PRISONS DEPARTMENT FOR SCOTLAND. (Hansard, 25 February 1935)

§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
Are we to have any explanation regarding this supplementary estimate? I think there are certain points which various Members would like to raise?

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton)
I thought that, perhaps, Members would like to raise their points, and that I could then deal with them.

§ Mr. MACLEAN
Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee to have an explanation first so that the points can be raised later?

§ Mr. SKELTON
I will certainly do that. The total of the supplementary estimate is £2,955. Of that the greatest amount is the last item under Subhead Z, relating to appropriations-in-aid of £1,690. That is made necessary because the amount received from the produce of manufactures and the farms has been less by that sum than in the previous financial year. Therefore, the deficiency has been made to appear as a supplementary estimate. As to the amounts of £60 under Subhead A, for salaries, and £757 under Subhead C for pay and allowances of officers, these additional sums are required in the first place to meet the cost of the restoration as from 1st July, 1934, of half the emergency reductions in pay made in 1931, and secondly for the consolidation of the salaries of civil servants, representing ordinary increases of salary. The additional sum of £448 required under Subhead N, which relates to new buildings and alterations, is required to meet a payment due to a contractor in 1933. It could not be paid over earlier for the reason that the contractor himself died and there was some delay by his executors in obtaining and producing the title necessary before the Exchequer would pay over the sum due to the contractor's estate. I think that covers the whole subject matter of the supplementary estimate.

§ Mr. MACLEAN
As this Vote deals with prisons, I should like to ask the 909 Under-Secretary or you, Captain Bourne, whether we shall be entitled to deal with any questions bearing upon the administration of any of the prisons in Scotland during the past year, or since the original estimate was passed?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No, I think the hon. Member would not be entitled to do that. On a supplementary estimate we deal only with the items necessitating the increased charge, and it is quite obvious that on these items the particular questions which the hon. Member wishes to raise cannot arise.

§ Mr. MACLEAN
Then although this Supplementary Estimate deals with salaries, with the pay and allowances of officers, with new buildings and alterations and with appropriations-in-aid, amounting in all to £2,955 we are debarred from discussing matters of administration within the prisons.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Yes, that has been the old and long-standing rule in Committee of Supply. Where a supplementary sum is asked for the only thing before the Committee is whether the Supplementary Estimate is sufficient to meet those particular items. General questions of policy ought to be discussed on the original Estimate.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
There are items for extra salaries and allowances. Are we not entitled to discuss why they are required. There may be inefficient or improper administration that necessitates this extra money. Surely before we vote it we should have the reasons why it is needed.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened very carefully to the Minister's statement. He stated what is also stated in the note opposite the Estimate, that the increases of pay are necessary for the restoration of the cuts, which were decided on after the Estimates for the year had been brought in.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Surely we have a. right to criticise the conduct of the officers concerned and maintain that the cuts should not be restored.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No, I think the restoration of the cuts was a matter of general policy affecting the whole civil service and the only question that arises on this occasion is whether the money asked for is sufficient or insufficient.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
There has not, as far as I know, been a Vote laying it down that the whole of these cuts are to be restored. These Estimates are brought up merely for the House of Commons to discuss in the ordinary way. I suggest that you cannot say this has been determined as a matter of general policy, and we cannot discuss the rights and wrongs of it. Why should there be a Vote if we are not allowed to discuss it? I beg that you will reconsider the matter from that point of view.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
With regard to the first point, I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The first Vote taken to-day raised it on the general question. Why it has been necessary to ask for special Votes beyond that I cannot say.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I am not quite sure what Vote you are referring to. I am not aware that there was a general Vote brought forward to-day dealing with the restoration of the cuts.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
"Class I, Vote 26 (Civil Service Remuneration, etc.). Restoration of part of Emergency Reduction." The Committee has already come to a decision on that point.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
The Committee has not given a decision on this estimate. It gave a decision on the estimates embodied in the Vote that you put to the Committee. We are now asked to give another Vote for another set of services. I submit that we are entitled to discuss whether or not the Committee will grant the restoration of these cuts. There is no decision that they shall be restored, or we could not be called upon to give a vote on the subject to-night. If you will consider the matter, I think the Vote brought before the Committee gives us the right to discuss the why and the wherefore of the issue.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the why and the wherefore of this particular issue is a very narrow one on this Vote.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for establishing that point, but I want to oppose the restoration of the cuts to the officers in the prison service in Scotland, because during this last year there has been the most positive public evidence that the officers in the Barlinnie Prison and the Peterhead Prison in Scotland have been guilty of grave dereliction of duty.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is getting to the point of introducing the general question, and neither the general nor detailed question of prison administration can arise on this Vote.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I understand that the House of Commons has the right, before voting money, to ventilate grievances. One of the reasons the House of Commons has this Committee is to enable the Members of the House to bring up matters of grievance. Here is a proposal to restore cuts in certain cases, and we maintain that we have a right to say that, because of certain conduct and certain conditions, these cuts ought not to be restored. Surely it is the constitutional right of the Committee of the House of Commons?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confusing the difference between the Committee on the main question and the Committee on supplementary questions. He is trying to raise the general question of the administration of His Majesty's prisons in Scotland, and there is nothing in this Vote which I can see relating to that question. That should be raised when the main estimates for His Majesty's prisons in Scotland come round, because it really challenges the general administration of the whole department, and that does not arise on this occasion.

§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
In this estimate we are being asked to vote for the restoration of a certain cut that was made in the salaries of certain officials in the prisons of Scotland. We can take exception to the restoration of that part of the reduction that took place in 1931, and in taking exception to the restoration of that part of the cut we can state our reasons. If we think that the present officials have done something which, in our opinion, does not warrant their re 912 ceiving the restored cut, surely we are entitled to ventilate that particular reason? I submit that hitherto in the House of Commons, even upon supplementary estimates, we have had that right. If you are ruling to-night that we are not to continue the right to give reasons why we should not grant a supplementary estimate which is tantamount to an increase to those prison officials—

§ Mr. PIKE
Does the hon. Member suggest that the restoration of the cuts to anybody, irrespective of what the hon. Member thinks they have done to deserve it or not, is an increase of wages? Is that a new law he is laying down for his party?

§ Mr. MACLEAN
I am laying down no new law, but merely stating that we are being asked as a House of Commons to vote money to increase that which has been received by these officers since 1931. Surely this House is entitled in such circumstances to state the reasons why certain officials who are going to benefit by the restoration of cuts should not receive it. This is the only occasion on which we have an opportunity of discussing the conduct of certain of these officials. If you insist upon your Ruling you are narrowing down the limits within which this House can discuss supplementary estimates in a manner that, as far as I am aware, has not taken place hitherto.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that I must adhere to my original Ruling. I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member and the Leader of the Opposition have said. There is a very old standing Rule which was laid down I think by Mr. Speaker Peel—I am speaking from memory—as to what are the limits of discussion on supplementary Estimates, and it has there been clearly laid down that where a small sum of money only is asked for over and above the original Estimate that that does not re-open wide questions of policy on the original Estimate. I am bound to hold that the administration of individual prisons raises wide questions of policy and that they must be raised either on the original Estimate or on some other occasion on which the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland comes into question. It is quite clear that this very small increase cannot be used as a peg on which to hang a very wide ques 913 tion of policy. Therefore, I adhere to my original Ruling that that discussion is not in order.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I very respectfully differ from your Ruling on this occasion, because we are faced with an entirely new set of conditions. We are in effect voting the restoration of cuts to a number of officers whose conduct hon. Members wish to discuss. Looking back, I think I have heard discussions of that character on a supplementary Estimate of this kind. We cannot contest your Ruling at too great a length. I agree that you have been extremely patient with us, but we shall have to try and raise the question in some other form so as to get another Ruling on the matter, because I and my hon. Friends thoroughly disagree with it. I cannot however carry the matter further to-night.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I will continue now the speech that you interrupted. I had thought that I should have been in order in raising those two matters and I leave it simply by saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland knows that there is grave disquiet in the minds of the people of Scotland about the state of prison administration in that country. He has recognised that to the extent of setting up a form of inquiry into the internal affairs of the prisons. We will leave that question, subject to your Ruling, until we get the complete estimate. I will confine myself strictly to the supplementary estimate and that part of it which deals with the provision in the appropriation-in-aid which shows a reduction of nearly £2,000 in the amount that was estimated to come to the Department for work done in the way of manufacture of farm produce. That is a very considerable difference in the estimate. There is £2,000 out, in a total and of £12,000. The Under-Secretary has not told us why there should have been such a tremendous drop in the value of the work of the men confined in His Majesty's prisons. I understand that all the farm produce is consumed either by the prisoners themselves or by the prison officers. They have a sure market for their produce at their own door. They sell all they produce to the prisons and therefore are not up against the fall in prices which faces the herring people and the cattle 914 people. I cannot see why the manufactures of the crudest and simplest manual operations should have ceased to find the market which they had previously. I should like to know how the officials in Scotland, who presumably made the estimate of the income from the work of prisoners, have made such a miscalculation as to the value of it.

§ Mr. SKELTON
I do not know that I can add anything to what I have said. An estimate of the amount which may be derived from the produce of the farms and the work of prisoners cannot be exact, and the causes of the decline cannot be controlled. I do not think that there is anything surprising that an estimate of this nature should have turned out inaccurate to this extent.

§ Mr. MAXTON
Perhaps I should have given the hon. Member warning, but the estimate is out by 20 per cent. in a matter in which they have records for years and years. It is not a matter which could have been affected by some act of God. There are statistics for an extended period, and there must be something radically wrong in the higher command in Scotland if we cannot get a better estimate than this.

§ Mr. SKELTON
I recognise the difficulty if this was an incorrect estimate of expenditure. If on an ordinary item of expenditure there had been a miscalculation the hon. Member might well ask how it came about, but this is a case where receipts have turned out to be less than anticipated. That is a matter which is in quite a different category. At the beginning of the financial year there must always be some doubt as to how much a particular item will bring in. It is clear that you are in an entirely different region from an estimate of expenditure put forward by a department, because from years of experience in the latter case an estimate can be made with very great accuracy. When you are dealing with the sale of prison produce you are in a different region.

§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that this matter requires further explanation. The details given on page 9 of the estimate state: Additional provision required to meet a deficiency in receipts from manufactures and farms, £1,690. 915 The Under-Secretary says that this is not an expenditure but rather a loss of receipts. Are we, then, to believe that articles were manufactured at a loss, or that the total of articles fell short; or that they were sold at a loss? We ought also to know whether the discontent that has been evident in the prisons of Scotland during the past year has been the reason for this falling off in income. It is probably not fair to press for any detailed information at the moment, but instead of riding off in a cavalier fashion the Under-Secretary would be wise to Say that he is prepared to get the information and give an explanation later.

§ Mr. PIKE
Following the point of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who said that the greater part of these products was consumed by inmates and officers of the prisons, would the Under-Secretary state whether that is the case? Why should this deficiency of £1,690 arise if that is the case? On the other hand, can he say whether the prison produce is placed upon the market in competition with the produce of agriculture If so, does it not show a complete lack of business knowledge on the part of the persons who do the marketing, and does it not warrant an inquiry as to whether some extra advice should be given to the people who are attempting to compete in the open market with the requisite knowledge?

§ Mr. SKELTON
I am sorry if I seemed to deal with this matter cavalierly but such was certainly not my intention. Without going into great detail I may give this further explanation, my information having been reinforced since my previous statement. The greater part of this sum of £1,600 is due to the fact that a particular order—the exact nature of which I am not yet familiar with, but which can be stated on the Report stage, if desired—which it was anticipated would come to the Scottish prisons, or one of them, in the course of the financial year, did not materialise. As to the question, whether the articles were manufactured or not, I think the answer is in the negative. With regard to the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr, Pike) to make sure no Government department carries on 916 farming without the closest attention from the greatest number of experts, I think it is clear that a very small part of this £1,600 is attributable to unsuccessful farming operations. He may rest assured, since the main part of the sum is due to the other cause I have named, that there has been no unlucky transaction on a large scale in bacon or eggs or anything of that kind.