§ Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Mr. D. GRAHAMIt is not with pleasure that I rise to draw attention to a matter which concerns the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the circumstances are such as to make it necessary to raise the matter here. On 24th October, in the J. P. Court at Hamilton, a number of persons were charged with stealing coal, and the presiding justices, one of whom is notorious for his partisanship—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am not sure that I caught that expression, but we do not allow here any reflections to be made against His Majesty's Judges except on a proper Motion.
§ Mr. GRAHAMI do not seek to cast any reflection upon them at all; but the Secretary of State might advise those who occupy the position of Judges in the J. P. Courts to carry out the law. 990 In this case a number of persons were accused. It is a misuse of the English language to describe what they were charged with as stealing coal. I have yet to learn that a man would be guilty of stealing coal if he took up a bit of dirt or stone from the street. Some of these men were at a "bing" where the refuse from a pit was tumbled over. At such places occasionally a piece of coal comes along with the dirt. They were at this place picking up the little bits of coal they could get. They were brought to the Court and charged with stealing coal. I submit that there was no evidence to support such a charge. The Justices imposed a penalty, without the option of a fine; in one case of 40 days, in two cases of 20 days, in one case of 14 days, and in two cases of 10 days. The right hon. Gentleman has the facts before him and he will be able to enlighten the House on that matter.
The question about which I was in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman was the question of two at least of these men who had never been accused of any crime whatever on any previous occasion. They were first offenders, and they were entitled to the benefit of the First Offenders Act. But the justices sentenced them to 10 days' imprisonment. I do not know whether you, Sir, would consider it a proper thing to say inside the House, but I am afraid the vast majority of the people in the locality from which I and these men come look upon it as a most monstrous act on the part of the bench; and I want to put it quite frankly to the Secretary of State that the officers of the Court would not approve of the conduct of the presiding justices, and it is incorrect to say in the answer given me that there was any prevalent coal-stealing in the district. They were taking coal from a dirt bank. If it were a case of taking it from a place where it was being stacked for the purpose of sale I could understand the attitude of the justices, though I should not agree with the sentences imposed. It is an absolute misuse of words to describe it as stealing coal at all. I am very much surprised, in view of the facts that the right hon. Gentleman must have got from the officials of the Court, that he should send me, on 12th November, a matter of weeks after the date when I first communicated with him, a letter saying he was sorry 991 he could do nothing as he held there was not sufficient ground to advise any interference with the sentence on these lads who for the first time in their lives found themselves inside a prison for no crime at all. I am afraid there is a considerable tendency on the part of certain of the police authorities in Lanark to manufacture crime rather than try to prevent it, and it looks as if some policemen are only able to get promotion by bringing more or less innocent people into the Court.
There has been a very considerable amount of feeling in regard to this matter on the part of quite as decent people as those present in the House to-night, who are very much incensed that young men whose character is as clear of real crime as anyone in the locality should have been so unceremoniously sent to prison without even the option of a fine. A fine would have been a very difficult thing to get under the circumstances that obtain in that area, but I am satisfied that the ordinary members of the community, who are not related to these lads, would have been perfectly willing to contribute their quota to the full extent of their ability to pay the fine, but a fine was not even suggested. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any intention on the part of the Scottish Office to draw the attention of the Lanarkshire Courts to the fact that there is a First Offenders Act on the Statute Book and that it would be in the interests of the community as a whole and probably go a long way to prevent crime if that fact were kept constantly in front of the magistrates.
In this case, there is no doubt at all in my own mind—and I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of those who come in close contact with the local officers of the Court—that they were very much surprised, to say the least of it, at the severity of the sentences that were inflicted. One man was sent to prison for 40 days. It was not for stealing coal at all. There was no such thing as stealing coal. There is no need for any miners to steal coal. If they are in work, they get their coal comparatively cheap. As I stated to the right hon. Gentleman on one of the occasions that I met him 1 repeat to the House, that practically the only thing we can get in a colliery home is a good fire. The coal is paid for and 992 not stolen. These men were not guilty of the crime alleged against them, and even if they were the sentences were out of all proportion to the nature of the offence. I should be very pleased even now if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to remit at least a considerable part of the sentence passed upon the man who is serving 40 days imprisonment. He has still time, I think, to remit some part of the sentence of the men who received 20 days. I hope he will take a more lenient view of the matter than he has done up to the present time.
§ Mr SULLIVANI do not usually take part in discussions of this kind, but on this occasion I want to support my colleague, the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). I have the honour to sit on the bench when I get an opportunity, and I have a fair knowledge of the law. The general instructions that we act upon as a rule are to try and keep young people from going to prison. They receive the services of a probationary officer, and, if they are fined, there is no question of sending them to serve a sentence. The probationary officer has to assist them with advice and help them to make arrangements with regard to the payment of the fine. During last year when feeling was very high persons were brought before the Court for stealing coal when there had been no coal in the country for months. Some of the alleged offences were in respect of dump heaps near the collieries from which the people, in their desperation, were taking fuel. Probably if they were successful they were able to obtain a bit of fire, but if they appeared in Court it was a £3 fine, and in some cases even more. I know of cases where children were put into the cells practically against the instructions that we had received. At my own place, 17 of them had to be accommodated because there was no other provision for them. When I read in the newspapers of the sentences that had been meted out at Hamilton I was thunderstruck, because I like to retain some respect for the people who administer the law. It is much better to keep young people outside the influence of prison.
There is no justification whatever for sending people to gaol without the option of a fine for a crime of this kind. That is my view, although all on the bench may not see alike. I blame the 993 right hon. Gentleman who is supposed to stand up for Scotland in this House. We have had occasion to meet him at various times, and he has listened very carefully to what we have had to say, and has told us that he will consider it, but the result, so far as we are concerned, could have been got just as readily without our having attempted to see him. I do not like to say hard things, but it is sometimes necessary to do so. I would say to him, "You had predecessors in that office who were always helpful to men like my colleague and myself who have been desirous of keeping the peace. Those predecessors have always helped, and when we made an appeal to them, at any rate, we got some consideration. On this occasion you have attempted to defend something which no lawyer in the country can defend and no hon. Member on the other side would attempt to defend. You sit there as representing the country from which we come, and you try to make the law as harsh as possible, much harsher than it requires to be." I hope the House will teach the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Scottish Department that there is something more needed than sentences of this kind Such sentences do no good. You are only making criminals, when you ought to keep the criminal taint from the people.
§ Mr. WELSHIt may not be in the knowledge of many hon. Members opposite that these débris heaps around the pits are the accumulations of what we call the ripping underground. As there is no accommodation for the débris underground it is sent to the surface and pieces of coal are annexed to it. The collieries which keep these débris heaps piled up do so in the right of the masses in the locality, and since the unemployment problem has become acute many of our people have secreted these heaps and in that way have furnished themselves with a fire during the cold weather. It cannot be said—I do not think any hon. Member of this House would say—in those cases that any one searching these debris heaps was stealing coal. For years and years, long before I was born, it was always recognised that such people were not interfered with. Even if they had not a right to go to these heaps, they were allowed to do so during periods of 994 depression and difficulty and to rake together an odd hundredweight of coal which they used for domestic purposes. On occasion when they gathered an odd hundredweight of coal and sold it, they eked out an existence which could not have been got otherwise. That is the position in regard to the cases in question, and to brand it as a crime is not only a misuse of terms as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) said, but it becomes much worse when you get the whole judicial system applying it in the way of a crime. I put it to the House that this is a case in which the right hon. Gentleman could very well exercise clemency, because there is no crime. We deny that it is a crime.
We are not justifying anyone who indulges in crime in any way, and we do not seek to whitewash anyone guilty of criminal practices, but in this case there was absolutely no shadow of crime attached to the individuals who have been sentenced, and who are undergoing sentence at the present time. I hope that even now an appeal may be made to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise his discretion and leniency towards the individuals who have been put in prison for the first time, and that he will do so and remove anxiety from the minds of those who belong to them at home.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour)I am sensible of the feelings which animate hon. Members upon subjects of this kind, but I confess that I am a little surprised they should ask this House to believe that the actions for which this punishment was inflicted were in fact, as they have stated and desire the House to believe, not breaking the law as it is understood. It is said that this removal of coal, even if it is from the dump, heap of the colliery, is not a crime, and, in the words which have been used, is not really stealing. I know the colliery districts very well; I am also quite aware of the circumstances in which in some cases people are allowed to remove some of this coal from these dumps, but I want the House to understand that in the cases we are dealing with complaints from the colliery management have been made to the police, and the police, in the exercise of their duty, have tried to prevent what, in the opinion of the public, was becoming a public nuisance.
§ Mr. MAXTONWhat section of the public?
§ Sir J. GILMOURThis custom has grown up and increased to such an extent that not only was the coal removed, but it led to the removal actually of the timber supports to the necessary machinery by which the material brought up from the bottom of the mine was dumped on to the heap.
§ Mr. D. GRAHAMWas that stated?
§ Sir J. GILMOURIt was stated in the Court by the colliery manager making the complaint, and the fact was brought out that working parties had to be sent from the mine in order to replace the material which was removed from the actual timber. The fact remains that in all these cases, particularly in one or two, several previous convictions were on record against these individuals for the theft of coal. Take the case of James Maelntyre, aged 26, who was accused of the offence of stealing coal and sentenced to 40 days. There were two previous convictions for breaches of the peace against him; of theft by house breaking and theft of coal. Take the case of William Macdonald, aged 26, who was sentenced to 21 days. He had two previous convictions for theft by house breaking. Take the case of Robert Thomson, aged 50, he had a previous conviction for theft against him.
§ Mr. D. GRAHAMWill the Secretary of State tell me whether he made an inquiry as to whether Thompson was there at all? A statement was made that he was not.
§ Sir J. GILMOURAs I understand it was proved—
§ Mr. D. GRAHAMIt was not.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI am in a, position of having to take the report of the Court and the evidence produced before the Court—I am not in a position to say anything beyond the report—proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was there.
I come to the other cases where previous convictions were recorded. I would be the first to say that in the case of a first offence it is right and desirable that every effort should be made to put into operation the First Offenders Act, and the Court's attention 996 has been drawn to the necessity of doing so. In this case the misfortune has been that the same kind of language and attitude which hon. Members have adopted was pursued by these men who deliberately said that it was no crime. Complaints having increased and previous convictions and leniency exercised in dealing with such cases having failed—
§ Mr. GRAHAMIs the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that these two young men were sent to prison for language and not on the charge of stealing coal?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI am not suggest-ting anything of the kind, but I am suggesting that, in addition to the fact that these men committed this crime, they were clearly endeavouring to put forward the plea' that it was no crime. In addition to that the Court had exercised leniency in previous cases.
§ Mr. SULLIVANIs the right hon. Gentleman attempting to defend the imprisonment of two young men for the alleged theft of coal when it was their first offence? He is the only man in Britain who would do it. No man on the Government Front Bench would do it.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe hon. Gentleman must understand that these problems are dealt with by the local Court.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThey are a lot of Tories and class judges.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThey had before them the necessity of bringing home to these people what they had not previously been able to bring home to them by leniency, and they had to do so by a greater severity in the sentences. The Court were aware of the necessity of giving an advantage to first offenders because in two cases they did so.
§ Mr. GRAHAMTwo girls?
§ Sir J. GILMOURYes. That was the judgment of the Court. I have made as careful inquiry into this matter as I could. I agree that wherever it is possible and right, first offenders should be given the advantage of the procedure which we would all desire to see, but when hon. Members ask me and ask 997 this House to accept the view that the removal of the coal from these buildings, and the trespass, and the possible danger and damage to colliery property, is not an offence against the law and should not be dealt with by the Courts, they ask me to believe something which I cannot entertain, and I want hon. Members frankly to understand that, however anxious I am to meet them in these matters, or to discuss these problems with them, they cannot expect me to give these cases, after the evidence which has been put before me, after the necessity for enforcing the law is apparent—
§ Mr. GRAHAMCan the right hon. Gentleman give us the benefit of the evidence that has been submitted to him?
§ Sir J. GILMOURAll I can say is that in the report which the Court gave to me they assured me in the plainest terms 998 that they had taken into consideration all these things. They say:
The magistrates have always been most anxious to give probation and also the option of money penalties in first offences and to persons who we are satisfied do not realise the serious nature of the offence committed by them. We feel ourselves compelled in cases such as these to deal with offenders more severely in respect that coal stealing had been most prevalent in this district for a very long time, and that prosecutions have taken place and sentences been inflicted almost daily, and published in the newspapers weekly for a very long time. No one can therefore plead ignorance of the taking of coal from railway bings and wagons.
§ Mr. GRAHAMFrom wagons!
§ Sir J. GILMOURNot in these particular cases, but the taking of coal from bings and wagons has been prevalent—
§ It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.