First Schedule.—(OFFICES DISQUALIFYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.)

HC Deb 06 March 1957 vol 566 cc395-457

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, to leave out "of Assize" and to insert: exercising jurisdiction under section seventy of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or section one of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956". This is rather an important Amendment, and I hope that there will be no last minute decision to resist it. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the effect of the Bill in its present form will be to disqualify the Lord Privy Seal, my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice).

I should have thought it obvious that when the Select Committee was referring to "Commissioner of Assize," the reference was to those who sit on assizes sometimes in addition to the High Court judge and sometimes when the High Court judge cannot be present. Unfortunately, the expression, "Commissioner of Assize" has a wider meaning than that. The actual commission, which is read at the beginning of any assize, is a formidable document. In the commission, as commissioners of assize, are named, among others, the Lord Privy Seal and all the "silks" on the circuit; and, there- fore, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, who is such an ornament of the Midland Circuit, would be disqualified from being a Member of this House unless this Amendment is agreed to.

Of course, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) would be in a like position. So I hope that we shall gain support from both sides of the Committee for this Amendment, the effect of which is to limit the disqualification of commissioners of assize to those who, in fact, act as commissioners.

Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)

After the right hon. and learned Gentleman's exposition of this most important Amendment, I feel that I should declare an interest which I did not know about before, and accordingly I declare it. In view of the arguments which he has adduced, I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will support the Amendment.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

My position has already been explained by the Attorney-General, but may I assure the Committee that I did my best to persuade my colleagues to omit the commissioners of assize for the very reason advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 10, line 21, to leave out from "Wales" to the end of line 25, and to insert: ,Temporary Judge of such a Court or Deputy Judge of such a Court appointed by the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or acting with the approval of the Lord Chancellor under paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section eleven of the County Courts Act, 1934". This Amendment carries out more accurately the intention behind the pro- vision put into the Bill by the Select Committee. The Committee will see that there is a reference to a judge of a county court in England or Wales or his deputy being disqualified, subject to certain conditions—namely, if they were appointed under certain subsections, or if they acted for more than fourteen days at any time. What I feel sure that the Select Committee had in mind was not to disqualify a member of the Bar who occasionally acts, owing to the sickness of a county court judge, or for some reason of that kind, but—and I agree with the Select Committee—to disqualify anyone who sits regularly as a deputy county court judge or indeed, as a county court judge.

The effect of the Amendment is to secure the disqualification of anyone appointed by the Lord Chancellor or acting, although appointed by the county court judge, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. We leave it open for a county court judge himself to secure someone to sit in his stead, if that person be qualified to do so, on a particular day, because of illness or some other reason. But we remove any possibility of patronage by the Lord Chancellor in this connection, because if a person is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, or with his approval, that would effect the disqualification.

I hope that I have made the matter clear. It is complicated, but I do not think the Committee would wish me to spend more time on it. I think that the Amendment carries out the intention of the Select Committee.

Mr. C. Davies

May I ask whether it is clear that if a Member of this House has a case in a county court, and is asked to deputise for the judge, he runs no risk of disqualification? It may be that, unfortunately, the judge is taken suddenly ill. He may request that the hon. Member take his place and finish the case which is being heard. If the hon. Member consents to do so, is it clear that he runs no risk of being disqualified?

The Attorney-General

I had hoped that I made clear that the Amendment disqualifies temporary judges and all the deputy county court judges appointed by the Lord Chancellor or by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, It also disqualifies deputies appointed by a county court judge, but only insofar as they act with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, which approval they would get only if they had acted for more than fourteen days. So in the case referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) there would be no disqualification.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 28, leave out from "Judge" to end of line 29 and insert: or Temporary County Court Judge in Northern Ireland within the meaning of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, or the deputy of such a Judge."—[Mr. Simon.]

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, at the end to insert: Chairman or paid Deputy Chairman of a court of quarter sessions for the county in Lancashire. The Bill already imposes a general disqualification on the Recorder of London, on the Common Serjeant, on the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, and on the Chairman or paid Deputy-Chairman of London Quarter Sessions. On the other hand, there are local disqualifications for the recorders of boroughs and the chairmen or deputy-chairmen of quarter sessions.

The Chairman and paid Deputy-Chairman of Lancashire Quarter Sessions do not fall precisely within either of those groups. The Chairman is a paid judge, and therefore, on the principle which animates the Bill, should, plainly, be subject to a general disqualification. He holds a whole-time judicial office, and he is not permitted to practise. There is not at present a paid deputy-chairman; the local county court judge acts as deputy-chairman, but it is possible that in the future one will be appointed. It seems right that he, too, should be subject to disqualification.

Mr. Ede

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman help me on this point? Let us assume that we can get back to the days when lawyers of distinction, sometimes retired from practice, were willing to act as chairmen of quarter sessions without payment. Being justices for the county they were willing to accept the position and to receive no money. It is only in recent years, in Middlesex, that the difficulty of finding ordinary justices sufficiently qualified in the law to act as chairmen has driven the county to have a paid chairman. The Amendment does not say "paid chairman". As I read it, it would disqualify a lawyer of distinction who was acting voluntarily as chairman of quarter sessions. In view of the fact that the word "paid" is in front of the word "deputy-chairman", ought not that word to be also in front of "chairman" rather than as it stands?

Mr. Simon

The reason for the chairman being disqualified is not that he is paid. He has a whole-time appointment and is not permitted to practise. Therefore, he is rightly subject to a general disqualification, on the ground not that he is paid, but that he holds a whole-time judicial office. He is in a position analogous with that of the Recorder of London and the other recorders I have mentioned.

Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

I have sympathy with the view presented by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I recall when the late Lord Roche, who died only a few weeks ago, felt that he was too old to continue, and——

The Attorney-General

The Amendment has nothing to do with any quarter sessions outside Lancashire.

Sir I. Fraser

May I go on, Sir Gordon, until you, rather than the Attorney-General, should find me out?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

I am afraid that the hon. Member is out of order.

Sir I. Fraser

Might I be allowed to present at least one argument before you assume that, Sir Gordon? It was in the County of Oxford, it is true, but there is a parallel.

The Deputy-Chairman

This Amendment is confined to Lancashire.

Sir I. Fraser

If there were such a distinguished lawyer as we have in mind who was willing to do this job unpaid, why should not he do it, as Lord Roche did a similar job in the County of Oxford? We are deliberately debarring ourselves of a very useful service.

Amendment agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert: Umpire or Deputy Umpire appointed for the purposes of section forty-three of the National Service Act, 1948. The Amendment raises a point which is common to a series of subsequent Amendments and, Sir Gordon, with your permission, I will indicate what it is when moving this Amendment. I will deal first with the details of this Amendment.

Umpires or deputy umpires were appointed for the purposes of the National Service Act, 1948, to hear appeals from the military hardship committees and from reinstatement committees. Upon examination, the Bill appeared to be a little defective, because as it now stands all the members of the military service hardship committees are disqualified while all the members of the reinstatement committees are exempt.

The Committee may think it anomalous that this appellate tribunal should not be disqualified in view of the fact that it hears appeals from a committee which is disqualified. We feel that we should try to get a greater measure of uniformity throughout the Bill on this point than was apparent when it came back from the Select Committee.

We reached the conclusion, which we now commend to the Committee, that the right principle to follow with regard to these tribunals and various kinds of committees appointed under the National Assistance, National Insurance and National Service Acts is to disqualify the chairman, who is usually a whole-time official and usually paid, to disqualify the deputy-chairman—or the "reserve-chairman", as he is sometimes called—but not to disqualify the members. The members probably sit intermittently and are probably drawn from a panel. They fall into a very different category from the chairman and deputy-chairman.

The Bill is also a little misleading as it stands, in the way it deals with the chairmen of the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries local tribunals. These chairmen are subject under the Bill to a local disqualification. In fact, though they normally preside over particular local tribunals, they are appointed for all tribunals in the country, so the local disqualification imposed in Part IV of the Schedule would, in practice, amount to total disqualification. There would have to be an Amendment to deal with that.

The Bill rings the changes on almost every method of dealing with the various committees and tribunals. Let me give examples. Under the Bill, the chairmen and the members of the military service hardship committees are subject to total disqualification. The chairmen of the National Assistance appeal tribunals are disqualified, but their members are exempt. The chairmen, members and assessors of the National Insurance tribunals are subject only to local disqualification, and so on.

We have considered these matters to try to get a measure of uniformity which ought to facilitate the operation of the Bill. It seems to us that the right way is for the Bill to deal with these bodies by providing for the general disqualification of the chairman and, where they exist, of the deputy or reserve chairman, but to exempt the members, assessors and local referees. Generally speaking, the chairman has a professional qualification and is paid for his work.

The members, on the other hand, sit intermittently and usually exercise only a local jurisdiction. They derive from the carrying on of their duties little or no profit, even if we interpret that word in the somewhat artificial sense to which those who have had to deal with this subject have become accustomed.

This is the first of a whole series of Amendments which accord with that policy. If the Committee would accept the conclusion that this is the right way to deal with this problem it might save time when moving Amendments which are consistent with this one if I merely indicate that they are consistent with the principle I now put before the Committee.

Sir F. Soskice

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that in his approach to a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper he has sought to achieve some uniformity whereas, I entirely agree with him, before there was considerable confusion. I should have thought that, broadly, he has drawn the line in about the right place. It does not seem reasonable that members of a number of these bodies, who, through public motives, contribute merely part-time service in return for very little if any remuneration and often at considerable expense to themselves, should be disqualified. On the other hand, the chairmen of the various tribunals and other bodies to which the Amendments relate do fall within the scope of those regularly employed in Government service who ought to be disqualified.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked where we on this side of the Committee would seek to draw the line. I can only speak for myself, but I think it would be reasonable to differentiate between the part-time member who occasionally sits and does so out of a motive to help in a public service with very little remuneration to himself on the one hand, and the person who is fully and wholly employed as a chairman or president of a tribunal on the other. I should think that the Bill with this Amendment would be rightly framed and that the principle on which the Amendment is based, broadly speaking, would be applicable to other similar cases which are to be dealt with by later Amendments.

Sir Patrick Spens (Kensington, South)

I was very glad to hear what the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said, but I thought the speech of the Attorney-General—I shall not say reflected on the work of the Select Committee—indicated that we had been thoroughly illogical in a great number of recommendations we made. We were all intent, so far as possible, on reducing the disqualifications to the lowest possible number. That is what we wanted. Although, tonight, I shall be moving one or two Amendments to provide for additional disqualifications, I shall do so only because they were not brought to our attention.

On the question of whether members of these tribunals as well as the chairmen and deputy or reserve chairmen should be disqualified, we did not recommend that members of such tribunals should be disqualified except on the basis of the evidence of the duties they have to perform. I am delighted to accept as a general principle that chairmen and reserve chairmen only should be disqualified, and I felt at the time that very few of the duties justify total exclusion of members of a number of these tribunals. If the Committee thinks that we ought to limit disqualification to chairmen and deputy chairmen I would very much rejoice in such a decision on principle.

Turning to the actual Amendment on which this discussion is going forward, it adds the disqualification of the Umpire or Deputy Umpire appointed for the purposes of section forty three of the National Service Act, 1948. Of course, if the existence of such an office had been brought to our attention, having disqualified the whole or part of the tribunals from whom appeals lie, I have not the slightest doubt that we would have thought that the umpires ought also to be disqualified, so I support the Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice

I used the expression about considerable confusion, but I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) did not misunderstand me as referring to the work of the Select Committee. What I meant was confusion in the law which has existed for decades and which law it is now sought to change.

Mr. C. Davies

I quite agree with the Attorney-General that it is desirable to get uniformity. Here we have the matter left in a rather chaotic position in which part-time members are excluded and the full-time umpire is not excluded. I can understand the desire of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the Bill more logical by adding that the umpire and his deputy shall be excluded, but I wish to get uniformity in a much better way.

Why is it that all the time the object which seems to be in the minds of the Government and, unfortunately, of so many hon. Members on this side of the Committee, is to narrow the qualification of membership of this House? That is what all the time we are being asked to do. Now we are asked to make an umpire and his deputy incapable of sitting in this House. I should have thought that it was now becoming obvious to everyone here that what is desired is to make the House of Commons open to anyone in the country in any walk of life. The wider the qualification, the better it would be, not only for the country, but certainly for debates in this House.

That has been my attitude throughout. Instead of extending the Schedules, we should make them as short as we can and, if possible, do away with them altogether. Here, in speech after speech, we make someone or other incapable of sitting in this House because he is doing excellent work in some other capacity. That work may be quite compatible with membership of this House, and if he were to be a Member he would be enabled, because of experience gained in these matters, to assist us in our debates.

I could have intervened when we were discussing the proposed new Clauses. The same principle runs in regard to them all—to make something or other which some hon. Member does a reason for disqualifying him from sitting in this House. I would much have preferred membership of this House to remain dominant and, if anything had to go, that should be the job or the position held by the hon. Member concerned. At this time, when democracy is making the fight of its life, that is more essential than ever.

At a time when we are taking much more interest in individual life in this country, and when all kinds of positions have to be undertaken in regard to administration—when we are seeking men to do those jobs and try to choose the best men for them—we are asked to say. "You shall not sit in the House of Commons because you are occupying that post". I object to the way in which this matter has been approached. I would very much prefer that, instead of adding disqualifications, we excluded from disqualification not only members of tribunals but also the umpire and deputy and got uniformity in that way.

The Attorney-General

It is true that this Amendment consists of an addition, but it is an addition of persons fulfilling judicial functions of an appellate character. I feel confident that the Committee, if it had to consider the case, would come to the conclusion that the tenure of these offices because of its character is incompatible with membership of this House.

I think I am right in saying that the other Amendments fall into much the same category as this Amendment. They are all restricting the area of disqualification and I should hope for the support of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for them. In the Bill as it stands members of those Committees are disqualified, and by adopting this procedure we shall remove the disqualification from them. To that extent, at least, I hope that the Amendment will receive the support of the right hon. and learned Member.

Mr. C. Davies

The Attorney-General should realise that the principle for which I contend very nearly succeeded. We asked for and obtained a Bill in what is called the reverse order. It was a very much better work. For that principle I still contend, and I ask that these Schedules should be cut down instead of additions being made to them.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I would point out that the position was even better than that outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). This afternoon there have been some sarcastic references to the size of minorities. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and myself, who supported the views which he has put forward, were defeated by only one vote in the Select Committee when this matter was under consideration. The odds were very good. They were three to two, which, I understand, is regarded as far better than eleven to one against.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the vote was taken just after half-past three, when a very interesting scene was proceeding on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Ede

It all depends whether hon. Members want to take part in the frivolities of the House and in exciting scenes, or in the hard work of Committees. That was what happened. It is true that some people regarded the Committee as of so little importance that they stayed away. Those who attended are entitled to such small credit as they earned for running the official gang to one vote on the Committee.

I agree with what was said on this matter by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). We had a number of these very highly complicated matters brought in front of us and we tried to proceed according to a general principle. We knew at the time that there might well be similar offices which had not been brought to our attention and we asked that those who were responsible for helping the Government in framing the Bill should bring to their notice any similar cases which had not been brought in front of us. That is why I support the Amendment, in the way in which it has been moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wigg

I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert: Chairman or deputy chairman, appointed under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1938, of a court of quarter sessions.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think that the Committee will find it convenient to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert: Recorder of a municipal borough having a separate court of quarter sessions. It might also be convenient to discuss the two Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), in page 17, to leave out lines 41 to 44; and in page 18, to leave out lines 1 to 7; and the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley, in page 17, line 41. to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 7, in page 18.

Mr. Wigg

May I, first, tell the Attorney-General that I do not believe that he appoints recorders and have never believed that he has any special responsibility for their appointment. I put a Question to him on 20th July and he very kindly answered it, and from that time onwards he has time and time again said that he believes that I think he appoints recorders. I think nothing of the kind. There are several black marks which I have against his name, but that is not one of them.

On this Amendment, as on previous Amendments, I have already made my case to the Committee, and I will not weary it by speaking at great length. On the other hand, I do not retract a single word from what I have said previously.

I can sum up my arguments in this way. When I look at those who hold the office of recorder—past and present recorders—I can only apply the standards which have served me during my Army career. I know nothing of the law, but when I look at some of the hon. and learned Members—past and present, let me stress—who have held that office and, in holding it, have had the power to remove men's liberties, I can only ask myself what kind of rank would I see them holding if they were wearing uniform.

Mr. Ede

Field marshals.

Mr. Wigg

They may be very good lawyers and they may have enormous capacities for sitting in judgment upon their fellow men, but as far as I am concerned they have managed to disguise it. I have told the House previously—and I have perhaps caused a little offence by so doing—that there are those who hold the office of recorder at present and have held the officer of recorder in the past—because I do not want to place it all on one individual—whom I would not appoint as unpaid lance corporals in an unarmed company of the Pioneer Corps. That is the only assessment which I can make.

It therefore seems to me that they have become eligible for such an appointment not because of their judicial or their professional qualities, but because they are Members of the House of Commons, and I think that that is completely wrong. I have heard no justification at all for giving men judicial preferment because of their political position, nor can I read any justification. This is a piece of jobbery which hangs over from the past. I believe that to a certain extent, although there are doubtless honourable and learned exceptions, it is a piece of jobbery which ought to be got rid of—and this is a good time to get rid of it.

The Attorney-General has told us that he has no responsibility for it and I can, therefore, reasonably ask him on this occasion, as I have asked him on previous occasions, for a free vote of the Committee. This is a House of Commons matter. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or the representative of the Home Office, who will probably reply, has some considerable argument to justify the retention of this anachronistic nonsense. If so, I for one will be delighted to hear it, for I am open to conviction——

Mr. Ede

If my hon. Friend got in front of one of these recorders he would be convicted.

Mr. Wigg

I have not the least doubt about that. That is what worries me. What worries me is the thought that one day I may appear with my hat off in front of these gentlemen and that the consequences would be truly appalling to me; and because I should not like it myself, I do not want it for other people.

I do not believe that any hon. Member can possibly justify the appointment of recorders on the basis of purely political qualifications. It is quite wrong. Even if the sentences they passed were only a matter of days, that would be bad enough, but the sentences which a recorder can impose run into years. This is a truly monstrous situation, and I very much hope that, although he is not responsible for it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will join with me in sweeping it away for good and all.

Mr. C. Davies

May I say at once that there is only one phrase which was used by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) with which I agree—"This is a House of Commons matter." What I have been trying to urge upon the Committee throughout is that we are dealing not only with the membership of the present House of Commons but with the membership for many years to come and the question who shall be allowed to come here and who shall be disqualified from coming here.

I may tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not know of any recorder who has been appointed for political reasons. If I may remind the Committee, in the old days—as far back, I think, to some time during the First World War—a man appointed as recorder was disqualified from membership of the House if he was at that time a Member, but he was at once allowed to present himself for reelection. That usually gave rise to a by-election, so that it was a very expensive post for a Member to get, and very rarely was it sought by any Member because he knew of the great expense involved in getting what was, after all, largely a post of honour—because the fees for sitting are really trumpery.

I do not know of anyone seeking this office merely for political reasons Usually what happens is that the leaders of the circuit are chosen for the office, and there is competition among them for it.

Mr. Wigg

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking with authority, and can assure me that all the recorders at present in the House of Commons were appointed on a seniority basis as leaders of their circuit——

Mr. Davies

indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigg

—or that the overwhelming majority of them were leaders of their circuit, I should be considerably assured in one direction. Will he be good enough to tell me whether he is sure of his facts?

Mr. Davies

All I can say is that the recordership of any particular town goes to a member of the circuit in which that town is situated. Usually, it is a leader of that circuit who is chosen, and usually he is chosen, not because of his seniority but because, in the estimation of the appointer, he is the most suitable person.

As I understand, we are taking with this Amendment that dealing with chairmen of quarter sessions. I have already told the Committee that I have had the honour of being chairman of the quarter sessions for the County of Montgomery for twenty-two years. I was not a member of that circuit, but I was Montgomeryshire born and bred. I was appointed, as one was in those days, by my fellow magistrates on the bench. It was not until the Act of 1938 that the appointment had to be confirmed by the Lord Chancellor.

I was a member of the Royal Commission which sat under Earl Peel, in 1934, inquiring into the administration of justice. We strongly recommended that the chairman of quarter sessions should always be a qualified member of the bar. That, undoubtedly, was in the minds of my fellow magistrates when, on the death of my predecessor, they chose me. I may say that, like so many of my fellow chairmen of quarter sessions, I have no salary. The expenses, such as they are, I have to meet out of my own pocket; and I think that that goes for most chairmen of quarter sessions. That is my position.

6.15 p.m.

I can understand the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley. It is more logical than the Bill is as it is now. He says, "If you are a recorder, or if you are a chairman of quarter sessions, whether paid or not—it does not matter—you should be excluded from sitting in this House." Although, of course, I fundamentally disagree with that, I can understand its logic because, as I have said about other matters, there should be no exclusion.

The only exclusion should be when the office is one which is incompatible in itself with service here. If it is impossible to do the job properly and, at the same time, carry out one's duties here, it is the job that should go and not membership of this House. We are elected, and surely the right thing to do is to accept the honour which the electors have done us, remain Members of the House and reject the posts which are incompatible with that membership.

Let us look at what now happens under the Bill as at present drawn. The suggestion is that I can serve as the Member for Montgomery, and as a chairman of quarter sessions so long as I am not chairman of the quarter sessions for my own County of Montgomery. I may be chairman of quarter sessions in Merioneth, which is adjacent to Montgomeryshire, or in Radnor, or in Shropshire, but I do not want to be chairmen of quarter sessions in any of those places. It is a great honour to be chairman of the quarter sessions of my own county where my own people live, yet it is suggested that I am unqualified for membership of this House and to represent the very place where I have been elected, merely because my colleagues on the magisterial bench think that I am the suitable person to be their chairman—and, as I say, I have had their confidence for all these years now.

If the Bill passes, whether or not the Amendment is accepted, I shall at once have to notify my colleagues on the bench that I have to resign that position, as, otherwise, I come under the penalties of the Bill. Let me give this example. If my predecessor had continued, and I had been asked by the magistrates of Merioneth—and assuming that my home was there—to be chairman of the Merioneth Quarter Sessions, I could continue to be the chairman in Merioneth and still be the Member for Montgomery; but it is suggested that, in some way or other, because the two posts synchronise, they are incompatible. It is a form of logic that I do not understand. Why should I be disqualified from being a Member of this House?

Let me take another example. It has been suggested that anyone occupying this office of profit under the Crown is, in some way, influenced in his position by what he does, or may use his position as a Member of this House in order that he may, in some way or other, make a stronger appeal for the suffrages of the electors. Would it be suggested for a moment that if I, sitting in quarter sessions, sentenced a man found guilty by the jury, I would thereby be more likely to attract the votes of his family afterwards? I think that the effect would be the reverse.

I am in the proud position of being able to say that never in all the time that I have been a Member of this House and chairman of quarter sessions has anyone ever suggested that I was ever influenced in my chairman's duties by my political opinions; and I do not think that anyone else is. I have such a regard for the honour of this House, and for the honesty and integrity of my colleagues, as to be sure that politics would never enter into anything which I or they had to decide in an occupation outside of the House.

That being so, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley, and that it will also strike out from Part IV of the First Schedule the absurd suggestion that there is a partial disqualification; that one may not be a chairman or a recorder for the very place for which one sits.

Mr. Ede

On this matter I speak for myself alone, but I want to oppose all of these Amendments. I regret that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), with whom I have worked very happily on this Committee except for this one issue, should have raised the personal point that happens to be involved in his case. We are not here legislating for persons. We are making the law of the land which will have to be applied to a very large number of people, and, in spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, I believe that that well-worn aphorism, that justice must not only be done but must be manifestly seen to be done, is the thing that should guide us in these matters.

It is not merely after the jury have returned their verdict that the chairman of quarter sessions is capable, if he is a skilled man, of influencing the course of proceedings. I have known some chairmen of quarter sessions who, I am quite certain, have always produced in the minds of the jury the exact opposite to what they expected to achieve. I have known other chairmen of quarter sessions who, after the bar has done its worst, have been able to influence the minds of the jury very considerably.

It must be a very difficult position for a chairman of quarter sessions to sum up in a case in which a prominent supporter or opponent of his is one of the parties, without people outside drawing conclusions and making insinuations, quite unjustifiably, that the position of the chairman and the relationship between the chairman and the party in the case have been influencing the course that has been taken.

I regret that if the Bill passes as it is now drawn it will mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to make his choice between the House and the chairmanship of quarter sessions. I would have preferred the Bill to be the other way round, but even then he would have been faced with the fact that, being a Member of the House, he would automatically be disqualified from being chairman of quarter sessions.

I think that the holding of judicial office in the area for which a man sits should be a disqualification, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will recollect, I questioned him on whether this ought not to apply even to a justice of the peace sitting in a court of summary jurisdiction. I hold that view myself.

Mr. Lindgren

It certainly does apply where a Member is a member of a lord lieutenant's committee. A member of a lord lieutenant's committee cannot sit as a Member of Parliament for a constituency in which that committee operates.

Mr. Ede

I have been a member of a lord lieutenant's committee, but I took good care to have a seat a long way away from the lord lieutenant.

I would have hoped that the House has now had over many years the kind of feeling that would support the Bill. But I am bound to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that a chairman of quarter sessions or a recorder should not be eligible to sit in this House. I do not agree with what he says about recorders. After all, I was for a time responsible for appointing recorders. It may be that it was the way in which I did the job which persuaded another place to insert in one Bill an Amendment that took the appointment away from me and handed it over to the Lord Chancellor but, having served as a member of a lord lieutenant's committee, and having had to recommend the appointment of recorders, Metropolitan magistrates and other stipendiary magistrates, I want to say that I profoundly disagree with what my hon. Friend has said.

I believe that every one of these appointments is very much of a gamble One recommends for appointment to a justiceship of the peace, a stipendiary magistrateship or a recordership a man in whom one has the utmost confidence in his judicial temperament and his ability to preserve an open mind until he has heard the whole of the case, and then, when the fellow gets on the bench he does the most amazing things.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) will recollect a stipendiary magistrate about whom he came to see me. We do not want to particularise the man's name, but I had interviewed him. I had had recommendations from other members of the legal profession, and I appointed him with the fullest confidence. I do not believe that from the first day he went on to the bench he ever ran according to form—at any rate, as has been revealed to me—and he was the worst loser that I have ever backed. I had to give him the opportunity of resigning before taking more drastic steps.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was sarcastic about these people and said that he would not have made some of them unpaid lance corporals; but, after all, I have known even unpaid lance corporals who have had to be reduced to the ranks because they could not carry the weight of that exalted office.

Mr. Wigg

That is the point. One can reduce on unpaid lance corporal to the ranks. My right hon. Friend apparently had no difficulty with the stipendiary magistrate——

Mr. Ede

I had a lot of trouble.

Mr. Wigg

—but what about the combination of a recorder who, in the words of my right hon. Friend, is a bad bet and is also a Member of the House? It becomes a much more difficult proposition.

Mr. Ede

No, I do not think so. I remember one recorder who was a Member of the House, with whom I differed on a certain point. I differed with him only once. He conformed to my rules afterwards.

I think that on this matter the Committee, being in the very painful position of having to deal with the case of one of its own Members, has dealt with the matter very carefully and frankly. As I have said before, I regret that it should put the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in the position in which the Bill places him, but I believe that the Bill is right in its general application. I recall once sitting next to the late David Lloyd George on this Bench when there was some discussion going on, and I remarked to him that hard cases make bad law. He said, "They may do, but they make very good politics."

Although the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is a very hard one—and I hope he will excuse me for having been as frank as I have been in stating this matter; it would be unfair to my colleagues on the Committee if I did not state my views—I hope that the Committee will preserve the Bill as it stands, in each of the cases covered by the Amendments under discussion.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Simon

My task in replying has been made very much easier by the weighty intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He has stated much better than I could ever hope to do what are the real arguments against each of these Amendments.

The real question, and the real test in the Bill, is not suitability for office; it is the incompatibility of an office with membership of the House of Commons. I do not accept what was said by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about recorders who hold seats in the House. I should like to add that, if it were a question of suitability for office, no one would think of disqualifying the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He is held in as high respect in legal circles as he is in the House of Commons and in political circles generally. But that is not the test. The test is whether the task of chairmanship of quarter sessions, recordership, and so on, is compatible with service in the House.

That test falls into two parts. Is the office generally incompatible, or is it incompatible in the locality where the recorder is himself a Member? So far as general incompatibility is concerned, it would be very difficult to say that to be a recorder in the South of England would in any way be incompatible with service in the House as a Member representing a constituency in the North of England, for instance; but when it comes to local representation, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, one can imagine all kinds of embarrassments when constituents appear before the court either as witnesses or, more difficult still, as accused. There is bound to be a very real difficulty.

It is unnecessary for me to expatiate upon it because the position has been put so well by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields. For the reasons that he has given, and for those that I have endeavoured to explain, I would advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg

Against my better judgment, I am convinced. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out line 13.

I think it would be convenient to take this Amendment with those in page 13, to leave out line 31, and in line 38, at the end to insert: Chairman or acting Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn)

Yes.

The Attorney-General

The Committee will see that, under the Bill, the Agricultural Land Tribunal is a body, all members of which are disqualified, and assessors to the Agricultural Land Tribunal are disqualified. In conformity with the argument I advanced in relation to umpires and deputy umpires, we feel that the provision here requires altering. The Amendments take out the Agricultural Land Tribunal and the assessors, and in line 38, in page 13, we insert: Chairman or acting Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal. I must make it clear that this is not introducing a new disqualification. It is limiting a disqualification which was originally in the Bill, but it is preserving a disqualification which now exists under the Agriculture Act, 1947, for paid chairmen or acting chairmen.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Could my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the members are part-time in this case?

The Attorney-General

I cannot say whether they are part-time; I had not got it in mind. I rather think that they are appointed from a panel.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, at the end to insert: The Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. This Tribunal was not brought to the attention of the Select Committee, and it is a matter to which my attention has since been drawn. The Tribunal is appointed by agreement between the Treasury and the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. It deals with questions affecting certain conditions of service in the Civil Service. It consists of an independent chairman and two members. One of the members is drawn from a panel of persons appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and the other is similarly appointed as representing the Staff Side. The authority for the appointment and remuneration comes from the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. The Chairman and members receive travelling and subsistance allowances on Civil Service rates. The agreement provides that the Chairman of the Tribunal is also President of the Industrial Court or, failing him, a person appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service after consulting with the parties to the Agreement.

It is obvious that this Tribunal has functions to perform which really make membership of the Tribunal incompatible with membership of the House of Commons. It deals with what are very nearly political matters and, following that principle, wherever we found tribunals had to deal with matters which hinge upon political questions or what may be political questions, we recommended disqualification. It seems to me, therefore, that the members of this Tribunal ought also to be disqualified.

Mr. Simon

I need only say that I should advise the Committee to accept the Amendment for the reasons put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens).

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 12, line 5, at the end to insert: or under the Fifth Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946". This is to bring the offices in Scotland referred to in the Fifth Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, in line with what we have done as regards the English offices. Again, the point in relation to Scotland was not drawn to the attention of the Select Committee. By the First Schedule of the Bill we have recommended the disqualification of members of the Independent Schools Tribunal in England and Wales. We recommended that because of the duties which such members have, which are very extensive, involving the hearing of appeals from proprietors or teachers in independent schools against complaints which may lead to schools being struck off the Independent Schools Register. We thought that those duties were incompatible with membership of the House of Commons and we recommended their disqualification. It seems right that similar tribunals in Scotland should be treated in the same way.

Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray (Berwick and East Lothian)

I am not one of those who is always in favour of Scotland following England in legislation, but in this case it seems to me that the arguments stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) apply so exactly to Scotland in every way that I am happy to support the Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Mall Macpherson)

I agree with what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) in the argument he has advanced. I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out line 15.

The Amendment is designed to strike out the proposed disqualification of membership of the Livestock Commission. The reason is that, since the Select Committee was sitting, we were told that the Commission has gone practically into a state of semi-decease, that it has no duties to perform and that some other body is to be constituted instead. In those circumstances, it is quite useless to include the Commission in the Schedule.

Mr. Simon

I should advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that this will not let in, or let out, the inspectors of boars?

Sir P. Spens

We have already put them out.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 12, line 15, at the end to insert: A Medical Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted far the purposes of any such Tribunal. I suggest that it would be convenient, Mr. Blackburn, to deal at the same time with the following Amendment, also in line 15.

The Temporary Chairman

indicated assent.

The Attorney-General

These two Amendments are to bring into line the Medical Appeal Tribunal and the Medical Board or Pneumoconiosis Medical Board with the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The Pensions Appeal Tribunal is disqualified. In their respective spheres, the Medical Appeal Tribunal and the Medical Board or Pneumoconiosis Medical Board fulfil precisely analogous functions. It therefore seams right that as all three are appellate tribunals they should all be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 15, at end insert: A Medical Board or Pneumoconiosis Medical Board constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, including any panel constituted for the purposes of any such Board.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Simon

I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 19 and 20.

Would it be convenient, Mr. Blackburn, to take at the same time the Amendment in page 14, line 2, at the end, to insert: Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Military Service (Hardship) Committee constituted under the Third Schedule to the National Service Act, 1948.

The Temporary Chairman

Yes. I think that will be for the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. Simon

There is a group of tribunals and committees under the National Assistance and National Insurance Acts and the National Service Acts which have comparable or related functions and in practice a substantial overlap in membership. These are two of a series of Amendments designed to secure uniformity and consistency of treatment under the Bill for these various adjudicating bodies. The way that they are dealt with in this series of Amendments is the way indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General: in other words, to have a general disqualification of the chairman and, where they exist, the deputy or reserve chairmen, and to exempt the members, the assessors and the local referees from disqualification.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

If I remember rightly, this is one of the cases in which we were assured by the Ministry in question that it would not appoint a Member of Parliament to serve on a hardship committee in his own constituency. There are obvious objections to that. If that is the case, it seems to me wise to support the Amendment and not to list too many of these somewhat minor appointments.

May I be assured that I am right in my recollection and that the Minister of Labour and National Service would not appoint a Member of this House or a candidate to serve in his own constituency? One can see objection in that.

Mr. Simon

I think I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is so. If for any reason I find that this assurance is not correct, I will let him know immediately.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out line 21.

I suggest that this Amendment can be taken with the Amendment to leave out line 42. They are both drafting Amendments. The purpose is to remove from Part II of the First Schedule the entries disqualifying membership of the Milk and Pigs Marketing Boards for Northern Ireland. Members of these Boards are already covered by the entry in Part III at the top of page 16 as members of Northern Irish Agricultural Marketing Boards.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Simon

I beg to move, in page 12, line 34, at the end to insert: A Panel of Chairmen of Re-instatement Committees constituted under section forty-one of the National Service Act, 1948. This Amendment is in accordance with the principle enunciated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—in other words, a general disqualification of chairmen and deputy-chairmen of certain adjudicating bodies. These include the Re-instatement Committees under the National Service Acts. The reason why this particular wording has been chosen is that there is a panel from which the chairmen and reserve chairmen are taken.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 12, line 41, at the end to insert, "The Performing Right Tribunal."

The Amendment is linked with the Amendment to the Third Schedule, in page 23, line 35, at the end to insert, The Performing Right Tribunal, and also with the Amendment to the Fourth Schedule, in page 34, line 36, at the end to insert:

4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 74.

The Copyright Act,1956.

In section twenty-three, subsection (3).

I can explain all three together.

Members of the Performing Right Tribunal set up by the Copyright Act, 1956, are at present subject to a "reverse" disqualification under Section 23 (3) of that Act, which applies both to the House of Commons of Westminster and to the two Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland.

The purpose of the first Amendment is to add the Tribunal to the list of disqualifying offices in Part II of the First Schedule to the Bill. The second Amendment makes a corresponding addition to the Northern Ireland version of that Schedule set out in the Third Schedule to the Bill. The last Amendment provides for the addition to the Fourth Schedule of an entry covering the repeal of Section 23 (3) of the Copyright Act, 1956.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, leave out line 42.—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, at the end to insert: Accountant appointed by the Secretary of State under section seventy-three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946. This is another office which was not brought to the attention of the Select Committee and it is an important one. Under Section 74 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, any payment of an Exchequer grant to schools not maintained by an education authority are conditional upon the examination of their income and expenditure accounts. For this purpose, the Secretary of State for Scotland appoints an accountant under Section 73 of the Act.

At present, the accountant is a civil servant, but there is no reason why a non-civil servant should not be appointed. The remuneration rises to £1,795. The accountant has to make an investigation and report before the payment of the Exchequer grant is made. It would seem to me to be obviously an office which ought not to be held by a Member of Parliament as it is an office from which grants from public funds are made.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray

Once again, as a Scottish Member who was also a member of the Select Committee on the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, I wish to support an Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend. I think that this Amendment is quite correct.

Mr. N. Macpherson

I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willis

I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, at the end to insert "Advocates-Depute in Scotland."

I am afraid that we shall not deal with this Amendment quite as rapidly as we have been dealing with Amendments recently.

Mr. Pickthorn

Why?

Mr. Willis

Because we consider this to be a matter of some considerable importance in Scotland. The arguments for this Amendment are very much the same as those which were made against Members of the House having Crown briefs, and on an Amendment affecting those the Committee divided. Advocates-Depute in Scotland handle practically all the Crown briefs. In return an Advocate-Depute receives a salary of £850 per annum. The office of Advocates-Depute is quite definitely an office of profit under the Crown and, therefore, only by some special consideration could it not be an office disqualifying the holder from membership of the House of Commons.

That is not, however, the most important consideration. The Select Committee on the House of Commons Disqualification Bill pointed out: In compiling this list Your Committee have recognised that certain offices are incompatible with membership of the House of Commons, some as involving physical impossibilities of simultaneous attendance in two places.… All the evidence before the Select Committee showed that it is impossible for an Advocate-Depute to perform his duties in Scotland and at the same time to attend to his duties in the House of Commons. That has long been so.

I was interested in one of the replies given in evidence to the Select Committee by the Lord Advocate, who ventured to suggest that we might exclude the Advocates-Depute from this Schedule and, therefore, from disqualification, in view of the fact that we might possibly at some time have another Election result such as we had in 1931. I really did not think that that was a very good reason for excluding the Advocates-Depute.

I would draw the Committee's attention to evidence given to the Select Committee by Sir Marshall Millar Craig. He was asked—it is question and answer 1163—whether it would be regarded as objectionable if a Member of Parliament were appointed an Advocate-Depute, and he replied: Yes, it would. The present Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General are very much against an Advocate-Depute being in Parliament. At the following sitting of the Select Committee the Lord Advocate gave quite contrary evidence. I do not know what made the right hon. and learned Gentleman change his mind. I assume that Sir Marshall Millar Craig, having given that answer, was asked: On principle? His answer was categoric: On principle. They cannot do justice to both offices. There is no dubiety about that. The next question was: For what sort of reason, that they have not the time or that the duties are incompatible in nature? His answer was: No, more a question of time. The duties of a Member of Parliament involve attendance all the time. His duties as an Advocate-Depute could possibly be discharged by sending papers from Edinburgh to London, but it is much better that the duties should be discharged in Edinburgh. If Advocates-Depute were attending the House of Commons we should have to appoint Advocates-Depute depute to do their work for them in Scotland. That is the situation at which we should arrive. They could not do their own work. That is the important factor in the situation, and it was borne out by the evidence given by the Lord Advocate himself, who answering a question—it is in question and answer 1235 in the Minutes of Evidence—said: The real difficulty, as I see it, is perhaps not so much incompatibility but practical difficulty, and I am afraid that is a very serious difficulty. I have had the opportunity over the weekend of speaking only informally to two previous Lords Advocate and the Crown Agent who has got such a lot to do with criminal prosecutions, and we all do feel that there are practical difficulties. There was a general consensus of opinion that a man could not do these two jobs at once, the two jobs of an Advocate-Depute and a Member of Parliament. The Lord Advocate went on: Speaking for myself, in so far as I was to invite my colleagues to be Advocates-Depute, I think I would feel bound at this stage of Parliamentary procedure and business, and the business of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to say that he would not be an Advocate-Depute if he was also in the House. That seems clear. Later the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could see no possibility of the work of Parliament House diminishing, but that it would be maintained.

I submit that the practical difficulties are such that they make it impossible for Advocates-Depute to be Members of the House of Commons, and that was one of the important considerations which the Select Committee was supposed to take into account.

The late Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill, whom I defeated at the polls in 1945, was Advocate-Depute until November, 1935, when he resigned that office. That was, I assume, when he became a Member of Parliament. Since then, during twenty years, the practice has grown up in Parliament House for Advocates-Depute to resign on nomination day. I think that is correct. On nomination day an Advocate-Depute standing as a Parliamentary candidate resigns from office.

Since that is the practice in Parliament House, since it has become the recognised practice without anybody's suggesting that it should be, since Advocates-Depute resign when they become Members of Parliament, because they think it advisable in their wisdom that they should not be Members of Parliament at the same time, and since less and less frequently even before 1935 and the days of Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill have Advocates-Depute become Members of the House of Commons, I think we also in this Committee ought to accept the practice, which has grown up gradually, and which, I think, is rather desirable.

I agree with the view, brought out in evidence before the Select Committee in answer to questions by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—questions and answers 1175 to 1180—that the office of an Advocate-Depute is in many respects similar to that of standing counsel to a Government Department. That was the purport of the evidence. I thought that that was the purport of the questions. If it was not, the questions certainly brought out the fact that there was a similarity in these offices, and if it is wrong for a standing counsel to sit in the House it is equally wrong for an Advocate-Depute to sit here.

7.0 p.m.

I think that for all these perfectly good reasons we ought to consider this matter seriously. I do not want to go over again the arguments put forward in connection with Crown briefs, although some of them are applicable in this case. One of the arguments for allowing Advocates-Depute to sit in the House of Commons is that lawyers in the House are allowed to accept Crown briefs. I do not think that that argument is altogther good, because of the additional factors which I have mentioned.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made an excellent suggestion when he spoke about the need for a proper inquiry into the whole of this business. One aspect that ought to be considered is this question of the Law Officers, with particular reference to Advocates-Depute in Scotland. I hope, therefore, for all these reasons, that we shall have a favourable reply from the Government.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has made a strong case for his point of view. It is a fact that the four Advocates-Depute are paid £850 a year and are appointed by the Lord Advocate of the day. It may well be that personal friendship or political persuasion have something to do with the appointment, but I am concerned with what is best for the conduct of business in Parliament, that is to say, for the national interest as a whole.

I approach this question from the point of view of whether we have in Scotland a sufficient number of hon. Members of legal experience. Earlier today discussion took place on whether there might not be too many English Members with legal experience, but I do not think that that can be said of Scottish Members. On the Government Front Bench, there are the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, but we have only to throw our minds back a very few years to recall the time when the Solicitor-General for Scotland had no seat in the House.

Mr. Willis

I am very interested in this point about the necessity for Scottish lawyers to be in the House. The curious thing is that while we have so few lawyers from Scotland in the House we have better legislation for Scotland than the English have for England. Surely that must be borne in mind.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray

I readily agree that when there is a Conservative Government in office we have better legislation for Scotland, but I must not deviate to discussing later Amendments relating to Lords-Advocate and Solicitors-General themselves.

I am concentrating my argument on the supply of hon. Members who are capable of filling those offices. While we have only two Scottish lawyers on the Government side just now, and both of them are sitting on the Front Bench, we have on the Opposition Front Bench only one Scottish lawyer. If the tables are turned and the Opposition happens to take charge of our affairs, there will be that same situation which we have found inconvenient in the past of having only one Law Officer of the Crown with a seat in the House. Therefore, it is of general interest, regardless of party, if we are to make membership of the House impossible for barristers in Scotland.

Mr. Willis

Why cannot they come into the House as other people do?

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray

Well, barristers are barristers, and the fact is that it is quite possible for English barristers to carry out their legal duties and their House of Commons duties without impairing either, but in Scotland it is financially more difficult.

Mr. Willis

Hon. Members come from Scotland to the House of Commons, frequently at very great financial sacrifice, for that same reason that they cannot carry out their work in Scotland and perform their duties in the House at the same time. They accept that, because they are proud and privileged to sit in the House and perform what they consider to be work of great benefit to the people of Scotland whom they represent. Why cannot barristers do the same?

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray

I am not here to speak for barristers, but my anxiety is that a sufficient number of them should come to the House to carry out work required on the Front Bench representing Scotland. We have only three such legal gentlemen in the House, and if the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland were to fall ill, which I hope will not happen, there would be nobody to appoint in the place of either. Were an election to take place and the Opposition became the Government, and the only right hon. and learned Member for Scotland on the Front Bench opposite were defeated, there would be no one in the House who could be appointed to the office of Lord Advocate. I hope that we shall hesitate before we make an alteration which will debar potential Lords Advocate from standing for membership of the House and being elected. As a Conservative, I base my argument on what has been found satisfactory in the past.

Mr. Willis

They have resigned in the past.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray

The hon. Member is aware of the case of Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill, because he himself defeated him in 1945. Not only was he an Advocate-Depute and a Member of Parliament but, previously to that, I think that Mr. Guy was also both, and so was Mr. Wellwood Johnson. If we go back further than that, and I agree that it is a long time back to 1910, a very distinguished gentleman, Lord Alness was a Lord Advocate and a Member of Parliament, and so also was a Mr. Alexander.

I have never heard it suggested that the conduct of the Scottish business of the House was anything but improved by having those Members here, combining the two jobs. It is for that reason that I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment too readily. We should consider very carefully whether it is really in the public interest to have the Bill amended in this way.

Mr. Mitchison

I hesitate to intervene on what is a Scottish matter, but the Select Committee had to consider this. I will not try to cope with the difficulties of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) in not having sufficient lawyers in the House. The question is whether any deficiencies in that respect ought to be filled by sending certain people who hold this office of Advocate-Depute to London. The Attorney-General, speaking about English law and practice, put in a memorandum, in page 82 of the Select Committee's Report. He stated the position in relation to standing counsel in England. He mentioned the senior counsel for the Treasury at the Central Criminal Court as one of them. I think another was the prosecuting counsel to the Post Office, in North Wales. He made it clear that it was the English practice, in the past, not to have gentlemen holding both that office and a position as a Member of Parliament, and, of course, standing counsel are expressly precluded by this same Bill.

The question is whether there is any real difference between the position of these advocates in Scotland and that of the type of appointment to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General referred. I can summarise the evidence given before the Select Committee in this way. The very distinguished civil servant speaking on behalf of the Scottish Office told us that Advocates-Depute were paid by a fixed salary; in that respect being less individual, if I may so put it, than standing counsel in England; and that they only received fees in some appeal cases.

That did not appear in his evidence, but it was added in a subsequent note at the foot of the second column of the evidence in page 146. If I remember rightly, they were wholly engaged in this business, they were the only people so engaged, and on one point, an important one, both he and the Lord Advocate completely agreed. That seems to me to dispose of the matter.

At Question 1165, in page 145, the Civil Service witness was asked why these Advocates-Depute had not the time, or whether the duties were incompatible in nature. The answer was: No, more a question of time. The duties of a Member of Parliament involve attendance all the time. His duties as an Advocate-Depute could possibly be discharged by sending papers from Edinburgh to London, but it is much better that the duties should he discharged in Edinburgh. He went on to say that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General would not appoint an Advocate-Depute as a Member of Parliament now. When the Lord Advocate came to give evidence, he was equally emphatic on the ground of physical incompatibility and in a rather long answer to Question 1235, in page 150, he said: Speaking for myself, in so far as I was to invite my colleagues to be Advocates-Depute. I think I would feel hound at this stage of Parliamentary procedure and business, and the business of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, to say that he could not be an Advocate-Depute if he was also in the House. But that is not on incompatibility; that is purely on the physical difficulty of carrying out both occupations. I am content to leave philosophical questions of incompatibility in Scotland to be decided by Scots. On such thorny ground I would be the last person to intervene, but it is clear that in practice, on physical grounds, if these gentlemen were elected to Parliament, they would be required to be in two places at once if they were to discharge the duties of their post in Edinburgh and their membership here efficiently.

How it can be said that it is in the public interest to have people in Parliament who are bound to discharge one set of duties inefficiently because they are in Parliament and because they are Advocates-Depute, I fail to understand. I should have thought that the only possible argument about these gentlemen might have been, "It is so obviously an incompatible office that they would never be appointed if they were Members of Parliament. They would be compelled to resign, and, therefore, we need not put it in the Bill." After all, they are very close to standing counsel and standing counsel have been put in the Bill. Why should not these people be put in?

When we look at the history of the matter we find that up to 1935—true, twenty-two years ago when, no doubt, Parliamentary business was a little less pressing than it is nowadays—there actually was someone who managed to fulfil, or purported to fulfil, both offices. Perhaps we have advanced a little since then. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian will not take it amiss—I have a great personal esteem for him—when I say that I regarded his speech as an argument for putting these people in the Bill. If it can be argued that this is the way to meet any lack of Scottish lawyers in the House, then it ought to be made clear that it is not the way to do it.

7.15 p.m.

With respect, it is nonsense for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to appear before the Select Committee and say that it is not possible to do both these jobs, and then to refuse to accept that incompatibility when it is embodied in an Amendment. I hope that the case of my hon. Friend will be met, and the Amendment accepted. It would be a great pity if we had an unnecessary difference with Scotland by including standing counsel in England and leaving out Advocates-Depute.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

If an Englishman may follow an Englishman in this debate, may I say that I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment, at all events for the reason just given by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He said that Advocates-Depute are very close to standing counsel, but the reason standing counsel are excluded is that they are advising on matters which are themselves incompatible with Membership of this House. The objection put forward to membership of Advocates-Depute is simply the physical one that they cannot both be here and in Edinburgh at the same time, and no one has seriously argued that their functions are in any way incompatible with membership of this House except on that purely physical ground.

I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has been fully quoted in this connection. Earlier, in Question 1235, to which the hon. Member referred, there are these words: In the first place, speaking for myself—and I hope I have some support in the Committee on this point—I should like to see as few obstructions put in the way of my colleagues coming to this House as possible. We are very anxious to come here; we are a very small Bar; and the fewer people who could be discouraged the better. It is true that at present it would probably be impossible and undesirable that any of these functionaries, to use a general word, should become Members of Parliament or, conversely, that any Member of Parliament should be appointed an Advocate-Depute. Yet circumstances may change, and it may be that in the not distant future the physical difficulty would no longer subsist. In any event, I hope that the Committee will not put into the Schedule any cases which rest solely on physical difficulty. We are here dealing with incompatibility in a more general sense of the word; incompatibility of function for a number of reasons, many of which have been referred to on the other Amendments which we have been discussing this afternoon.

There are, of course, many people who cannot he Members of Parliament on physical grounds. They are by no means necessarily offices under the Crown or offices of profit, but we do not disqualify them, because the right way to deal with those people, is either that their constituents should not elect them or, alternatively, that they should not continue to be employed by those who employ them. That is dealt with outside this Bill. I am sure that I shall have the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) with me when I say that this Bill is not concerned with dealing with that class of case. I believe that this is within that class.

Mr. Mitchison

I gather that the hon. Gentleman is saying this, "We are agreed that they cannot do both jobs now, but they may be able at some time in the future to do them." Is not that what Clause 5 (1, c) is for? That if their functions change and it so happens that there is no more crime in Scotland and they are never occupied in Edinburgh and can perfectly well come here, they can be dealt with under that Clause.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am not saying for a moment that they cannot be dealt with under that Clause. Clause 5 (1, c) is not just to be brought in casually. Obviously it will deal with cases on a more or less permanent basis. We are not going to change this Schedule every year. The argument I am putting forward is that we ought not to put into the Schedule at all cases that depend merely on physical difficulties. They ought to be dealt with outside the Bill, in accordance with the principles which have been very clearly stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).

We want as little disqualification as we need put into the Bill. This is unnecessary in principle. It will be taken care of quite well by the ordinary processes outside the Bill. For these reasons. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Leith)

I should like to say a word in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) because, despite what the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has just said, this is a matter of considerable importance and a lot of humbug is talked about it. If an Advocate-Depute is nominated for a Parliamentary seat and a by-election should take place, the Advocate-Depute tenders his resignation from that position. I think that I am right—the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong—in saying that the present Solicitor-General for Scotland was in that position. Having been rejected at the polls, he was immediately reappointed Advocate-Depute. Surely that is a little piece of humbug we ought to get rid of. That is one of the reasons why people at court look a little bit impolitely on those who hold legal offices under a political Government.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Gentleman says that this is a piece of humbug that we want to get rid of. If we put this Amendment in the Bill it is exactly that which will continue.

Mr. Hoy

The hon. Member does not seem to understand. If we put it in the Bill, it would prevent that from happening. Another thing is that this particular appointment, as has been said, not only carries certain fees but a salary of £850.

In addition to the questions which the Lord Advocate answered and which have been quoted in the Committee this afternoon, there was a further suggestion that he had to make, which was, I think, the worst suggestion of all. If hon. Members will look at page 150, Question 1236, they will see that the Question was: In the days—not that we may ever see a large majority again on either side—of 1931, when there was an extremely large majority, it was perfectly practicable for a person to do the two jobs, was it not, and it might be so again? The Lord Advocate, in reply, said: That is why I was going to venture to suggest to this Committee that it might feel disposed to exempt Advocates-Depute from disqualification, leaving it to the Lord Advocate, in selecting his Deputes to decide whether at that particular stage it was practicable to have a Depute who was a Member of the House. I believe that that is a suggestion which the Committee would not care to tolerate for one moment. It would be saying that after these Advocates-Depute were appointed the Lord Advocate himself would claim the sole right to decide which one, if any of them, should come to the House of Commons.

I think that was very wrong indeed. The case which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East made out this afternoon, and as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, South, who opposed it from the benches opposite, said, was both a strong and logical one. I shall certainly await with interest the reply of the Lord Advocate, to hear how he will defend these particular appointments and their exclusion from a Bill of this kind.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan)

Before I come entirely to the merits of the Amendment that has been moved, may I correct at least one misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). He said that the Advocates-Depute had all the Crown briefs.

Mr. Willis

I said almost all.

The Lord Advocate

They do not have the civil Crown briefs at all, or practically none. I just want to clear that matter up.

I should also like to clear up the question about the practice as regards resigning. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was perfectly correct when he said that was and had been recently the practice, and the reason why that practice grew up was because there was thought to be some doubt. It was a precautionary measure in case anybody should be caught out as having infringed the rules in regard to standing for Parliament, and as all hon. Members of the Committee know, these rules were extremely complicated and very difficult to understand. That is one of the reasons why we are here today, to try to make what was practically unintelligible intelligible. I can advise the Committee as a question of law that in point of fact the Advocates-Depute were not disqualified from the House in view of their terms of office, and examples of that have already been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray).

We have naturally given this Amendment the most anxious consideration, because the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East in moving the Amendment were certainly logical and forceful; but I must invite the Committee to reject the Amendment on the ground that no good reason has been shown why a practice which has existed for hundreds of years should be departed from.

So far as anything that has been said today, no abuse, no difficulty has arisen at the time when Advocates-Depute have been in the House. I agree full well that in recent years they have not been in the House, except my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is technically an Advocate-Depute himself. I feel certain that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East would not have put down this Amendment if he had realised that he was at the same time excluding my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Willis

I have another Amendment about that.

The Lord Advocate

I do not want to anticipate the polite courtesies which are, no doubt, going to be levelled at us later. I point out that the Committee would be excluding the Solicitor-General as well as the other Advocates-Depute. The Committee will realise that for many years there has been no criticism either of the non-attendance in this House or of any incompatibility with these particular offices being in the House. Secondly, the Committee will appreciate that two Select Committees have recommended that these particular people should not be disqualified.

The Herbert Committee in 1941, and again the Committee presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), after full consideration, which has been referred to in the Committee today, decided that Advocates-Depute should not be disqualified. I have great sympathy with the remarks which were made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian on a question which was also touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) at an earlier stage, when he said how necessary it was and how desirable it was that members of the legal profession, particularly barristers and advocates, should be in this House.

7.30 p.m.

I have most uncomfortable recollections of the three years when I was a member of the Government but not a Member of this House. Speaking personally, I can say that it made a tremendous difference to me, and made the carrying out of my duties infinitely more easy—and I hope more helpful to hon. Members—when I became a Member of this House and was no longer on the "touch-line".

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain whether, if an Advocate-Depute became a Member of this House, it would entail the appointment of another Advocate-Depute to do the necessary work in Edinburgh; or if another Advocate-Depute were not appointed, would it not mean that the position of Advocate-Depute would become a sinecure?

The Lord Advocate

I was coming to the question of practicability in a moment.

Mr. Mitchison

Before dealing with that, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten me on a matter of Scots law? In the Second Schedule I notice that the Ministerial office of Solicitor-General for Scotland is listed. Am I to understand that it is Scots law that though the Solicitor-General for Scotland appears in that Schedule, he would be disqualified from sitting here because he is also an Advocate-Depute?

The Lord Advocate

The Solicitor-General for Scotland has to this extent a double existence in that in order to be entitled to prosecute he has to be an Advocate-Depute. It is a special commission given to him by the Lord Advocate in Scotland in the same way as a commission is given to the other Advocates-Depute.

I come now to the rather special Scottish position which has been referred to. Members of the Scottish Bar, naturally, find it extremely difficult, almost impossible, to be hon. Members of the House and at the same time carry on any professional practice whatever in Edinburgh. Their position is far more difficult than that of English banisters who are at least able to carry on some part of their professional work. An Advocate-Depute, like a doctor, is an individual. In other words, his personal presence is required when any business is being conducted. It is an entirely different matter in the case of a person who is able to have a business interest, and may carry on his business although he is not present.

As it was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, the question is does this House want to have Members who are Advocates-Depute. With all modesty, I suggest that it is a good thing that a reasonable number of the members of our profession should be Members of this House, and the type of person who might well become a Member of Parliament is an Advocate-Depute. I still believe and will repeat what I said to the Select Committee, that at the present time it is not practical politics for any of the Advocates-Depute to carry on their duties and also be Members of this House. But that does not mean that it will always be impossible for them to become Members of this House.

Today we are legislating for the future, although, admittedly, with a saving Clause in the Bill regarding alterations. I invite the Committee not, here and now, to exclude Advocates-Depute. They have never been excluded before. Two Select Committees, after giving anxious consideration to the matter, have suggested that they should be allowed to sit as Members of this House, and no case, except the difficulty of travel, has been advanced to show why they should be excluded.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

The Lord Advocate admits that today there are debarring circumstances, but he added that that will not always be so. What are the present circumstances which are likely to change?

The Lord Advocate

It might be perfectly possible so to adjust the duties of the Advocate-Depute in the Crown Office that one of them was relieved to a certain extent of, perhaps, his routine work. That type of thing might be possible.

Mr. Mitchison

Surely, we should not legislate even for a semi-sinecure.

The Lord Advocate

I am not suggesting for a moment that if such an alteration was made, the Advocate-Depute concerned would continue to draw his full salary. It might be that his duties in the Crown Office would be reduced, and if that happened, his salary would also be reduced. I am asking the Committee not, here and now, to say that Advocates-Depute, who have not been debarred at any time in the past, should now be debarred from becoming Members of this House. I do so on the ground that no good case has been made out to show that should be done, and I invite the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Willis

I am disappointed with the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When I moved this Amendment I tried to be polite to the legal profession. I am not usually so polite, but I tried to be on this occasion, because I did not want to engender a great deal of heat. I wanted the matter considered on its merits, and I still want that. But let me make again the point which I made when I intervened during the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray).

Is our work in this House of Commons so very badly done because we have not a great number of Scottish lawyers as Members of the House? Is it not true that we have had better legislation on a number of subjects for Scotland than for England? And why is that? It is because, although we may not have the advantage of the legal ability of certain people, at least hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have a certain amount of human experience, which is of equal value with the professional experience of lawyers when we come to do Committee work.

I have always looked upon lawyers as a powerful pressure group. The English lawyers in this House are certainly a powerful pressure group but, fortunately, the pressure group is not so powerful so far as Scotland is concerned. Therefore, I discount much of this argument because my experience in this House—it is comparatively short, only eight years—does not lead me to believe that there is a great necessity for a number of lawyers to be hon. Members. I admit that it would be pleasant and helpful to have them. They might advise us on the wording of Amendments and on legal points. But we still obtain that sort of assistance, although we have not such people as Members of Parliament.

The Lord Advocate said that there had not previously been any disqualification. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he admitted in his evidence before the Select Committee, recognises that the position is changing very considerably from what it previously was. During his evidence to the Committee he was asked—it is Question 1238: It there any increase in the duties and responsibilities of Advocates-Depute nowadays that makes you feel the-re is at least this practical difficulty? The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered: No. I think I would be rather inclined to suggest, although I have not had experience of it at that time, that the pressure on one's time here is probably greater than it was at that time. That is in the House. He continued: There may be a slight increase in the work in the Crown Office, but not such a marked increase as I think probably there is in the necessity of being in this House. In other words, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in that answer, replied to his own argument. The position is changing, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that we can get over this difficulty if we shuffle the work round in Parliament House so that someone would not have anything to do and could attend this House of Commons.

What a preposterous suggestion, that a lawyer has to be bribed with £850 to come to this House. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. I do not think he meant it, but that is the implication of what he said. The members of his profession are so public-spirited that they will not sacrifice to come here, but want a bribe of £850.

That is quite wrong. Either they are doing this job or they are not doing it. If they are doing it, they cannot attend the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that. All his evidence indicated that, and so did the advice which he appeared to receive

from previous Lord Advocates before he gave that evidence. Why does he not admit it now and say that it is impossible to do these two things?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about the position of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. If he accepted the Amendment, or the spirit of it, he could easily put that right. I am very disappointed about this matter, in which a very important principle is at stake and I trust that my hon. Friends will support me in the Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 119, Noes 178.

Division No. 78.]	AYES	[7.40 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W.	Hobson, C. R.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Albu, A. H.	Holman, P.	Rankin, John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)	Redhead, E. C.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hoy, J. H.	Reeves, J.
Benson, G.	Hubbard, T. F.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Beswick, Frank	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Blyton, W. R.	Hunter, A. E.	Ross, William
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Royle, C.
Boyd, T. C.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Short, E. W.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Burke, W. A.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Sorensen, R. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Jones, David (The Hartlepools)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Champion, A J.	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Sparks, J. A.
Chapman, W. D.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Steele, T.
Clunie, J.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Coldrick, W.	King, Dr. H. M.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)	Lawson, C. M.	Sylvester, G. O.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lewis, Arthur	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Cullen, Mrs. A.	MacColl, J. E.	Thornton, E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	McGovern, J.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	MacDermot, Niall	Viant, S. P.
Delargy, H. J.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Watkins, T. E.
Donnelly, D. L.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Weitzman, D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmch)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Dye, S.	Mason, Roy	Wheeldon, W. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mitchison, G. R.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Moody, A. S.	Wigg, George
Fernyhough, E.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Wilkins, W. A.
Fletcher, Eric	Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)	Willey, Frederick
Forman, J. C.	Mort, D. L.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd	Moss, R.	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Greenwood, Anthony	Moyle, A.	Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Oswald, T.	Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Grey, C. F.	Owen, W. J.	Winterbottom, Richard
Hamilton, W. W.	Padley, W. E.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hannan, W.	Parker, J.	Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hastings, S.	Parkin, B. T.
Hayman, F. H.	Pearson, A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)	Pentland, N.	Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Holmes.
Harbison, Miss M.	Popplewell, E.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Barber, Anthony	Body, R. F.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Barlow, Sir John	Bossom, Sir Alfred
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Barter, John	Boyle, Sir Edward
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Braine, B. R.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William	Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Armstrong, C. W.	Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. I
Ashton, H.	Bidgood, J. C.	Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Baldwin, A. E.	Biggs-Davison, J. A.	Brooman-White, R. c.
Balniel, Lord	Bishop, F. P.	Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Bryan, P.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Peyton, J. W. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Channon, Sir Henry	Hornby, R. P.	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Chichester-Clark, R.	Horobin, Sir Ian	Pilkington, Capt, R. A.
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)	Howard, John (Test)	Pitman, I. J.
Cole, Norman	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Pott, H. P.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger	Hughes-Young, M. H. C.	Powell, J. Enoch
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry	Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.	Iremonger, T. L.	Ramsden, J. E.
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Rawlinson, Peter
Crouch, R. F.	Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)	Redmayne, M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Cunningham, Knox	Joseph, Sir Keith	Renton, D. L. M.
Currie, G. B. H.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot	Rippon, A. G. F.
Dance, J. C. G.	Keegan, D.	Robertson, Sir David
Davidson, Viscountess	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Roper, Sir Harold
Davies, Rt.Hon. Clement (Montgomery)	Kerr, H. W.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry	Kimball, M.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Deedes, w. F.	Kirk, P. M,	Sharples, R. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Shepherd, William
Doughty, C. J. A.	Leavey, J. A.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
du Cann, E. D. L.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Duncan, Capt. J. A, L.	Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)	Speir, R. M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Errington, Sir Eric	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Fell, A.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife, E.)
Finlay, Graeme	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Storey, S.
Fisher, Nigel	McAdden, S. J.	Studholme, Sir Henry
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)	Summers, Sir Spencer
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Temple, John M.
Godber, J. B.	Maddan, Martin	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Graham, Sir Fergus	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Grant, W. (Woodside)	Marlowe, A, A. H.	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)	Mathew, R.	Vane, W. M. F.
Green, A.	Maude, Angus	Vickers, Miss Joan
Gresham Cooke, R.	Mawby, R. L.	Wade, D. W.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Gurden, Harold	Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Wall, Major Patriok
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Nairn, D. L. S.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)	Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th & Chr'ch)	Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)	Nugent, G. R. H.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Oakshott, H. D.	Woollam, John Victor
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	TELLERS FOB THE NOES o
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.	Osborne, C.	Mr. Legh and
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Page, R. G.	Colonel J. H. Harrison
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)	Partridge, E.

Mr. Simon

I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 27 and 28.

This Amendment seeks to leave out the words: Agent in the United Kingdom of the government of any country or territory ouside the United Kingdom. It is clear from the report of the Select Committee that it was seeking to deal with offices analogous to that of the Ulster agent, but in point of fact this has gone beyond that and the words used in the Bill would lead to the disqualification of such people as a solicitor or a commercial agent of a foreign Government or a Commonwealth Government. In those circumstances, it is thought right to make this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, leave out line 31.—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in line 38, at the end to insert: Chairman or Deputy Chairman of an Administrative Board constituted for the purposes of any scheme made under the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951 or the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Acts, 1951 and 1954. The Amendment follows on the principle we discussed earlier in relation to chairmen and deputy chairmen of certain tribunals.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 38, at end insert: Chairman or acting Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Simon

I beg to move, in line 39, after "Chairman", to insert "or Reserve Chairman".

Perhaps, Sir Charles, we could discuss, at the same time, the proposed Amendment to the Third Schedule, in page 24, line 29, after "Chairman", to insert "or Reserve Chairman".

The Chairman

If you please.

Mr. Simon

This Amendment is in accordance with the principle suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General earlier, which found general acceptance in the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 41, leave out from beginning to "the" and insert "or".—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 14, line 2, at the end to insert: Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Local Tribunal or Local Appeal Tribunal constituted for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, 1946, the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946. We discussed this Amendment when we discussed the question of chairmen of tribunals.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 2, at end insert: Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a Local Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the National Service Act, 1948, relating to conscientious objectors.

In line 2, at end insert: Chairman or Reserve Chairman of a Military Service (Hardship) Committee constituted under the Third Schedule to the National Service Act, 1948.—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, at the end to insert: Chairman of the Technical Personnel Committee appointed by the Minister of Labour. The purpose of this Amendment is to disqualify the Chairman of the Ministry of Labour Technical Personnel Committee, another post which was not considered by the Select Committee. This is a standing advisory committee, composed partly of Departmental representatives and partly of persons outside Government service. Its function is to make recommendations on short-term questions relating to the demand for and supply of scientific manpower. The Committee is not responsible for the actual recruitment of technical manpower. Under these circumstances, in accordance with the suggestions of the Attorney-General, the Chairman ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hoy

I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out lines 28 and 29.

The Amendment concerns the position held by counsel to the Secretary of State under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936. It is not my intention, or that of my hon. Friends, to go into the troubles we have had in this House on previous occasions. I think that the Committee knows that we have considered an appointment a rather despicable one and the treatment of junior counsel as shocking. That is not included in this Amendment, but what is included is the piece of political patronage which has taken place under the guidance of the Lord Advocate.

We have to consider whether the person who has received that appointment is fit to be included in this Bill. I suggest that he is not, because a letter I received from the predecessor of the present Secretary of State said that it was desirable that the senior counsel, whose position the Bill covers, should be someone of standing and experience, who if possible should not be engaged in private practice.

I am sure that in England it would be regarded as an oddity of the most curious kind if we had a person of legal standing without a private practice. How he becomes of any standing at all I do not know. To suggest that this person should fill this important post is, I think, belittling the whole situation. The present incumbent is the one for whom Scotland has had some respect. To appoint his designated appointee, as he is called, in his place is something which Scotland dislikes intensely. If he is of such a weak character we believe that we should not clutter up this Bill unnecessarily. We think it is wrong to put this in merely because it was in some previous Bill.

Mr. N. Macpherson

The effect of this Amendment would be that the two counsel to the Secretary of State on Private Legislation Procedure would no longer be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. The hon. Member has argued the Amendment on a point of particular personalities and particular individuals, but I would remind the Committee of what was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He said that we are not legislating for persons here; we are legislating for the law of the land, which has to be applied to a very large number of persons. I noted what the right hon. Member had to say at an earlier stage and that remains true. What the House has to consider is whether this job is compatible with membership of the House.

Counsel are not expected to take an active part in political work. In view of the nature of their duties, it is clearly desirable that they should not do so. Surely it is essential that they should not be Members of the House of Commons, because if they were, and they were advising Parliamentary commissioners in the course of private legislation procedure, there might well arise just the sort of conflict of duties which makes it essential to diqualify this kind of office from membership of the House of Commons.

Mr. Hoy

I will not comment at length on what the Under-Secretary has said, but content myself with saying that we shall probably have a change of Government soon and that the security of tenure of this particular individual will be even less than that which the Government are prepared to give to tenants under the new Rent Bill. Under those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.0 p.m.

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 14, line 32, at the end, to insert: Director of the British Sugar Corporation Limited appointed by the Ministers as defined by section seventeen of the Sugar Act, 1956. This Amendment shows why the machinery to deal with this matter must be flexible. While the Select Committee was sitting the House was passing the Sugar Act, 1956, which provides that three directors of the British Sugar Corporation Limited—the Chairman and two ordinary directors—should be appointed by the Government and that those directors should have absolute control over all question of policy. In those circum- stances, it is obvious that Government directors of this Corporation ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willis

I beg to move, in page 15, line 42, at the end, to insert: Lord Advocate for Scotland.

The Chairman

The Committee might discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in page 17, line 15, at the end, to insert: Solicitor-General for Scotland. There are also two consequential Amendments on page 793: in Schedule 2, page 19, to leave out line 30; and in Schedule 2, page 19, to leave out line 32.

Mr. Willis

When this Amendment appeared on the Order Paper hon Members thought it was another Scottish night out. They thought that Scottish Members were having a little fun again. Hon. Members may treat this in a rather ironical or humorous vein, but it affects a problem about which a great many people in Scotland are seriously concerned. We have seen these two offices of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland degenerate into little more than stepping stones to the Bench. The Lord Advocate's office was once almost the greatest office in Scotland. Let us see what it has become today. I say this without any personal reference at all because, as I pointed out in the debate on the first Bill, this applies to all parties. It is not a party matter, nor is it a personal matter. As I say, we have seen these great offices degenerate into mere stepping stones to the Bench.

What happens in Scotland at present for the ambitious boy called to the Bar? At a very early age, he commences to weigh up political prospects and to ask himself which party is likely to be in power. Having done that, he backs a certain horse. He then becomes engaged violently in politics and tries to get the necessary publicity to attract the attention to himself which will secure a seat for him. Having obtained that seat, because few Scottish lawyers come to the House—only those who can expect preferment—he usually becomes Solicitor-General for Scotland or Lord Advocate. The first vacancy which occurs on the Bench, he disappears to the Bench. Earlier today we were told about the desirability of having lawyers in the House, but the fact is that they do not want to stay here. When they get here they soon move on to the Bench.

The present situation is bad politically and judicially. It means that a man becomes prominently associated with a political party and takes part in vigorous conflicts. I have had vigorous conflicts with some of the occupants of these positions. Then, when he becomes a judge, everybody still thinks of him in terms of his political affiliations.

Sir P. Spens

No.

Mr. Willis

I do not want to mention names in the debate, but I could mention members of the Bench who, even today, are thought of in terms of their political affiliations when they were Members of the House. Surely it cannot be a good thing judicially for people to look upon a judge as being the great Tory or the Labour Member. That is the position today.

Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)

Would the hon. Member altogether debar Scottish lawyers who come into the House from ever becoming members of the Bench?

Mr. Willis

We do not want to do that, but we want to attract attention to this problem. It is bad for the legal profession and for the judiciary. Equally, it is bad politically, because people say, "Politics are a game. He is only waiting to go to the Bench." It brings politics into contempt and, goodness knows, we do not want to do that. It also brings the Bench and the legal profession into contempt and creates a situation which is bad from the point of view of the judges.

I would say that Parliament House in Edinburgh is the keenest and most active political club in the city. I understand that the Lord Advocate says that is nonsense. I would submit to him that politics are discussed more vigorously and party chances weighed up more acutely in Parliament House, Edinburgh, than in any other place in the city. Surely it is not a good thing for the judiciary and Parliament House to be in that position.

I do not know the answer to this problem. It is a serious problem which creates undesirable conditions and it arises because we have such a small Bar. There is not the same problem in England. How can we avoid it? I do not know the answer. We ought to consider whether our legal officers could not operate from the civil servants' box equally well as from the Front Bench. One of my hon. Friends says they could not do any worse. In any event, that is what is done in local authorities.

Mr. Ross

We should miss a lot of fun.

Mr. Willis

We should miss some fun at times, but looking at the practice of the House, the Scottish Grand Committee and other Committees where the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate function, I am not sure that the information they give us could not equally be provided through the Secretary of State or one of the Joint Under-Secretaries who had obtained it from an adviser in the box. We might avoid some confusion. An interesting point is that if advice is tendered to us legally from the Solicitor-General for Scotland we usually find ourselves in confusion. We do not find that the legal points have been cleared up at all. As far as I can remember, the only concession we have obtained on the Rent Bill was a promise to look into the question of "shall" and "may" because different Departments had not decided what was the correct interpretation of "shall" and "may." We could have got into that confusion and obtained that promise without the Solicitor-General for Scotland sitting on the Front Bench in the Committee.

I think anybody who lives in Edinburgh or any people interested in these matters will agree that this is a problem which ought to be seriously considered. I say that in all sincerity. Once again we come back to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that a special committee should seriously go into all the problems concerning Members of the House. This is a problem which requires such attention. If we could solve it, we should do something beneficial both from the point of view of our judiciary and from the point of view of our political system, to both of which, in my view, it is important that the problem should be solved.

Sir P. Spens

This Amendment was not considered by the Select Committee. It was never suggested to us, and it has now come before this Committee for the first time.

Mr. Willis

It did not come before the Select Committee, but I did make a speech on it on the Second Reading of the previous Bill, and also put down an Amendment to the previous Bill in the same terms.

Sir P. Spens

All I say is that the Select Committee did not have it to consider.

I think that I am the only lawyer in the House who can talk without having any interest, direct or indirect, in the fate of the Amendment. All the rest of my hon. and learned Friends may conceivably in time become members of the Bench. My time on the Bench is over, but I do want to say this to the Committee. I believe very sincerely that the Bench is very much enriched by members who have had experience in this House. No Bench composed entirely of lawyers, however good, who have never had any experience in this House or in public political life is as good as one which has a modicum of those with that experience.

I am speaking now from quite a lot of experience. I am quite certain that those who have been through the whole gamut of public life, who have had to stand on public platforms, and have had to study all the personal complaints and so forth that come to the attention of hon. Members, make very much better judges—or as good judges, and certainly very valuable judges—than do those who have spent all their time merely practising in the law.

Although I am a Scotsman, I am an English lawyer, and I am quite certain that it is desirable that a modicum of Members here should find their way to the Bench in Edinburgh. The only way such men can find their way to that Bench is by coming to this House. Therefore, the very last thing I would support would be any Amendment whatsoever which would disqualify any Scottish lawyer from finding his way here.

The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland are the successors to a very long line of very distinguished men who have greatly enriched the law of our native land, and I would be the very last to suggest that the line should not be continued indefinitely. I hope that the House will have nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)

I begin by agreeing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) in his very general point, and by disagreeing with him in its particular application. What he seemed to be saying was that a member of the Bench is improved and enriched through experience of this House——

Sir P. Spens

I do not put it quite like that. I say that a Bench is enriched by having members who have been in this House.

Mr. MacPherson

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct; he did say that, and I quoted his words wrongly. My complaint is that, although that is true, it is equally true that a Bench would be enriched by having some members who had spent some time in the Services, or had spent some time in active business, or some time even in the Civil Service or in other spheres of administration. A Bench would always be enriched by having some members who had not spent all of their time in legal practice but had undertaken, preferably in responsible positions other kinds of activities. Therefore, I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can thereby claim that this House should, in any degree at all, go out of its way to make special provision for future, or possible future, members of the Bench having experience in this House.

8.15 p.m.

The question to which the Amendments relate seems to me one which is quite entirely by itself in our public life. This is the situation in Scotland. We appoint to the Bench by political experience rather than by legal merit. That is not seriously denied by lawyers, by people who have had experience of that sort of appointment, or by people who have watched it in action. It is commonly accepted. It is known, and is taken as part of the life of Scotland. It is a sort of circumstance which used to exist in this country in many spheres a century or two ago.

One of the difficulties under which my hon. Friend and others who are interested in this matter suffer, is the great difficulty of getting serious public attention focussed on this as a question of a special nature, and not simply as some odd complaint that Scottish Members now and again try to drag on to the Floor of the House of Commons. In England, so far as I know, there is only one appointment to the Bench which is made politically, and that is the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) a few years ago, when he was Attorney-General, making the claim, which no one disputed, or would, I think, dispute, that appointments to judicial office in England were now entirely non-political——

Sir P. Spens

May I remind the hon. Member that the present Lord Chief Justice has never been a Member of this House, and was appointed by a Labour Lord Chancellor?

Mr. MacPherson

I will not disagree with that. What I was about to point out was that—as I think it will be generally agreed—there is no other appointment to the English judicial offices which is made on political grounds. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got in before me, because I was about to add that, as far as I understand, there has been some consideration as to what the position of the Lord Chief Justice should be in regard to this kind of appointment. That appointment has not always been made on political grounds, and has not always been regarded as a sort of prescriptive right of the Attorney-General.

In Scotland, we have a completely different situation. There, the whole set of appointments is made politically, and members of their own profession regard the holders of the two Law Officerships of the Crown for Scotland as on their way to judicial office. The public also so regards it.

For myself, I am not very strongly concerned with the suggestion that the Lord Advocate should not be a Member of this House. I think that there ought to be one Scottish Law Officer—given, that is to say, the rest of our political circumstances. I do not dissent from my hon. Friend's point that the Scottish Law Officers might well be outside rather than inside the House but, accepting the present circumstances, it seems to me that one Scottish Law Officer in the House is justified.

The existence of two of them appears to have a great number of disadvantages. For one thing, it means a dual carriageway to the Bench, and that might well be cut down to a single carriageway. If that avenue to the Bench is to exist, let us reduce it to one path. Apart from that, the thing is completely disproportionate. There are 5 million people in Scotland and 45 million in England and Wales. The 45 million get along with two Law Officers; the 5 million, apparently, also need two. There are 71 hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies; apparently they must be served by as many Law Officers as are all the rest of the Members of the House.

That stems to be essentially a matter for serious consideration by the House itself. One cannot quote authorities here, because one would be referring to people to whom one has talked in confidence, but there is not Scottish work enough for two Scottish Law Officers in the House in normal circumstances, although I have no doubt that it is convenient to have two people sharing what work there is.

I should like to add one further point in connection with this general subject of representation here—and particularly privileged and Front Bench representation —of the legal profession. One hon. Member opposite complained a little while ago about the shortage of the representation of the legal profession in this House, and he urged that as a reason for strengthening the number of advocates here. In fact, there are no Scottish solicitors here. The solicitors' profession in Scotland is much larger than the Bar. It also contains a far greater range of ability.

One of the things that the Bar in Scotland does is, by putting up a very large financial bar, to exclude much potential competition, whereas that does not apply to solicitors. That sort of argument is perhaps part of the background of these Amendments, and it seems to me that when we consider the background we should remember that not all lawyers are barristers or advocates. A great many—indeed, the majority, including many of the very best—belong to the so-called junior branch of the profession.

Mr. N. Macpherson

The curious thing about this Amendment is that it has been moved and supported on the basis, not of whether we need the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General in the House, but of what happens to them after they leave the House.

Mr. Willis

No, why they are here.

Mr. Macpherson

It has been alleged that they come here and use this place as a stepping stone. Of the 15 Scottish judges at the present time, five are former Law Officers and one of those was appointed to the bench by the party opposite.

I suggest that the questions we have to ask ourselves are simply these: are the Law Officers needed in the House of Commons, or are they not; and is there any reason why the Law Officers of England should be needed and should sit, and the Law Officers of Scotland should not? It has been said that we could get along quite well by getting advice from the official Box. We have our official advisers. Every Government have their official advisers, and we are very well served by them, but surely nobody seriously thinks that it would be better to have the case presented at second hand rather than at first hand. We have the Law Officers of the Crown here to present the case at first hand. We have had them here ever since Scotland was represented in this Parliament, and I suggest that we should continue to have them.

Mr. Ross

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us for how many years, since the end of the war we have been without a Solicitor-General, or for how long a Solicitor-General has been appointed and has not had a seat in this House?

Mr. Macpherson

That situation arises from time to time. Circumstances have arisen when there has not been a qualified person who is also a Member of the House. I would point out that when that situation has arisen, hon. Members opposite have constantly asked when the Solicitor-General would find a place in the House.

Mr. Willis

The hon. Gentleman's reply is most disappointing, and it proves what I have already said, that the seriousness of the position does not seem to be appreciated by the Government.

I ask the Government seriously to consider what has been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) This matter causes serious concern in the profession, and certainly in Edinburgh, as I know from my own experience. The Government should address their minds to the problem which my hon. Friend and I have posed, instead of administering this little "brush-off".

Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the important point which was made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) when he pointed out that two Law Officers are required by England with a population of 45 million and that two Law Officers are apparently required also by Scotland, with a population of only 5 million?

Mr. Willis

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Simon

I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out line 45.

May we discuss with this the Amendments in page 16, line 40, and page 17, leave out line 8? They appear to go together, Sir Charles.

The Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Simon

These are drafting Amendments, designed to secure a more comprehensive disqualification of Supreme Court officers.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 16, line 35, at the end to insert: Officer or servant of the Crown Estate Commissioners. It has been brought to my attention that while we disqualify the Crown Estates Commissioners, and the bulk of their officers and servants are disqualified as being civil servants, there are, in fact, a few who are civilians and who are not disqualified. Therefore, it seems wrong that these few officers and servants of the Crown Estates Commissioners should remain qualified while all the rest of the establishment is disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 40, at end insert: Officer of the Supreme Court within the meaning of sections one hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. —[Mr. Simon.]

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move in page 16, line 48, at the end to insert: appointed under the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act, 1927". The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that we only wish to disqualify fiscals, procurator fiscals and their deputies in the sheriff courts, and not the burgh fiscals and the J.P. fiscals. The burgh fiscals and the J.P. fiscals are not disqualified at present, and there seems no reason to disqualify them.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 17, line 4, at the end to insert: Registrar of any district of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster. This Amendment seeks to rectify another omission. Under the Bill, we have disqualified the masters and the assistant masters of the Court of Chancery in London, but we forgot about the Count of Chancery in the County Palatine of Lancaster. The corresponding officers are the district registrars of those courts, and there are three of those whose functions are exactly the same as that of the assistant masters and masters in chancery in London. They ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 17, line 5, to leave out: appointed for a district under" and insert" or Assistant Registrar appointed under section sixteen or section twenty-five of". This is an omission, but not an unimportant one. As the Bill is drawn, it disqualifies the registrars in county courts. They are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The assistant registrars are also appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, which, of course, was being passed at the time that the Select Committee was sitting. That confers power on the Lord Chancellor to direct them that they shall be whole-time officers. In those circumstances, they ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 17, leave out line 8.

In page 17, line 9, leave out "Judicial Committee of the".—[Mr. Simon.]

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, In page 17, line 9, at the end to insert: Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements. This Amendment really speaks for itself. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act was passed while the Select Committee was sitting, and under that Act the very important post of Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements was created. In my submission, the holder of that office ought certainly to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 17, line 26, at the end to insert: Temporary Commissioner appointed under paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Tithe Act, 1936. Under the Bill as framed, the members of the Tithe Redemption Commission are disqualified, but they are disqualified under paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the Tithe Act, 1936. That paragraph also disqualified temporary Commissioners who are appointed by the Treasury to deputise for the permanent Commissioners for any period up to six months. It is thought that they also ought to be disqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, at the end to insert: Governor of the Isle of Wight…The Isle of Wight. This is a Prerogative appointment which has recently been revived. The present holder is His Grace the Duke of Wellington. In times gone by the Governor of the Isle of Wight was entitled to reside in Carisbrooke Castle, but this benefit does not enure to the present holder of the Office. It seems that the Governor of the Isle of Wight ought to be subject to local disqualification in the same manner as lords lieutenants of counties.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman

I offer the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) a Division on either his Amendment in page 17, to leave out lines 41 to 44, or in his next Amendment in page 18, to leave out lines 1 to 7.

Mr. C. Davies

We have already really discussed the principle of these Amendments and, as it is quite obvious that I do not carry the Committee with me, I shall not move them.

I should like to refer to one remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He seemed to think that I was emphasising the point I was making as a personal one. This was certainly not in my mind. I was putting this as a purely general matter, but speaking, of course, from my own personal experience. As it is quite obvious that I do not carry the Committee with me upon these Amendments any more than I carried the previous Committee, I propose not to move them.

Mr. Simon

I beg to move, in page 18, line 18, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Schedule.

This is consequential upon the other Amendments which are designed to effect the general disqualification of chairmen and deputy-chairmen of the various tribunals we have discussed.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.