculiar forms in modern times. The vast number of cases in which defendants appear are cases defended by great corporations or insurance companies, and if they can erect a financial wall which will keep poor men from pursuing their causes in the Law Courts, by making it difficult for them to go on with their actions, they are only too delighted. The heavy charges now made to litigants in order to pay for the expenses of the Courts are leading to a denial of justice and a denial of legal remedies to thousands of His Majesty's subjects. 2495 In the Court of Session the ordinary fees have been doubled, and, in addition to that, there is a charge of 10s. an hour to the litigant for the period during which his counsel is speaking, as if he had engaged a taxi-cab and the meter were ticking. The solicitor for the poor man has, in consequence, to find a larger sum of money than was required in the past to enable him to carry on his case. What is the result? The insurance companies simply wait until they think the solicitor has incurred a bill of costs, and then they offer a substantial sum for the expenses and a very small sum for the client, and the case is settled, although the poor man has been denied justice because the solicitor fears the outlay for Court dues. That is what is happening all through the Scottish Courts as a result of the heavy Court fees.
People say that the country is more peaceable, that there is less litigation and less fighting, but the explanation of that is to be found in the increase in the Court fees, not in lawyers' charges. A poor man can always find an enterprising solicitor or counsel who is prepared to undertake his case for a nominal fee if he has a good cause. No sensible solicitor asks a rich man for any money for his case, and there is no reason for him to ask a poor man. He asks only whether he has a just cause, and then goes ahead with it. An appeal to the Courts is being prevented by the charges which have been imposed upon the lieges of the Crown for the purpose of making the conditions of the Court officials better, but the Court officials are not getting the advantage intended. Nothing is more calculated to cause social discontent than a feeling on the part of the masses of the people that the Courts of Justice are barred to them on account of the dues charged to litigants.
I think the Geddes Committee was responsible for this state of affairs. They said the Courts ought to pay for themselves. That is a wholly unsound view. When a man undertakes litigation on a difficult point—and most litigation arises over a difficult point of fact or law—he very often comes out of Court financially crippled; but his case is a precedent for all time, and he has made the law just as 2496 surely, and perhaps even better, than it is made in the Houses of Parliament. When succeeding generations go to their law agents or solicitors, the solicitor will put his hand up to the bookcase and get down a volume in which he will find the precedent which that unfortunate man has made. He was the conscript on whom the lot fell to make the law. Is it not monstrous to think td at not only has that man to have the no doubt desirable pleasure of paying the fees of his counsel and solicitor, but that he has actually to pay for the upkeep of the Judges and the Courts?
Justice ought to be free, and there should be no court dues at all. That is what is happening, and in attempting to give these officials in the Sheriff Courts these so-called better conditions the Government are not giving them anything, because they are not getting anything out of the Government or the taxpayers, although they are getting something oat of the pockets of the comparatively small section of the population who have recourse to the civil courts in order to get justice for their civil wrongs. It is an entirely wrong position, and if there is to be this generosity it ought, at least, to be extended to the men who have borne the heat and burden of the day. I am informed that at the meeting of the Sheriff Clerks' Association a resolution was carried supporting this Measure by a majority of one, but I am now informed that if the decision was taken over again this Measure would be opposed.
But there is a broader ground to be considered quite apart from the question of the officials themselves and the general interest of the community. What does this proposal mean to do? It takes a large body of these men who enter the Civil Service, and it places them in the usual position in which Civil Servants find themselves. The Civil Servant used to receive less remuneration than the average citizen of the same grade, but that is no longer the case. The present position is due to the fact that it may be, with the assistance of the Trade Union Congress they have managed to squeeze up salaries to such a figure that they are now as well paid as the majority of citizens in the same grade who have to stand the competition of the labour market, and the possibility of finding themselves without 2497 any resources at all, and who have to provide pensions for themselves out of their own earnings. I suggest that if Civil Servants are getting the same remuneration as other citizens in the same occupation the time has come when those officials should not get pensions any more than the rest of us. We have to fend for ourselves and provide for our old age, and all we can claim from the State is the Old Age Pension.
I would like to see the Old Age Pension for all classes a good deal better than it is, and instead of adding to the, number of those who retire from the service at the early age of 60, in most cases after 15 or 20 years' service, I would make the Old Age Pension a good deal better. We all know that pensioners generally live to a good old age because they have no worries. I do not believe in doing anything which will add to the number of a particularly comfortable class of the community while all the rest of us are engaged more or less in a struggle for existence. I think we should create a healthier and a better position for the community if from now onwards all people taking up Government office or appointments of that kind were given to understand that they would have to make provision for their future out of their salaries. There are plenty of insurance companies ready to provide them with pensions if they like to pay so much out of their salary.
I do not see why there should exist such an enormous number of selected members of the community who are so immensely better off than the rest of us. We have heard much about economy and the endeavours that are to be made in that direction, which never seem to materialise, but here is a direction in which the Government could economise if they would decide that from now onwards there should be no more pensions, and that those people who take up Government appointments should take pot luck with the rest of us, and use their own salaries to make provision for the future as everybody outside Government circles has to do. But if you are going to make any provision of this kind, surely the old men who have borne the heat and burden of the day at very much lower salaries should receive our first consideration. I think the old men should have a preference 2498 under these proposals, and that is why I object to this Measure.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI am sure the Committee listened with interest to the opening sentences of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), more particularly when he was denouncing my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) and the late Labour Government for the action which they took in regard to this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire said that these old men had now discovered that in supporting the Labour party they had been leaning on a broken reed. When I heard that statement, the thought came to my mind that lawyers should have long memories. I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of the last discussion upon this subject which took place in this House on the Second Reading of the Bill on the 23rd of March this year, on which occasion the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire made pretty much the same speech as he has delivered to-day, and he criticised very severely the terms of this Bill. The hon. and learned Member wound up his speech by saying:
I am influenced by what the Secretary of State for Scotland has said as to the desire of all parties in this matter, even though the right hon. Gentleman may have been coerced by the Treasury into bringing in. this Bill. … I must protest against the shabby way in which these officials have been treated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1927; col. 421, Vol. 204.]But this protest stopped there, and when we went into the Division Lobby the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire voted against these old men and in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. In face of those facts, I think it is simply trifling with this Committee for the hon. and learned Member with a record of that kind to get up and make the statements he has made attacking those sitting on the Labour Benches.I only want to make one or two observations in addition to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh has said. Sub-section (2) of Clause 7 is the important part of this Bill, and, although it is a complicated business and very difficult to give precise figures, I understand that no estimate has been offered as to what it would cost the Treasury to bring these 2499 old men inside a decent scheme. The Solicitor-General very carefully avoided making any reference to this point. The fact is that these old men who retire between the age of 65 and 70 will receive a gratuity equivalent to one week's pay for each year of such service plus 50 per cent., and subject to a limit of 1½ years' salary at the time of retirement. Some of them were in receipt of a salary of only £80 a year—
§ Mr. MACPHERSONLess.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONMy right hon. Friend says less, and I think that that is so in one case at least. After 27, 30 and 35 years' service, they are to be treated on this basis of 1½ years' salary. The Solicitor-General for Scotland very carefully and, I think, deliberately avoided stating to the Committee this morning that that was the essential element of difference between us in the discussions on this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire said that many of these old men were still fighting the Bill.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENOne of the reasons for my vote on the last occasion was that I had received certain communications from the source which I have here, and which was my chief source of information. They were then of a different aspect from to-day, and from what has been written to me now.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIf such an explanation as that is satisfactory to the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, I am perfectly certain that it will not appear so satisfactory to other hon. Members present. I am speaking with some official knowledge. The Sheriff Clerk—I need not mention his name, but I can give it privately to the Solicitor-General if he desires it—who has been taking a very active interest on behalf of these men, sends me the official figures, and he also says that, even if the Government insist upon crushing these few of them, the organisations concerned art not prepared to kill the Bill, which will benefit from 90 to 95 per cent. of the men; but they do support him in uttering the most emphatic protest against the way in which the Government have dealt with this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh 2500 said quite accurately that the manner in which the Secretary of State for Scotland has handled this and other similar questions is grossly unfair to Scottish interests when he comes forward and says, "If you do not accept my whole Bill, if you are not prepared to surrender your rights of Parliamentary opposition, if you are not prepared to accept blindly what I bring forward in this House, then I will withdraw the whole Bill, and you will take the onus of the responsibility for what happens." I think that a most energetic protest ought to be made against such an attitude. There is plenty of Parliamentary time; we are prepared to sit all night and deal adequately with measures of this kind, and it is preposterous for the Secretary of State for Scotland to put forward a plea of that nature. The Solicitor-General for Scotland ought to face up to the fact in this Committee to-day that the maximum which these old men are to get is 1½ years' salary. That is a scandal, and no one is prepared to justify it. The Solicitor-General does not justify it. He opposed it on a previous occasion, and Members of all parties—
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLANDI did not oppose the Bill.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI am not talking about the Bill, but about the conditions of these old servants who are 65 years of age and over. No one is denouncing the whole Bill; large parts of the Bill are common ground, and no one is opposing them at all. It is this small group of men who are 65 years of age and over who are under discussion at the moment, and no one, not even the Solicitor-General this morning, has attempted to justify the action that the Government are taking on this matter. There is one other point tinder the draft regulations issued in connection with this Bill, ex-service men are to receive a preference by examination. One other Sheriff Clerk—not the one I referred to a minute ago—in appointing staff, appointed his staff many years ago over a long period of time, and he has been quite satisfied as to their efficiency; but now, under these regulations, most of these old men will be compulsorily shoved out. Younger men, who are able to pass, probably a clerical examination, may be more efficient than 2501 some of these old men, but these older men are the majority, they do the work, and they are satisfying the Sheriff Clerk.
The Sheriff Clerk is thoroughly satisfied with every one of them, and yet, having appointed them and having given them certain promises, having worked with them, and knowing their efficiency, this Sheriff Clerk is to be told that he must fire out all these men on a miserable maximum of 1½ year's salary. I could give instances of the tragedy that this will mean in some homes, but I do not think it is necessary to do that, because, for personal reasons, some of these men do not want to be particularised or to have their position made known. The fact remains, however, that, if a man has been working for 30 years at one job, he has acquired no other post, and, if his salary is £80 a year despite the high cost of living, he can have saved nothing. Now the Government come along and say he must go into compulsory retirement with a maximum gratuity of 1½ year's salary, and, particularly in view of the fact that that salary is such a miserable one as it has been in many cases, I trust my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will divide against this Money Resolution.
§ Sir ROBERT HAMILTONThe House of Commons this morning is solemnly engaged in perpetrating an injustice. There is not a single member in any part of this Committee who does not realise that the proposed treatment of these old men is an injustice, and it seems to me ridiculous to suppose that it is impossible to devise, with regard to the people with whom we are concerned this morning, such a scheme as would avoid injustices such as are proposed in the Bill. Further, the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland, when the Bill was before the House, in threatening the House that the Bill would be withdrawn if we criticised it, was, in my opinion as a Scottish Member, a monstrous attitude to take. We Scottish Members are all keenly interested in this matter, and desire to see justice done.
The arguments that have been put forward in support of the attitude of the Government are mainly two. One is that the injustice is a small one, that it only affects a small body of men; but that does not prevent it from being an injustice, 2502 and, if that injustice can possibly be avoided, surely the House of Commons should take every step that it can to avoid it. The second argument is that something has been done in England which might be affected by it. What has that to do with it? This is a Scottish matter. Special arrangements have been made, and special Commissions and inquiries have been held in Scotland to deal with this matter. Arrangements have been made about the money, promises have been held out to the men concerned, and now, when the money is provided and the scheme put forward, we are told that this injustice has to be perpetrated with regard to a few old men, because it would affect something that has been done in England. That argument does not appeal to me in the slightest degree.
We all realise that this is the last opportunity we shall have of registering our protest, and I should like to take the opportunity of associating myself wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who very clearly stated the position. I am glad the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) emphasised in the way he did the increase of fees which has been made to provide the money. It is not that we are going to the English Treasury to deal with the matter. The money has been raised in Scotland and, though I disagree with the hon. Member with regard to primitive courts, anyone who has delved into history with regard to primitive courts in the past, or people like myself who have some experience of them in the East, know that while, without the payment of fees, they have easy access to the Courts, a judgment is difficult to obtain unless some sort of fee. goes into the pocket of the judge, and I do not think we desire to go back to that state of affairs. Money has been provided in Scotland for a Scottish purpose, and I do not think any argument put forward from the English Treasury, that it might affect matters in England, should enter into consideration of the subject. I regret very much that the House of Commons should be asked to approve of an injustice even though it only affects 20 or 25 old men.
§ Mr. SKELTONI would not take part in the discussion merely on the Resolution, because I think the question is past praying for, but I want to make one or two comments which seem to me to arise from this very remarkable incident. Curiously it is an incident that affects both sides of the House, and it is not a party question at all. Several years ago a Commission was appointed to enquire into the status of the officials under consideration. It was felt that their salaries and prospects were unsuitable and inadequate, and arrangements were made whereby the fees of the Courts were increased in order to form a fund to deal with their financial position. The fees were raised, and the fund was at the disposal, one would suppose, of these officials. Like all other funds, it got into the hands of the British Treasury, and from that moment the object with which it was raised, and the nature of the fund, were entirely and absolutely forgotten, and it went into the maw of the British Treasury as successfully as an animal goes into the maw of a snake. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like the Road Fund."] Not exactly, because this was a smaller matter affecting fewer people. Looking at it from a broad point of view, there was not the opportunity of adequate pressure on the Treasury, which distinguishes it from the case of the Road Fund. But the injustice is complete. It is unjust to the people who paid the fees, and it is notoriously and glaringly unjust to the people whose claims were recognised by the Committee, and to meet whose claims the fees were raised. The situation is remarkable. Both in the case of the late Government and the present Government we have had the Secretary for Scotland pressing the Treasury, I believe hard and honestly, to restore this money which has gone into their maw, and of course if one was going to analyse it a little more closely, the man who really sold the pass, and the man who makes such an interesting feature of the machinery of Government in this country, is the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ 12 n.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAMThat is quite wrong. Both in writing and in speech I have always, in office and out of it, been resolutely opposed to this proposal. That fact was fully recognised by the Secretary of State for Scotland in a recent speech in this House.
§ Mr. SKELTONThe right hon. Gentleman, I think, was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Let me take the situation as it was then. The Scottish Member of Parliament who is Financial Secretary to the Treasury is urged by the Secretary for Scotland to assist in preventing this obvious injustice. He cannot do it, because in this country, in matters of high policy as well as in comparatively small matters like this, the Treasury has too much say. I am not a Member of long standing, but I have spent a considerable number of years in an effort to study politics and I am satisfied that again and again the development of proper policy in this country is hindered by the too great power of His Majesty's Treasury. I do not say it in any way as a personal comment on the right hon. Gentleman, and I withdraw, because it was a misleading phrase to talk about selling the pass, though I think from the point of view of Scotland a perfectly justifiable one, but the right hon. Gentleman knows the facts. He is one of the very few people in the House who know what a Procurator Fiscal is. The power of the Treasury is so great that if we are talking about automata, the real automaton is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He has simply to say what the Treasury tells him to say. It is equally true of both sides of the House. In my view, it is an unsound situation that the Treasury should have power of framing policy. You may say this is a small matter because it affects so few people. In point of quantity it is small, but in the quality of the injustice it is glaring
I regard this question of the Sheriff Court Officers as one of the most enlightening examples of the way in which policy in this country is directed. Let me give another case in which, as I think, the influence of the Treasury upon policy is out of all proportion to the importance of that department. Take the question of the relations between the Treasury and the whole of rural and agricultural life. In other countries, it is not the Treasury that determines policy. There is hardly a country in the world that has not realised the fact that if a State is lending money for the development of rural life, or agricultural life, the rate of interest must be smaller than it is for any other purpose. If you are going to use State resources for the 2505 development of the country, that is an elementary principle that is absolutely overlooked and forgotten. I think this is a very glaring example of the way in which government should not be conducted, and it applies to both sides of the House.
My last observation is going to be made by a Unionist who believes that on the whole the Union between England and Scotland has been fruitful. There are differing views on the Union, though many of them are based on complete ignorance or disregard all history and things of that sort. [Interruption.]. Let me try and use the word "Union" without causing interruption. The only other comment I wish to make on this Financial Resolution is, that as a Unionist who believes that there are great advantages which have been derived and which are to be derived from the Union between the two countries, I regard the kind of case we have before us to-day as most anxious and distressing. We have in a case like this one of those things which affects the mind of the country, affects it quite out of proportion to its size. It seems to me that if a united Parliament and a united Government are going to manage the affairs of this country, more attention must be paid to what remains peculiar and special in the life of the smaller country, namely, Scotland. More understanding must be exhibited in a Government and in a Parliament which necessarily are predominately English. A Government like the one in power, and the one which I support, as being a Government which supports the Parliamentary Union of the two countries, shows, in my judgment, a want of appreciation of the fact that below the acquiescence in the present system there are elements in the life of Scotland which indicate a feeling that there might be certain national advantages in an alteration of the system. I use these words very advisedly, because I do not want to be thought to be saying more than I mean. I say there is a certain feeling in Scotland—
§ Mr. SKELTONI apologise, Captain FitzRoy, but I think you will see that, although I have trespassed in my last 2506 sentence, the point I am making is absolutely relevant to this Measure, because one of the direct effects of such a piece of injustice as this must be to awaken in Scotland great feeling on what is purely a Scottish question. Incidents like these, if repeated and exaggerated, as I have no doubt they will be, must raise questions which a Government introducing a Bill of this sort, must least desire to have raised. I have made the observations I desired to make, and the question which fills me with the greatest apprehension and seems to be of most importance—this comparatively small question does raise it very clearly—is the overriding and paramount influence which the Treasury has in matters, small and large, which really are matters of policy far more than they are matters of pounds, shillings and pence.
§ Mr. WESTWOODThe last speech was one of the most interesting speeches I have heard for a long time in justification of the Union of the two Parliaments. It had nothing whatever to do with the subject matter we are discussing, and would have been most appropriate on the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) dealing with Scottish Home Rule. One thing which interested me very much in connection with the speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) and the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) is the fact that both of them have been consistent Conservatives to-day. Both speakers were against the Money Resolution, and they will be consistent, as the Members of the Conservative party always are in connection with subjects of this kind, when the Division is taken. Though they delivered speeches against the Motion, they will, no doubt, vote for it. [Interruption.] I am very pleased to learn that the hon. Member for Perth is going to vote against the Resolution.
§ Mr. SKELTONNo.
§ Mr. WESTWOODThen, that proves exactly what I say. Two speeches have been delivered against the Motion, and we shall find that the Members concerned will vote for it. The hon. Member for Perth suggested that there are few people in this House who really know what a 2507 Procurator Fiscal is. I believe there is some truth in that, but I do know that agricultural labourers in a constituency adjacent to mine know what Procurators Fiscal are. Although we are appealing for justice to be done to the aged Procurators Fiscal, I do not agree with all that was said by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) when he suggested that they have all given good and just service to the State in connection with the administration of law in Scotland. I certainly cannot accept that statement, because I know of a case in which monstrous injustice has been perpetrated against an agricultural labourer due to the fact that they refused to take evidence, which could have been gathered, and which was submitted against a farmer, and refused to take action to carry out the work for which they were appointed. In spite of that, however, I still want to see justice done to the aged men who have been giving services in connection with the administration of the law. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll suggested that these aged men had really been leaning on a broken reed when they trusted to the Opposition to help them in this fight for justice. I am afraid, if they have been trusting to the oaken beam of the Tory party, that, instead of it being used to support them, it will be used to crush them this afternoon when the Division takes place. We have been told that the resort to Courts of Justice is practically impossible as far as workpeople are concerned. I believe there is a certain amount of truth in that. I know that as far as some Procurators Fiscal were concerned, when dealing with charges against miners, particularly in connection with charges formulated during the mining dispute, they never hesitated to be as harsh and cruel as they possibly could be.
§ Mr. WESTWOODLike the hon. Member for Perth, I have been led a little astray in connection with the discussion in which we are engaged, but I think my observation had more substance in it than that of the hon. Member for Perth. I am one of those who believe that we ought to see justice done by the aged 2508 men. I have had experience in connection with other forms of administration in Scotland. Where we have had pensions schemes that did not do justice to aged people at the start, the matter has had to be discussed afterwards and legislation passed for the purpose of doing justice. This has been the case in regard to aged men and women in the teaching profession, aged policemen and others, and I feel absolutely sure that although justice may not be done to the aged servants under this Bill, sooner or later we shall be compelled to bring in legislation for the purpose of giving just and equitable treatment to the aged men concerned in this Measure. I am opposed to the Money Resolution because it does not make the necessary provision for men who have done good and proper service to the State.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe discussion on this Resolution must necessarily be very limited The Committee will agree that one fact emerges, and that is that had this question been left to a Scottish vote it would undoubtedly be the case that this gross injustice to old men would never be perpetrated. The discussion on the matter must he very hollow and futile, for the simple reason that the Bill is being passed under duress. We were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that unless we assented to the passing of the Second Reading, nothing would be clone for the Civil servants concerned. I do not know the ins and outs of the arrangement which has been come to between the two front Benches, but during the discussion on the Second Reading, I protested very vigorously against the proposal to deal so badly with these old servants of the State. I could give a great many heart-rending cases, but the Committee does not wish to hear them. The fact remains that we are perpetrating to-day, and we are compelled to submit to it because of the threat that has been made, a grave injustice against valued servants of the State. Of course, we shall be out-voted when the Resolution comes to the test, and we must submit, although I shall go into the Division Lobby against the Resolution as a matter of protest. We were not able to carry our protest satisfactorily on the Second Reading, because had the Second Reading not been passed the benefits which are, undoubtedly, in 2509 the Bill would not accrue to the servants concerned. All of us in Scotland feel very strongly that a grave and gross injustice is being perpetrated upon old servants, and for that reason I and my colleagues will go into the Lobby as a protest against the Resolution.
§ Mr, HARDIEWhat we are doing today is asking for an extension of the principle of the Bill, and one which ought to have been considered seriously by the Government. We are moved by a sense of justice and by financial considerations. Had this proposal for which we are contending been something that meant a huge sum of money which would be continuous and ever-increasing, I could have understood the opposition to it; but the position is that there are a few elderly men who have given good service, and the amount of money involved is small and it must be a depleting amount, because these gentlemen will pass away. The Committee is not being asked to vote a huge sum or an increasing sum of money, and that point of view might have been taken seriously into consideration by the Government. What can they have to say to these gentlemen who have given such good service, when they draw this line of demarcation, and a day and a week or a month may put them out of the scope of the real benefits of the Bill, despite the fact that they have rendered such service. Do the Treasury realise that the total sum cannot continue for a maximum period of more than 15 years? Is it too late for those in charge of the Bill to take further time to consider the point which I am putting forward?
Would it not be possible to come to some arrangement, even taking the present total sum that is involved, by negotiation between all concerned in order to tide the old men over their period? We find that in the correspondence which has come from the younger men who are to benefit that they have every sympathy with the claims of the old men. In the letters which I have received they have indicated that they would do much to have something done for the old men. Is it too late to suggest to the Government that something on the lines I have suggested might be done, and that even with the total sum agreed upon for the younger men, seeing that the sum will be a decreasing amount owing to the 2510 decease of the older men, some arrangement might be come to, by an adjustment agreed upon between the two sections, that would meet the case. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) dealt with the increase of fees. The interesting feature of his speech was that while claiming to be a Unionist, he gave the greatest proof that the English Treasury have always benefited by Scottish finance ever since 1707. The Government ought to realise that there is a special claim for justice in this case.
Had the whole nation been concerned in the increase of the fees, we could have understood the British Treasury saying that they wanted a say in the distribution, but the increase in the fees is confined to Scotland, and they have been increased for a special purpose, but that special purpose has not been met, because the money that was obtained by the increase of fees in the Scottish Courts is only being applied in part. Can the Government point out that the money is insufficient for the claims made, and can they tell us how much of the increased fees has gone to the Treasury, and how much is being distributed under this? If the Government are going to claim in Scotland that they have any sense of justice so far as Scottish affairs and Scottish money are concerned, and they base that claim upon this Bill, they will have a very rough time in the near future.
§ Mr. MAXTONI do not wish to delay the Committee for any length of time, as I understand there is a desire that the proceedings on this Bill, which have been going on for four or five years, should be brought to a conclusion to-day; but I do want to voice the protest of my colleagues and myself against the way this matter has been handled. There is not the faintest doubt that if those for whom we plead had been a large body of men whose voting power in any constituency was something to be accounted for, this matter would have been dealt with much more generously and much more speedily. Because they are few in number, with very little electoral influence—they are the men who are engaged in the task of running the mechanism which returns us to this House—this is the amount of gratitude displayed for their work as far as their future remuneration is concerned, and particularly as far as their superannuation 2511 payments are concerned. This should be a great lesson to the workers generally throughout this country, that no financial or economic justice is to be secured unless you are strong enough to make yourselves disagreeable and objectionable to the powers that be at any time, and if these men are advised by me I should say that instead of accepting this, as they have done, under force majeure I would suggest that during the next week, before this Bill goes to Committee, they should simply stop operations, down tools as any body of manual workers would do.
This is the only way to make the Government of this country and the Treasury realise that these men, although few in number, are carrying on what is a key industry in the administration of legal procedure in Scotland. If on Monday next their responsible officials, the sheriff clerks, the procurators fiscal and other subordinate employés in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, were to stop work, the administration of justice in Scotland, civil and criminal, would cease, and the Government of the day would find itself in very great difficulties indeed. One week of such a stoppage would, I am perfectly certain, considerably alter the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, who is prepared to go on looking at this matter in a detached, philosophic and academic way as long as the peaceful comfort of the front bench of the House of Commons is not disturbed. If he gets a call from Edinburgh next week which is going to entail two or three trips to Scotland, he will begin to believe that this is a matter of active, live and burning politics. The attitude of the Front Bench is clearly shown by the fact that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate do not believe that it is worth their trouble to come here and attend to this matter. I do not know what other business may be taking them away from this House this morning, but this is a job they are paid for doing, particularly the Lord Advocate. These are the men who enable him to carry on the routine work in Scotland from day to day. The Secretary of State is not present. Probably he is attending some social junketing of some description. After all, that is the decorative part of the work of the two 2512 right hon. Gentlemen; their real work should be in this House, and this is a matter of primary importance to the people concerned. I am certain that the matter which has taken the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate away from the House this morning is not so important as the one we are considering. I must protest against this attitude. I have protested against the delay every year since I have been in this House, and I am going to carry my opposition to the extent of voting against this Financial Resolution.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI am sorry the circumstances are such that we are being compelled to give way on this matter. The hardship that is being imposed on some of the people concerned in this matter has been emphasised already by one or two hon. Members, and the position as sketched by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) is particularly humiliating to hon. Members who represent Scotland in this House. It is not in order to pursue that matter, but we are quite entitled to say that the position as sketched by the hon. Member for Perth constitutes something approaching to political dishonesty. There is no other way in which to describe it, and if we face that position fairly and squarely then, if hon. Members are true to the interests of Scotland, they will say that this thing must be ended, that we must get down to the true interests of Scotland and see that justice is done to these men. On the last occasion we discussed this Vote the Secretary of State, who is not in the House to-day, evidently he is with more important functionaries of the State and has not time to consider the poor souls who are affected by this Bill, said that we have to de what he tells us to do—a kind of miniature dictator, to all intents and purposes—that we were to be dragooned into accepting the position under this Measure, no matter what injustice was done.
No one on the Government side of the House, not even the Secretary of State for Scotland, is prepared to defend the injustice which will be inflicted by this proposal. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have simply said this is all they are going to do. In other words, that they are very sorry for these poor souls who had been landed in this 2513 predicament, but that they can do nothing more for them. I am very sorry that we on this side cannot do anything for them. We have had representations, and speaking for myself I have had communications from a sheriff clerk who says that it is now recognised that the best thing to do is to get this Bill through in the interests of the many, seeing that it is impossible to get justice for the older men. They do not want to imperil the interests of the others. I desire to enter my protest against this financial proposal, and I shall do so in the Lobby. Once again the interests of Scotland have not been considered at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) asked one or two question this week for figures showing how England and Scotland stand in comparison with certain contributions towards the National Exchequer. We cannot get these figures, they are not available, and it all points to this, that we are not going to get any elucidation, in the way of figures, to prove the depth of the injustice to which we in Scotland have to submit.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI wish to support my colleagues in opposing this Resolution. We know, as Members of Parliament that the Financial Resolution relating to this Bill is the most important part, of the Bill, and that once the Resolution is passed no Amendment of any avail can be passed in Committee because the whole Bill is subject to the Financial Resolution. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that those of us who come from Scotland should emphasize our opposition to the Resolution. Let me examine one or two of the arguments that have been used. When the Bill was introduced there was no man in this House who regarded the recipients of superannuation under this Bill with more antagonism than I did. I had no regard or love for them. I have nothing but deep-rooted opposition, almost hatred, of nearly all of them. In that I differ entirely from my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I have nothing but absolute contempt for most of the persons involved in the Bill. Therefore, when I entered on consideration of the Bill I did so from the point of view of antagonism. But as I examined the Bill I found that, deep-rooted as my opposition was to most of 2514 these men, the more I examined the question the more I found that the case for the claim of these men was absolutely unanswerable on grounds of equity. Apart from prejudice their case cannot be answered.
Years ago money was earmarked and specially set aside to provide superannuation for these men. If any private citizen or private trust were to take money which was specially set aside for a particular purpose, and were to use that money as the Treasury now proposes to use this money, those individuals would be prosecuted by the Solicitor-General for doing an illegal act. There is no question about it. This matter is in a similar position to a trust. The money was definitely earmarked, and now the Treasury comes along and proposes to utilise the money for purposes for which it was never meant. That is a thing which cannot be defended in this House. There is only one point to be made, and it has been constantly made by Conservative Members of the House. They say, in effect, "What did the Labour Government do?" The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) says it. He states that the Labour Government made no attempt to do much better, if any better, than the present Government.
The Lord Advocate, when speaking from the Front Bench some time ago, said: "If you want to see better things done, why did not the Labour Government do those things that they are now asking for?" There was no attempt to defend the principle of the Bill or to defend the Bill in any way. They simply used the old fetish that some other political party had not done the right thing and that that was an excuse for the present Government to continue a wrong. There was no statement that the Bill was right or that our Amendment was wrong, but simply a sheltering behind the misdeeds of another Government. I want to reply to that statement. Let me admit quite frankly that, so far as I can find out, the Labour Government proposed to do no better than the present Government. I am not sure that that is absolutely true, but I admit it for the sake of argument. But the Treasury is dominated by Englishmen, and the Englishmen at the Treasury were dominating the position at that moment. Let me, therefore, admit that the Labour 2515 Government were not going to do any better than the present Government. But there is this difference in the position. If the Labour Government had come forward with these proposals, I think I can speak for every Scottish Labour Member when I say that we would have opposed the proposals.
An argument used against us as Labour Members is that we are tied to our party more than the Tories are tied to their party, that the Conservatives have greater freedom than we have, that we are merely appendages and have to do what we are told. If a Labour Government came forward with these proposals, as our record will prove, there is not a single Scottish Labour Member who would not have gone into the Lobby even against his own Government. That is the difference. It is not the difference of money. If our Government had brought forward these proposals, instead of tamely making a mild protest as the hon. Member for Argyll does, and as the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) does, we would unhesitatingly have made our protest, whatever the consequences may have been. Wrong is wrong, no matter what Government is responsible for it. There is the vital difference that, whereas Conservatives to-day will act merely as party hacks, we would at least have made some attempt to oppose even our own Government. The Solicitor-General for Scotland, while he did not oppose the Bill, criticised it. The Lord Advocate, if you could get him to talk in private, would admit the injustice of the Bill. Who does not? The Secretary of State for Scotland admits it; he admits it so much that he is too shamefaced to be present and is using a social function in Scotland as an excuse for absenting himself from this House. He throws the onus of defending the Bill on the Solicitor-General, who can state quite openly that he is not a Cabinet Minister and has not the responsibility on his shoulders of Cabinet decisions.
There was never a more contemptible business. The Secretary of State for Scotland knew that the Bill was to be taken to-day, for he arranged through the Scottish Whips that the business should come on to-day. The Secretary of State for Scotland is absent, the Lord 2516 Advocate is absent, and the Under-Secretary for Scotland is absent. When the right hon. Gentleman was made Secretary of State for Scotland I understand he wanted an increase of salary, and if it had not been for the sense of money values of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) an increase might have been granted. We were told in effect, "Make me Secretary of State and look at the greater influence and power and prestige I shall have." The only result of the influence that we can find is that because something has happened in England the same thing is to happen in Scotland. The influence has been all for the bad. There is not an increase in prestige. The test is not the alteration of the Secretary of State's title. The test to be applied is "If we alter your standing can you make the conditions of the people of Scotland in any sense better?" That is the one test. "If you cannot do that your name and prestige and everything else have failed." With that test applied the Secretary of State for Scotland has failed miserably. All or practically all, of the men affected by the Bill, the Sheriff Clerks, are Conservatives. I know them, though not in the same way as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) once knew them. But I know them very well. In the Recess I go to the Sheriff Courts in Glasgow almost every day. I know almost all the Sheriffs, or at least they know me. There may be one or two Liberals, but there is hardly a Radical amongst them. Broadly speaking, they are all members of the Conservative party, the old State party.
This is how the Conservative party serve their friends, and clear knows how they will serve their enemies. I ask the Solicitor-General not to try to walk off on the ground that the Labour Government took a certain action in regard to this matter. I ask him, does he personally think that the old men are being properly treated in this respect? Can he justify money set aside for a trust being used for a quite different purpose? Would he, as a lawyer, in the Court of Session, defend that principle? Would he not, in his professional capacity, attack it? We have a right to ask him to withdraw this Resolution and not to place his own friends in the embarrassing position of 2517 voting for something in which they do not believe. I ask him to have pity, not on his opponents, but on his friends, and to withdraw this Resolution and come back next Friday with a Resolution which will do justice to all concerned in this matter.
§ Mr. STEPHENIn common with my colleagues, I protest against this proposal. In the first place, there has been great delay in connection with this matter. These people have had to wait years for a measure of justice, and it is a pitiable thing if, after they have waited all this time, the Government are only willing to concede what is embodied in this Resolution. In the second place, I join in the protest against the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Having regard to the circumstances in which the Financial Resolution was withdrawn on a previous occasion, it would lave been in keeping kith the dignity of his office, if not with his own dignity, had he made a point of being here to-day. The Secretary of State for that great country from which some Members on this side come, practically said on the last occasion, "If you do not accept this, I will drop the whole thing. I will not play with you any more." Evidently the right hon. Gentleman is still in a huff. I do not know if Members of the Committee understand that phrase, but if the Secretary of State were here he would understand it. It means that he is still a sense of grievance against hon. Members. But the Committee will notice that every voice raised in this Debate has been in condemnation of the Government. It is agreed that equivocation has taken place with regard to the purpose of the increased fees. Those increased fees were intended to put these people into a proper position in regard to these allowances, and I do not think either the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General can get away from that fact. This Government which came into office through the forgery of the Zinovieff letter is now indulging in embezzlement in regard to these officers, and I wish to associate myself strongly with the protest that has been made.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLANDI regret that Members of the Opposition should object to the fact that I am representing the Government on this occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do 2518 not!"] I inflict myself upon hon. Members very seldom, and I thought they would have been rather glad that it had fallen to me to address them on the present occasion, because both the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have already addressed them on this subject. With regard to the Bill itself, the position of the Government is that, having regard to all the circumstances, it is a just Bill, They do not hold the private opinion that it is an unjust Bill while they are trying, publicly, to force it through at the behest of the Treasury. That is not the view of the Government at all; and I give credit to the Labour party for having sufficient courage, if the circumstances were to arise when they were in office, to resist the pressure of the Treasury if the Treasury desire to perpetrate a wrong such as is now suggested. I cannot understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). One of the hon. Members for Dundee described this Bill as the perpetration of a gross injustice, and the other hon. Member for the same city said the Bill showed political dishonesty. I put it to them that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh was a member of a Government which came to the same conclusion as is indicated in this Bill. If that conclusion can be characterised, as certain Members of the Opposition have characterised it, then there was a certain obvious duty on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government when that Government refused to take his advice on this matter. I accept at once from him that he argued and advocated the case which he is now advocating. I assume that.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONHe said so. It is not a matter of assumption.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLANDHe did not do so publicly at that time, but I pass from that point with the comment that if, as a matter of fact, the attitude of the Labour Government on that occasion was one of perpetrating a gross injustice, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not take more active steps. However, the case is all the better if I take it upon the assumption put up by him here. We have this position. There is no better pleader in this House and no person who can marshal 2519 facts and figures better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh. He put forward his view in the Labour Government with all the strength of his advocacy, and with all the weight of his personal influence and official position behind him, and yet that Government, after going into the circumstances, came to the conclusion that the Bill was a fair proposal having regard to all the facts of the case. We are not seeking to shuffle behind the decision of the Labour Government. The present Government agree with that decision, and they think that, looking at this question nationally, as it must be looked at, this is a fair Measure. After all, these officials are not at the present time in the Civil Service. If they wish to get the benefits of the Civil Service and to come into the Civil Service, then surely they must, to a certain extent, conform to the conditions of the Civil Service. Concessions have been given in this Bill. It is, for instance, a big concession to date service back to 1st October, 1918. I do not think such a large concession has been given in any similar case. Having been considered by two Governments, holding very diverse views, and those Governments having come to the same conclusion, namely, that in all the circumstances it is a fair concession, I cannot see why there should be this opposition. I am not going into this matter at any great length, but I should like to refer to another point. It is suggested here that certain trust moneys are going to be misappropriated. Nothing could be farther from the truth than that suggestion. When this system is working I understand that the fees will do no more than allow for the additional pay to these officials and the provision of superannuation or pensions. When it is working, expenditure and revenue will be balanced, that is, apart from the criminal court, which we do not look upon in the same way as we do the civil court. Certain additional fees were imposed in the civil courts and protests were received from many people. Now these additions were made because at the time they were made there had been a very large yearly deficit for several years before, due largely to the fact that bonuses were paid to these officials. The loss for one year was £35,000, and in that sum there was approximately £20,000 for bonuses. The 2520 surpluses since then have not made up for those deficits. Of those surpluses £23,000 is to be allocated, if this Bill passes, for arrears of salaries to officials in the Sheriff Court Department, and £11,000 in the Procurator Fiscal Department. In addition to that, there is no less than £7,500 additional salary to be paid yearly in the Sheriffs' Department, and about £3,000, roughly, to the Procurator Fiscal Department. Having regard to all these facts it is quite clear that the case sought to be made that the Government are going to misappropriate some fund is quite out of the question.
That brings me to another point, namely, the position with regard to the old men. The old men whose position has been referred to are I understand the old men who are not going to be established. The position at the present time is that these men have no security of tenure at all. They are not even appointed by the Government. They are simply the servants of the Sheriff Clerk or the Procurator-Fiscal. They can possibly be dismissed at a week's notice because they are ordinary servants. At the present time they have no right of gratuity or pension of any kind. Under Clause 7 of the Bill they are entitled to a gratuity which must not exceed two years' salary and I am told that if you take a case of one of those old officials with a salary of £180 a year and 40 years' service, who at present has no right to gratuity of any kind, he will be entitled to a payment of £800 or £900.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONMay I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? He makes the statement that a gratuity can be given equivalent to two years' salary, but in the Appendix to the Bill it is definitely stated the gratuity is subject to the limit of one-and-a-half year's salary.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLANDSome are entitled to a gratuity of 100 per cent. increase after a certain number of years service, which would result in their getting the equivalent of two years' salary.
§ Mr. BUCHANANHow do you make it up to £800 or £900?
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLANDIt is calculated on the length of service and the amount of his salary and because of the provision made that he is to get a week's pay for each
| Division No. 264.] | AYES. | [1.2 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Apsley, Lord | Goff, Sir Park | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Grace, John | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Guinness., Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Ropner, Major L. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) | Hawke, John Anthony | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Sandon, Lord |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hills, Major John Waller | Smithers, Waldron |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hurst, Gerald B. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Jacob, A. E. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Cooper, A. Duff | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell. |
| Cope. Major William | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Looker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(KingSton-on-Hull) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Loder, J. de V. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovli) | McLean, Major A. | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Margesson, Captain D. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Ellis, R. G. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Fermoy, Lord | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Capt. Lord |
| Ganzonl, sir John | Nelson, Sir Frank | Stanley. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Groves, T. | Sexton, James |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Smith. Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardle. George D. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Baker, Walter | Hayes, John Henry | Snell, Harry |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Barnes, A. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Taylor, R. A. |
| Batey, Joseph | John. William (Rhondda, West) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Viant, S. P. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Kelly, W. T. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Broad, F. A. | Lawrence, Susan | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Buchanan, G. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Macquisten, F. A. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Maxton, James | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Montague, Frederick | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Paling, W. | |
| Dunnico, H. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Riley, Ben | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Scrymgeour, E. | Edwards. |
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next, 19th July.
2522§ year's service. Everything is accumulated with the result I have mentioned.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ares, 116; Noes, 53.