HC Deb 21 July 1938 vol 338 cc2553-73

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £28,713, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other law charges, the salaries and expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland." [NOTE.—£15,600 has been voted on account.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Johnston

I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.

There are one or two matters which come under this Vote about which we on these benches desire an explanation. In the first place, I wish to raise the action taken by or on behalf of procurators-fiscal in Scotland in seeking ordinary folk at their place of business in order to extract from them information, a practice which may result in prejudicing them permanently in the eyes of their superior officers. I believe information in the particular case which I am now raising has been communicated by the Union of Post Office Workers to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Two postmen in Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, apparently enlisted in one of the armies in Spain. Other postmen who evidently were friends of these men, or at least workmates, were visited shortly afterwards by policemen acting on behalf of the local procurator-fiscal. One of the two men was visited at the Post Office. He was asked to come to the postmaster's room, there to be interviewed by a police officer. The other man was visited at his home and interrogated there. Here are some of the questions which, according to the men, were put to them: Are you a member of any political party? Why should a question like that be put to a Post Office worker? He was not asked whether he had done anything wrong or broken any law, but whether he was a member of any political party. The second question was: Did you ever hear Gowans and Milton discuss Spain? Gowans and Milton are the two men who enlisted. Suppose they had discussed Spain or discussed any other country. What right had the police officer to ask the postman a question of that kind? The third question was: Who are the persons who form the Communist party in the Post Office? So far as I know these men did not know who were the Communists, if any, in the Post Office. I am informed that these two men are not Communists.

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne)

I am a little doubtful whether this question can be raised on this Vote. Surely it ought to be raised on the Police Vote.

Mr. Johnston

With due deference, procurators-fiscal come under the Lord Advocate's Department, and as it was procurator-fiscal in Kilmarnock who authorised the sending of the police officers concerned to make these interrogations, I submit that this is the only occasion on which I can properly raise the question.

The Deputy-Chairman

The point I am not clear about is whether the police acted under the orders of the procurator-fiscal, in which case I agree it would be proper to raise the matter now, or whether the procurator-fiscal merely told them to make inquiries and they acted on their own initiative. In that case, it would be a question of police discipline and would not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Johnston

I took the precaution to be prepared for a question of that kind. The Scottish Office, by letter of 28th February, 1938, admitted that the procurator-fiscal instructed these further inquiries to be made. Let me resume a recital of the questions which are alleged to have been put by the police officers: Are you a member of any political party? Did you ever hear Gowans and Milton discuss Spain? Who are the persons who form the Communist party in the Post Office? Are you interested in Communism in Spain? Do you know why Gowans and Milton went there at all? Did you keep company with Gowans and Milton? There were other questions asked about Spain and the hostilities there. It is alleged that McGilivray was asked particulars of his name, his address and his Post Office service. He was actually asked if he was married. There are no allegations against this man. It was not alleged and it is not alleged by anyone that this man had broken any Statute. Yet here at his place of business this Crown servant is summoned by the postmaster, at the instance of a police officer, inside the Post Office, to appear in a room in the Post Office, and he is asked these political questions by local police officers, acting, so I am informed, on behalf of the local procurator-fiscal.

Other questions were asked of Riddell, according to his signed statement: I suppose you know that two postmen are missing from the Post Office? Can you give any information where they are? Why should they single you out to send you a postcard? Why a postcard to you? What right has a police officer to come to you, to me, or to any citizen and ask why we should get a postcard from somebody abroad, perhaps one for our collection? Further questions asked were: Were you friendly with them? Were you in their company after office hours? Do you know if they attended political meetings? Do you know if they had any particular views on political questions? Can you give us any information who is advocating Communist propaganda in the Post Office at Kilmarnock? There is no one that I know of in this House, with one exception, who is a member of the Communist party. I am not in any shape or form representing the Communist party or the Communist party's views, but these two postmen are citizens, they have citizens' rights, they are Crown servants, and they have all the rights of Crown servants. I submit that if these allegations be proven, if they can be proven, it is a grossly improper act on the part of policemen, sent by the procurator-fiscal, to ask these men political questions at their place of business.

The Deputy-Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman must keep to his charge against the procurator-fiscal; otherwise I must rule him out of order.

Mr. Johnston

I have already stated that the procurator-fiscal instructed further inquiries to be made.

The Deputy-Chairman

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the point. So long as he keeps to the point that the procurator-fiscal authorised these questions, then he is responsible and he comes on this Vote. The police do not come on this Vote. If the right hon. Gentleman will keep his charges against the procurator-fiscal, he will be in order.

Mr. Johnston

It is obviously outside my ability to prove that the procurator-fiscal instructed these police officers to put these precise questions. I cannot prove that and nobody will ever be able to prove it. What I can prove is, and I have the letter of the Scottish Office to prove it, that the procurator-fiscal did instruct the police officers to make inquiries. I am stating that the inquiries they made were of a certain character, and I am entitled to assume that in these circumstances the procurator-fiscal is responsible for the character of the questions put to these men. I do not, however, desire to get at cross purposes with you on this matter. I merely say that on the Lord Advocate's Vote the Lord Advocate is responsible for the administration of justice in Scotland. It is only on this Vote that we can raise issues of this kind, and I am asking, on behalf of the Union of Post Office Workers, on behalf of the men who were interrogated, and on behalf of other Post Office workers in London who recently I understand, have been similarly interrogated, that an inquiry into these specific allegations should be made by the Lord Advocate.

If this sort of thing is allowed to continue then there is an end to the political rights and privileges which remain—goodness knows they are not many—to civil servants in the service of the Crown. I would ask the Lord Advocate to cause an inquiry to be made as to the questions that were asked and as to the responsibility of the procurator-fiscal for those questions. If he is satisfied that the allegations are well founded, I would ask that he will give instructions to procurators-fiscal in Scotland that interrogatories of this nature should not be put to workmen at their place of business, and that in particular political questions of this character will be abandoned.

I know that other hon. Members want to put their points to the Lord Advocate, and I will conclude in a minute. A few days ago I put a question to the Lord Advocate whether he was aware of the case of Lockerbie farm servant who had been accused of acquiring by false pretences a pair of boots valued at 13s. 6d., whether he was aware that the man was haled before the local magistrates for acquiring this 13s. 6d. pair of boots by false pretences, whether he had been sentenced to two months imprisonment without the option of a fine for acquiring the pair of boots, whether it were the case that a local solicitor, on the ground that the sentence was grossly oppressive, appealed to the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, and whether it was the case that the High Court of Justiciary had unanimously decided that the sentence was oppressive, and had awarded the poor man seven guineas towards his expenses. I do not think that there is much more to be said about it, except that the poor victim had already served a fortnight of his sentence before the High Court of Justiciary could act and quash the sentence.

I would like the Lord Advocate to tell me how this works. When the High Court awards seven guineas expenses, the payment, I understand from the Lord Advocate, must be met by the ratepayers, they having elected the magistrate. The magistrate gave his decision, advised, for all I know, by a local assessor, and the local ratepayers have to find the seven guineas. So far so good. or so bad, as you like; but suppose the man's expenses are higher and that it has taken him more than seven guineas to fight that oppressive sentence. Suppose he has had to find evidence, and also to find beds for his friends who were witnesses on his behalf, and to go round with the hat to get 10 guineas or 15 guineas in order to fight that oppressive sentence. The High Court, acting possibly in the public interest and with a view to preventing lawyers making a profit out of an appeal case like that, makes an award; is the poor victim to be out of pocket to the extent of seven, eight or perhaps 10 guineas in defending himself, and in securing his release from a sentence which the High Court in Edinburgh decides was oppressive?

I am not suggesting that the Lord Advocate should take power to remove a local magistrate, a sheriff-substitute or a sheriff, nor am I asking for anything that would require legislation. I am asking what protection a citizen has in the case of an oppressive sentence to ensure that he gets an adequate amount towards expenses which he is compelled to incur in order to get relief from an oppressive sentence. With those few words I propose to resume my seat, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will be able to reassure hon. Members on all sides of the Committee that the administration of justice in Scotland will be kept untarnished from the kind of thing which I have described.

The Deputy-Chairman

Before I put the question I should like to say that although I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's raising the points relating to the procurator-fiscal, quite obviously the Lord Advocate must deal with his responsibility and not with the responsibility of the police authorities. The right hon. Gentleman is quite justified in raising the point, but we must keep order in relation to the responsibility of the procurator-fiscal.

Mr. Maclean

Is it not the case that in trying to prove the claim upon the procurator-fiscal you must touch upon the question of what the police have been instructed to ask?

The Deputy-Chairman

Precisely, but I want to make it clear that the right hon. Gentleman is putting the blame upon the procurator-fiscal and not on the police.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot

I wish to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to a matter which I do not think has been raised in the Committee and that is the report which was issued last year by the Poor Persons' Representation (Scotland) Committee. When that report was issued I put a question to the Secretary of State asking whether he intended to implement the recommendations of the committee, but he very naturally replied that the questions raised were of such complication that considerable time would be needed to study them. I want to ask whether the Lord Advocate can give us any further information whether steps are being taken in pursuance of that report. We shall all agree that the matter is of considerable importance to a large number of people in Scotland. The report deals with the representation of poor persons in both civil and criminal matters. It is interesting to me to observe that the system under which poor persons are represented in Scotland is of very much greater antiquity than the poor persons system in England, and, of course, it works on very different lines.

We occasionally hear in the House criticisms of the legal profession. Of course, I can hardly reply to those criticisms, because I might be an interested party, but it appears from the report, and I think it should be fully realised, that in Scotland an enormous amount of work is done by the legal profession for poor persons, both in civil and in criminal actions, and done without any reward of any kind. I want to draw attention to two of the findings in the report, and also to one or two of the recommendations. It appears that the number of complaints from poor litigants is very small indeed, because the committee find that, although the work of agents for the poor is burdensome, it is on the whole very well done; but I should like to say a word about the burden which is imposed upon those who have to do it. In paragraph 19 of the report, which refers to outlays, the committee say: While it is the custom in some districts to ask for 5s. from the poor person to cover outlays in the Sheriff Court in civil cases, there are cases where, if the litigation is to he conducted in a satisfactory manner, the agent for the poor must incur much greater outlay, namely, in postages and travelling, apart from ordinary office expenses. This happens both in civil and criminal cases, and not infrequently the expense is met by the solicitor concerned out of his own pocket. In appeals from the Sheriff Court to the Court of Session, moreover, no provision is made at present for defraying the costs of duplicating or copying evidence and records for the use of judges of the Appeal Court. If the poor person cannot find the money, the solicitor concerned is left to pay, or the appeal cannot proceed. I think we shall all agree that that is a serious state of affairs. In the next paragraph the committee say: There can be no doubt that a solicitor appointed to serve on the Poor's Roll must suffer great inroads upon his time, and the burden is often so serious as to be discharged only at the expense of his private practice. That, of course, also happens in England, but in England greater provision is made in order to meet the expense inevitably incurred, and I think it must follow that, in some respects at any rate, poor litigants are bound to be better served. I do not want to pursue this issue at any length, but I want to draw the attention of the Committee to one or two outstanding recommendations in the report. First of all, in dealing with the Sheriff Court, the committee make this recommendation: An annual grant should be given by the Treasury to the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland for the purpose of defraying expenses and outlays in connection with legal assistance for the poor in civil matters. This would bring Scotland into line with England in regard to these matters. In dealing with criminal courts, the committee make a recommendation which seems to me to be of great importance. They say, under the heading of Police Courts: It should be the duty of the local authority in large towns to provide out of local funds a Public Defensor for poor persons accused before police courts. I observe that in an earlier part of the report it is stated that in two cities in Scotland, Edinburgh and Dundee, the local authority already makes a small provision—I think £30 or £50—in order to provide for the defence of poor persons in the police courts, but apparently that is only done in Edinburgh and Dundee, and no one supposes that sums of that magnitude could possibly provide for the defence of any considerable number of poor persons coming before tribunals of that character. The committee go on to make this recommendation in regard to the sheriff courts: Provision should be made for the granting of legal aid to poor persons in cases where a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed and for payment of outlays and modified fees on certification by the sheriff. If a recommendation of that kind were carried it would, again, only be bringing Scotland in line with England, where already provision can be made for the defence of poor persons who have no means to provide for their own defence. Very small fees are paid. I do not think either branch of the legal profession makes much profit out of it, but it means that the inevitable office expenses of the solicitors are covered; so it does very much facilitate the proper defence of poor persons in England who are tried on indictment. This introduces a very similar system in the case of the sheriff courts in Scotland. In regard to the High Courts, the report recommends: Judges should have power to certify for payment of outlays and modified fees. Much the same thing as applies in the case of sheriff courts applies in that case. I am not saying that all these recommendations are necessarily the best methods that could be adopted, but it does appear that the present system in Scotland, although it may be of very great antiquity, does put a very considerable burden on the legal profession, and that we could make some improvement in the provision made for the representation of poor persons both in civil and criminal matters. It would be a good thing if the Lord Advocate could give us some information as to what is being done for the defence of poor persons in Scotland.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. McGovern

The first matter I wish to raise is the case of a boy who was arrested in Linlithgow one Sunday evening while cycling without a light. He was booked by the police. After being booked, he had to get to his home in Shettleston. He was delayed by a serious puncture. Outside Shettleston he was again booked. He was booked by two different sets of authorities. He was summoned by fiscal No. 1, and his father wrote to the fiscal and said that if he had to appear in court it would mean that the boy would lose a day's work and incur 3s. or 4s. expenses. He said that if a plea of guilty was accepted he would send on the fine. The fiscal said he could not accept that plea, and that a legal representative had been appointed to defend the boy. The fine was 7s. 6d. and the fee for the lawyer was 5s., and accordingly he wrote for 12s. 6d.

When the case was brought to my notice by the father the second summons had arrived. When the second summons arrived the fiscal was the lawyer who had previously defended the boy and been paid 5s. This fiscal was prepared to put it in the hands of the other lawyer to defend him. Both fiscals became defending lawyers. I do not expect the Lord Advocate to give me a complete reply on this matter. I would prefer him to investigate. I wrote to fiscal No. 2 and pointed out that the boy had been defended by him previously and had been fined, and I enclosed a copy of the letter showing that he had paid the 5s. After the court met he intimated to me that he had withdrawn the No. 2 case. But it appeared to me to be a terrible state of affairs that a fiscal in the course of his duty is going to engage a lawyer for the boy, and that in turn both fiscals should become defending lawyers. Something needs to be done, and I am prepared to place the entire facts in the hands of the Lord Advocate without giving names to-night.

The second matter is one that I have raised continuously in this House with the Lord Advocate, in which a large number of cases have been placed in the hands of the fiscal, relating to court decisions given to a man in my area, a debt collector who is living as a bird of prey upon the poor by continuously taking from these people their books when they have paid a proportion of the money and putting down false sums. He often asks the people to leave the books with him and to call for them the following week. I know of cases where people have paid £7 or £8 for a simple debt of 25s. In no case can they get out of the hands of this man. I had the experience of going to the man and offering him out of the Lord Provosts' fund the entire sum of 25s. to clear a woman's account, but he refused to accept it because, he said, he would only accept from the woman a shilling a week. In no case will he allow a person to get out of his clutches. One of these women fainted on my door step and a surgeon had to be called to her, as the Lord Advocate knows, and she had to be accompanied home in a bad state of collapse.

This man publishes answers of the Lord Advocate in his window, and says that neither the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) nor the Lord Advocate can get anything on him. Continual reports have been given to the authorities, and I am astounded that this man is so persistently able to flout the law. He is doing that and getting away with it. I regret that when I went to see him I did not physically assault him in order to get the case brought into court to show the man in his true light. I can assure the Lord Advocate and this Committee that, if I am compelled to go again, this House and the country will hear of the incidents in relation to it. I want to know whether action will be taken against bogus people living on poor people in this way. The Lord Advocate should apply his mind to this matter in order to place the collecting of debts in the hands of more respectable firms and cut out men of this description.

I wish to raise a question in relation to untried prisoners in the Glasgow Central Police Office. It came out in the High Court recently that a man on a very serious charge had been taken from his cell, which was in the building in which the detectives were housed, on two or three occasions during the night and examined by detectives without any other person being present, the statements which he made being produced in the High Court. These statements, I believe, were obtained by an illegal interview. I know that it has been stated that the detectives are in a different building, but that is not true. I would ask the Lord Advocate to visit these buildings himself and see how the law is being carried out. It is his duty to defend untried prisoners and see that they get every opportunity of presenting their case in the best possible light and that an unfair advantage is not taken of them by the police. I myself was taken on two occasions from my cell in the Central Police Station by detectives to a private room. That, I say, is illegal, and if the Lord Advocate cares to visit the building and desires the company of Members of various parties in the House of Commons, I am sure they will be delighted to accompany him. I say that when people are arrested they should be committed to Barlinnie Prison and not detained in the same buildings where detectives have complete access to them before trial.

The last matter to which I want to refer is the rent courts. Where the rent courts are in force in Glasgow the sheriffs give practically no examination at all to the cases which come before them.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member cannot raise the question of the rent courts on this Vote.

Mr. McGovern

This is a matter which concerns the procurator-fiscal, and I want to suggest that people who have to attend these courts are not given a proper opportunity to defend themselves, that a better means of defence ought to be allowed to them and that a proper examination of the case presented to the court should take place. They are given decisions the effect of which they do not understand, and I think that the decision should be conveyed to them in writing so that they will know what the decision means. Finally, there is a system in Glasgow, I do not know whether it obtains anywhere else, of police fiscals. I do not think that they should be allowed to operate, because they are people interested in prosecuting the charge against an individual, and, therefore, are completely biased in every way. I suggest that proper fiscals should be appointed, such as you have in the Central Police Court, who are free from police interference. I have put my questions as briefly as possible and I hope the Lord Advocate will give his usual sympathetic consideration to them.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Cassells

I desire to associate myself with the complaint which the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) made in connection with the two matters to which he referred. It certainly appears to me that in so far as the responsibilities of the procurator-fiscal are concerned, if on his instructions these police officers proceeded to the place of employment of the Post Office employés for the purpose of interrogating them then from a strictly legal point of view he is liable on the legal doctrine of Qui facit per alium facit per se, and must be compelled to accept responsibility. I think it is proper and fitting that it should come from this Committee that in no circumstances are witnesses legally compelled to furnish precognitions of any sort to the procurator-fiscal or police officers. I also wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) in his point concerning the unfortunate position of poor persons engaged in litigation in the courts of Scotland. There are many things in Scotland of which we are proud, but speaking as a member of the legal profession I echo the sentiments of the profession as a whole when I say that we are disturbed as to the position of poor litigants. I trust that the Lord Advocate will look into the matter.

The point with which I want to deal particularly is the case referred to by the right hon. Member for West Stirling, which was heard in the Jedburgh court. As far as the seven guineas are concerned I suppose it is a payment which must automatically fall on local rates. But there is far more than that in this matter. This sort of thing is happening repeatedly in all the inferior courts of Scotland. I will give two typical illustrations. In the Sheriff Court in Stirlingshire, an accused person was charged with a contravention of Section 12 of the Road Traffic Act. He pleaded not guilty, his case went to trial, he was convicted after trial, he was fined £5, his licence was endorsed and suspended for a period of one month. Thereafter, application was made for a stated case in order to take the matter on appeal to the Justiciary in Edinburgh. The man was not in any great financial position; he was an ordinary workman who was able to afford a motor cycle. Immediately he applied for a stated case, he was called upon by the court to find caution.

The question of caution is a matter which is entirely outside the question of paying the solicitor's or the counsel's expenses. The sum of £10, or thereabouts, was fixed, and the man had to put that down. When the case went to Justiciary, he was compelled to enlist the services of counsel. There was a total expenditure on that case of about £30 or £40. The astonishing feature of the case was that it was quite clear that there had been a mistake made in the conviction in the first instance, and actually when the case was called in Justiciary, Crown counsel got up before defence counsel, and stated that, in the light of the stated facts, there was absolutely no case against the accused and that accordingly the conviction should be quashed. The Court of Appeal sustained the appeal, and again the modified fee of seven guineas was allowed. I am not appealing to the right hon. and learned Gentleman from any professional or personal point of view. I maintain that in that case, when the man ultimately went to his agent and was faced with the bill of expenses, his immediate reaction was that, from his point of view, he would have been far better off if he had paid the £5 fine, and allowed his licence to be suspended for the period of one month. At the end, he was out of pocket.

Then there was the case with which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland dealt last week in Justiciary, the case of a man who was convicted in the Sheriff Court at Falkirk for reset of theft and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. A stated case was applied for immediately, and immediately the application was made, the court called upon the man to find caution for expenses, and in that instance caution was fixed at no less than £30. The man was an ordinary workman and the only way in which he was able to find the £30 was by getting his friends to sell almost all their goods and chattels. The appeal went on. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman took the appeal for the Crown. The conviction was quashed, and again the modified fee of seven guineas was allowed. I say that the system is absolutely iniquitous and preposterous, and that justice is absolutely stultified and negatived in our country. When a person has been convicted, the first thing he asks the solicitor is, "How much is it going to cost; how much is the appeal going to cost?" The right hon. and learned Gentleman may speak as long as he likes about applying in forma pauperis—it does not matter a bit.

In the light of all the circumstances that have been placed before the Committee in this connection, I say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to pay regard to this matter. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that the appeal judges are entitled, in their wisdom, to modify the expenses and that, if any suggestion emanating from these benches is to bear fruit, it will require legislation. I do not agree, but I hope the complaints which have been voiced to-night will receive attention.

10.46 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper)

The time at my disposal is so short that I must, as briefly as I can, answer the questions raised by hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) raised the case of the two postmen in Kilmarnock. I accept responsibility for that matter and therefore no question arises as to the propriety of raising it here. The incident took place in October, 1937, and about that time, following upon questions which were raised from certain quarters, the matter was examined by me. The position was that the authorities were approached by the parents of two post office officials in Kilmarnock who were missing and who, as a result of certain inquiries, were thought to have gone to Spain to engage in the Spanish War, on one side or the other—I do not know which. A complaint eventually reached the procuratorfiscal who, after examining the information in his possession, instructed the police to make further inquiries with a view to tracing where the men had gone, having in view the fact that under the Foreign Enlistment Act, it is an offence to engage actively in the hostilities which are taking place in Spain. The Committee will recall that about that time many references were made in Parliament to the Foreign Enlistment Act and various other statutory measures taken in pursuance of the non-intervention policy.

The inquiries which the police made, according to the report I have received, did not include the objectionable questions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I have a note here—I have not time to read it in full—of all the questions which were asked, but I may put it briefly by saying that none of the questions related to the political views either of the person questioned or of the missing men. The questions were all directed to ascertaining the whereabouts of the missing men and the possibility of their having committed an infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Reference was made to the alleged impropriety of the questioning taking place on Post Office premises. In the case of one man, the questioning did take place on the Post Office premises, with the consent of the superior Post Office official in charge of the premises.

The view which I put to the Committee with regard to the whole incident is this: The police were carrying out a general instruction. I cannot say what the exact, precise terms of the instruction were, because that is not now ascertainable but I cannot for a moment imagine that the procurator-fiscal would ever dream of dictating the questions he wanted to be asked. He gave a general instruction for inquiries to be made on certain lines. Those inquiries were made on the procurator-fiscal's instructions, following a report made to him of a case which required investigation from a double standpoint—first, to ascertain the whereabouts of the men, and, second, with a view to determining whether an offence had been committed against the Foreign Enlistment Act.

The second point I would make is that, while I fully recognise and respect the rights of citizens in all the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, every good citizen has the duty to assist the authorities in the detection and suppression of any offences against the law, and I hope every good citizen would render that assistance willingly and readily. Further, any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence can be taken before the Sheriff and questioned on oath, a plain indication by Statute that Parliament has in the past recognised the duty laid on the citizen to assist the authorities in matters of this kind. If, therefore, I am right, as my information justifies me in thinking I am, that none of the objectionable questions of the kind referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were asked and that all the questions asked were closely germane to a proper investigation being made by the authorities, I think the Committee will agree that the incident does not justify the criticisms that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

In their efforts to carry out their very difficult and often thankless duties the authorities, as I know well, are most anxious to carry them out in the manner most convenient to the persons concerned, but it would not be possible in the public interest to lay down any such general rule as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that persons should not be questioned or asked for information in their places of employment. Experience shows that, if a person does not wish to speak to the police or to give information, he will find fault with the police whether they ask for it at his home or at his work or wherever it may be. Having regard to the wide range of responsibilities which may arise in relation to the commission of crimes and offences, the police and the criminal authorities for whom I am answerable must retain a discretion, to be wisely exercised, to make inquiries where and when necessity may demand.

The right hon. Gentleman referred in the second place to the question of expenses in criminal appeals or other forms of process by which criminal proceedings are brought for review before the High Court of Justiciary. When these cases are brought before the court they have to exercise a power conferred upon them by this House by the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1908, to award such expenses as they may think fit. Accordingly I feel bound to say that all that has been said upon this topic has been, inevitably, criticism of the Supreme Court in the exercise of a judicial power conferred upon them by Statute. It would be improper for me either to support or to criticise the action of the court in any individual case, but I can assure the Committee that the court in every case are giving effect to their judicial views on the proper method of dealing with the case, and, that being so, and the discretion being left to the court, I feel that it is impossible for me to go further in the matter. As to the amount of expenses, the figure is given as a sufficient figure to cover what the court considers are the proper expenses of the appellants, and in some cases full expenses are given. In all cases the act is one of judicial discretion.

The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) asked me about the poor persons' representation and the report of the com- mittee on the subject which was issued some time ago. He will not expect me to enter into any extent into that highly controversial problem, but may I say two things? I think the Committee will recognise, as I do myself as a member of the profession, that the Scottish legal profession are well entitled to the respect and thanks of the community as a whole for the work which they have done literally for hundreds of years gratuitously, and indeed often at their own expense, in performing civil and criminal work for those who are not able to pay for it. The fact that no action has yet been taken on that committee's report must not be accepted by the Committee as any indication that it has been pigeon-holed or shelved. On the contrary, the topic is one on which I think the Committee will agree it is very desirable that any action which is taken should be taken with the full assent of the profession as a whole. It is not a matter in regard to which anyone would desire to impose conditions against the wishes of the great bulk of the profession. As a matter of fact I am at this moment in consultation with certain representatives of the legal profession in Scotland on the topic, and while I cannot indicate what the final result will be, I can assure the Committee that the matter has been, in the last few days, actively under my consideration.

The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) raised a number of points.

In the first place, I shall be happy to look into the question of the Linlithgow fiscal to which he referred, but in fairness to my own Department may I say that, from his narrative of the case, it is plain to me that the fiscal in question cannot be a fiscal covered by this Vote. It must be a reference to some minor fiscal. As regards debt collectors in Glasgow, I shall mention no names, but the question has been before my attention for some time, and I received a deputation only a few weeks ago with reference to it. Action has been taken in certain of these cases successfully, and I can only leave the matter on this footing, that the activities of certain of those firms which have been referred to have attracted the attention of the criminal authorities and will continue to do so as long as certain of the operations in which they have been engaged are continued. The hon. Member also referred to the rent court and to the appointment of police fiscals in Glasgow, but I fear that neither of those topics falls within my province. In particular, the appointment of police fiscals would be a matter for the local authorities and not in any way one for the consideration of the Lord Advocate's Department.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,613, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 181.

Division No. 315.] AYES. [11.0p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Gallacher, W. McGhee, H. G.
Ammon, C. G. Gardner, B. W. McGovern, J.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Garro Jones, G. M. MacLaren, A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Gibson, R. (Greenock) Maclean, N.
Banfield, J. W. Green, W. H. (Deptford) Maxton, J.
Barnes, A. J. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Milner, Major J.
Barr, J, Grenfell, D. R. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Batey, J. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Oliver, G. H.
Bellenger, F. J. Groves, T. E. Paling, W.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Parker, J.
Benson, G. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Parkinson, J. A.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Hardie, Agnes Pearson, A.
Buchanan, G. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Burke, W. A. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Pritt, D. N.
Cassells, T. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Quibell, D. J. K
Chater, D. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Riley, B.
Cluse, W. S. Hollins, A. Ritson, J.
Cocks, F. S. Jagger, J. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Cove, W. G. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Silkin, L.
Daggar, G. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Simpson, F. B.
Dalton, H. Kelly, W. T. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kirkwood, D. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Dobbie, W. Lathan, G. Sorensen, R. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Lawson, J. J. Stephen, C.
Ede, J. C. Leach, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Leonard, W. Stokes, R. R.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwallty) Leslie, J. R. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Fletcher, Lt,-Comdr. R. T. H. McEntee. V. La T. Thurtle, E.
Tinker, J. J. Watkins, F. C. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Tomlinson, G. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Viant, S. P. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Walkden, A. G. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Entwistle, Sir C. F. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Errington, E. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Fildes, Sir H. Munro, P.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Findlay, Sir E. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Fleming, E. L. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Apsley, Lord Foot, D. M. Patrick, C. M,
Aske, Sir R. W. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Petherick, M.
Assheton, R. Furness, S. N. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Fyfe, D. P. M. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Procter, Major H. A.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Gluckstein, L. H. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T, P. H. Goldie, N. B. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Gower, Sir R. V. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Bossom, A. C. Grant-Ferris, R. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Greene, W. P. C (Worcester) Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Boyce, H. Leslie Grimston, R. V. Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Broadbridge, Sir G. T. Guest, Mai. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Remer, J. R.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Gunston, Capt. D. W. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Hambro, A. V. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Bull, B. B. Hannah, I. C. Ropner, Colonel L.
Burghley, Lord Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Campbeil, Sir E. T. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Carver, Major W. H. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Cary, R. A. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Castiereagh, Viscount Hepworth, J. Salmon, Sir I.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Salt, E. W.
Channon, H. Holmes, J. S. Scott, Lord William
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Hopkinson, A. Seely, Sir H. M.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Selley, H. R.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Hume, Sir G. H. Shakespeare, G. H
Clarry, Sir Reginald Hutchinson, G. C. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Clydesdale, Marquess of Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Keeling, E. H. Spens, W. P.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Storey, S.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Kimball, L. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cox, H. B. Trevor Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Craven-Ellis, W. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Tufnell, Liaut.-Commander R. L.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Liddall, W. S. Wakefield, W. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Lindsay, K. M. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lipson, D. L. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Cross, R. H. Llewellin, Colonel J. J. ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Davidson, Viscountess Lloyd, G. W. Warrender, Sir V.
De Chair, S. S. Loftus, P. C. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Dower, Major A. V. G. Lyons, A. M. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Dugdale, Captain T. L. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Duggan, H. J. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Duncan, J. A. L. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Dunglass, Lord McKie, J. H. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Eastwood, J. F. Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Wise, A. R.
Eckersley, P. T. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Markham, S. F. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Marsden, Commander A.
Elliston, Capt. G. S. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Emery, J. F. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Kerr.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.