LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND (Hansard, 18 February 1947)

§ Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)
I should like to ask a question on Subhead concerning an additional £500 which, according to the details, is being asked for shorthand writers' bills on behalf of poor litigants in civil cases. I want to ask whether this increase is due to increased fees to shorthand writers, or whether a larger number of poor litigants are receiving aid. Another point on which I should like some information is that this seems to be a new departure. The payment of shorthand writers' fees seems to be something new, and something which, personally, I am in favour of seeing.

§ Mr. Spence (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central)
There is one small item, not given in the appendix, and that is regarding Subhead J, where I see there is a saving in salaries—

The Chairman
The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss savings. This is a question of expenditure.

§ Mr. Spence
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I want to ask for information on Subhead J where anticipated savings—

The Chairman
The hon. Member is not entitled to raise any question as to savings set out in the Estimate.

§ Mr. Spence
I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, and I will refer to another matter, and that concerns Subhead N. Why is there an additional £1,700 for travelling and incidental expenses over an original estimate of £3,000? This is an increase of more than fifty per cent., and I think that we ought to get nearer the mark than that when the first estimate is made. Can the Financial Secretary explain that?

Mr. McKie
I want to ask a question on Subhead K—incidental expenses, removal expenses of sheriffs substitute and removal expenses and lodging allowances of procurators fiscal and sheriff clerks. I see that an additional sum of £3,400 has been asked in addition to the £3,800 provided for in the first Estimate. I do not raise this question in any spirit of dissatisfaction—quite the opposite. I am only too glad that sheriffs substitute and people connected with the administration of the law in Scotland should be adequately remunerated. But I would like to ask for a few details as this seems to be a large sum. I feel that we are entitled to a few details regarding just how this much larger sum was not foreseen originally. I may say in passing that sheriffs substitute in Scotland have for a long time felt that, so far as salary was concerned, they were very inadequately remunerated, indeed; so I am very glad to think that this sum is being allowed them. But I should be glad to have from the right hon. Gentleman, or from the Lord Advocate, some explanation.

§ Sir W. Darling
The law charges under the Crown in Scotland are always a matter of great interest to us, and we have on this very rare occasion the presence of the Lord Advocate. We give him, I think, too few opportunities to give the House his opinions. How is it that the grants for expenditure for his Department have risen to this extent? I have great admiration for the Lord Advocate, but I do not think he is entitled to be any more expensive than his predecessors, despite his remarkable qualities. I think he has such excellent qualities, but I think this time he 1132 should shed his natural modesty, and explain to the Committee how it is that his Department is worth £1,640 more than it was under any of his distinguished predecessors.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Are we to understand that there is to be no answer?

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
If the Committee wish me to do so, I will reply; but on the other hand, I do not desire to waste the time of the Committee.

§ Sir W. Darling
On a point of Order, Major Milner. Is it in Order for the Financial Secretary to suggest that the action of hon. Members on this side of the Committee in interrogating him regarding public expenditure, is a waste of public time?

Mr. McKie
Further to that point of Order. Is it not unusual for a Minister of the Crown, or a junior Minister, to suggest that points which hon. Members have made regarding the expenditure of public money—and we are custodians of the public purse—are not worthy of an answer?

The Chairman
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman intended his words to be taken in that way. I think he meant his reference to waste of time to mean the time that he might be compelled to occupy himself.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
That interpretation is quite correct. I, too, have sat on that side of the Committee, and have asked questions not hoping, and certainly not getting, any reply from Ministers of Departments. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) asked me about Subhead I, which deals with travelling and incidental expenses of the Court of Session. It is quite right that this is the first time that this item has appeared in a vote of this kind, but it is a new charge. It is, as he rightly surmised, and as, indeed, is mentioned in the Estimate itself, payment from public funds of the cost of attendance fees of shorthand writers, and of the cost of transscriptions, in appeals by poor persons. Therefore, I think hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee will agree that an expenditure of that kind—£500 in all, not very much—has been well worth while, and is thoroughly to be approved.
1133 11.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) asked me to give some particulars about Subhead K, an amount of £3,400, incidental expenses of sheriff courts. This £3,400 includes postage and incidental expenses of sheriff clerks, and removal expenses of sheriffs-substitute and of court officials. Apparently—I do not really know the reason; doubtless hon. Members for Scottish constituencies will know —there have been a good many vacancies during the past year, more than was expected, which has meant a rise in this particular Estimate, and has necessitated our coming to the Committee for a supplementary sum. There have been transfers of officers from one post to another on promotion, and part of the expenses has been due to the great shortage of houses. That has meant expenditure on removals, lodging allowances and so on.
The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) asked me if I would give a little further information on Subhead N, which deals with pension appeals tribunals, and travelling and incidental expenses. The main increase here comes from our allowing expenses to men who have lodged applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Sessions against decisions of the pensions appeal tribunal. There was a decision given in the Court of Sessions which made it appear to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions that quite a number of cases, whose hearing was then pending, would follow the decision given in the case which had, by then, been decided in the Court of Sessions. He, therefore—in my view quite rightly—withdrew all opposition, and the men concerned were allowed their legal expenses up to the date of the withdrawal. That, of course, has meant an increase in this Supplementary Estimate. An increase of subsistence allowances, and other expenses of appellants, was also agreed to during the year, and has meant some in crease in this Vote.
I think I have answered most of the points put to me. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh was curious to know how the increase in the Lord Advocate's Department had been made up.

§ Sir W. Darling
It was anxiety, not curiosity.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
The Solicitor-General, who previously was not debarred from 1134 conducting private practice, has now become a full time Officer of the Crown. That, of course, has necessitated making his salary commensurate with the office he held, and it was—

§ Sir W. Darling
We do not see him here.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
It he enters Parliament, of course, a different set of circumstances will undoubtedly arise. He is actually a full time Officer of the Crown in Scotland. In consequence, his salary was increased from £2,000 to £3,000 from 1st April last year, and that £1,000 is included in the Supplementary Estimate. In addition, the salaries of the four Advocates Depute have been fixed at something higher than they were before. I think that for many years they were £700, but owing to the general rise in the cost of living, and the extra work and responsibility involved, they have been increased to £850, an increase of £150 in each case. Then, too, the First Assistant Legal Secretary has had, like so many others in various branches—of commerce, law and the Civil Service—received some increase in salary. These, and certain other charges, make up the amount which is set forth in the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Sir W. Darling
Rather more than the amount.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
Yes, that is true, but there is a set-off of £358 against this; the net figure has been put in. The £358 has been saved by deduction of military pay of officers serving with the Forces.

§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan
I am not quite clear on this question of the addition to the salary of the Solicitor-General. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the increase of £1,000 a year is to date as from 1st April last year. That is 11 months ago. Can he tell the Committee when it was decided that this increase would be made, and how it is that it months ago it was not possible to put it in the original estimate?

The Chairman
If the hon. and gallant Member will permit me to say so, the right hon. Gentleman attempted to answer that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has now, I think, repeated a question which was asked in his first speech.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I think it would only be fair to compliment the Financial 1135 Secretary on the dexterity with which he has threaded his way among the intricacies of the Scottish legal system. That is all the more a remarkable feat as he had beside him an expert paid a large sum for giving counsel on such points. However, we shall seek some other opportunity of following this matter up in greater detail. But, I cannot compliment the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of Scottish hon. Members, on his acquaintance with our Scottish language. He referred to the "Court of Sessions," an unusual figure in our language, because the Court of Session is usually referred to in the singular. I was waiting for the Lord Advocate to correct him, but he was so surprised by the efficiency of his recruit that he did not wish to call attention to an occasional slip. As I say, we merely compliment the right hon. Gentleman and will take a further opportunity of following the matter up.