HC Deb 17 February 1944 vol 397 cc482-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Neil Maclean (Glasgow, Govan)

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the rather peculiar situation which has arisen in connection with this Clause. During the Second Reading Debate I made certain comments upon the introduction of the Measure and the delay that had taken place following the procedure adopted in the English Bill, and I said that because of the lackadaisical manner in which the Scottish Law Officers of the Crown had endeavoured to follow in the footsteps of the English Law Officers considerable expense had been caused to the firm of Tritonia Limited, which is in my constituency. That expense was between £3,000 and £4,000. As Members will see, I have on the Order Paper an Amendment to Clause 4 in which I seek to make this Bill retrospective. My reason for speaking on this Clause is that it endeavours to put right in Scotland a situation which caused this firm to be taken into court and to pay so much money.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member has an Amendment on the Order Paper which refers to Clause 4. This is Clause 2 and I was not quite sure whether he was not going through the arguments on his Amendment now.

Mr. Maclean

I am not endeavouring to go through the arguments on my Amendment, Mr. Williams. I am speaking on this Clause because it applies to this firm and because the Scottish Law Officers did not follow the English Law Officers in putting this particular safeguard into operation at the same time as it was put into operation by the English Bill. It is because of the delay that I am speaking on Clause 2. Clause 4 is the only Clause by means of which the Bill can be made retrospective. The Lord Advocate, in his speech on the Second Reading, said that the situation into which this firm was thrown could not have been foreseen. Well, it is peculiar that the circumstances actually were foreseen by the Law Officers in England. Lord Simon, in introducing the Bill in another place, definitely stated that the inclusion of the Clause was due to the fact that the Scottish law had not been brought up to date and did not include safeguards that were in the English Act, and that affected this firm, which he specifically mentioned. We are trying to make the legal situation in Scotland the same as that in England.

But for the tardiness of the Law Officers the situation would never have arisen. Three amending Acts have been passed in England and it is now necessary, because of this case, to come forward with an amending Act for Scotland, which is like locking the stable door and finding not only that the interior of the stable has gone but that the door has gone also. The Lord Advocate ought to be perfectly fair to those who have been affected. They were taken into court by the Equity and Law Assurance Company because they had defaulted on one payment, owing to the fact that they had been asked to undertake certain contracts for the Government which necessitated getting new machinery. Because they were in default the insurance company came down like a horde of the worst type of moneylenders and tried to sell the machinery and the ground on which the factory was built. It is asking rather too much for a small firm to have to suffer such a monetary loss as it has suffered, and the Law Officers ought either to accept my Amendment later on or pass an indemnity Bill which will enable the company to recoup itself in some degree for the slackness, to say nothing more harsh, on the part of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. The Lord Advocate admitted on the Second Reading that nothing that Clause 3 is going to effect has ever happened in Scotland, so he has evidently learned his lesson and is taking foresight. He said it was not foreseeing what would happen that had necessitated Clause 2 being brought into the Bill. He is taking foresight that something that has not happened is not likely to happen or, if it does, will be protected by the third Clause. It is rather sad for this Tritonia firm that he did not take foresight earlier and save them a large sum of money which they badly need to-day. A grave hardship has been done to this firm and they should be recouped for the money they have lost and the hardship imposed upon them by this insurance company, who have treated them in a manner worse than Shylock was accused of treating the particular individual in the play. Because of that, something ought to be done, either by an ex-gratia payment, or an indemnity Bill, or by the acceptance of my Amendment to make the Bill retrospective.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)

Let me explain the matter as precisely as I can. For a long time it has been the custom to have separate Bills for Scotland and England. That custom necessarily means that it is the duty of those Ministers who act in Scottish affairs to consider, when an English Bill is promoted, whether to follow immediately and in terms, whether to do something different, or whether to wait. There would be no sense in having this system of separate Bills for the two countries if on every occasion when an English Bill is produced which is going to benefit somebody the Scottish authorities should necessarily follow suit there and then. The system would not make sense under those terms. The system means that we in Scotland have to consider our own problems and that we are not to follow necessarily in the wake of England on every occasion.

Mr. Maclean

I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In normal conditions such a method is acceptable and justifiable, but this is a war emergency law. During the period of the war the emergency should have been taken into consideration and there should have been no waiting on the part of the Law Officers in giving the same safeguards to firms doing war work in Scotland as were given to war factories in England.

The Lord Advocate

If it had been contemplated when the original Acts were passed in 1939 that an exactly similar course should be followed throughout the war in both countries, there was no sense in having two Acts in 1939 instead of one. If we have this system, which applies both to war Acts and to peace Acts, under which Scottish legislation to a large extent pursues its own course, then the Scottish Ministers must in every case consider, when their English colleagues propose a Bill, whether it is an appropriate Bill for Scotland now or at all, or whether they should do something different, or whether they should wait. The hon. Member suggests that Amendments to Bills always benefit everybody and never hurt anybody. That is plainly not so in this connection. Let me give an example. The first Clause of this Bill, which is the most important Clause and a Clause of most general application, imposes a considerable burden—

The Deputy-Chairman

We really cannot go back to Clause I now. We have passed it.

The Lord Advocate

I am trying to point out that you cannot consider Clauses in isolation when considering whether to introduce a Bill. You must consider the thing as a whole.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is my point. We are not considering the introduction of the Bill. We are discussing Clauses in isolation.

The Lord Advocate

I am sorry if I offended and I must pass on. I did consider the whole question of including the corresponding Clause to this Clause in England—indeed I had to consider this matter on more than one occasion because there were three Amendments to the original English Act. I came to the conclusion that I had to weigh up the pros and cons, the likelihood of somebody being hurt if no action was taken and the certainty that a certain number of people would be troubled if action was taken. I tried to strike a balance. I think it was right to strike the balance in favour of delay, and not of immediate action, because immediate action would have troubled a large number of people. I may have been wrong in that—the hon. Member may think I was wrong—but I think I was right.

Mr. Maclean

According to Lord Simon the Minister was wrong.

The Lord Advocate

We cannot discuss what took place in another place. I cannot do more than inform the Committee what was done. I did consider and weigh all the pros. and cons. I weighed up considerations for and against according to the best of my ability and I came to the conclusion that delay was the proper course. Therefore the Bill was not introduced until it was deemed proper to do so. If I was wrong in reaching that decision I am sorry, but it cannot be helped. I have yet to be convinced that I was wrong. I do not want to go into details, but in fact in the action to which my hon. Friend referred there were three parties only one of whom was affected by this point. Although I agree that this point would have been open to one party, it by no means follows that appeal to this particular provision would have brought success to that party. I cannot say more than that I did in fact consider and try to weigh up what was right and the hon. Member has not convinced me that I was wrong.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.