§ 32. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that on the 27th February, 1936, a sheriff officer entered the house of a Mr. Irving, residing at Howat Street, Govan, Glasgow, and took away from the home, under arrest, the wife and two children, one aged nine months and one aged three years, for an alleged debt of about £20 for certain articles of furniture; that the wife and child aged nine months were kept in prison at Duke Street one night and the other child was sent to Stothill; whether he is aware that during that time the husband was away at sea working; whether he has caused inquiry to be made; and whether he proposes to take any action against the 1040 sheriff officer for his conduct to the woman and young children?
§ Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLEI have made inquiry and am informed that in May, 1931, Mrs. Margaret Irving entered into a hire purchase contract with the Hackney Furnishing Company, Limited, for the hire purchase of certain articles of furniture. Decree was obtained by the company (now in liquidation) and by the liquidator for delivery of the furniture and on 23rd March, 1935, Mrs. Irving was duly charged to implement the decree for delivery under pain of imprisonment. This charge was not complied with and the sheriff officer was accordingly instructed by the creditors to carry out the orders of the Court and the debtor was arrested on 27th February, 1936. One child of six months who needed maternal attention was admitted along with the mother to Duke Street Prison and the other child was taken charge of by the public assistance authorities. Part of the furniture in question was delivered to the creditors on the following day and the debtor was thereupon liberated. On the information before me it appears that the execution of the warrant by the sheriff officer against Mrs. Irving was regular. It will be noted that the contract which was the basis of these proceedings was concluded prior to the passing of the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWhy were proceedings taken against the woman? If the money was owing, why were proceedings not taken when the husband was home from sea? Why did the sheriff officer deliberately wait until the husband was absent on a sea voyage? Cannot the Department take steps to see that in a non-criminal offence a child of six months is not marched to prison with its mother?
§ Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLEI shall be glad to discuss the circumstances of the case with the hon. Member. So far as the husband is concerned, my information is that the contract was not between him and the company but between the woman and the company, and therefore they could not take action against the husband. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I had inquiries made into the circumstances in which the child was admitted to prison, and the point I would emphasise is that since the Act of 1932 1041 such cases will, I hope, be very rare indeed, but this contract was concluded before that Act operated.
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESWhy was it not possible to take the furniture instead of the mother and two children, seeing that the furniture was delivered and the woman released on the following day?
§ Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLEI could not answer that question without a lengthy explanation of the civil law. The action of the sheriff officer appears, upon the information of my right hon. Friend, to have been regular.
§ Mr. BUCHANANrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member had better put another question down on this matter.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIt is difficult to cover this matter by question and answer. I will take an early opportunity of raising it.